CASSANDER ANGLICANUS;  
Showing THE NECESSITY OF CONFORMITY TO THE PRESCRIBED CEREMONIES OF OUR CHURCH, In Case of Deprivation.  
By JOHN SPRINT, Minister of Thornbury in , sometimes of Christ. Church in Oxon.  MATTH. 12. 7. 
I will have mercy and not sacrifice.   printer's device (not amongst those attributed to John Bill by McKerrow) of two squirrels eating nuts under a stylized rose 
LONDON Imprinted by JOHN BILL. ANNO M. DC. XVIII.   

TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL Mr. DOCTOR GOODWIN Deane; and to the Canons of the College of CHRIST-CHURCH in Oxon.  
FOr dedication of this book to you (R. w.) I had direction from the Rivers, who 
Eccles. 1. 7.  empt themselves into the Seas from whence they came. To you, by whose Reverend praedecessors I was in common consent chosen scholar into Christ-Church; by whom that small model of Learning which I have (if I have any thing in me which may be called Learning) was derived to me, and by whom I was of free donation, without bribe or suit first placed in my pastoral charge. Then you, I have no greater patrons; for you, I have no greater gift. And this I offer to your view, your censure, your memorial. God ever grant you so to bless the College of Christ-church, by your free elections and elocations, that the Church of Christ may ever bless God for you, and yourselves may feel the comfort of your well-doing in this life, and find the fruit thereof in the life to come. London 27 of April M. DC. XVIII.  
Who am ever at your service in CHRIST, IO. SPRINT.   

TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL Mr. SAMVEL BURTON, Archdeacon of the Diocese of Gloucester.  
SIR:  
AS it pleased you to appoint me a certain time, to give answer of my purpose, or refusal of Conformity: So I have at last resolved to offer it unto you in these my Letters; Confessing ingenuously, (for some respects seeming weighty to my poor judgement) my unwillingness thereto, if by any means I might avoid it: Howbeit, seeing I see the sway of Authority overruling, and enforcing thereunto, partly in obedience to it, and partly for other more important reasons swaying my Conscience; I give you to understand, that I am resolved to Conform. To the which resolution, I confess I was the rather drawn, by the mixture of your discreet proceed, yet not so much driven thereunto by your public authority, as drawn by your private lenity and kindness, and undeserved respect unto my meanness; I being well acquainted with the common condition of man's will which may be induced, when it cannot be enforced. And I trust with equal good conscience and success, to proceed and continue in service unto God and to his Church in this my Conformity, as before I did in not Conforming: And I hearty wish, that in the like case all others did the like. This I can say, that my endeavours have not been wanting to persuade others, wherein I have prevailed with not a few: And I am persuaded, that if my reasons of this point, might see the light (authority giving way thereunto) it would more prevail to induce men of contrary judgement, than many other books penned to that purpose. Not for any worth of Art or reading that is in them more than others, myself being the meanest of many thousands for a matter of this nature: But partly in respect of the quality of the penner, (which have been I confess a Non-conformitan) and partly because of the conclusion proved, which enforceth the imputation of a sin upon the sufferers of silencing for not conforming; a matter which of all things the Ministers of this kind will least endure: And partly also for the sufficiency of the Truth presented in those reasons.  
Now, if any shall think the book unfit to be published, because it reacheth not home to prove the conveniency or necessity of the Ceremonies themselves: they may be pleased to consider, that this position of mine, being only proposed by way of presupposal, concludeth nothing to cross that. I have endeavoured to prove this, others (whose knowledge and dexterity is greater) have liberty to prove further if they please. But this I may more than probably affirm, that the very most of not conforming Ministers will hearken unto this, when (I am assured) they will not unto that. My reasons I offer to your Learned view, and correction of authority. If any thing be found in them hindering the passage thereof, I wish it be censured with a Deleatur: For that my intention is not rashly to thrust out any thing offensive to authority, but that which may be to the profit of the Church: Which I humbly desire of God in this, and all other mine endeavours for his own names sake. To whose saving grace in Christ, I commend you, with many thanks for your many undeserved favours. This 21. of October 1617. Thornebury.  
By yours humbly at command in Christ, IO. SPRINT.   

TO THE READER.  
EVery part of Truth is precious, even the least: (as the least grain of musk is sweet.) Because it is the Truth; Because God's Truth; and because small errors entertained against small truths, have often evil, sometimes pernicious effects. Which last appeareth in the controversy of our Ceremonies; the sparkles of which difference have grown unto great flames in this our Church. Where the fault is, as God knoweth, so the day will try, and God will one day judge. But difference of apprehensions hath brought forth difference of judgements, and difference of judgements, hath brought forth difference of practice, and disagreement in affection. The difference of practice hath moved Authority to silence and suppress refusers of Conformity: The disagreement in affection, hath moved the Ministers deprived to speak evil of persons in authority, and of Conformers: Whereby in the event, the course of the Gospel is interrupted, and of Popery enlarged; the friends of Zion are grieved, the enemies rejoiced, the Devil gratified, and God not pleased. The Church is rend with Schism, the Truth scandalised by dissension, & the Ministers undone by loss of living, and the unity of brethren living in the same house, professing the same Faith, and rejoicing in the same Hope, is pulled in pieces: And this like to continue God knows how long; but all men know, the longer the worse.  
For which cause I have undertaken this service to God's Church, to unfold the state of this question, which as yet hath not been so directly and distinctly handled, in my opinion, as it might, by any that I know. The Ministers have heretofore laboured to prove the Ceremonies evil to be used, and fit to be abolished; but they never went about to prove, whether in case of Deprivation they ought to have conformed; which is the question directly concerning their case. This is performed in this tractate, and resolved by reason drawn from God and man, from Scripture and Authority of all sorts, which thou (good Reader) mayest perceive, if thy desire allure thee, or thy patience will give thee leave to read.  
The occasion of my penning it was this: At 
The occasion of penning this Treatise.  first, being of adversary judgement to the Ceremonies, I laboured (as men do that are sick of prejudice) to gather all I could against them, and abstained from the practice of them, as from things simply evil: But after, having been indicted at a quarter Sessions for refusing to conform, by some of my Parish for my fidelity in opposing their disordered life, I was occasioned to look more nearly into the state of this question, whether I might use them with my peace in any case, or not; namely, of necessity, & Deprivation. I asked of myself two things, whether I would rather suffer death, then use them in a Church professing the foundation, and urging them as things indifferent, not pressing them, as binding Conscience in themselves, or as needful to salvation? And whether the execution of my Ministry (which was pressed on my Conscience with a woe, if I neglected it) should not be as dear unto me, as my life? Which questions, when they put me to a stand, and that I could not well resolve unto myself, for the ill conceit I had against the Ceremonies, I began to search into the judgement of our best latter writers, and the practice of reformed Churches, from whence I went unto antiquity of primitive and purer times; where with one consent and harmony of judgement, I found them for the practice of far more, and more offensive Ceremonies than ours may be supposed, and chiefly in this case. This was a ground to stay my judgement, and build my resolution: From which when once I found it, in conconscience I could not, in modesty I durst not departed in haste. For with what show or conscience should any man turn his back in dislike, or his face in opposition to the judgement and practice of all Churches of Christ since the Apostles? And from all those worthy Lights, those Spiritual persons, the Teachers of the Churches, the champions of the Truth, the Masters of Religion, by whom, and by whom only, God had in all ages propagated his Gospel, converted souls, confirmed Verity, confuted Heresies and Errors, builded Christ's Church, discovered and overthrown the Church of Antichrist? Chief, seeing it is the judgement not of one or two, nor of some against some other, but even of All, not One excepted which is of note, or classical authority: And none against this judgement, excepting convicted and condemned Heretics and Schismatics, such as Donatists, Anabaptists, and our latter Brownists. From thence I looked into the reasons moving them unto this judgement, & that practice, which in this Tractate are set down: So that here is no novelty broached, or fancy of mine own proposed to thy view (Christian reader) but Antiquity and Universality; not Papal, but evangelical, according to the Scripture; not of Carnal, but Spiritual persons, which may be to thy Conscience as an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
The causes of publishing are principally three, respecting 
Causes of publishing.  the truth, the Ministers my brethren, and myself. The publication of this book concerneth the truth in two respects: First, because it is a questioned truth, which may not be concealed without injury to God, and to his Church: and it is a sin of no light nature, to withhold the truth in unrighteousness: 
Rom. 1. 18.  next, it is a profitable truth, which may occasion some Ministers to enter, which dare not for conformity, and others to return which are deprived for not conforming to the Ceremonies, both tending to the benefit and edification of God's Church. For what greater profit may there be, then that which is opposed to the greatest mischief? For as it pleaseth God to save them that believe 
1 Cor. 1. 21. prou 29. 18.  by preaching: so where no vision is, the people perish. Secondly, it respecteth the ministers of two sorts. First, such as are deprived, on whom these reasons do enforce a sin for not conforming in the case of deprivation: and it is very scandalous for Ministers, professing sincerity of Christ his Gospel to have begun, and to continue in a wrong course; neither can they approve their conscience before God or man, to begin and to remain in error and not amend when they see a better way. Then, it concerneth the Ministers that have conformed in this case: both because it serveth to clear the innocency of sundry godly teachers, that have conformed to prevent their deprivation, which are hardly thought of, and traduced as backsliders, and betrayers of God's cause. And if this truth were known, they would not have condemned innocents: As also because it is meet that the hearts of such as have conformed of fear, and are wounded with grief, should be relieved: this truth serving to quiet their afflicted conscience, which must not be neglected. Lastly, it respecteth myself, and that two ways. First, because by suppressing of this verity, I should wrap myself in the guilt of a two fold sin; namely, unthankfulness to God, & unrighteousness to man. For why hath God opened my eyes to see this truth, but to that end I should reveal it unto others?  
And it were unrighteousness, and hatred to my 
Leu. 19 17.  brethren to suffer them to sin, and not to show them of it, to see them to wander, and not to point unto the right way. Lastly, it were iniquity to myself, to suffer my ministery to be evil spoken of, for practising the truth; there being scandal taken far and near at the alteration of my judgement, and profession of my purpose to conform, rather than to suffer deprivation, which I may lawfully, and must also of some necessity prevent. To this I add the respect I have unto our schismatics, the Brownists, whose errors are hereby discovered, and their false conclusions overthrown.  

Objections answered.  But it will be said I am in error: If so, it shall the easier be confuted. And when any man hath showed it to be error, he may the more safely call it so: And I shall be the rather induced to confess it so to be. It will be well, and more agreeing to the comfort of men's consciences, and more fitted to the rekconing they must give, to be advised before they so conclude it. Howbeit, if I err, it is with such company, with whom in some case I had rather err (as one speaketh) then think or know the truth with some other. Neither can I be persuaded, neither will any man prove easily, that all true Churches of Christ, of all ages, agreeing in a point, have agreed in an error.  
But thus good men receive disgrace that stand against the Ceremonies. To this I say that no man can, no good man will esteem the truth to be his own disgrace. It is a grace by seeing error to acknowledge it. It is an honour unto God to disgrace ourselves, by gracing and embracing of his truth. Can any man prefer his credit to God's dishonour, and redeem it with the shipwreck of the truth?  
O, but I lay a sin unto the charge of all the Ministers deprived: And to this I say, they lay a sin upon their brethren not inferior to themselves, that have conformed to the Ceremonies (by their account) in nature evil. Nay they lay a sin upon all Churches and godly Teachers since the time of Christ: should any man endure so great indignity, or swallow such absurdity by sparing them? And admit they be proved to be found in sin, it is no news that hath been taught from the beginning, 
Rom. 3. 4 23. jam. 3. 2. 1. Cor. 13. 9, 10  that all men are liars, and that all have sinned; yea, in many things we offend all: We know but in part, and difference will be among the best, and with difference, error on one side or another in matters circumstantial, until perfection come. Our 
Psal. 19▪ 12.  comfort is, that all sins, especially unknown to such as are in Christ, are pardoned, as being included in the compass of their general repentance. Though reason accuse them of a sin, yet grace in 
1. joh. 1. 7.  Christ his blood cleanseth from all sin, neither can any man condemn where God hath justified. 
Rom. 8. 33, 34.  And what I think of them in charity, that to my comfort I think of myself and all that hold this judgement albeit it prove an error.  
Yet again good minds will be offended at this, which I have written. But either it is Truth or error. If error, I confess they have just cause, and I will confess it when I see it. But if it be the Truth: what? will the children of the light be offended at 
Gal. 4. 16. Luk. 7. 35.  the light? or am I their enemy because I tell them the Truth? wisdom is justified of all her children. And every one that is of the Truth heareth the 
john 18. 37.  voice thereof.  
And wicked men, with such as are the enemies of our Church, such as Papists, Brownists, Anabaptists, will triumph and rejoice, that such as have stood out against Conformity, do now defend it: But when was it otherwise, when will it, how can it be, but that weak eyes should be offended at the light? It is a grief to reigning sins to see others to amend. They triumph in our conforming, but will they not much more in our ejection? they rejoice in our conforming to the Ceremonies, and we will grieve at their conforming to the world.  
Lastly, some have observed, how certain of the 
Modest offer. fol. 19  Ministers which stood against Conformity, have after yielding, evidently lost the grace and power of their gifts, some fallen to idleness, neglect of public and private duties, yea to profane and scandalous life & conversation. And so (say I) have sundry done upon my knowledge, that have holden out against Conformity, even to suspension & deprivation; whose zeal in that behalf, hath either been preposterous, more insisting on the lesser than the weightier matters of the Law, or joined with gross ignorance, themselves not able to have given a reason of their doings before God or man: It being just with God to punish them on either side, who without conscience or ground of Faith, do either conform or refuse Conformity. For otherwise none can be ignorant, but that on either side, sundry have remained in the constant evidence of God's best gifts and graces, and in the blessing of a sanctified estate. To teach us that it is not the zeal, for or against the Ceremonies, but an heart established in grace, that 
Heb. 13. 9  can keep men from the marks and badges of hypocrisy.  
Now, for the manner of my handling these my 
The manner of handling.  reasons, I trust it shall appear to every person fearing God, that as I have written these things with a good conscience, as in the sight of God: so I have performed it with due respect to my Brethren, as it becometh Truth. I know with whom I hold this controversy, not with enemies but brethren, and I have not learned the language of fowl speech. If any man be moved to reply, I wish him to perform it in the spirit of meekness, and in the evidence of 
james 3. 17.  heavenly wisdom; for that our passions are great hindrances of finding out the Truth: And no man breaketh out into inordinate affection in any controversy, chief of this nature, but he hazardeth the loss of a better thing then that he seeketh. He seeketh Truth, and loseth Charity and power of godliness; whereas he should seek Truth in Charity: For Charity rejoiceth not in iniquity, but in 
Ephes 4. 15. 1. Co●. 13. 6.  the Truth. God needeth not our lies to defend his Truth: I leave such practice for my part to Papists and to Brownists, who by unableness to leave their railing forms and bitterness, do manifest the foulness of their heart and falsehood of their cause, that cannot be defended but by weapons borrowed from corrupted nature, and the devil; And in a word declare themselves unprofitable in the Truth they know, & uncapable of any Truth they know not, and quite unworthy of respect. We have had contentions enough about circumstances and Ceremonies. The years should teach us how smally the Lord doth bless the dissensions of Brethren: And the times approach wherein it must be known, 
Rom. 14. 17.  that the kingdom of God stands not in meat and drink, nor godliness in ceremonials, but in the power of a regenerated state: And that saving grace will stand, though men never writ or preach against a Bishop, or suffer deprivation for refusal of a Ceremony: And that the grace of God doth teach us to seek resolution of every doubt, and to witness our dislike of things to be disliked in wisdom and proportion; but never to contend about any thing, but for the faith once given to the Saints. If any man 
Jude v 3. Phillip 3. 15.  be otherwise minded, God shall reveal the same unto him. If any man be ignorant, let him be 
1. Cor. 14 38.  ignorant still. If any man will be contentious, we 
1. Cor. 11. 16.  have no such custom, nor the Church of God. In the foundation we all agree. Time and day will 
1. Cor. 3 11. 12. 13. 15▪ 10.  try the hay and stubble from the gold and silver: And the fire of God's trial will surely singe delinquents. Let every man take heed how he builds. 
1. Cor. 4. 5.  Let us judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who will bring to light the things hidden in darkness: 
Phil. 3. 16.  But whereunto we have attained, let us walk by the same rule, and let us mind the same thing. 
Jude v. 20.  Let us edify ourselves in our most holy Faith, and pray one for neither. And the in their hearts. 
james 5. 16.  Lord do good to those that are good, and to them that are upright 
Psal. 125. 4.   
JOHN SPRINT.   

THE NECESSITY OF CONFORMITY IN THE CASE OF DEPRIVATION.  
IT is necessary for a Minister to 
Conclusion.  conform to the Ceremonies prescribed in the Church of England, rather than to suffer Deprivation.  
Quest. 1 Two questions touching this conclusion there are to be discussed. The first, whether a man may with a good conscience suffer himself to be deprived or suspended of his Ministry, for not conforming to the Ceremonies prescribed and established in the present Church of England: Such as the Surplice, Cross in Baptism, Kneeling at Communion, Ring in Marriage, and the like?  
The second, whether a man ought not rather of conscience to conform to all the Ceremonies prescribed in the Church of England, then to suffer himself to be deprived of his Ministry?  
Answ. 1 These questions depend the one upon the other, so that the answer of the one giveth answer to the other: Therefore the former question I answer negatively: That namely, A man cannot (as I suppose) with a good conscience suffer himself to be deprived of his Ministry, for not conforming to the Ceremonies.  
To the latter question I say, that a man is bound in conscience rather to conform to all the Ceremonies of the Church of England, then suffer his Ministry to be suspended or deprived.  
The reason of which answers stands in this, Because he shall sin against God in not conforming, and in suffering himself for that cause to be deprived of his Ministration in the Church. That he shall sin in so doing will appear by these two reasons.  
Reason 1 First, that the practice of suffering deprivation for not conforming to the ceremonies of this our Church, and the doctrine thereof is directly against the Word of God. This also is proved by two points.  
Because it is against the doctrine and practice of the holy Apostles of Christ.  
Because it is against the grounds of God's Word: and they are two.  
One ground is this: where two duties do meet, a greater and a less, whereof both cannot be done at the same time, the lesser duty must yield unto the greater: But this doctrine of suffering deprivation for not conforming teacheth, and the practice thereof causeth to neglect a greater duty for the performing of a lesser: Therefore it seemeth to be an error in doctrine, and a sin in practice.  
A second ground is this; All things must be done in love, 1. Cor. 6. 14. But this doctrine and practice is against the royal Law of love: and therefore seemeth to be unlawful.  
Reason 2 The second main reason is this: For that the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation, for not conforming to the Ceremonies of our Church, or the like, tendeth to condemn all true Churches, all faithful and sound teachers, all sincere Christians of all times and places, since the time of the Apostles of Christ, which have taught and practised otherwise.  
These things being directly and plainly proved, it will (I doubt not) appear that to suffer deprivation or suspension, for refusing to conform to the Ceremonies prescribed, is a sin: Whereupon will follow these conclusions.  
That seeing those Ministers have sinned, at least a sin of ignorance, who have suffered deprivation for refusing to conform to the Ceremonies prescribed, they ought of conscience to offer conformity to the Ceremonies, that they may return to their Ministry again.  
That such as not conforming to the Ceremonies, do remain in their places undeprived, are bound in conscience to conform unto the Ceremonies, rather than to suffer themselves to be deprived or suspended.  
That such as are profitably, or probably fitted with gifts unto the Ministry, and do withal desire to enter into that calling, are also tied in conscience before God to promise and practise conformity to the Ceremonies prescribed, rather than refusing so to do, to be kept out of the Ministry.  
That such Christians as do make conscience of the Ceremonies, as kneeling at the Communion, admitting their children to be baptized with the Cross, hearing of public prayer, or preaching in a Surplice, are of conscience to admit of these things, and to practise them, rather than to absent themselves, or to be deprived of the worships of God, and that otherwise they shall sin against God. It remaineth therefore that the former reasons be proved, which by God's help I will perform in order.  
Arg. 1 Reason 1 The doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation, and loss of Ministry is directly against the Word of GOD, which no man will deny to be sinful and erroneous. This assertion is confirmed by the probation of two farther points.  
Because such doctrine and practice is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Apostles of Christ.  
Because it is against the grounds of God's Word.  
Concerning the first point, namely, that the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation, especially upon the reasons urged against our Ceremonies, is contrary to the doctrine of the holy and inspired Apostles, and so by consequence is an error and sin: I prove it by two reasons.  
Because (1) the holy Apostles, with the whole Church at jerusalem (2) by inspiration of the holy Ghost and commandment of God (3)) did practise themselves, (4) and caused others to practise, (5) yea advised one another, (6) and enjoined or commanded (7 whole Churches the practice of (8) as evil and inconvenient Ceremonies (9) in sundry & main respects, as in their judgement ours are, namely in number, (10) nature, (11) use, (12)) and evil effects, and (13) that for reasons equivolent or inferior to the avoiding of deprivation. This proposition I thus prove in the several members. 1. The holy Apostles and whole Church at jerusalem] namely Peter, Acts 15. 7. james, Acts 15. 13. & 21. 18. 21. 24. 25. Paul, Acts 15. 2. 22. & 18. 18. & 21. 26. 1. Cor. 9 10. Barnabas, Acts 15. 2. 22. judas, Sylas, which were Prophets, Acts 15. 22. 23. The Apostles, all the Elders, and whole Church, Acts 15. 4. 6. 23. and 21. 18. 25. 2. By inspiration of the holy Ghost, and commandment of God] as appeareth, Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us. Also james and the Elders, Acts 21. 18. that determined before one practice of conformity to jewish Ceremonies, Acts 21. 25. By inspiration of the holy Ghost, Acts 15. 13. 28. did afterwards persuade Paul to another practice of conformity to jewish Rites, Acts 21. 23. 24. And the things written and determined by the Apostles, even concerning matters of order in the Church, are the commandments of God: 1. Cor. 14. 37. 3. Did practise themselves:] For Paul shaved himself, and made a vow, Act. 18. 18. Paul purified himself, contributed, and entered into the Temple, & declared the accomplishment of the days of the purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. Acts 21. 24. 26. Paul unto the jew became as a jew, to the men under the Law, as though he had been under the Law, 1. Cor. 9 20. 4. And caused others to practise:] For Paul circumcised Timothy: Acts 16. 3. Paul took the men, and was purified with them, Acts 21. 24. 5. Advised one another:] For james and the Elders persuaded Paul thus to conform: Do this that we say unto thee, take them (the votaries) purify thyself with them, contribute with them, that they may shave their heads, Acts 21. 23. 24. 6. Enjoined or commanded the practice of Ceremonies:] For thus did the council of jerusalem, They laid on them those necessary things, from which you shall do well to keep yourselves, Acts 15. 28. 29. This constitution was called the Apostles and Elders Decrees ordained by them: Acts 16. 4. james and the Elders say, We have determined and written that they observe no such things, but that they abstain from blood strangled, etc. Acts 21. 25. 7. To whole Churches] of divers and far distant Countries and Nations, namely to the Gentiles in Antiochia, Syria, Cilicia: Acts 15. 23. 8. As matters good and necessary in that case:] For it is said, it seemed good to the holy Ghost. These necessary things, Acts 5. 28. From which if you keep yourselves you shall do well, vers. 29. 9 And yet as evil and inconvenient in sundry main respects as they can imagine ours, namely in number] for they were divers, namely circumcision, Acts 16. 3. Shaving the head, Acts 18. 18. & 21. 24. Purifying, Acts 21. 24. 26. Vowing, Acts 18. 18. & 21. 23. Contributing, Acts 21. 24. Offering sacrifices for the persons purified, Acts 21. 23. Observation of the jewish Sabbaoth, Acts 13. 14. 42. & 18. 4. & 17. 2. Abstaining from blood, Acts 15. 29. Abstaining from strangled, Acts 15. 29 10. And in nature] for they are called by the holy Ghost, Needless shadows, Col. 2. 20. Yokes not to be borne, Acts 15. 10. Burdens, Acts 15. 28. Traditions burdening. Col. 2. 20. Ordinances of the world, Col. 2. 20. Commandments and doctrines of men, Col. 2. 22. Turning from the truth, Tit. 1. 14, Voluntary religion or will worships, shows of religion, Col. 2. 23. Impotent and beggarly rudiments, Gal. 4. 9 10. And for the further confirmation of this member, look the proof of the next immediate reason proving this first point. 11. In use] First, for that they were most strictly pressed on the consciences of weak Christians by jewish and contentious Brethren: for they were urged ex necessitate salutis: Except ye be circumcised after Moses manner ye cannot be saved, Acts 15. 15. They would have brought their consciences in bondage by them and yoked them, Galat. 5. 1. 3. Acts 15. 10. They would have condemned them for the not using them, Col. 3. 16. Secondly, they were more dangerously accounted necessary even to salvation, Acts 15. 1. Thirdly, they were perniciously abused for confirmation of most false, heretical, and impious doctrines, as much as ever our Ceremonies could be, or were by the Papists; as namely, that men are justified by the works of the Law, Gal. 2. 14-15-16 and 5. 4. That every Christian is bound strictly on his salvation to keep the whole Law, Gal. 5. 3. That there is no hope of salvation without the use of them, Acts 15. 1. That Christ the body was not yet come by continuing the shadow, Col. 2. 16. 17. That they are to be condemned who use them not, Col. 2. 16. That the Kingdom of God standeth in them, Rom. 14. 17. Yea from Paul's preaching and practise it might be argued by some, that a man may on occasion practise that, which practise he teacheth every where against, Acts 21. 21. 23. 26. Fourthly, for the latitude and compass of their spreading, it was both amongst them, near and far from them every where: Namely at jerusalem, Acts 21. 17. 20. 21. Rome, Rom. 14. 2. 5. 17. Antioch, Acts 15. 23. Syria, Acts 15. 23. Cilicia, Acts 15. 23 Colossus, Col. 2. 16. 17. 20. 21. Crete, Tit. 11. 14. Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium, and those quarters, Acts 16. 1. 2. 3. 12. And evil effects,] For the use and continuance of them were the occasions of many pernicious effects to such as abused them, which appeareth in this. First, they bondaged their Christian liberty, Gal. 4. 9 & 5. 1. 3. Secondly, they made Christ to profit them nothing, Gal. 5. 2. Thirdly, they made them to fall away from grace, Gal. 5. 4 Fourthly, they caused them to turn away from the truth, Tit. 1. 14. Galat. 2. 5. Fifthly, they hindered them from obeying the truth, Galat. 5. 7. Sixtly, they were occasion of condemnation to them as pressed them as necessary Gal. 5. 10. Seventhly, they leavenned the whole lump with sourness, Galat. 5. 9 Eightly, it occasioned Paul to fear lest he had bestowed his labour in vain among his hearers Gal. 4. 10. 11. Ninthly, it occasioned Paul to wish them cut off which did disquiet the Church by them, Gal. 5. 12. Tenthly, they were occasion of Peter's dissimulation, and Paul's just reproving of him, and were means to bring Barnabas, a man full of the holy Ghost, Acts 11. 24. and other Gentiles into their dissimulation, and to cause them not to go the right way to the truth of the Gospel, Gal. 2. 11. 12. 14. eleventhly, they were fit means to put them besides their adoption and inheritance in heaven, Gal. 5. 10. 20. 21. 22. Lastly▪ they made as much stir, strife, and contention among Brethren in the Church, yea much more than our Ceremonies have done, if either we respect the violence and bitterness thereof, or the latitude and wide spreading of it in so many and far distant Countries and Churches, Galat. 5. 10. 12. troubling and disquieting the Church. Act. 15. 24. 13. And for reasons equivolent partly, and partly inferior to the avoiding of deprivation:] For it appeareth that the Apostles used and enjoined the practice of these jewish inconvenient Ceremonies for these causes. First, for the believing jews, to keep them from offence, being as yet zealous of the Law, and not rightly instructed in the truth of the abrogation of the Legal Ceremonies by Christ, that they might not be occasioned to be drawn back to judaisme, Acts 21. 20. 21. 24. For this cause he circumcised Timothy, because of the jews, Acts 16. 1. 3. Secondly, for the unbelieving jews, and that for two reasons. One reason was to win them to the Gospel, 1. Cor. 9 20. 21. 22. and to further their salvation, 1. Cor. 10. 32. 33. Another reason was to avoid the persecution of the froward and malicious jews, as also to redeem the liberty of his Ministry, and of the Gospel, which otherwise was like to be endangered, as fell out in the event, Acts 21. 22. 27. 28. 30. 31. 32. Thirdly for necessity, (for in that case they were necessary things, Act. 15. 28.) and expedient (for it seemed good to the holy Ghost, & in the practice of them in that case they did well, Act. 15. 28. 29.) namely, to appease their bitter dissensions and vehement disputations in the Church, Acts 15. 2. 5. And to quiet the trouble and cumber of their minds: as if one should say for the peace of the Church, Acts 15. 24. That thus the Churches might be established in the faith, and increase in number daily, Acts 16. 4 5. As doubtless by God's blessing ours would also do, if either the Ceremonies might safely be removed from the scandal of Papists, or if they were conformed unto by our deprived Brethren, till liberty of Ceremonies were granted by the Magistrate.  
Out of this reason thus I argue;  
If the Apostles by direction of the holy Ghost, and upon reasons of common and perpetual equity did practise themselves, and caused others to practise, yea advised and enjoined (as matters good and necessary to be done) Ceremonies as inconvenient and evil in many main and material respects, as the Ceremonies enjoined and prescribed in our Church are supposed to be; than it followeth;  
That to suffer deprivation for refusing to conform to the ceremonies of our Church, is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Apostles:  
But the former is true as hath been proved:  
Therefore the latter followeth also.  
So much of the first reason, proving that the doctrine & practice of suffering deprivation for refusing to conform to our prescribed Ceremonies, is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Apostles, & so seemeth to be an error & a sin.  
The second reason proving this point is this: Because the same objections in substance, and for the most part which are brought forth against our Ceremonies, to prove them simply and in nature sin, may be objected and applied to the practice and doctrine of the Apostles, which was performed by direction of the holy Ghost, for those jewish Ceremonies were 
* Abridgement Lincoln. fol. 17.  1. human inventions:] for they left to be the commandments of God, and are called the traditions, commandments and doctrines of men, Col. 2. 22. 21. 16. 17. Titus 1. 14. 
* Ibid.  2. Of no necessary use] seeing Christ was come which was the body, and they the shadow of things to come, Coloss, 2. 16. 17. Heb. 10. 1. And Paul taught every where that the jewish Ceremonies must be left, Acts 21. 22. 
* Ibid.  3. Abused to superstition:] for they were abused to the confirmation of most false and pernicious doctrine, justification by works, Gal. 2. 3. 4. 12. 14. 15. 16. No salvation without them, Acts 15. 1. ut sup. 
* Abrid. Lincol. fol. 31.  4. Ceremonies significative, or of mystical signification:] Yea sacramental Ceremonies indeed, and added to baptised persons,] For circumcision was a Sacrament, and all the Ceremonies of the Law were shadows of things to come, Col. 2. 16. 17. Heb. 10. 1. Patterns, shadows, similitudes of heavenly things, Heb. 8. 5. and 9 23. The holy Ghost signified by them, Heb. 9 8. And the signification of them, were inseparable to the jews that believed not, as also to the weak believing jews, who were not instructed thoroughly. 
* Abrid. Lincol. fol. 37.  5. Esteemed, imposed and observed as parts of God's worship:] So they were by the jews esteemed, imposed, and observed as necessary, Acts 15. 5. to salvation, Acts 15. 1. For which cause the zealous jews were violently offended with Paul, for teaching that Christians ought not to circumcise their children, nor to live after the legal customs, Acts 21. 21. 27. Yea, this argument might seem to be pressed on the Apostles, who enjoined those burdensome Ceremonies as good and necessary, Acts 15. 28. 29. and conformed unto them for their sake, and in the presence of such as did esteem and hold them as worships of God, Acts 15, 1. 5. & 16. 3. & 21. 26. 
* 44. 48. fol.  6. Swerving from the general rules and directions of the word for determining of Ceremonies,] not needful or profitable to edification:] For how could jewish ceremonies, which were antiquated, and either had no signification, being shadows of things already come, or a false one, edify the Church: nay, the evil doctrines which they established, and evil effects which they produced, served rather to destroy, then to edify the Church, yet their use and yielding served to edify by making way to the Church's peace, and furtherance of the Gospel. 
* 44. 48. fol.  7 Not profitable for order:] For it had been most orderly to have served God by Legal Ceremonies under the Law, and evangelical under the Gospel. It might seem disorder to bring back the Legal Ceremonies which were abolished, and to join them with God's worships in the Gospel: yet it was order to use and practise them in that case, because it prevented the main disorder and confusion that else might have ensued, namely discord of believing Brethren, and suppressing of the Gospel. 
* 44. 48. fol.  8 Not profitable for decency:] For what was more indecent, then for a Christian to use idle, unfruitful, needless and beggarly rudiments? For a Christian to be shaved, circumcised, offer sacrifice, yet did this indecency uphold a higher decency, which was the establishment of faith, daily increase of the number of Churches, Acts 16. 4. Which conformity in our Ceremonies in the case of deprivation would also do. 
* 45. 49. fol.  9 Offensive many ways:] For first they might offend and grieve the believing Gentiles, which never used them, and knew by the Apostles doctrine that they were to be abolished, Acts 21. 21. Galat. 2. 3, 9, 12, 15. Secondly, they did so scandalise, and were such stumbling blocks to the believing and weak jews, that they contended about them, as needful to salvation, Acts 15. 15. And were violent against Paul in the defence of them, Acts 21. 21, 22, 27, 28. And ready to forsake the Christian faith about them, as perhaps some did. Thirdly, the hardened and unbelieving jews might be more hardened from Christianity, and say, The Christian religion borroweth our Ceremonies, they decline and come back to us. Fourthly, the Apostles and the Church of God they were offended, both in the violence of pressing the necessity of these things by the jews, Acts 15. 24. As also in imposing that they did: For they were loath to lay any burden, and the burden that they laid was necessary for the state of the Church, Acts 15. 28. Besides they taught against the things they enjoined, that namely they ought not to be used by jews and Gentiles, Acts 21. 21. Fiftly, to this we might add, that they might tend, & in the event did serve indeed, as means to infringe the Christian liberty:] For they were burdens, yokes, bondages, and opposite (as they were pressed by the jews) to the Christian liberty: Act. 15. 10, 28. Gal. 4. 9 10. and 5. 1. yet the use and practise of these things, by the direction of the Apostles, did procure the liberty of the Gospel, and the preaching thereof; like as conformity to our Ceremonies would do to prevent or recover the loss of their Ministry. To this add again, that those Ceremonies were very strictly enjoined] by the jews as necessary to salvation: Act. 15. 1, 5. As ours are now; By the Apostles, as necessary for the peace of the Church, and freedom of the Gospel, Act. 15. 24, 28. and 21. 21, 27. In which respects the practice and conformity to our Ceremonies may seem necessary at this time for the appeasing of fraternal discord, and furtherance of the Gospel. And seeing by the way these are the chiefest and main arguments, which the deprived Ministers have brought against the Ceremonies to prove them simply, and in their nature evil: let it be considered by the judicial & godly Reader, whether they might not upon these grounds except against the Apostles prescription, and refuse the practice of those jewish Ceremonies, even with the loss of ministry & interruption of the Church, as well as to suffer deprivation for refusing of the Ceremonies prescribed in the Church of England.  
But from this point I argue thus;  
Whatsoever Ceremonies are of human invention, of no necessary use, abused to superstition, of mystical and spiritual signification; esteemed, imposed and observed, as parts of God's worship, swerving from the general rules of God's word, not profitable for edification, order, or decency, of fensive many ways to the godly, weak and wicked; infringing Christian liberty, strictly enjoined as necessary: such Ceremonies by the doctrine of the Ministers refusing conformity, are simply and in nature evil, and could not be practised by any persons, no not the Apostles themselves, and that through the direction of the holy Ghost without sin.  
But the jewish Ceremonies prescribed and practised, by the Apostles through direction of the holy Ghost, were of this nature and quality, in every one of the points above named.  
Therefore by the doctrine of the Ministers refusing conformity, in the case of deprivation, the jewish Ceremonies prescribed and practised, by the Apostles through direction of the holy Ghost, were simply and in nature evil, and could not by them be practised without sin. Or thus;  
Whatsoever doctrine and practice, tendeth to accuse and condemn the inspired Apostles, in their inspired practice and doctrine, of teaching the practice, and of practising Ceremonies, in sundry main respects, as unlawful as ours are pretended to be, tendeth to accuse and condemn the Apostles, in their inspired practice and doctrine, for teaching and for practising things simply evil.  
But this doth the doctrine and practice, of suffering deprivation, for refusing to conform to our prescribed Ceremonies.  
Therefore the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation, for refusing to conform to our Ceremonies, doth directly tend to accuse the inspired Apostles, in their inspired practice for teaching, and practising things simply evil. Whereupon I thus conclude;  
Whatsoever doctrine or practice, doth directly tend to accuse and condemn, the inspired Apostles for practising, teaching, and prescribing things simply evil, such doctrine and practice is erroneous and sinful:  
So doth the practice and the doctrine, of suffering deprivation, for refusing to conform upon the grounds alleged, as hath been proved:  
Therefore the doctrine and practice, of suffering deprivation, for refusing to conform unto our Ceremonies, is erroneous and sinful.  
To this that hath been here alleged, there are certain objections made by certain godly, grave, and learned deprived Ministers, which here I think fit to make answer unto.  
Objection. The Apostles might do many things, which we may not do, in respect of their immediate authority from God. Those cases were decreed by the holy Ghost, ours not so, they did it by the direction of the spirit: there is no proportion between their case and ours: they guided by the spirit, we not so. The Apostles could not err, we subject to error. It is no good consequent to say, they used such and such things, therefore we may: they had warrant for what they did, the holy Ghost gave them warrant.  
Answer. First it is to be noted, that they who thus object against this reason, must needs relinquish the excuses and accusation of the Apostles, which others make for using the jewish Ceremomnies unlawfully: For the one affirming their practice to be unlawful, the other granting it to be done by direction of the spirit, do mystically overthrow one another, so that both cannot stand as true. This being observed, I answer; First, if the Apostles were immediately from God authorised, and did those things by direction of the holy Ghost, as undoubtedly they did, we may be the bolder to imitate them in their practice, and in their doctrine, and in so doing we shall not err: For in so doing we may say, we do no more about matters of Ceremonies, than the Apostles have done before us. It is a point we wish the Church of Rome could say. Secondly, though we may not imitate the Apostles in things peculiar to their office, persons and times: yet we may follow them, and are bound in conscience so to do, in matters of common equity and general reason. For as the Apostles had warrant from the holy Ghost, so we have warrant from the example of the Apostles, and from the reasons, for which the holy Ghost moved them to do those things. For the holy Ghost being ever the same, teacheth, and ruleth the Church by one and the same reason revealed in his word, as well now as then. Now the Apostles in this case, did urge the practice of these Ceremonies, not from their immediate authority from God, nor from inspiration only of the holy Ghost: but by reasons and rules of common and perpetual equity, namely expediency; It seemed good to the holy Ghost and us, Acts 15. 28. and necessity: these necessary things, Acts 15. 28. also to win more, 1. Cor. 9 19, 20, 21, 22. to further and propagate the Gospel, 1. Cor. 9 23. By the which rules the holy Ghost doth teach the Church, in the like cases of the Church, to follow the like example by the same general rules: namely to practise the same Ceremonies in the like case, or other Ceremonies of like nature in other cases: no less than he doth teach the Church to pray, and singin a language understood from the general rule of edification. [Let all things in the Church be done to edification] 1. Cor. 14. 12, 26. And for Prophets to speak one after another, not many at once: and for women to hold their peace in the Church, to avoid confusion: from the general rule of order and honesty. [Let all things be done honestly, and by order in the Church] 1. Cor. 14. 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 40. Which may the rather appear, because they be all cases of one nature, namely of order, and Ceremony in the Church and worship of God, which I think a sufficient answer to this objection.  
Objection. There is a great difference between the Ceremonies of the Church of England, and those prescribed by the Apostles, 
Master Parker of the Cross. part 2. sect. 13. fol. 69.  and at first ordained of God, and must have honourable burial: for that our Ceremonies are far worse in many respects and circumstances; As being Antichristian, more scandalous, more hurtful, more dangerous, more strictly enjoined, then sometimes God's commandments, these the inventions of men, yea of Antichrist, etc. stubble and straw, or rather straw when they are at the best.  
Answer. I know and grant there is a great difference, in many circumstances between the jewish Ceremonies, and the Ceremonies of this our Church, but for answer I say; there is agreement between them, in the most part of those many things, whereby our Ceremonies are urged and accused to be simply evil and unlawful, as before appeareth, so that this objection is nothing to the pointin question, or to give direct answer to this argument. For my allegation of these things doth confirm thus much: Namely that it is good and necessary to practise inconvenient, scandalous, and hurtful Ceremonies in a case of superior reason, namely of procuring the Church's peace, and liberty of the Gospel and the like: which no man will deny, and I seek no more. For admit these Ceremonies with us in controversy to be inconvenient, hurtful, and scandalous more or less, it skilleth not, so long as they be of no other nature, than those jewish Ceremonies prescribed, and practised by the Apostles; (as hath been proved they are not) how will it be avoided, but that in case of superior reason, as of avoiding deprivation of the Ministry, they may lawfully, and needfully be practised, and that according to the mind of the holy Ghost, and the direction of the holy Scripture.  
Objection. But the Church of England, hath not the like causes and reasons, to prescribe and enjoin the present Ceremonies, as the Apostles had to prescribe the jewish.  
Answer. First, this objection is nothing to the point in hand: For the question is here, not whether our Church doth well to prescribe these Ceremonies: But whether such Ceremonies being prescribed, as the Church conformed to by the Apostles decree in a case of necessity, ought not to be conformed to by our deprived Ministers in a case of like or greater necessity.  
Secondly, But the Church of England in prescribing 
Preface to the book of common Prayer, tit. Of Ceremonies.  these Ceremonies, professeth a respect of winning and profiting two sorts.  
First, Some thinking it a matter of great conscience to departed from a piece of the least of their Ceremonies.  
Secondly some new fangled would innovate all things, and despise the old, nothing liking them, but that which is new: therefore they thought it expedient to take away some such as were most apt to be abused to superstition, and to retain others: and in their practice they took away so many ceremonies, as time would serve quietly to do it, the rest were reserved to keep order, and quiet decipline in the Church. Which is further noted to King Edward's answer to the Devonshire and cornish rebels: who being 
Ans. to 3. Artic. Act & monument.  Papists would have the Mass in Latin: To whom the King replieth, that the good things in the mass-books were only translated into English for their sakes, only the superstition taken out.  
Object: The Apostles, Acts, 16. 3. and 18. 18. and 21. 26. Did use the jewish ceremonies voluntarily without compulsion of any superior authority or Law, to stop a scandal with the weak brethren of the jews. If therefore that be pressed for the use of our ceremonies, it will prove a necessity of using them out of the case of deprivation, aswell as in that extremity, and that a man must practise them voluntarily without any compulsion or hazard of Ministry.  
Ans: First though the cases of the Apostles practise in Act. 16. 18. 23. were voluntarily performed, that is, without command of any superior authority: yet the case of practice in Acts, 15. 28. 29. Was enjoined, decreed, and commanded: Acts, 16 4. and 21. 25. And that by the rule of necessity, than which there can hardly be a greater argument of compulsion. Act. 15. 28.  
Secondly, and besides the very cases alleged were done by compulsion also of preventing the jews offence: yea in a case of danger also of deprivation to the Apostles, if they had not conformed, as appeareth by the tumult made by the jews, Acts. 21. 27 28, 29, 30. Upon a supposition of those jews that Paul taught non-confirmitie unto the jewish ceremonies. Verse 21. By the which tumult they raised, it came to pass, that Paul was indeed deprived from any free use of his Apostleship in judea, till he came to Rome, as appeareth in the sequel of the history. And if there were no Law for deprivation of Ministers, yet if the execution of their office were in hazard, I doubt not but they should conform; for compulsion may aswell be used without Law, as with Law.  
Object. Those ceremonies were practised but once or twice upon extraordinary occasions: But ours are urged for a perpetuity, and upon an ordinary and standing reason, and are like to continue without ever removing them.  
Answ. Neither doth this objection come near the point in hand: which proveth that such ceremonies as ours are in themselves not simply evil, nor of no other nature, than those ceremonies enjoined and practised by the Apostles; which therefore in a case of necessity may be practised by us, yet I answer. Touching the ceremonies practised by the Apostles.  
First, it is true they were not always by them practised but upon certain occasions: Howbeit they were always practised by them, when they met with the same occasion of necessity, and would oftener have practised them if by the like necessity they had been driven to it, which shows the necessity of conforming to inconvenient ceremonies, in the case of deprivation.  
Secondly, when the Apostles decreed the abstaining from blood and strangled, it was enjoined without limitation of time: whereupon a man might have made this objection unto their decree, and say They are urged for a perpetuity, and upon an ordinary and standing reason, namely of necessity and fitness, and are not ever like to be removed.  
Thirdly also, some of the prescribed jewish ceremonies endured longer in the Church, then on the sudden may be imagined: For it is observed that Christians abstained from blood and strangled, till the time of Tertullian, Origen, 
Whitaker de Ro. 'pon. count 4. quest. 7. fol. 832. 833.  Syrill, Eusebius, Council of Ganga, yea of Augustine, 400. years after Christ.  
2 Concerning our ceremonies▪ it is untrue, that they are urged for a perpetuity: for the preface of the common prayer book expressly saith of the ceremonies prescribed thus [they are retained for a discipline and order, which upon just causes may be altered and changed, and therefore not to be esteemed equal to God's Law] And for the continuance of practice of our ceremonies, I suppose no sound Protestant will plead for the necessity of their practice, or continuance, longer than the reason of necessity doth hold.  
Our case is rather to be matched with the time of Paul's refusing 
Object. part. M Parker 2. sect. 14. fol. 71  to circumcise Titus, and of his reproving Peter for his dissimulation in conforming to the jews, Ga. 2. 3. 11. 13.  
Answ. This can by no means hold, as appeareth, because Paul in a case of hazard of his Ministry, disquiet of the Church, and interruption of preaching the Gospel (which is our case) did circumcise Timothy, Acts 16. 3. But did utterly refuse (as also all the Apostles at jerusalem) to circumcise Titus: 
* Aretius' in act. 16. 3. fol. 75. Gualther in act. 16. hom. 106. fol. 149. Beza annotat. in Gal. 2. 5.  Because they were urged as necessary to salvation, Acts 15. 15. Because by them false brethren laboured to bring their Christian liberty into bondage, Gal. 2. 3. 4. Because by that practice in that sense he should teach justification by works, Gal. 2. 14. 15. 16. This case sorteth therefore to the Papists, who teach that God is worshipped by them; That a man is justified by practising of them; That a man is bound in conscience to use them, as he is the precepts of God: all which false doctrines are in so many words disclaimed, both by oath, doctrine, and confession of the Church, in the book of the Articles of religion, as also in 
Artic. 11. 20. 34.  the preface to the book of common Prayer, where the superstitious use of these Ceremonies is disclaimed, as also the opinion of God's worship by them, and the reasons set down of prescribing these, namely the quiet and decent order in the Church. And that the conveniency or agreement of our case with the Apostles conforming, (not with the Apostles refusing the jewish Ceremonies) may the better appear, I have added these parallels, which I desire may be considered.  
The Apostles and the Church of jerusalem, The Church of England, To avoid offence of weak and obstinate jews, and to win them, To avoid offence of weak and obstinate Papists, and to win them, Prescribed and enjoined Ceremonies abused superstitiously. Prescribe and enjoin Ceremonies abused superstitiously. Holden as the worships of God and needful to salvation. Holden as the worships of God and needful to salvation. By the unbelieving and weak jews. By the superstitious Papists popishly affected. But not by the Apostles nor faithful Christian. But not by any sincere Protestant, teachers, or people.  
The members therefore of either Church, may and ought equally to conform to either Ceremonies, in a case of necessity, and of superior reason.  
Again. The Apostles, The deprived Ministers, In a case of superior reason, as to further the Gospel, & to prevent the hindering of their preaching, In a case of superior reason, as to further the Gospel, to prevent their deprivation and suspension, Conformed to Ceremonies many ways inconvenient, abused superstitiously, and holden necessary by the jews. Ought to conform to ceremonies, though many ways inconvenient in their opinion, abused to superstition & holden necessary by the Papists. Imposed by weakness and violence of the jews. Imposed and urged (as they construe it) by weak Christians, & authority threatening deprivation.  
Object. Others perceiving more force in this argument than some have done, to press them to the practice of our Ceremonies in the case of deprivation, and yet remaining peremptory in their former judgement, do answer it another way, thus: Answ. That Saint Paul did evil in vowing, shaving himself, contributing, offering sacrifice, circumcising Timothy, because they were Ceremonies of practice: But the Apostles constitution, Acts 15. 28, was only of Ceremonies of omission, of like nature with our abstaining from flesh on fasting days, not of the Cross, or Surplice.  
They who thus reply have had, I confess, a light of this their answer from some 
* Hier. apud August. Epist. 19 Hierom. Ep. 89. Gualt. in act. 23. hom. 138. fol. 248. Bullin. in act. 21. M. Parker of the Cross, part. 2. sect. 14 fol. 70.  learned men, which usually have their differences from others according to the reasons moving them, who thus did censure Saint Paul in these actions. Yet Gaulter and Bulling do only doubt of the place, Acts 21. not of the rest: but to this I say;  
We may probably see how these repliers, if they had lived in these days would have behaved themselves towards the holy Apostle, at least they would have reproved him, and condemned him for committing a sin, and would by all means have disliked his doings: yea they would have cast off a thousand weak believing and obstinate jews, and suffered deprivation of a thousand ministries, rather than to conform to that, which the inspired Apostle Paul did submit himself unto. But withal we may consider, whether authority in practice were rather to be esteemed theirs, or Saint Paul's. And indeed it is a miserable shift, when no better answer can be framed to accuse the inspired Apostles in their doings, because their practice will not stand with the reasons, which themselves have framed or undertaken to maintain the suffering of deprivation for refusing to conform. A very feeble answer, as I suppose, which will not stand, but by heaving at the pillars of the Church of Christ.  
Though they accuse the Apostles for this conformity, yet the Scriptures do not so, and it may seem to much boldness to speak, especially in so dangerous a case, of laying sin unto the charge of such and so great persons, where the Holy Ghost is silent.  
But this practice of S. Paul may be easily and strongly justified.  
1. Because he was advised to this practice by Saint james, and the Church of jerusalem, Acts 21. 18, 20, 21, 23, 24. Which persons enjoining other jewish Ceremonies in the like case were directed and inspired by the holy Ghost in so doing, Acts 25. 28, 29.  
2. Because the Holy Ghost seemeth to justify the reason of Paul in circumcising Timothy, not only in not condemning him in his practices, but in approving of his reason in so doing, Acts 16. 3. Paul circumcised him, because of the jews of those quarters. For (saith the holy Ghost in the text) they knew all that his Father was a Grecian.  
3. Because Paul justifieth this practice of his in those Scriptures of his Epistles, wherein undoubtedly he did not err, as the 1. Cor. 9 19 20. 21. 22. 23. and 10. 13. and giveth a main reason thereof; because by his practice he would win the more unto the liking of the Gospel, and be a means of their salvation.  
4 Because it cannot be imagined, that Paul was ignorant if it were a sin, for he was at the Synod at jerusalem, Chap. 15. where circumcision & other Ceremonies were denied in other cases: and if he knew it to be a sin, it were strange he should so many times fall into a relapse, Acts 16. 18. and 21. and observe the jewish Sabbath so continually, Acts 17. 8. and 18. 4. and 13. 14. 44.  
5 Aretius giveth another reason, to justify this fact of Paul: 
* Aretius' in cap. act. 21. fol. 95.  Antiocheia ecclesia bona part constabat ex gentibus, itaque maior pars non erat offendenda in gratiam paucorum: Hic vero jerosolymis maior pars, imo omnes judaei sunt quos Paulus debuit considerare. And of his judgement are the best interpreters, namely, Augustine, Caluin, Beza, Aretius, Piscator, Gualther, Zanchius, junius, Bucanus; who with one consent do hold these things indifferent; which indifferent things should serve for the edification of the Church.  
Touching the Apostles constituion, Acts 15. that it was of matter of omission, it maketh little to infringe the practice of Saint Paul: Because,  
1 They were Ceremonies of the Law aswell as the other.  
2 They were significative one as well as the other.  
3 They were abolished by the coming of Christ, as well one as the other: In which respect they were in their nature no less evil, though they might be less in convenient than the Ceremonies, of practice in some respects. To this objection I answer a little the more sharply, because it savours of a little to much insolence▪ and small regard un-the holy Apostles of Christ: and I would show the absurdity thereof; let the reader take the less offence thereat: And thus much of this point.  
To the former argument let these Propositions following be added, and observed.  
A Man may lawfully for the edification of the Church, 
Proposition.  and furtherance of God's substantial worships, and for the propagation of the Gospel. Acts 16. 3. 1. Cor. 9 23. Practise and observe such Ceremonies, which he preacheth every where against, that men should not do, Acts 21. 21. Neither he himself in some other cases would do. Gal. 2. 5. 11. 14.  
Burdensome Ceremonies. Acts 15. 28. For the edification and peace of the Church, and unity of brethren. Acts 15. 2. 5. 24. May lawfully be imposed and enjoined on Churches, even by the mind of the holy Ghost. Acts 15. 28. 29.  
Burdensome Ceremonies, and many ways inconvenient, may be necessary in some cases to be imposed on such Churches, as never observed them before, Acts 15. 19 28. and 21. 25.  
It may be expedient for Ministers, in a case of superior reason, to procure greater good unto the Church, and to avoid greater mischief, to persuade others. Acts 21. 18. 23. 24. And to be persuaded by others to conform, Acts 21. 26. to such Ceremonies, as in many respects are fit to be preached against, Acts 21. 21. as burdensome traditions, Acts 15. 28. Col. 2. 20. impotent and beggarly rudiments, Gal. 4. 9 and occasions of sundry evil effects,  supra.  
It may be expedient and necessary, for a Minister or other Christian in the like cases of superior reason, to practise the like Ceremonies voluntarily, of his own free accord, not being enjoined or commanded by authority there unto. Acts 16. 3. and 18. 18. 1. Cor. 9 19 20. 21. 22. 23. and 10. 33.  
Those Ministers and people do well, Acts 15. 29. and according to the will of God, and mind of the holy Ghost, Acts 15. 28. who in a like case of necessity, and furtherance of the Gospel, 1. Cor. 9 23. do practise the like Ceremonies, being enjoined them by authority, Acts 15. 28. and 16. 4. and 21. 25.  
Paul to redeem his Ministry, and to gain liberty to the Gospel, to add souls unto the Church, and to win the more unto Christ, Acts 16. 3. and 21. 20. 21. 1. Cor. 9 20. 21. 23. might as well and lawfully have worn a linen Ephod, or a linen Surplice, as well as to have purified, and shaved himself, vowed, circumcised Timothy, or to have joined in offering sacrifice.  
Paul might as well have used the sign of the Cross, to a baptised person, in a case of deprivation, or of redeeming the Gospel's liberty, or of winning unto Christ, as to have used the sign of circumcision, to a baptised person, as he did to Timothy. Acts 16. 3. And thus much of this argument, being the first member of the main reason.  
Argu. 2 Now I proceed to the second member of the first reason, which is this, Reason 1 [Because the doctrine, and practise of suffering deprivation, is against the grounds of God's word] whereupon I conclude, that such doctrine and practice, is an error and a sin.  
The grounds of God's word, which are contraried by this doctrine and practice, are two in number, and they do Minister two arguments, which I will prosecute in order by the help of God. The first ground is this;  
When two works, or duties commanded of God, do meet in one practice, so as we cannot do them both, but one of them must of necessity be done, the other of necessity must be left undone, in this case the work or duty of greater reason, must be performed, and that of lesser reason must be neglected and omitted, and it is a sin to neglect the greater to perform the lesser: Out of which ground I assume:  
But the doctrine and practice, of suffering deprivation, for refusing to conform, doth cause men to neglect greater duties, to perform the lesser.  
Therefore the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation for refusing to conform to our prescribed ceremonies is an error and a sin.  
For the confirmation of this argument there are two points to be proved.  
1 That it is contrary to God's word, and therefore a sin to pass by a greater work or duty to perform a lesser.  
2 That to suffer deprivation for refusing to conform unto the ceremones prescribed in our Church, is to pass by a greater work or duty to perform a lesser; whereupon the former conclusion must follow of necessity.  
Touching the former point, namely that it is contrary to God's word and therefore a sin to pass by a greater work or duty to perform a lesser: The which point although it be in itself evident, and must needs be granted by every sound divine, yet for illustration sake I make more manifest by these reasons.  
Reason 1 First, because the will of God is such, then when mercy (a greater duty) and sacrifice (a lesser duty) do meet, so as both at the same time cannot be done, mercy must be done, and sacrifice left undone. Mat. 12. 4. 7. I will have mercy and not sacrifice.  
Because hypocrites are reproved of God for passing by greater duties to perform lesser: thus were the Scribes and Pharisees reproved by our Saviour, for letting pass the weightier matters of the Law, and following the smaller: As straining at a gnat, and swallowing of a Camel, Mat. 23. 23. 24. Luke 11. 42. For urging sacrifice of ceremonial duties, and for omitting and reproving mercy, Mat. 12. 7. Luke 13. 14. 15. 16. For offering sacrifices and oblations with the neglect of parents, Matthew 15. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  
Because the Godly are excused, and approved of God for passing by smaller duties to perform greater: thus were excused and reproved.  
First, the Priests of the Law for breaking the sabboth's ceremonial, and strict rest by sacrificing and other business to perform Gods Public worship (a greater duty) & are pronounced blameless therein. Mat. 12. 5.  
Secondly: David for eating showbread (not lawfully for him to do) in a case of necessity, he and they who were with him, were acquitted as innocent and blameless. Mat. 12. 3. 4.  
Thirdly, the Apostles of Christ, for plucking, rubbing, and eating the ears of corn, so violating the Sabbaths strict and Ceremonial rest (a lesser duty) to satisfy hunger, the necessity of nature (a greater and moral duty) were called innocent. Mat. 12. 2. 3. 4.  
Fourthly, jesus Christ preferring the healing of the sick a greater duty, before the strict keeping the Ceremonial rest a lesser duty, and commanding a kind of servile labour viz. the carrying home of a bed in some case unlawful. Io. 5. 8. 9 proveth it not only by a peculiar reason, proper unto himself, that he is Lord of the Sabbath, and therefore might overrule in this case. Mat. 12. 8. But even by reasons of Common equity, namely; First because it is lawful, (by not strictly keeping ceremonial rest) to do (morrally) well on the Sabbath day, omitting sacrifice to do mercy. Mat. 11. 12.  
Secondly, because the end is superior to the means: for the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, Mar. 2. 27.  
4 Fourthly, because it is contrary to the inspired examples in the Scripture, which are of common equity and reason, and to the practice of the faithful Saints of God, namely (besides the forenamed examples of the Priests, of the Apostles, of David, of our Saviour) first of Solomon, who in a case of necessity, did offer upon another Altar than the Altar appointed for the worship of God: because it was not able to receive the offerings. 2. Chro. 7. 7. but was to little for that end. 1. King. 8. 64. Whereas they were to offer sacrifice, and to burn incense upon one only Altar in the Temple. 2. King. 23. 12. It being a Type of Christ, the only sacrifice and mediator. Heb. 13. 10. 2. of Hezekias, who to set forward the main and substantial worships of God did admit of many to the Passeover, albeit they were not ceremonially sanctified, but legally unclean: and did not receive the same as it was written in the Law, nor according to the purification of the Sanctuary; yet with a true heart seeking the Lord, they were accepted, namely in a case of superior reason. 2. Chron. 30. 17. 18. 19 20. Thirdly of Paul who to save his life (a greater duty) did with his own hands cast away into the Sea the good creatures of God, which otherwise should have been preserved, and so for that cause neglected a lesser duty, Act. 27. 30. Fourthly, of the inspired Apostles of Christ, who (as before is noted) did practise on themselves: Act. 21. 26. and upon others: Acts 16. 3. and did advise: Act. 21. 23. 24. yea ordain, enjoin, and command the practice of jewish ceremonies, as circumcision, shaving, purifying, abstaining from blood, and strangled meat, and that as a duty good and necessary, Act. 15. 28. which to avoid, and not to use was a duty required of God: which to use and practise in other cases was reproved by the holy Ghost: Acts 15. 10. and 21. 21. Gal. 4. 9 10. 11. and 2. 12. 13. 14 and 5. 2. 3. 4. Colo. 2. 20. 21. 22. 23. and were needless shadows, Col. 2. 20. Ordinances of the world. Col. 2. 20. Commandments of men turning from the truth Col. 2. 12. Titus 1. 14. Impotent and beggarly rudiments, Gal. 4. 9 10. And of sundry perilous, and pernicious effects: yet this they did admit (albeit the violation of a duty) to do a greater duty of superior reason, namely, to procure the unity of brethren: Act. 15. 2. 4. 6. 7. 24. The wyninng of strangers to the faith: 1. Cor. 9 19 20. And to propagate the Gospel. 1. Cor. 9 23. To prevent the scandal of weak believers, Act. 16. 3. and 21. 20. And the danger of interruption or deprivation of the Ministry, by the violent Iewes persecution, Act. 21. 12. 24. 27. 28. Thus is the first point confirmed; to the which doctrine sundry godly learned men, even so many as I have read of this point, do also consent both in the same words and proofs. viz. 
* vid. Caluin: in Mat. 12. 1. 3 fol. 260. Vrsin. cat. part. 3. fol. 707. immediate. ante precept. 1. impress. Cantabridg: anno. 1585. Piscator in Mat 12. 1. 2. 3. in analisi. fol. 190. & in observat. ad eundem locum. fol. 205. 106. 107 Idem in observat. in Mat. 9 13. fol. 156. Idem. in obser. ad Mat. 15. 3. 4. 5. 6. fol. 243. Polan. syntagm. Theolog. lib. 9 c. 29 fol. 4077. 4078. Martin in summula. verbi dei cap. 2. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. fol. 47. 48. decalogo. Mr. Perkins vol. 1. of his works treatise of conscience Cap. 2. fol. 520.  Yet to this point or proposition howsoever firm it be in itself, as hath appeared, and is approved by the best divines, yet some objections have been laid against it, which I will here set down.  
Ob. Where it is said in the former proposition [when two duties do meet at one time] it is objected that they cannot be duties both at once. For if they were both duties they would both bind, and so a man must needs commit a sin, seeing he is straightened between two duties, and must omit the one, this therefore is not well proposed.  
Ans. The mentioning of these two duties meeting together at one time in our practice doth not intend that they do both of them bind the conscience at the same instant, but they are called duties as they are considered apart; being both works are commanded of God in two several commandments: Which two works being duties considered apart, do sometimes offer themselves to our practice at one instant; As to hear a Sermon at the Church on the Sabbath, and to tend a sick person ready to die at home at the sametime, both are duties being considered apart, but meeting together, and offering themselves to our practice at one time, there is indeed but one duty, because both cannot be performed in one instant; In which case the greater work is the duty, the lesser binds not for that present: In like case for a minister to refuse inconvenient ceremonies, albeit it be a duty being considered apart from the duty of preaching the word; yet when it meeteth with the duty of preaching, so as preaching the word will not stand with refusing inconvenient ceremonies, this refusing of ceremonies bindeth not the conscience, but leaveth to be a duty. There are not two duties at that instant, but only one, which is to preach the word of God: In which case the refusing of inconvenient Ceremonies is no duty, neither is their practice a sin, yea the practice of them is a duty, if otherwise they cannot preach the Word; this objection therefore needeth not.  
Objection. The doctrine included in that point or proposition is not true [because there may be a greater duty neglected for the performance of a lesser] which may then be done, when the performance of the lesser keepeth him from sin, as for example: A Preacher enjoined to preach naked, aught to neglect preaching. Besides it is contrary to the rule of the Apostle, Rom. 3. 8. The least evil must not be done, that the greatest good may be performed. For when I cannot do it without sin, it is no duty, and therefore you should propose the matter thus; It is necessary to perform a lesser sin for to perform a duty that is greater.  
Answer. First, the doctrine of the proposition remaineth true notwithstanding this objection. For the case is proposed not of a sin and a duty, but of two duties being considered a part, being both commanded of God, and there is no such case wherein a greater duty is to be neglected for the performance of a lesser, which also is in reason absurd.  
Secondly, to the instance of preaching in a naked manner I say, that in this case there are two things to be considered: Necessity, and Decency: if then he cannot preach naked but with the peril of his life, he ought to refuse preaching, it being a case of necessity, and mercy is better than sacrifice. But if his life will consist with his naked preaching, he ought to preach notwithstanding the scandal or indecency, if there be no other means admitted for his preaching.  
1 Because a man's naked body, being considered as it is naked, it is the good creature of God, and is not indecent to be looked on but to unclean and vain minds, it is decent enough to the pure.  
2 Because the gaining of souls and means of man's salvation, is a duty of far greater reason and weight, than the avoiding of an inconvenient circumstance of scandal, or of seeming indecency, arising only by accident, not from the nature of the object: and the like case is of the practice of our Ceremonies to redeem the liberty of preaching, to the place. Rom. 3. 8. which showeth that we may not do the least evil to compass the greatest good: I say, that to the present purpose we may consider evil two manner of ways.  
For first, evil is either that which is formally simply, and in nature evil, which no circumstance can amend: As to redeem preaching upon condition of blaspheming God, Invocating the Devil, committing of idolatry, perjury, idultery, teaching of heresy, or the like, the which kind of evil, is intended by the Apostle, and may not be done at any hand for the gaining of the greatest good.  
2 Again, evil may be taken for that which is only circumstantially, ceremonially or accidentally evil: which kind of evil may in some cases be practised without sin, namely, in case of superior reason, at what time it is improperly called evil. That this is so, appeareth in the Priests, who broke the Sabbath: in David, who did that which was not lawful for him to do, and yet were blameless and innocent. Mat. 12. 4 5. 7. Also in the practice of jewish inconvenient, and many ways evil Ceremonies, which practice was so far from being evil in that case, that it was good and necessary. Act. 15. 28. 29. touching this objection see more at the end of the argument.  
Object. Mordecay refused to bow, and perform the gesture of reverence to Haman, yea though he were commanded by the King. Hest. 3. 1, 2, 3. by which refusal of obedience to a ceremonial, he violated two greater duties: One was the King's command: and the other was the hazard of his life, and destruction of the Church of the jews, and thereby for performance of a lesser duty he did violate a greater.  
Answ. Either this gesture was Spiritual or Civil: if the former, he ought to avoid spiritual adoration to a creature, an heathen, a wicked person, an Amalekite, and an enemy of the Church, which is a sufficient and the true answer, and thus do all interpreters understand this place: thus the Hebrew gloss, thus the Apocryphal prayer in the additions to Hester, Lyra, Vataplus, junius, Drusius, Merlyne upon these places. If the latter, either his action was evil or good; if evil in disobeying the Magistrate in a thing indifferent, it is impertinently alleged: if well the reason is unknown and not expressed, we cannot judge of the quality of the duties compared, if he did refuse this reverence.  
1 Because he was of the Amalekites, which were especially cast out by God. Exod. 11. 14. Deut. 25. 7. Num. 24. 7.  
2 Because an open profane person, a malicious and professed adversary of God's Church.  
3 Because himself was a better man than Haman, being the Queen's Uncle, it may be considerable, whether he did not well, even in this respect to refuse this reverence. Touching the hazard of his life, and ruin of the Church it was unknown to Mordecai; for Haman practised it because he did refuse it.  
Object. Daniel neglected a greater duty to perform a lesser, for he continued to pray three times a day, kneeling upon his knees, his window being open towards jerusalem, notwithstanding that he knew that he should die for doing it: so he preferred the ceremony and circumstance of prayer which was a smaller duty, before the safety of his life which was a greater: Dan. 6. 10. Also the jews chose rather to die then to eat Swine's flesh. 2. Mac. 7. 1. and 6. 8. preferring observance of a ceremonial duty before their life.  
Answ. To these instances I first demand whether these be brought therefore to conclude, that therefore Ministers should rather die, then to use the Ceremonies prescribed in our Church. And let it be considered seriously by every person truly fearing God: whether they think it fit for another, or could resolve himself to lose this life by being at a stake for none other cause, then for refusing the prescribed Ceremonies, especially in a true Church of Christ, wherein there are otherwise a true confession of faith, and sufficient means of their salvation. If it should fall out that they would not die in such a case, I would know further, how then they could lose their Ministry for not using them, seeing it were better for a Minister to lose his life, then to lose the comfort of his ministery, Act. 20. 24. 1. Cor. 9 15. If they would rather suffer death then use the Ceremonies, let them show the ground and comfort they should have before the Lord in this proceeding. If they allege these instances, I will show to how small purpose they serve therein: therefore I say, that their cases do far differ from the case in question.  
First, they were controversies depending between the heathen and professed enemies of God's Church, and between the people of God's covenant and members of the Church: our controversies are in the Church, and between professed lovers and believers in Christ.  
Secondly, they were cases of confession, wherein they were called to confess the truth and religion of God amongst God's enemies, as also the necessity of invocation of God's name, and of obedience to God's precepts: With us the doctrine of Ceremonies is true, and according to God's word, and the parts of our general confession in the Book of Articles is agreeable to the word of God.  
Thirdly, the duties were of exceeding great moment, for the performance whereof they should have hazarded and lost many lives. Daniel stood in obedience of a main substantial duty (not Ceremonial or circumstantial) of the first commandment, namely prayer to God, and praising of his name: for which a man should rather die then intermit for the pleasure of any mortal man: and the ceremony of his praying toward jerusalem in far distant place, was such as specially did exercise his faith, and to which the promise of audience was tied, 2. Chron. 6. 34. The jews refusing the eating of Swine's flesh, did confess the whole religion of God and faith of the Church, and total obedience to all God's Commandments, which was that which Antiochus did aim at, as appeareth, 2. Mac. 6. 2. 7. and 18. 24. and 7. 1. 2. 4.  
Lastly, to both cases, the mere commandment of a Magistrate and an idolater, was opposed to the especial commandment of God, Dan. 6. 7. 9 10. 2. Mac. 7. 30. In which respect God must of necessity be obeyed before man, Act. 5. 29. There being no such material circumstance in the case in question, whereby it also appeareth, that they did not neglect a greater duty to perform a lesser, but passed by an inferior duty to perform a far greater. And thus much of objections to the first point, which being answered, I proceed unto the second point which is this:  
That to suffer deprivation for refusing to conform, is the neglecting of a greater duty to perform the lesser.  
For the proof and clearing this point, two truths must be confirmed:  
The first that two duties, both commanded of God, do offer themselves in the questioned case to be observed: where one of the two cannot be done, and therefore must be left undone: The former duty is to preach the word, the which duty is commanded to all the Ministers of Christ, Mat. 28. 19 20. 2. Tim. 4. 2. 1. Pet. 5. 1. 2. 1. Cor. 9 16. and is included in the second Commandment: Now this duty cannot be done with us ordinarily, as things do stand, if Ministers do not conform: for by order they are to be deprived of their Ministry, as very many we see have been. 
Lincol. Apo. arg. 1. against the ceremonies: Except. 2 fol. 17. & arg. 4 excep. 2. fol. 45. 49.   
The other duty, is to refuse Ceremonies, as they pretend, inconvenient in their use, though in their nature indifferent, which is commanded in the second commandment, Ez. 14. 7, as also to avoid occasions of superstition. And to prevent sundry offences, and other inconveniences, arising from the use of things in different commanded, 1. Thes. 5. 21. Jude verse 23. 1. Cor. 10. 32. and 8. 9 12. Rom. 14. 3. 4. 10. 15. 16. 19 20. 21. 22. 23. The which duties, in respect of diverse and sundry persons, which will take offence in the use of them, cannot be well performed, if Ministers do conform unto the Ceremonies.  
The second point is this, that for a Minister to continue in preaching, is a greater duty of superior reason, and of higher bond to tie the conscience, than the duty of labouring unto fit Ceremonies, or of refusing inconvenient Ceremonies, such as ours are presumed to be. And this appeareth by reasons, drawn first from their nature, and secondly, from their effects.  
First, from the nature of either work or duty: it is manifest that the duty of preaching, is a duty of far greater moment, than the duty of performing fit Ceremonies, or of refusing inconvenient Ceremonies, such as they pretend ours are, or the like. First, because the duty of preaching the Gospel, is a matter simply good in nature, but the refusing of such Ceremonies as ours are, supposing them to be inconvenient, or the practice of other Ceremonies in their steed supposing them to be more fit, is a labouring about matters in their nature simply indifferent, as before is manifest, and after appeareth further, so that in this case there is a refusal, of a thing simply good, as preaching of the word, and propagation of the Gospel. Secondly, because the duty of preaching the Gospel, is a substantial external worship of God: the duty of using fit Ceremonies, or of refusing unfit (so they be not impious) is a matter ceremonial, and circumstantial: For the Ceremonies are but circumstances, tending to the better performance of the substantial worships, and do serve those substantial worships of God: that is, they must be so ordered, as they may best serve to edify, and further the substantial worships of God, and means of edification. Wherefore to omit preaching, is the violation of a duty substantial, the conforming to inconvenient Ceremonies, is but the violating of a duty circumstantial. It is better suffering an untoward handmaid in the house, then by thrusting out the handmaid, to thrust the mistress out of doors. Thirdly, because preaching the word is a duty particularly commanded in the word: but the duty of the practice of fit Ceremonies, or of refusing the practice of unfit (so they be not simply and in nature evil) is included only under general rules of necessity, of edification, expediency, etc. Fourthly, because the duty of preaching is pressed on the Church, as a duty perpetual to the world's end, Matth. 28. 19 20. till we all meet, Ephes. 4. 11. 12. till the appearing of Christ. 1. Tim. 6. 14. But the performance of Ceremonies are variable, as appeareth by the frequent and lawful variation of them: as in the change of the time of the Lords supper from night to morning abolishing of the kiss of love: and of the feast of charity; sometimes in some Church Ceremonies burdensome and scandalous are needfully imposed and practised as jewish rites by the Apostles: sometimes in other Churches, others more needful and they pernicious, Galath. 2. 3. 5. and 4. 9 10. and 5. 2. Colloss. 2. 20. 21. Besides all Churches differ in their Ceremonies one from another, and that in such like Ceremonies as ours are: The Primitive from the reformed, and all among themselves, some using more, others less convenientrites and ceremonies. But the preaching of the Gospel, which giveth life and being to the Church, is perpetual and uniform for the substance thereof in all true Churches of all times and places; They all agree therein. Fifthly, Because the preaching of the Word, is an essential and inseparable mark of the true Church, without the which a Church cannot consist, fit ceremonies are no mark of the Church, neither do unfit and inconvenient overthrow the being thereof: and to this I add that by continuance of preaching (by which the Church is gathered and upholden) the danger of the ceremonies, whatsoever it would be prevented and avoided by the purity of doctrine: but the purity of ceremonies, or the refusing inconvenient ceremonies will not countervail the loss of preaching. Corrupt ceremonies deface the walls, & perhaps may in time impair some part of the out house: But the nullity of preaching overthroweth the whole Church, walls, covering, ornament, foundation, and all.  
Sixthly, Because the preaching of God's Word is the ordinary means of new birth, faith, hope, and of all grace, and final salvation, 1. Cor. 1. 21. 1. Tim. 4. 16. Rom. 10. 15. 17. Eph. 4. 12. Fit Ceremonies are no such means, neither do unfit Ceremonies destroy the power & efficacy thereof.  
Seventhly, Because the duty of preaching is simply necessary, both in respect of Gods particular command, and also in respect of the preacher, who is attended with a woe if he neglect, 1. Cor. 9 16. Hos. 4. 6. and in respect of the people who are ordinarily by this means gathered, edified and saved, Ephes. 4. 11, 12, 1. Cor. 1. 21, and do perish if they have it not, Prou. 29. 18, Hos. 4. 6. But the using of convenient Ceremonies is not simply necessary, only secundum quid, for the sake of preaching to further and uphold it, in which respect scandelous and dangerous ceremonies may be necessary to be enjoined and practised, Act. 15. 28. 29. And with inconvenient and hurtful Ceremonies, a Church may be a true church (as the Apostolical Church of Antioch was, as the most part of primitive churches were, and of reformed Churches using far worse ceremonies than ours are pretended to be:) Also a Christian may have the being of a true Christian, & may so remain standing in the true practice of faith, repentance, love, patience, etc. and in the assurance of his election, adoption, justification, and in that state may finally be saved, albeit he live and die in the practice of as evil ceremonies as ours are supposed; who if he should continue without the means of preaching, the Word might have great cause to doubt of all.  
Eightly, Because of their subordination, for Ceremonies (as before is noted) and the determination of them do serve the ordinance of preaching the Word, and are by the Church to be determined, as may best serve for the furtherance thereof, so they be not formally & in their nature impious, in which respects (as before is said) it may be expedient to admit of very inconvenient, and accidentally hurtful Ceremonies namely for the furtherance of the Gospel, & edification of the church: Else the Apostles by direction of the holy Ghost, sinned in their doctrine and practice. But the ordinance of preaching doth at no time serve fit Ceremonies, neither should give place by labouring against unfit.  
Thus from the nature, now from their effects it doth in like sort appear, that the duty of preaching toeth the conscience with a far greater bond, than the duty of refusing of the prescribed Ceremonies. First on the better part: The benefit of preaching the Word is incomparably greater, than the benefit of avoiding these or the like inconvenient Ceremonies. By the preaching of the Word, the Church hath name and being, yea, though Ceremonies, as is noted, be very inconvenient, and do remain in the Church as timber, hay, and stubble upon Christ the foundation: Ceremonies be they ever so well ordered without preaching, are of no force to give name or being to the Church. Now far greater is the Churches being, the progress and liberty of the Gospel, the public use of the means of new birth, faith and salvation, and the visibility of Christ his kingdom upon earth, than the avoiding of offence, and such other inconveniences accidental, not inherent, neither purposed by Ceremonies in their nature not evil, but merely indifferent: the one bringing a public good to the whole Church, the inconvenience of the other but private to a few, who take offence, and in this case by their own default. Besides experience showeth, how God hath prospered multitudes of latter times, that have entered by conformity in every place, and such who standing in their places have with a grounded conscience, not by sinister respects conformed to prevent their deprivation, or to redeem it being lost: The Lord hath done as much good by them, as by any Minister deprived, by the conversion, confirmation, consolation, reclamation, excitation, edification, I say not refusing Ceremonies, speaking against Bishops, pleading for Church discipline, but in the main doctrines and duties of saving grace and goodness: God's blessing hath been on them as much as ever before, the Papists and enemies of righteousness have been no less vexed and convinced; yea Saints no less comforted and confirmed; the Church no less fortified, and the truth of the Gospel no less propagated if not much more. And the reason hereof is plain: because experience showeth, that the Church is not builded up, but destroyed rather, afflicted consciences nothing quieted, but troubled rather, doubtful minds not settled, but distracted rather, zealous minds not rectified but disordered rather, Papists and Brownists not won or convinced▪ but rather driven further back by the doctrine, practice, & endless disputations of discipline, ceremonies, constitution of Churches, and the like: but by the sound doctrine & essential practice of repentance from dead works, faith in Christ, love, patience, and good works, which saving points of the mystery of godliness are more taught and better practised by simple hearts, when the stumbling blocks of these less pertinent questions (as Mint and Cummin in respect of Mercy and judgement) are removed, or more sparingly and peaceably debated.  
Secondly, on the worse part: The mischief, offence, and inconvenience of the Ministers deprivation, for not conforming to the Ceremonies, seemeth in reason, and hath appeared in experience, to be more by many degrees, than the scandal, and inconveniences arising of conforming to redeeming of their preaching, which thing appeareth;  
First, because the Papists do more rejoice, the Godly are much more grieved, the Libertines do much more triumph, and so are like to do (as they have all more cause) to behold the Gospel interrupted, the truth obscured, the Church weakened, the Ministers of God thrown out, the flock of Christ scattered, and the visible kingdom of Christ divided and dessolued, than they would be to behold some inconvenient Ceremonies: these greater things of the law remaining entire, whereby Antichrist and sin is daily discovered and wasted; and by the which truth and piety, do more increase and prevail. Admit that by inconvenient Ceremonies, the Church should be blemished, and the consciences of many scandalized: yet in deprivation of teachers, without supply of as good, the Church of God tendeth to dessolution, and utter ruin: yea the souls of all the people are endangered to perish. Proverb. 29. 18. Hos. 4. 6. Math. 15. 14. For without the preaching of the word, there is no public ordinary means of salvation left: and so by consequence no ordinary means of the hope of salvation, though all both Minister and people, should abstain from these inconvenient Ceremonies: Whereas so long as the word and Gospel preached doth remain, Christ the foundation doth remain, both in sound and doctrine, 1. Cor. 3. 11. Ephe. 2. 20. as also in assured presence, Matth. 18. 20. and 28. 20. the infinite value of whose blood cleanseth from all sin, 1. joh. 1. 7. and 5, 12, howsoever the stubble of corrupt doctrine, & Ceremonies do remain withal, and so the Church, both Minister, and people retaining and laying hold, on the foundation may be saved, though as by fire, 1. Cor. 3. 15.  
Secondly, experience teacheth us, what a decay of grace, and back sliding of many most forward professors of religion, what increase of Popery, and all profaneness in every corner of the Land, and even in sundry of the places, where the deprived Ministers were placed, have ensued this their suffering of themselves, to be thus put beside their Ministry. And being thus deprived, what good have they done unto the Church? Or what good use have they employed their talon, in more than to some few private families, wherein some of them have been exercised? Verily in sundry others, especially the younger and more unstaid sort, especially of them which draw near the brink of Brownisme, it hath fallen out, that after the loss and leaving their Ministry, small other fruit hath happened in them, then to make the Churches rend the wider, to speak evil, and scoff at persons in authority, which had more need to have been prayed for in these dangerous times: to breed distraction in the hearts of the people, to vilify their Godly brethren, which have submitted themselves to conformity, to swell in scorn and pride against them, and to prepare the minds of unstable persons, of tender consciences, and shallow knowledge to schism and separation, and in the mean time, to neglect the main duties of true Godliness, as meekness, mercy, tender heartedness, patience, visiting the sick, comforting the feeble minded, instructing the ignorant, catechizing children, persuading of Papists to the truth, reproving reigning sins in wisdom, love, and meekness: conference of godliness to edification, provoking to love, to good works, painful labouring in some honest trade of life, to prevent the eating of the bread of idleness: which I writ not in reproach, but in soberness, and tender hearted grief, declaring that which I have seen not in a few. And further to this end, it may be profitably noted, what degrees of grace do appear in such as are violently carried this way: surely it is commonly seen, that the more eager people are against the Ceremonies, and for reformed discipline, their zeal is so exercised, and their affections carried to things without them, as that they find small leisure to look into God's kingdom within them: their tongues, pens, practise are carried this way together with their hearts, so that they commonly neglect mercy, judgement, fidelity, and love of God, mortification of sin, moderation of affections, holy guidance of the tongue, fruits of love, and conscience in their walking before men, and are brought at last so near unto their practice, who were taxed by our Saviour that they can hardly escape their reproof, viz. To strain at a Gnat, and swallow a Camel. Let the Brownists and such as draw near unto them, witness for themselves, both in their own practice and report of faithful witnesses, and in the dismal proceed of such fiery spirits, whom Arianisme, familism, Anabaptisme, Libertisme, or plain profaneness have swallowed and undone at last. For it is a true maxim in Theology, That when men bestow more zeal upon circumstantials or ceremonials, matter right or wrong, one way or another, for them or against them, than they do upon substantials, they are undoubtedly settled in the high way to hypocrisy. Lastly, this point will the rather appear by the enumeration of sundry inconveniences, which are by some alleged to arise from the prescribed Ceremonies, and comparing of those evils, with the evil or inconveniences, which would arise from the general doctrine and practice of suffering Deprivation, by refusing to conform.  
Object. The prescribed Ceremonies, do blemish the worships of God, viz. the Word, the Sacraments, and the pure administration of them.  
Answ. But Deprivation of all preaching Ministers overthroweth them quite: Vtrum horum?  
Object. The continuing in the practice of these Ceremonies, will be occasion of future superstition.  
Answ. They will much more so do, when all preaching is taken away, which should teach the people the true nature of them.  
Object. It is most expedient to reduce the Church from human mixtures & burdens, to Apostolical simplicity and purity.  
Answ. But if it be not in the power of private persons, shall we all give over, and let all alone, & the whole Church fall down on the ground, because we cannot do all the good that we would?  
Object. The Ceremonies prescribed, do hinder the true knowledge of Christ, and sincere worships of God, and the main duty of godliness: the minds of ignorant people being led aside by these, so that they put religion, and God's worship in them.  
Answ. How much more will the knowledge of Christ be obscured, the sincere worship of God, and duties of piety be neglected, and these Ceremonies turned into will worship, if the general preaching of the Word (which is our direction) should be interrupted.  
Object. These Ceremonies, are veils and shadows to cover Antichrist, and the mystery of iniquity, from the eyes of the people, that they cannot so well discern, detest, and flee from Popery, as is enjoined by God's express Commandment.  
Answ. General deprivation of Preachers, is the high way, not so much to hide, as to bring in Antichrist again, with all his abominations.  
Object. The Ceremonies do disgrace our Church, and hinder the growth thereof.  
Answ. General suffering of deprivation, kills the Church, and overthroweth not the growth and grace, but the life and being thereof.  
Object. The continuing of Ceremonies, doth take away all hope of future reformation.  
Answ. The discontinuing of Preaching, doth take away the hope of the continuing of the Gospel, yea the ordinary means, of the hope of our salvation.  
Object. The Ceremonies do take from many good christians a great part of the comfort of their consciences in the service of God.  
Answ. Suffering deprivation, taketh away the ordinary means of salvation and bringeth a greater discomfort in the place.  
Object. The Papists, & other enemies of godliness & religion will rejoice greatly, to seeus conform, and draw near to them.  
Answ. But will they not more rejoice to see you deprived: and being emptied of Preachers, will they not think the places fit for their mass-priests?  
Object. The Papists by those Ceremonies are shrouded, are confirmed by them in superstition, are occasioned by them to commit superstition, they kindle in them, an hope of letting Popery in again.  
Answ. All these things are ten times more effected by general deprivation of the Word.  
Object. Very many godly minds, are vexed and grieved in their consciences, at the Ceremonies in the Church, much more if their Pastors do conform.  
Answ. But will they not be much more troubled and grieved to be utterly deprived of them?  
Object. It will be very inconvenient for the Minister to conform in many respects.  
Answ. And in many more, it will be inconvenient for him to suffer deprivation, to lose the comfort of his labour, to bid farewell to his dear neighbours, and hearers, to be turned with his wife and children, from his house and means of living, into silence, contempt, and beggary. Thus is this second point confirmed, viz. that the duty of preaching the Word, is a greater duty, tying the conscience with a greater band, than the duty of refusing to conform, or the like. These two points therefore being thus confirmed it followeth: That for a Minister to suffer himself to be deprived of his Ministry for refusing to conform to the prescribed Ceremonies, is contrary to God's word, and so an error in doctrine, and sin in practice.  
Now I will answer the objections, which are brought against this point.  
Object. The Ceremonies prescribed in our Church, are unlawful, as they are proved by sundry reasons, by the deprived Ministers: therefore we may not conform unto them, but rather suffer deprivation: for we may not do evil, that good may come thereof, Rom. 3. 8.  
Answ. If it should be granted which they contend for: It followeth Answ. not, that because they be unlawful in some respect, therefore they may or be conformed unto: because a man may do that which is unlawful in some respect and yet not sin against God, as appearth by these instances out of Scripture. A man may break the Sabbath (It is our saviours phrase) in some respects, and yet be blameless before God, Mat. 12. 5. A man may do that in some case, which by God's Law is not lawful for him (as our Saviour Christ speaketh) to do, and yet be innocent, Matth. 12. 3. A man may in some cases perform some circumstances in a substantial worship of God, not as it is written, and yet perform that worship in God's acceptation, and with his blessing, 2. Chron. 30. 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26. A man may in some case practise lawfully and necessarily, Act. 15. 19, 20. such Ceremonies, which in some other cases to practice were impotent and beggarly rudiments, Gal. 4. 9 will worships, traditions, commandments, and doctrines of men, Collos. 2. 20, 21, 22, 23. and in many main respects, evil and unlawful. Again, unto the Apostles saying, I further say, that a man may be said to do some evil to do some good. Which answer will appear out of the said places; For to break the Sabbath was evil, yet to break the Sabbath in some duty, to further a greater duty in God's worship, which was good, made the Priests blameless. To do a thing not lawful was evil, yet to preserve life, which is good, made David innocent before God. To perform Gods worship not as it was written, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and a sin: yet to further Gods substantial worships, which was a good thing, was not regarded of God. To practise antiquated, and superannuated, unprofitable, yea very hurtful Ceremonies was unlawful: yet to purchase the liberty of the Gospel, and unity of brethren, which was good, made their practice good and necessary. So that this rule of the Apostle must be limited, and in some cases holdeth not: for that as we see a man may be said to do some evil, that some greater good may come thereof; the reason whereof is included in the foregoing argument, the sum whereof is this; Because the relinquishing of obedience to a lesser duty leaveth to be a sin, when a greater duty cometh in place, which yet were evil if the greater duty were absent. As for example, to violate sacrifice, (namely to break the Sabbath by rubbing ears of corn: to eat that which is expressly forbidden him of God, and so to do a thing not lawful) is no sin, when mercy and necessity comes in place, which if mercy or other superior work and duty were away, were sin. In a word a man may do a thing evil in use, circumstance, and by accident, so it be not simply and in nature evil: also a man may violate a duty ceremonial to further or accomplish a moral good thing, in which case the evil of the action ceaseth, and this was the Apostles in the practice of the jewish ceremonies. Object. But the ceremonies prescribed in our Church are not only evil in the use or inconvenient, but are in their nature simply evil, especially in their use, as appeareth by the reasons made against them in sundry writings of the deprived Ministers. Ergo by no means may they be conformed unto, to procure the greatest good.  
An. 1 The reasons alleged by the deprived Ministers to prove these ceremonies to be simply evil are very weak, and frivolous, because (as it is noted in the first argument) they all of them, or the most part be applied to the jewish ceremonies practised & enjoined by the inspired Apostles, and therefore either the practice and prescription of such ceremonies in a case of necessity leaveth to be a sin, or else the Apostles must be accused for practising of such things as were simply a sin: and it is not in Apostolical power to make a matter simply and in nature sin to be no sin at all.  
Howsoever these ceremonies be now judged in their nature simply evil by the deprived Ministers, yet they were never so judged of in the church of christ in any age or place by any sound teacher, or well grounded Christian, & the most curious sights among them that most stand for reducing of the Church to the primitive purity in discipline & ceremonies that ever looked on them in these days, though they wished them to be abolished, as being many ways inconvenient, yet they judged of them in their nature as things indifferent, not only as they are considered in themselves, but as they are in use with us. Thus judged they of a surplice or linen garment in the worship of God.  
In a surplice there is no impious thing per se, Noah not 
Bucer.  in the use of it. Script. Anglican fol. 79. Hoopero.  
These garments are not impure of themselves speaking also of their use. idem in his Epistle to Io. Alasco.  
In the English lethargy there is nulla manifesta impietas. Epist 
Caluin. P. Martyr.  200. fol. 336. Per se sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; these garments are of themselves indifferent. Loc. come. fol. 1085. amico cuidam.  
The use of them not impious or pernicious per sese, aut sua natura verbo dei contrariae. ibidem. 1086. Hoopero.  
These garments are not per se impiae impious of themselves, that a Minister should rather leave his Ministry then 
Beza.  use them. Epist. 12. fol 98. I grant them to be indifferent, being considered in themselves.  
It is adiaphoron natura, in the use a matter indifferent in nature. Enchirid. Tit. 1. de Adiaph. Clas. 3. cap. 16. 
Hemingius.  fol. 375.  
It is liberum per se, a free matter of itself to use or not 
Zanchius.  to use. de redempt. lib. 1. cap. 16. fol. 445. yea magis deceret vestis linea quam lanea.  
It is an indifferent thing. Lo. 33. Quaest 13. fol. 382. 
Bucan.   
It is a thing indifferent in use, in Ezech. cap. 44. fol. 807. 
Polanus.   
The surplice in the own nature indifferent, meaning 
Cartwright  in the use, for he persuaded to the use, in the case of deprivation. Rest. of the second reply. fol. 262.  
Thus also judged they of the Cross in Baptism, and of kneeling at Communion, & the rest, which afterward shallbe alleged. The reasons proving this point are these.  
Because they are neither expressly Commanded nor forbidden of God. Bucanus ubi superius, this rule also of a thing indifferent hath Polanus Syntag. lib. 6. cap. 38. fol. 3036. Paraeus Colleg. 2. cap. 31. sect. 15. fol. 274. Illyricus clave Scripture. fol. 22. part. 1. Adiap. And are distinguished from things simply good, which are expressly Commanded, from things simply evil which are expressly forbidden of God, being in their nature neither morrally good or evil, neither Commanded nor forbidden of God, and by accident may be both good and evil. Exerc. part inter. Thes. fol. 826.  
Objection. Beza contra Saraviam cap. 25. fol. 200. saith indifferent things I call which are neither expressly nor secretly Commanded, nor forbidden by the word, neither maketh us the better being used, nor the worse if we use them not. But our ceremonies are forbidden in the word in general, and in particular in our use. Ergo.  
Answer. So may be said of the jewish ceremonies rather then of ours: both they and these are in nature indifferent not impious, and in the case of deprivation or necessity are not forbidden any way, but commanded rather: because we must use indifferent things for the furtherance of the Church's edification, and not refuse them, (though they seem to us inconvenient,) to the Church's destruction; And as for Beza with all other sound writers, that are of other minds concerning our ceremonies they hold them in their nature indifferent, and not forbidden in the word, especially in our use, and in the case of simple necessity.  
2 Because in some cases a man may use them and not sin: which, a thing in nature evil, he can never use, but he shall incuitably sin: of this nature are Idolatry, adultery, blasphemy, perjury: which sins no circumstance can ever amend. Beza count Saravi. cap. 25. fol. 199. Indifferentia sunt, quorum usus modo bonus, modo illicitus prout viz bene vel male illis utitur, quae naturam habeant neque ad bonum neque ad malum determinatam.  
3 Because in some respects, and in some use they may be good: a thing in nature evil, can never be put to any profitable use: Peter Martyr saith, Adiaphoris bene vel male uti possumus: L. Clas. 4. cap. 4. fol. 707.  
4 Because in some respects and in the same use they may be good and necessary, as the jewish rites were in the Apostles practise.  
5 Because they are of the same nature with the jewish rites, practised by the Apostles. Of this opinion is Peter Martyr Loc: cum. inter Epist. fol. 1087. Zanchius in Philip. 1. fol. 45. Polanus in Ezech. 44. fol. 807. which ceremonies by the stream of all sound writers are holden as indifferent in nature in the case wherein they used them.  
6 Because a man using them all the days of his life, as they are prescribed in our Church, and that without repentance, for such use of them, may still remain a godly and good man, and presupposing him otherwise to walk in holiness, may in that estate be saved, whereas one sin in nature, as to live in fornication, 1. Cor. 6. 9 10. Being continued in especially if it should be pleaded for, and defended, Mat. 5. 9 Cannot stand with his salvation. So Bucer. script. Anglican. 1458. Martyr inter Episto. fol. 1085. Amico cuidam. Aretius saith that indifferent things are such as are in equal respect to good and to bad, Prob. cap. 83. de Adiaph. fol. 266.  
7 Because if they were in nature evil, a godly person could not communicate with a good conscience with our Church (which doth prescribe and practise them, and removeth them not being admonished) neither in the Ministry or any worship of God. Bucer Epist. Io. Alasco. Martyr. fol 1086. Hoopero.  
8 Because all such as have continued in the use of them, and defended, the same might be judged impious and wicked, such as are the Martyrs and other worthy persons of our Church, and other Churches also: yea the Apostles and all faithful teachers and Churches since their time should be condemned; yea it might be taught as a doctrine, that such as use them with continuance, or maintaining them, could not be saved, which I suppose none of the Ministers which are deprived will justify, Martyr. fol. 1086. Hoopero.  
Simply evil may be taken for any thing particularly forbidden of God, or the omission of a thing particularly commanded of God: sundry things of which kind, though in themselves considered are evil, may be done lawfully for a superior good, and in that case do leave to be simply evil, as to do seville labour on the Sabbaoth day, to eat such bread as God had forbidden to the persons which did eat thereof, to come, or admit comers in a legal unsanctified estate to the Sacraments, and the like, which shall be after mentioned more fully: therefore to this purpose I distinguish of evil (as before) which may be two ways considered: either for that which is intrinsically, formally, and in the nature thereof evil, not only because God hath forbidden it, or commanded the contrary, which kind of evil is immutabiliter malum, as murder, perjury, adultery, etc. Being against the immutability of God's nature, no circumstance can make them good, though by circumstances they may be lessened or made greater: of this nature our Ceremonies are not, neither can they be evils of this kind; or else evil is taken for that, which being indifferent in nature, yet by accident is evil, namely in use, when offence will be taken thereat, by divers persons in divers respects, or rather inconveniences will arise, which were evil therefore to use, if it lay in man's power to refuse them: Again, for that which being particularly forbidden of God in his Word, is therefore unlawful to do.  
The evil of both which latter kind may by circumstances be amended, and the practice thereof may leave to be a sin, namely in a case of superior reason, when a duty of greater band doth tie the conscience; which that it may be the better manifested, we may observe two points.  
First the degrees; Secondly, the subordination of duties commanded in the Law of God. Consider first, that there are degrees of duties of both Tables of the Law, which appeareth in reason: for there are duties substantial, and duties circumstantial. Substantial duties are both internal of the first Table, as love, knowledge, fear, and confidence in God: of the second Table, as love, reverence, patience, kindness, compassion, justice, etc. Substantial external also of the first Table, standeth in the main worships of invocation, preaching, and hearing of the Word, receiving of the Scraments, lawful swearing, etc. Of the second Table, as outward reverence, obedience, help, and tribute to superiors, kindness and thankfulness showed to equals, alms, reward, correction, and instruction to inferiors: The circumstantial duties of either Table are external circumstances, actions, or Ceremonies, for the more orderly, fit, and decent performance of the substantials: as observation of fit time, as either night or day, and this or that hour, in either place public or private, site of body, as sitting, standing, kneeling, high or low, singing, saying, and the like. The which degrees, and differences of duties are thus distinguished unto us by the holy Ghost himself, who hath taught us to sever the love of God, a substantial of the first Table, and judgement, mercy, fidelity, substantials of the second Table, from the tithing of mint, cummin, annisse, rue, and all manner of herbs, a ceremonial Law, which yet was a duty being commanded, and must be done, calling the one sort of duties, the weightier matters of the Law, Matthew 12. 23. Luk. 11. 43. separating them by that title, from the other which must be less weighty, or (as they called) the lesser commandment, Matthew 25. 19 Calling the one mercy, the other sacrifice, Matthew 12. 7. the one, the knowledge of God, the other burnt offerings, Hosea 6. 6. the one God's kingdom, the other not so, Rom. 14. 17. between the which he teacheth us to put as much difference, as between a Camel, and a Gnat, Matth. 23. 23. 24. himself accepting the former without the latter, Mark 16. 15. 16. but not the latter without the former: tying the promise of salvation simply to the greatest, but not to the inferior without the greater. Consider that there is a subordination of these duties of the Law (whereof there are these forenamed degrees) as namely, that the greater duties, such as have in them greatest reason and band, do tie the conscience, do overrule the lesser, and command obedience with the neglect of the other for that present, when they meet together. So as the neglect of the lesser leaveth to be a sin, for the performance of the greater: as the neglect of obeisance to a noble man, or inferior person is no offence in presence of a King: and this subordination is general to all the duties of the Law, except the supremest of all other, than which there is none higher; as the highest duties unto God, fear, love, confidence, repentance, which must never be commanded & overruled by other duties inferior, whatsoever they be: and the reason is, because the supremacy of God, and the immediate proximity between these duties and God: which also in respect of the immutable nature, & attributes of God, which must leave to be God, and deny his titles of justice, of mercy, goodness, truth, etc. if he should dispense with them. Now the truth of this subordination I will in order manifest in 4. propositions following.  
First, the substantial duties of the first Table, do overrule 
Propos. 1.  the substantials of the second Table. Love of Christ (a substantial of the first Table) overruleth the love of parents, of wife, children, friends, brethren, substantials of the second Table, Matthew 10. 37. yea so far must the one yield unto the other, that for the loves sake of Christ, the love of parents must be turned into hate, Luke 14. 26. 33. and tokens thereof, Deut. 13. 6. 7. 8. 9, 13, Psalm 139. 21. 22. 2. Chronicles 19 2. Obedience to good meeting, the obedience to the Magistrate overruleth it, Acts 4. 19 and 15. 29. This was the case of the three children, of Daniel praying, and of the jews refusing Swine's flesh: who disobeyed the Magistrate to obey GOD, and neglected life, a substantial of the second Table, to profess GOD'S truth, and to refuse Idolatry, substantials of the first Table.  
Secondly, The substantials of the second Table, do overrule the ceremonials of the first Table: so to sustain nature in providing and eating corporal food, meeting with the strict ceremonial rest of the jewish Sabbaoth, the one a substantial of the second Table, the other a ceremonial appendix to the first Table, the former overrules the latter: in which case GOD saith, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, Matthew 12. 47. Also works of necessity, implying servile labour, as the carrying whom of a bed, john 5. 8. 9, 10, mercy to a man sick and diseased, Matthew 12. 10. 12, 13, Luke 13. 14. 15, 16, mercy to a beast to save his life, Matthew 12. 11. 12, to give him necessaries, Luke 14. 5. 6, and 13, 15, meeting at the same time with a ceremonial observation of the Sabbaoth, though commanded in the Law, and a duty, Exodus 20. 10. and 31, 15, 16, and 35. 3. The former overrules the latter, by the reason yielded by our Saviour, That the Sabbaoth was made for man, and not man for the Sabbaoth, Mark. 2. 27, and it is lawful (though violating ceremonial rest) to do morrally well upon the Sabbaoth, Matthew 12. 12, for in these cases God will have mercy and not sacrifice.  
Thirdly, the substantials of the second table, of greater reason do overule the substantials of the second table of lesser reason. Thus it is a duty of Magistrates to put wilful murderers to death Gen. 9 6. Exo. 21. 12. 14. Levit. 24. 17. Deut. 19 11. 12. 13. Num. 35. 16, without recompense or dispensation, Numb. 35. 31. 32. the not executing of which law draweth on the whole land, the heavy plagues of God, Numb. 35. 33. Deut. 21. 8. 9 And this was a substantial duty of the second table, yet this duty is over ruled by a case of necessity: for the safety of the policy of the kingdom and state of the Church, (so joab the wilful murderer of Abner, 2. Sam. 3. 27. of Amasa, 2. Sam. 12. 10. and that in the time of peace, 1. Kin. 2. 5. and of Vriah, 2. Sa. 11. 16. 17. is suffered to live all the time of King David, viz. because he was (being Captain of the host) too hard for him, 2. Sam. 3. 39 which implied the safety of himself, and of all the whole state, which was a substantial of the second table, of greater reason than the other: neither is David reproved, or the land plagued for this thing: neither was it repent, because it was no sin in him, to pass by lesser work commanded for the performance, of a work of greater reason. Again it is a breach of a substantial duty of the second table, Exo. 10. 14. and even of the law of nature, for ab initio non fuit sic, Mar. 10. 6. 7. 8. 9 Math. 19 8. for the magistrate or the Church, Mat. 19 3. 4. 8. Mar. 10. 6. 7. 8. 9 to command, Deut. 24. 1. 2. Mar. 10. 3. 5. Mat. 19 7. or to permit Matth. 19 8. husbands to put away their wives for every cause, Matth. 19 3. as namely for some filthiness espied in them, Deut. 24. 1. yet this did Moses to prevent the breach of an higher precept: namely many grievious inconveniences in the whole policy of the jews, arising from the obstinacy and cruelty of an obdurate people, such as were the jews. In which respect, Moses is not reproved for this thing by our Saviour Christ, and that from the reason, for which Moses did permit this inconvenient precept, which was the hardness of the jewish nations heart, Matth. 19 8. Mark 10. 5. Also it is not lawful, for it is not good, to cast away the good creatures of God, which may serve for the life of man, but they must be preserved that nothing be lost, Matthew 15. 26. john 6. 12. 13. yet in a case of necessity to preserve life, and prevent violent death, a substantial of the second table of greater reason, Paul and the rest of his company which were in the Ship, with him in danger of Shipwreck, did lawfully cast with their own hands the tackling, and the wheat out of the Ship into the Sea, where it was spoiled and destroyed. Acts 27. 19 38.  
Fourthly and lastly, the substantials of the first table, do overrule the ceremonials of the first table, which includeth the case in question. It was unlawful in the law for the Priests to admit, or for the people to come unto the Sacraments, otherwise then as it was written, though the failing was but a ceremonial matter: yet so did the people come, and the Priests admit the people in the time of Hezekias, that the substantial worship of God in the Passeover should not be hindered: In which respect God laid not the breach of duty to the charge of such as sought God in that Sacraments with their whole heart, 2. Chron. 33. 18. 19 20. likewise the substantial worships of God, requiring pains and labour of body, such as the sacrifice of the law, and other business to be done upon the Sabbath, meeting the precept of bodily rest upon the Sabbath, by which practice the Sabbath in respect of the rest is broken, Mat. 5. 12. yet in respect of performance of the superior and substantial worships, they were blameless for breaking the Sabbath in the ceremonial rest thereof. The unlawfulness of jewish Ceremonies, in many respects hath before appeared: whereby was violated a ceremonial circumstantial duty of the first Table: which yet the Apostles we see did practise to further the substantials thereof, namely the liberty of the Gospel, and edification, and peace of the Church of God. By all which instances we may see this conclusion proved: A matter evil by itself alone considered, leaveth to be evil when a superior duty cometh in place to overrule it, whereby we may infer, that admitting the Ceremonies prescribed to be evil in some sense, yet in performance of a superior work, as to continue in preaching of the work they leave to be a sin. Because the duty of refusing of such like Ceremonies, is a subordinate duty to the practising of the word by preaching, the one being a duty circumstantial, the other an external duty substantial.  
Objection. To conform to these Ceremonies prescribed, is the violation of a negative precept, now negative precepts do bind ad semper, and as Master Perkins saith, (Golden Chain. cap. 19) they bind at all times, and to all times: The affirmative bindeth at all times but not to all times: A negative is broken by acting or doing a thing forbidden: an affirmative is broken by omitting some duty positively commanded, as for example; I may for a time omit preaching or prayer, I am not bound continually to use them, but have hours of omission: But no sin of adultery, bowing to an idol, murder, swearing, profaning of the Sabbath, so neither of conforming to forbidden Ceremonies. The negatives are these; Thou shalt not make to thyself any similitudes, Exodus 20. 4. give no offence to the Church 1. Cor. 10. 32. use not the fashions of idolaters, Levit. 19 27. 28. wherefore we may not neglect the refusing of Ceremonies to redeem our duty of preaching.  
Answer. 1 This rule is not rightly conceived, for Master Perkins saith not, that all negatives do always bind, and in all cases, so that in no case, they may at any time be violated, but only addeth, that negatives are of more force than affirmatives, which indeed is true.  
Also this rule is not generally true: for these precepts were negative, which yet were violated, none but Priests must eat showbread bread: let none of the people eat thereof [not lawful but only for Priests, Matth. 12. 4.] yet David did lawfully violate it, and they that were with him out of standing reason, I will have mercy not sacrifice, Matthew 12. 7. thou shalt do no work, Exodus 20. 10. yet the Priests broke this and are blameless: the Apostles violate it and are innocent by the former reason, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, Matthew 12. 1. 2. 5. 7. In the the like case men do lawfully feed and save the life of their cattle, Mat. 12. 11. 12. Lu. 14. 5. 6. and 13. 15. servile labour is used as carrying of a bead, joh. 5. 8. 9 10. cast not bread to whelps, Matth. 15. 26. let nothing of God's good creatures be lost, joh. 6. 12. 13. yet Paul and his company do lawfully cast away the goods in the Ship, to save their lives, Acts 27. 19 38. Let no murderer live▪ let not thine eye spare a man hating and killing his neighbour, Deut. 19 11. 12. 13. Num. 35. 30. 31. 32. 33. yet David suffered joab the murderer of Amasa, Abner, Vriah all his days, upon this ground he was to hard for David, 2. Samuel 3. 39 till after his death, 1. Kings 2. 5. 6. neither was David reproved, or the land plagued as it was threatened, Numb. 35. 33. Deut. 21. thou shalt not kill, Exodus 20. 13. no not in heart or intention, Matthew 5. 21. 22. yet Abraham sinned not, but is commended and rewarded of God, for purposing and settling himself to kill his only son, Genesis 22. 11. 16. grant no divorce between man and wife for every cause, not for light cause, Ab initio non fuit sic. Matthew 19 8. yet Moses is not blamed for permitting or commanding such a bill, Matthew 19 8. Deut. 24. 1. 2. but is justified, because he did it for the hardness of their hearts, Matthew 19 8. Mark 10. 5. Let none be uncircumcised after eight days, Genesis 8. 11. 12. 13. yet for forty years there was not one circumcised, Ios. 5. 5. 6. 7. 9 let none legally unsanctified be admitted to the Passeover, 2. Chron. 30. 18. Matth. 7. 6. yet in case of necessity some were admitted and approved of God, being internally sanctified, 2. Chro. 30. 19 20. hate not father, mother, brother, sister, wife, life, Exodus. 21. 17. Pro. 20. 20. yet when Christ calleth us to show our love to him, and that the love of these will not stand with our love to Christ, we must hate them indeed, and testify it by our outward practice, Luke 14. 26. 33. Deut. 13. 6. 7. 8. 9 2. Chro. 15. 16. for the better explication of this rule, and to see how far it holdeth, and how smally it concerns our case, I say first, that this rule holds in the duties of the first table, which forbides sin which by no circumstance can be amended, but are formally evil, and in nature, and opposite to the purity and immutability of God's nature, as in these, Have none other gods, Commit not Idolatry, Take not God's name in vain. There is no time, or occasion, or duty superior, wherein a man may violate the precepts, they are sempiternally, and irrevocably inviolable, without exception. Duties also of the second table, as resist not the Magistrate Rom. 13. 2. despise not thy parents. Prou. 23. 22. commit not murder, commit not adultery, steal not, bear not false witness, covet not, neither may these duties in any case be, or for any superior reason violated: neither have they been heretofore broken, but only in a case of exception, and that is of God's special command. For in this case the common rule holdeth: That a particular command of God unto one person or more over rules a general; In which case the substantial negatives of the second table, do yield to the substantial affirmatives of the first, as being all subordinate to the love of God: As the particular command of God to Abraham, to kill and offer his son Isaac, Gen. 22. 10. 12. overrules the general command of God, Thou shalt do no murder: and in Abraham it was no murder, notwithstanding that command which else had been. The particular command of God to jehu, if not jeroboam, 1. Kin. 11. 35, 37, 38, and 12. 24. to smite the house of Ahab his master, the Queen, and the blood royal. 2. Kin. 9 6, 7, 9, 10, & 10, 15, 16, 17, 30. which else had been utterly unlawful for him to do. So Gods particular command unto the Israelites to borrow that of the Egyptians, which they never paid and so spoiling them, Ex. 3. 22, and 11. 2. and 12. 35. overswayed the general command, Thou shalt not steal, which else had been theft in them. Also the particular command of God unto the Prophet Ezechiel not to mourn for his dead and most dear wife, Eze. 24. 15, 16, 17, 18. which else had been argued want of natural affection. I will not give instance of God's particular command to Hosea, cap. 1. 2. to marry a wife of fornications, because the place is otherwise interpreted by the best judgements, as Zanchius, Drusius, junius, Paraeus, item. Eman. Sad. in hunc locum, though others understand it otherwise, that is literally. The like is of the Lord particular command of smiting the Prophet, 1. King. 20. 35, 36, 37. In which case it was no sin to smite and wound the innocent Prophet, and it was a good work of obedience to smite him, which without the particular command of God, had been a sin. Secondly, this rule holds, excepting in a case of simple necessity: In which respect, it was lawful for Paul to cast the wheat into the Sea, though otherwise it were not good to do it, Mat. 15. 26. and for David to spare joab the murderer, in a case of necessity, because he was too hard for him: also Moses command for permission of divorce, is hereby justified, for the hardness of the jews hearts, a case of necessity: Also the Apostles prescribing and practising the jewish Ceremonies was unlawful, but in a case of necessity: of like nature, is David's eating the showbread, the Apostles rubbing of the ears of Corn: under this kind cometh the lawful use of all indifferent scandalous things, overruled by necessity: and so is the conformity unto the Ceremonies prescribed, made lawful, for all the negative prohibitions, whether one or other in this case of necessity. Thirdly, this rule holdeth also in matters circumstantial and ceremonial, excepting when a superior duty meets with them, to overrule them: of this kind is the case of David's eathing showbread, and the Apostles practising and prescribing jewish Ceremonies, for the Church's peace and furtherance of the Gospel: which had not else been lawful to have done, and here is also an image of our case. Here it is demanded, whether an affimative substantial of the first table, meeting with a negative circumstantial of the first table, the former doth overrule the latter? I answer yea: For such were the former cases of David's eating the showbread, of the Apostles practise of Mosaical Ceremonies, and the like. By this also we have an answer against the objection; That we may lawfully omit good, to do some superior duty, or to omit good for a time, to prevent a mischief of sin, or harm to others or ourselves: as to conceal a truth to save one's life, or to omit preaching, to quench an house on fire. But we may not commit an evil, to purchase or procure any good. Which objection is both untrue, for David's eating showbread, the Apostles practising of jewish, scandalous, and hurtful Ceremonies, and the like instances before rehearsed, were matters of commission, not of omission, and beside, this objection is incident into the former: For omission is of duties affirmative, and commission is against duties negative.  
Object. These Ceremonies are against the second Commandment, which forbiddeth human inventions in God's worship, significative Ceremonies, abused to superstition, by idolaters, and apt to be abused by us also, which commandeth us all possible purity and simplicity, in the worships of God; Ergo our Ceremonies are unlawful, simply, and in nature evil, as being idolatrous, and may not be practised.  
Answ. This objection is not well urged by any as yet, that I know, because it is urged confusedly, and distinguisheth not of the parts of this commandment, neither declareth the degrees of the duties commanded, or of the sin committed against this command, that so the reason might be evident, why, and how far these Ceremonies are against the second Commandment. But I answer, though a man should admit the antecedent, that these Ceremonies in these respects are against the second commandment, yet it followeth not, therefore we may not use them to prevent deprivation, or to redeem the liberty of the Gospel; and the reason is, that as the reason of the refusing of such Ceremonies as ours are, be commanded, so also is the preaching of the Word commanded in the second Commandment: the former as a circumstantial duty, to which all Ceremonies are as a lesser work to a greater. The lesser may not command or overrule a greater: if it be said these Ceremonies are Species idoloatriae kinds or degrees of idolatry: I answer, that admit it were so, yet it is such aspecies, as the wearing of some apparel a little too fine (yet not being evil in itself) or the smile of the wife of another man, a little too familiar, without evil intention may be aspecies, or gradus of adultery, that is of the least degree thereof, quatenus, it may be an occasion, and accidental means of scandal in some, and uncleanenessein others, which is far from making a divorce, or so much as stirring indignation in the husband: But if we would make a parallel and equal cause, between that case and ours, it must be thus, namely, in a case of necessity, that a man must either go naked, and so impair his health, or endanger his life, and go after an unseemly fashion, or else he must wear some inconvenient apparel, in the wearing whereof, some good minds will be offended with him in the use, others will take it as an occasion by the fashion, to be unlawfully enamoured with his person, and so may be an occasion to draw them to actual adultery in thought, desire, entreaty, or attempt: suppose also, that other men do use the same fashion or fineness to pride, and intention of adultery, take away the necessity, and I confess, even the least occasion of these scandals were unlawful: but with the necessity, it leaveth to be a sin in the wearing thereof, because a greater duty comes in place: nay it were a sin to neglect health, by leaving the apparel; and compare this case with ours, it may as well be say the to be adultery, as this idolatry, it being a violation of a negative precept as well as this is supposed to be, for all the occasions of the sin, are forbidden with the sin, that a sin of commission as well as this is conceived to be, and the redeeming of preaching the Word, the means of man's life spiritual and celestial, may be paralled, and put in balance, with the redeeming of our health, and natural life, in comparison of the other: other comparisons may be made out of other precepts, but this sufficeth. Secondly, This Objection doth inevitably accuse the Apostles of idolatry in prescribing and practising Ceremonies scandalous, significant, abused, and apt to be abased to superstition, and in many other respects in convenient: yea, what Church in the world shall escape censure, for prescribing and practising Ceremonies of the like nature, which ever in the purest Churches have been used more or less? yea if this hold, how can any manjoine to the Church of England, or to any primitive or reformed Church of any age; seeing by this they may all be said to be Churches, practising and maintaining of idolatry, and so idolatrous Churches? How can any deprived Minister communicate in any assembly in England, where kneeling at the Communion is, if kneeling at Communion be idolatry, albeit he sit himself, seeing he communicateth with an idolatrous Church, and with a company of idolaters? and so must needs be driven to separate from England, with the Brownists, and from all the most and best reformed Churches, primitive and latter? For we must come out from idolaters and touch no unclean thing, 2. Cor. 6. 17. Rom. 18. 4. By which reason also our Saviour Christ himself, his Mother, his Apostles, & all the faithful of those times, could not escape the guilt of a sin, for communicating with the Word, Sacraments, invocation, and Ministry of such a Church, as proposed some Ceremonies of mere human invention, as the worships of God, and necessary to salvation, Mat. 5. 8. 9 Lastly it takes away salvation from the Apostles, the Martyrs, and all faithful teachers which communicate with such like ceremonies, both because idolaters shall never enter, 1. Cor. 6. 11. Gal. 5. 19 20. 21. Reu. 21. 8. as also because presupposing it to be a breach of the lowest degree thereof: yet breakers of the least commandment, and teaching so cannot be saved. Mat. 5. 19  
Object. Admitting the ceremonies of our Church to be indifferent, yet we may not by the use of any indifferent thing offend or scandalise our brethren, rather we must never use it. 1. Cor. 8. 9 12. 13. & 10. 28. Rom. 14. 15. 16. 21.  
Answ. True, we may not use any indifferent thing, by which our weak brother is offended, if the not using or using thereof be voluntary & within our power, as that indifferent thing seemeth not to be, the use whereof is commanded by a Magistrate, or public law: whom therefore we must obey whosoever be offended, and the offence that any doth take in this case, is Scandalum acceptum, non datum.  
A Magistrate only commands my outward man, and inflictes an outward penalty, whom albeit I am commanded to obey, and that of conscience in a thing indifferent: yet if I disobey him not of purpose or contempt, but with a conscionable and charitable respect of not offending weak or godly Christians, that so I may not destroy my brother, Ro. 14. 15. 20. 1. Cor. 8. 10. 11. neither wound his conscience, neither sin against Christ▪ 1. Cor. 8. 12. I do not sin against God, but am only liable to the penalty enjoined, my conscience is not herein touched before God, because I respect and follow a greater duty. 2. A Magistrate cannot command me to use a thing, whereby either purposely, or by accident I shall offend my weak brother, & sin against Christ 1. Chro. 8. 12. though he should, yet God commands me to avoid it, and tells me it is a sin against Christ, 1. Cor. 8. 1●. a superior command and of superior reason, better obey God then man.  
Answ. All this is in some sense true, howbeit all this holdeth only in case of outward and civil penalty, where I ought to bear some corporal pain, or external loss, to violate the magistrates command, in not offending the godly weak brother. But it holdeth not in a case of spiritual, public & general penalty, as of deprivation of the ministry, which to avoid by using a thing indifferent is a duty of superior reason, then by not using a thing indifferent to give offence, where (in that case) it should not be broken, which appeareth two ways. First by the greatness of in convenience; for it is ten times more in convenient by not using of the ceremonies (things indifferent in nature to suffer deprivation of ministry, the Gospel to be hindered & suppressed the whole Church, & visible kingdom of Christ to be utterly dissolved and dissipated, then by using them to redeem these benefits, to offend some few, who in this case should not be offended, and that they are is merely their sin. Secondly, by the proportion of offence and scandal. For the Papist & Atheist will much more triumph and rejoice, and a Godly Christian will much more grieve & be troubled, to see a worthy, painful, and profitable minister be deprived and silenced, then to wear a surplice & use some few ceremonies, the one being a small in convenience, but the other a deadly mischief to the Church of Christ, & so much of the second argument of the first reason.  
Argum. 3 Now followeth the third proving, That to suffer deprivation for the refusing to conform to the prescribed ceremonies, is contrary to God's word, and therefore a sin; because it is contrary to a second ground of God's word, namely the royal law of love: for the further evidencing of this reaso, there are two points to be considered and proved. First that to do any thing that is contrary to the law of love, is contrary to the word of God. Secondly to refuse conformity to the prescribed ceremonies in case of deprivation, is contrary to the law of love. The first point is of itself clear enough without any further proof, howbeit it appeareth by these reasons, that namely it is contray to God's word to do any thing contrary to the law of love. First because if love be the fulfilling of the law, Ro. 13. 8. 12. then the violation of this law, is the violation of the law of God, which is a sin. 1. cor. 16. 14. all our things must be done in love. Secondly because of the fulfilling of the law of love, according to the scrip. by well doing; for the Apost saith, If ye fulfil it ye do well, jam. 2. 10. then the violation of the law is evil doing, which is sin. Thirdly because the violation of the law of love is a breach of the end of the commandment, 1. Tim. 1. 5. 6. which is a sin. Fourthly because the violation of the law of love is a breach of the law of love to God, Io. 3. 17. & 4. 20. 21. & 5. 1. therefore a sin. Fiftly Because the violation hereof putteth out the infallible and true badge in us of being true christians, * 
joh. ●3 35. 1. joh. 4. 7. & 13. 10. 19  which is a sin. Sixtly because the violation of this law putteth out the internal assurance of regeneration, & of being the children of God, * & that we be translated from death to life, which is a sin.  
The second point is also proved thus, namely, That to incur and suffer deprivation for refusing to conform, 
2 Point.  is contrary to the royal law of love. The reasons are these;  
Reason. 1 First, because this doctrine and practice is a great enemy to man's salvation, which is a breach of this law of love in the highest degree. Rom. 14. 15. This appeareth, because it doth by abstaining from a thing in nature indifferent (such as our ceremonies are proved to be) needlessly deprive him of the ordinary means of his salvation, which is the preaching ministry of the word of God, and of the Sacraments. For as things do stand, all such as do not conform unto the ceremonies, are to be deprived without exception.  
Object. A man may have the ministry of others, though some be deprived.  
Answ. Surely very hardly: For where almost in any place many thousands of persons fearing God, in this land, enjoy a preaching minister, having lost their faithful teachers by this doctrine of suffering deprivation for refusing conformity to our ceremonies, which have no teachers neerethem in a great compass, and are tied by necessity of outward means that they cannot remove their dwelling, where they may enjoy this ordinary means of their salvation. Secondly this objection is nothing to the point in hand: for in that some preachers remain for the comfort of God's people, is God's extraordinary blessing and grace, of whose mercy it is, that we are not consumed, because his compassion fails not. Howbeit this is no thank to this doctrine of suffering deprivation for indifferent ceremonies, which if it might prevail according to their mind, would leave no preacher in England at this hour, but sweep them all away at once, which I thus manifest. First our Sovereign King and the Ecclesiastical governors under him with the whole state (as appeareth by the Statutes yet in force) do remain resolved and unremooved to maintain the practice of ceremonies prescribed indifferent, and that it is not a convenient thing, neither yet safe, neither standing with the credit of the Church, or commonwealth, to remove these things, which they hold to have been at first with mature advice established; and this resolution of theirs, experience in the loss of many worthy preachers hath taught us. Secondly, the doctrine of suffering deprivation for inconvenient ceremonies, if it be truth, as they suppose it be, who have been for that cause deprived, doth tie all Ministers alike, so that if it tie the conscience of one, it toeth also the conscience of another, yea of a thousand besides, not one excepted. Wherefore no man (if we presuppose the state of things to remain as they do) may by that doctrine without sin, conform to redeem his Ministry, not only at this time, but not in any posterity hereafter: and so this doctrine doth universally deprive all places of this Land at all times (things standing as they do) of the ordinary means of their salvation, which is the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments.  
Object. God blesseth the private means of private reading, catechizing, instruction, reproof, comfort, exhortation, and invocation, in the absence of the public.  
Answ. True unto such persons, as are not cause of depriving themselves needlessly of the public means: in which case I know God accepteth a man according to that he hath, and not according to that he hath not. But what is that to the Ministers, that do not on just cause, but needlessly suffer deprivation for refusing to conform? whereby it seemeth that they incur the danger of two mischiefs. One by needlessly suffering the light of God's public ordinance to be quenched, they create to themselves just fear that he will not bless their private means to them, being guilty of the needless leaving of the public. The other, that they may also fear lest they have done (though in ignorance & purpose of well doing) as much as in them lay, needlessly to destroy the flock committed to their charge, by denying further instruction to them, and public ordinary means of their salvation, which they might have with good conscience continued in, to the comfort & conversion of many a soul.  
Object. We must so love our neighbour, as that we must love Christ above our dearest friends, Matth. 10. 37. Luk. 14. 26. Secondly, love rejoiceth in the truth, not in iniquity, 1. Cor. 13. 6. Thirdly, we must so love our neighbour, as that we offend not God, by breaking his will. Fourthly, we must so love our neighbour, as that we offend not God, by violating a good conscience, and breaking our peace, Heb. 13. 18. Fifthly, we must not do evil, that good may come thereof: wherefore we must not use the ceremonies, though we suffer deprivation, and by this practice we break not the law of love, but keep it.  
Answ. First we love Christ, when we keep his Commandments, joh. 14. 21. 24. who hath commanded his Ministers to preach his Word to the world's end, Matt. 28. 19 20. he breaketh not Christ's commandment, that doth practise indifferent ceremonies, though in some respects accidentally inconvenient, to redeem the fulfilling of his greater duty of teaching the Gospel to the flock, which is a great argument of our love to him, joh. 21. 15. 16. 17. Secondly, the truth is this, wherein true love rejoiceth, that for tender love unto the sheep of Christ, that Ministers must conform and practise even inconvenient ceremonies, that the Gospel may have a free passage, which truth is proved, Act. 16. 1. 3. & 15. 28. 29. & 21. 23. 24. 25. 26. Thirdly, we break the will of God, if we neglect the preaching of God's Word, 2. Tim. 4. 2. but upon just cause, and draw the heavy woe upon us, 1. Cor. 9 16. Fourthly, what good conscience may a man have by breaking a greater duty, to perform a lesser? by committing a greater sin, to avoid that which in this case leaveth to be a sin? to make conscience of that, where none in this case is to be made, and to make no conscience of that, where great conscience is to be made, namely of continuing to feed the flock committed to their charge. Fifthly, this objection is answered before, and holds in matters evil only by nature, not in things indifferent of nature, and in use only inconvenient.  
Reas. 2 Because the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation for inconvenient ceremonies, is a great enemy to the edification of the Church, which is a special property and effect of love: for love edifieth, Ephes. 4. 16. 1. Cor. 8. 1. For by inevitable consequence, it overthroweth all the Churches and ministry of Christ in England, yea all the reformed churches 
Zanch. in Phil. 1. fol. 45. b. Read the Question.  of Christendom at this hour yea all Churches since Christ and his Apostles. Wherefore this doctrine and practice is opposite unto the law of love. The inevitable overthrow, dissipation, and destruction of all Churches by this doctrine and practice, appeareth by this that followeth. First we must consider this, that no Church since the Apostles time, but hath practised inconvenient Ceremonies in some respect: neither is there any true reformed Church at this hour in the Christian world, German, Danish, Bohem, Helvetian, Dutch, or French, which doth not practise some inconvenient ceremonies: some of them do practise far more than ours, and more liable to exception; all which is made evident in Argument the fourth. Yea, the Apostolical Churches did practise inconvenient ceremonies & that by the Apostles command, and that as things good and necessary for the Church, Act. 15. 28. 29. Secondly, it therefore followeth by this doctrine of suffering deprivation for inconvenient ceremonies, that all the Ministers of England, yea of all Christendom, must necessarily suffer deprivation for refusing their inconvenient ceremonies (seeing all Churches do strictly tie their Ministers to the practice of their ceremonies:) yea the Apostles by this doctrine did very ill, and committed sin to persuade others to conform to inconvenient ceremonies, Act. 21. 23. 24. yea to command them to conform to them, as good and necessary in that case, Acts 15. 28. 29. Yea to practise this conformity on themselves, Act. 21. 26. Yea and on others also, Acts 16. 1. 3. Yea, they should rather have suffered their Apostleship to have been forfeited, and left the preaching of the Gospel to have been suppressed, the Churches of Christ to have been dissolved and desolated, then to have yielded to this conformity of inconvenient ceremonies. But to admit of this is apparently absurd: wherefore the reason follows and remains in force.  
Reas. 3 Because this doctrine and practice doth needlessly, on no ground or just cause, breed or produce sundry scandals and offences against divers sorts of persons, which is against the law of love, as appeareth. First, it is the occasion of fraternal discord, moving the Ministers to ●udge and account of the reverend Bishops, as of Antichristian, and tyrannous Prelates, and the Bishops to esteem of them, as of pernicious and unsufferable schismatics. This disturbeth the Church's peace, maketh the common enemy insult and blaspheme the Gospel, at our mutual discords, and devoureth our own strength, by biting one another, and is Ergo against the law of love, 1. Thess. 5. 13. Galat. 5. 13. 14. 15. Rom. 12. 8. Whereas if in the case of deprivation, the Ministers did peaceably conform, this scandal would be cut off, or exceedingly made less and mitigated: of which sin the authors and accessaries are guilty before God. Secondly, it two fold more scandalizeth the Papist, then conformity: for he doth far more rejoice and insult to see a godly Minister thrust out, and with him all the truth of the Gospel, fervently and continually pressed (the greatest enemy to Popery that can be) then to see him wear a Surplice in the face of our Church, with his mouth opened, and stomach enlarged against Antichrist, and his superstitions, and will worships. Thirdly, it two fold more scandalizeth the Atheist, and carnal Libertine and Epicure, who by the painful Ministers deprival, will exceedingly triumph to see a door opened for him without resistance, to live in drunkenness, whoredom, swearing, oppressing, & to bring in securely wanton dance, Church-ales, profane wakefeasts, revels, unlawful sports, and a thousand evils, much more than to see the Minister, though conforming to the ceremonies, yet present to withstand, disgrace and suppress these sins and therein to glorify God, to further his kingdom, to edify his Church, to propagate his Gospel, with a Surplice on his back.  
Fourthly, it two fold more scandalizeth such one as doth truly fear the name of God, who could be more contented to enjoy the means of his Faith and salvation, and of the Communion of Saints, and visible prosperity of Christ his kingdom upon earth, with a small inconvenience of some Ceremonies, which he grieveth at, and is not guilty of, then to lose his Pastor, the Gospel and ordinary means of his saving faith, yea of his salvation: and hereby to see (if it so fall out) loiterers and Wolves in sheeps clothing, take the charge of the flock of Christ, and to behold the sheep and lambs, so dearly bought, and heretofore so well instructed, to lie scattered up and down, which were united in one fold together, and led into the green pastures of grace and life.  
Fiftly, it offendeth the Magistrate, by provoking him (persuaded and resolved as he is) to disgrace these otherwise well deserving Ministers, and to strike them with the sword of authority, and that in the days and light of the Gospel, which would cease by conforming in this case. And if we should not offend a private person, much less should we offend the Magistrate, which is a public person, about the use of a thing indifferent. If it be said, that therefore they abstain from the Ceremonies that they might not give offence to godly minds, I say again, that good minds should not be offended in this case, which if they do we must neglect, for that by refusal of conformity the Magistrate is provoked to deprive them; and such as are well minded have far more occasion of offence at the deprivation of a good teacher, (which is a mischief) then at his conformity (which is but a simple inconvenience at the most.)  
6 Sixtly, it unjustly condemneth the harmony of all true Churches, that ever were Primitive and reformed, for teaching false doctrine, and many godly and most reverend persons, who in case of deprivation partly have taught the doctrine of necessary conformity to inconvenient Ceremonies, partly who advised thereunto, partly who practised the same themselves: which hath been an universal doctrine of all sound Teachers, of all times, and places: (as appeareth else where in the following arguments) yea it condemneth the very inspired Apostles of jesus Christ, and the Churches of their planting, which (for performance of greater duties) did conform themselves, persuade others to conform, and commanded the same to others as a duty good and necessary. All which inconveniences by conformity, even unto inconvenient Ceremonies, in the case of deprivation would be wholly avoided: which by not conforming are needlessly maintained, strengthened and upholden. It followeth therefore, that the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation for refusing Ceremonies, though in some respect inconvenient, is opposite unto the law of love, and so by consequence, and error and a sin. 
* Touching the doctrine of this point, and application thereof unto the practice of like Ceremonies to ours in a like case, look Gual. in act. 16. 3. hom. 106. fol. 199. P●sc. in act. 15. 28. Idem in act. 21. 20. Idem in act. 16. 3 Calu. in act. 15. 28. fol. 265. Idem in act. ●8. 18. Aret. in act. 15. 28. fol. 72. Idem in act. 16. 3. fol. 75. Beza annot. in act. 15. 29. & in act. 16. 4. & 21. 20. & 18. 18.   
Reason 2 Thus much of the first main reason, proving that the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation, for refusing to conform to the prescribed Ceremonies, is contrary to God's word, and therefore an error and a sin.  
Argu. 4 Now the second main reason standeth in this: because the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation for refusing to conform to the Ceremonies prescribed (in the present Church of England) or the like, tendeth directly to condemn all true Churches of Christ, Primitive and latter: and all sound teachers and sincere Christians of all times and places since the time of the Apostles, which appeareth to be an error in doctrine, and a sin in practice.  
For the further manifestation of this reason, there must be proved, these two points.  
That to condemn all true Churches, and sound Teachers of all times and places, primitive and latter, for teaching error in any doctrine, or maintaining or committing maintained sin in practice, is a sin and error.  
That this Doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation, for refusing to conform to the prescribed Ceremonies, in our present Church of England, or to the like, doth condemn all true Churches, and sincere Teachers, of all times and places, since the times of the Apostles.  
Which points being proved, the conclusion will inevitably follow, that to suffer deprivation for refusing to conform, is a sin and an error to be taught and practised.  
Touching the former point: That namely to condemn 
1. Point.  all true Churches and sound teachers for teaching, and maintaining false doctrine and sin, is both an error and a sin: First, I say it is an error:  
Because in condemning their doctrine for false doctrine, even in this point they condemned the inspired doctrine of the holy Apostles for false doctrine (as before appeareth) which must needs be an error and a sin, of no light degree.  
Because it condemneth their doctrine & practice, which are followers of the Apostles in their inspired doctrine and practice, and which walk so as they have them for an example: which rule of doctrine and practice, being commended as true, and commanded as just, Phil. 3. 17. and 4. 9 the contrary thereto must needs be an error.  
Because the true Catholic Church indefinitely, taken for the company of the faithful in all ages, being as they are ever built on the foundations of the Prophets, and Apostles, and Christ the corner stone, Eph. 2. 20. is the pillar and ground of truth, 1. Tim. 3. 15. but whatsoever is against the ground of truth, must needs be an error.  
Because the true Church of all ages being defined truly, lie, to be the congregation of the faithful, consisteth of a company of spiritual persons, (not of carnal blind or profane persons, or heretical idolaters and tiranious Popes or Prelates as the Papists:) Now the spiritual man discerneth all things, 1. Corinth. 2. 15. even the deep things of God, vers. 10. by the spirit which God hath given him, ver. 12. how much more is the whole company of all the spiritual, able to perform the same: wherefore the contrary to their doctrine must needs be an error.  
Because it condemneth the whole stream of the faithful teachers, and Churches of all ages, of an heinous and damnable crime, namely the breaking the lesser commandments of God, and the teaching of men so to do: whereby they exclude them, by necessary consequence out of heaven, Matthew 5. 19 which must needs be a gross error, and no small sin.  
Because no scripture is of private interpretation, 2. Peter 1. 20. either of private spirits of carnal persons, though they be many as the interpretations of the Romish Popes and Doctors, or of other heretics failing in the foundation: or of a few Godly and well affected Persons, against the Ocean and world of the faithful: but the judgements of the English deprived Ministers, being against the whole true Church of Christ, is but as a little stream unto the Ocean, or a small field unto the world: their opinion therefore against the whole Church is of private interpretation, and an error.  
Because it is against the rules of God's word, and means appointed of God for the finding out of the truth, even in such like cases as this, for a few Ministers and other persons, be they otherwise never so faithful, to be opposite in judgement to the whole Church.  
1 One means is for learners to obey their teachers, Hebrew. 13. 17. especially teaching secundum legem, according to the law, Deut. 18. 11. but the Fathers and Godly learned Doctors, since them being the Ministers of the Church of Christ in all ages, are the Teachers of all others, specially, if they teach secundum legem, which must be harkened unto and obeyed, and whosoever doth not hearken to them so teaching, erreth.  
2 An other means and ordinance of God is this, that two or three Prophets speaking, the rest must judge of that they speak: and that the spirit of the Prophets must be subject to the Prophets, 1. Cor. 14. 29. 32. When therefore a few English Ministers do speak in the Church, the will of God is this; that the whole Church of all ages and places should judge: but for the whole Catholic Church of all ages and places to speak, and a few Ministers of one only Province and of one time to judge and censure them, is the mother of confusion, and an enemy to peace, as the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 14. 32. 33. and contrary to this rule and ordinance of God, and therefore the way to error.  
3 An other means of God's appointment even in the like case with this: that in matters of difference, not only about fundamental points, but also in matters of Ceremonies, when the peace of the Church is broken about them, the unity of brethren divided, and the course of the Gospel hindered and interrupted: to ask and seek the judgement of other true Churches and Teachers, about the case in question: As the Apostles did in, Act. 15. 2, 3, 4, 6. and the Primitive ages following after their example, also did imitate as their duty was, Ph. 3. 17. and 4. 8, 9 in which case if the judgement of one, two, or twenty Churches be to be hearkened to, and not despised or contradicted rashly, how much less the judgement, of all true Churches, of all times and places. Now for a few persons of one Province (as of England and of one season, to sway against all Churches, & to condemn their doctrine, and practise of sin and error, is against this ordinance of God, and the way to error.  
Because the swaying against the judgement and practice 
VIII.  of all Churches and Teachers, is against the equity of many forcible and main reasons: For:  
1 Who are more likely to know the truth, even in such a point as this, than the whole company of such? First, who are endued with the most excellent gifts in the Church, and greatest degrees of knowledge and understanding of God's word, and with means tending thereunto? do not the best sights, best judge of colours? Secondly, who are and have been endued with greatest degrees of evident sanctity? Thirdly, whose labours have been most of all blessed of God, for the conversion of souls, for the overthrow of sin, and Antichrist, and Heresies? Fourthly, who have lived and died most comfortably in the Lord? If a man should not rest in the judgements of the whole company of such, where should he rest? or what peace or assurance shall he have to have all these (so many as all and so incomparable persons) his adversaries: as in condemning such for sinners and false Teachers.  
2 No one point of error can be showed, which is established by this rule: namely, by the consent of judgement and practice of all Churches, primitive, and reform latter. For albeit▪ some faithful persons, and some true Churches, may differ from some other in sundry points, and thereby there must needs be error in one part or other: yet it were hard for a few private persons, to convince them all of error, in a matter wherein they all agree: if they were in error; is it not strange, no age should be able to discern it?  
3 Such as have wilfully and professedly differed from this rule, have been found to have been Newfangles, Heretics, schismatics, and profane persons; such as Donatists, Anabaptists, Brownists, Arians, Famelists, and the like: and are of infinite varieties, one from another, and therefore all, or the very most, must needs be an error, for there is but one truth.  
4 By the rejecting of this rule, every Sect maketh a way open to their own contempt. For if the judgement of so reverend, and so excellent lights and agreement of them all, is to be despised and rejected by any particular: why should not others reject and contemn them and their judgement, the matter being difficult, and of disputable nature, and themselves being so many thousand degrees behind the person whom they thus despise, in their worth or number?  
5 It opens a door to singularity, novelty, and of endless differences, errors and contentions, and leaves no rule of Peace, or of ending dissensions in the Church of God: For if one may under colour of truth, teach and practise what he list in his diversity: why may not another do the like? or what rule will there be, to compose the dissension, that do and will arise in the Church! which one part having the truth, may urge unto the other void of truth: why should he rather follow this part then that? wherefore in this case we are to note, that no private person or persons, may raise up any new opinion, and pretend Scripture for it, and so propose it for a Doctrine and a truth in the Church, though he condemn the whole Church beside for an error and a sin. Because as the Scriptures are not of private interpretation, so God's Spirit is not private, but general to all the faithful.  
Thus we see this doctrine of swaying against all true Churches and Teachers of all ages and places, and condemning them of sin and error, is false doctrine. Whereupon also it followeth secondly, that it is a sin: which also appeareth further.  
I Because David doth judge himself that he trespassed, in that he being a private man condemned and censured all the generation of God's children, Psal. 73. 13. 14. 15. Again because God layeth a woe upon the practice of taking away the righteousness of the righteous from him, Esa. 5. 23. or of condemning the just, Pr. 17. 15. But that doctrine & practice which layeth a sin unto the charge of all God's Church, takes away their righteousness and condemns them in that point. Therefore it is a sin, even of bearing false witness against the whole congregation of neighbours.  
2 Because the censuring of all true Churches, for a sin, or of false Doctrine, is contrary to the Commandments of God: who would have the Teachers obeyed and harkened unto, which do teach and define secundum legem: as above I noted, Heb. 13. 17. Deut. 17. 9, 10, 11, 12. and would have the rest to judge of the words of a few which prophesy, 1. Cor. 14. 29. 32. and of the commandment, of walking in the ways of good men, Pro. 2. 20. Phil. 3. 17. and 4. 9 It is also contrary to the practice of the holy Apostles, who determined one Churches differences by another, Act. 15. 2. as before I noted.  
3 Because this Doctrine is the ground, and mother of schism: For S. Paul noteth, that they cause division and offences, that teach and practise contrary to the doctrine which the whole Church hath received especially from the Apostles, Rom. 16. 17. Therefore this doctrine is a sin.  
Object. Against this point it is alleged, first, that it is a Popish ground, to make the Church the ground of our Faith: It contradicteth the Doctrine of our Churches against the Papists.  
Answ. This point includeth no Popish ground; nor doth it contradict the Doctrine of our Churches against the Papists: For the Churches desire nothing so much against the Papists, then that they would grant the elect and faithful to be the only Church: and then that they would stand to the judgement, determination, and practise of such as are faithful in all ages. But that this may the better appear to be no Popish ground, We are to note:  
1 The Papists understand the Church, to consist only of persons in office, and those often heretical, sacrilegious, and profane persons such as their Popes, Cardinals, carnal Bishops: We, the only faithful in all times and places, whether in office or not.  
2 They urge Apocryphal and bastard Fathers, for the patronage of their errors: We the undoubted writings of the approved Fathers.  
3 They urge the Father's errors, and things wherein they differ: we their truth, so far forth only as they agree and consent.  
4 They allege the ungrounded opinions of some private fathers: we their truth, so farforth as they agree to God's word, and examples of the Prophets of Christ and his Apostles.  
5 They insist upon Fathers further from the Apostles, & from Apostolical and Primitive purity, we most of all insist on those who were most near to the Apostles, as being most pure and free from Antichristian contagion.  
6 They are only for the former Fathers we bring the consent of all our later worthy Fathers and teachers of the most reformed and purest Churches of the world.  
Object. This were to give and to ascribe as much to man as to God, to make them the grounds and judges, of our faith or practise: yea it is so far from being a sin, to sway from all judgements, that it is a sin to judge that all judgements should be the rule of our consciences.  
Answ. This objection is both unfit and untrue: It is unfit because the argument concludeth not that they are, or that we should make them the grounds and judges of our faith and practise: But that it is an error and a sin to condemn the whole Church of Christ, for teaching error, and for practising and maintaining sin. Next it is an untruth to call the whole company of Saints and spiritual persons, (Man) opposed unto God. Which appeareth further by considering the equivocation of the word (Man). For man is taken either for mere man (i) a carnal man, or to the point, a company of carnal men, profane, ignorant and erroneous, which cannot know nor perceive the things of God, because they are spiritually discerned, 1. Cor. 2, 14. and so it is true, if the case were thus, that we should put the judgement of this thing, to a company of carnal persons, for in this case, it is said that all men are liars, Rom. 3. 4. But there is also the spiritual man which hath understanding to judge what other men do say, 1. Cor. 10. 15. and discerneth all things, even the deep things of God, Psal. 25. 14. 9 1. Cor. 2. 15. 10. 12. Dan. 12. 10. john 7. 17. 1. john 2. 27. The consent in judgement of which company, is not to be termed a company of men opposed against God: But such as being built one the foundation of the Prophets, Apostles, and Christ, the corner stone, Eph. 2. 20. are also called by holy the Ghost in this respect the pillar and ground of truth, 1. Tim. 3. 15.  
Object. A private man may see a truth which a great many Godly men may not discern.  
Answ. Though a private man may see more into some truth, and explicate or confirm it better than many other: yet it were absurd to say, that one man might see more than all the faithful, all godly learned Teachers, all true Churches that ever were in the world, for the rule is good which Lyrinensis giveth, Nouè non nova: The Papists take the Church, for only persons in office, as Pope, Cardinal, Bishops, and Abbots, and other Doctors gathered in a Council: and it was well maintained by Gerson, that a private man, by the light of God's word, may see more than they all: And the reeson is plain. First, because those persons have many ways proved themselves to be carnal, and profane, and not able to discern the things of God, which are spiritually to be discerned. And again, because they judge not as it was enjoined to the Priest in the law, Secundum legem Deut. 17. 11. and so there can be no light in them, Esa. 8. 20. But the case in question is quite opposite to this, in either part, and therefore this objection toucheth not the point.  
Object. The whole Church of God may err in some circumstantial matters: All visible Churches may err in matters, not fundamental: The consent of Churches and of the faithful teachers, according to God's word, a rule of fundamental truths; that is of all such truths as may quiet a man's conscience, it is not so in matters of circumstance.  
Answ. 1 We hold rightly against the Papists that all particular Churches may err: whereupon we assume and infer: But the Roman Church is a particular Church: Therefore it may err. But that the Catholic Church taken in the sense, that our part do explicate it, (i) for the company of the faithful in all ages, it was never holden by any sound divine: But the clean contrary.  
2 Though the judgement of all true Churches in matters fundamental, be infallible, because without fundamentals, they could not be Churches: and again albeit all particular Churches may err in matters circumstantial and ceremonial: yet it is an hard speech to say that the general or Catholic Churches, or company of the faithful, in all ages have generally consented in an error, neither can there possibly on instance be showed of such a point, no not of a circumstantial point.  
3 The deprived Ministers hold it a sin in nature to practise the ceremonies prescribed in our Church or the like: but sin in nature is a thing substantial, in the practice whereof a man's conscience cannot be quieted, and therefore if the judgements of all Churches be brought against them, either they must confess their doctrine in this point, to be an error: or else that the whole general Church, since Christ have erred fundamentally, which is not far from heresy and blasphemy, and I earnestly do pray them to consider of this point.  
Object. Churches and fathers have exceedingly differed among themselves in all times: here should we make their judgement, and consent to be a rule of our doctrine and practice.  
Answ. This is soon answered because I speak not of their differences or of the things wherein they are divided: but only of such things wherein they all consent and agree: as namely they all agree that the Christian Sabbath must be sanctified, and that from the ground, and in memorial of Christ his resurrection: for they agree that all the books of Scripture are the word of God: and in the point in question, they agree that Churches may vary in their ceremonies and discipline, and yet retain their peace one with another. And that ceremonies, as inconvenient (as our ceremonies are supposed to be,) & in some respect, fit to be abolished, yet may they be retained, and aught to be practised to prevent the division of brethren: disquiet of the Church, & hindrance of the Gospel; and there are few points wherein they agree more constantly then in this.  
Object. We are commanded to call no man our teacher upon earth, because one is our Doctor and teacher, even Christ, Mat. 23. 8. 10. there is one law giver, jam. 4. 12.  
Answ. This objection is much urged by Brownists, as some of the others are. But what will they conclude from hence? surely if any such thing, it must be this. Therefore we may not make the judgement of the Fathers or whatsoever men in earth, a rule of our conscience. And indeed I say that it is well concluded, neither verily would I nor any other, that I know of sound judgement hold otherwise. But that it may appear how little to the purpose it is alleged, I say:  
1 If they will apply this to our Church in respect of our ceremonies prescribed: then may they conclude against the Apostles, for prescribing jewish ceremonies, notwithstanding the end and accomplishment of them all, by the death and consummatum est, of Christ.  
2 The Primitive ancient and latter reformed Churches, are all of them deficient this way: either in disipline or ceremonies, they are faulty and do fail more or less; yet they will not accuse them for denying Christ, to be their teacher and Prophet.  
3. They only deny Christ to be their Prophet and teacher, who do preach another Gospel to the Church, Gal. 1. 6. 7. which teach any thing beside, Gal. 1. 8. 9 Ro. 16. 17. otherwise, 1. Tim. 6. 3. Contrary to the word of God, Tit. 1. 9 divers and strange doctrines, Heb. 13. 9 Heresies, Tit. 3. 10. which will not hear him in all things whatsoever he shall say, Act. 3. 22. Mat. 28. 20. joh. 3. 36. & 10. 5. All which our Church with all other reformed Churches do utterly disclaim, and are free from: and namely in prescribing and using of these ceremonies, or the like, as appeareth by considering; First, the matter which is taught, which is of two sorts, some things are fundamental and of greater moment, some things circumstantial and of lesser: again some things are specially commanded, others included under general rules and are left free to every Church to be determined, as shall best serve for the edification thereof, sometimes after one manner, and at other times after some other: where we are to observe that our Church (as other reformed Churches) do teach nothing fundamental, which is not expressly taught in the Word, neither doth it teach any thing contrary to that which is expressly commanded by Christ in his Word; only it varieth the circumstantials or ceremonials, according to the liberty left unto all Churches, and practised by all Churches, which the governors do suppose best to further or edify the substantials. Secondly, consider we the manner of our Churches proposing of these things. The fundamental points, and special precepts of Christ she proposeth as binding the conscience under pain of condemnation to every wilful and impenitent transgressor. The circumstantials or ceremonials determined by her, out of the general rules of the Word, she proposeth and enjoineth as free, not binding the conscience in themselves, as variable not perpetual, as accidental not as necessary. In which case our Church cannot be said to deny Christ for her only teacher and Prophet, but rather to confess him, seeing she teacheth nothing but that Christ hath commanded. In which respect he is with our Church by promise, ad finem saeculi, Matthew 28. 19 20. and he that heareth the teachers thereof thus teaching heareth Christ, Luke 10. 16. joh. 13. 20.  
And thus the first point is confirmed: The second followeth 
Point. 2.  to be spoken of: which is this, [That the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation for refusing to conform to the prescribed Ceremonies, doth tend to condemn all Churches and godly teachers, Primitive and latter, of teaching false doctrine, & of practising a maintained sin:] Which point is thus made evident: Because such Ministers as have suffered deprivation for refusing to conform, or do hazard their ministry for the same, do account and conclude it to be a sin simply to conform unto the Ceremonies proposed in the present Church of England, or the like: and that all that do conform in any case unto them, shall therein commit a sin against God: and further that whosoever teacheth the contrary, they stand out to confute them and convince them of an error. But all true Churches of Christ, and all true Orthodoxal Teachers, both ancient and latter of all times and places, without exception of any one, have uniformly and constantly taught this conclusion: That it is a truth and no error to teach; a duty and no sin to practise the prescribed Ceremonies of the present Church of England, or the like, rather than to violate and break the peace of the Church, or that a Minister should suffer deprivation, and so the preaching of the Gospel should be interrupted, or that a Minister, or any other Christian should separate themselves, or suffer themselves to be separated from the public worships of God in a true Church: Wherefore it must needs follow, that they who justify the former must needs condemn the latter.  
Now, that it may appear that all Orthodoxal Churches and Teachers of all ages and places, since the time of the Apostles of Christ, are of this judgement and practice and not of the other: I will first begin with the Primitive Churches, before the Revelation and reign of Antichrist, and next in order of the latter reformed Churches, since the restoration of the Gospel, and declination of Antichrist.  

Concerning the Primitive Churches, and their teachers, I will observe two points. First, the state of the Churches of those times concerning Ceremonies, and secondly the judgement and practice of the Fathers and the faithful in that estate.  
Point. 1 And touching the former point, we must not be ignorant that even in the days of the Apostles, the mystery of iniquity did begin to work, as themselves observed, 2. Thessalonians 2. 7. For even then there were many Antichrists, 1. john 2. 18. And after the Apostles departure, the servants and workmen of Christ his field, that is, the Ministers of Christ his Church did fall a sleep, that is, they were not vigilant and watchful, but grew careless and remiss in teaching and propagating the truth of God's Word, to confute errors, and to resist and keep out corruptions attempted to be brought in by Heretics and Sectaries: and while they thus slept, the Devil sowed his tars, Matthew 13. 25. a precedent whereof we have, apocalypse 2. and 3. Where the Angels or Teachers of the Churches are reproved in this respect: of which kind of tars that the Devil sowed, the Ceremonies of the Church were not the fewest nor the least hurtful. And they far exceeded our Ceremonies, if we should esteem or prove them much worse than they are, and namely in three respects. First, in respect of their multitude variety and difference. Secondly, in regard of their nature, kind, and quality. Lastly, in respect of their effects and abuse arising from them.  
1 Their multitude, variety and difference, did begin very high and near the times of the Apostles: For the difference of the celebration of Easter (if the Ecclesiastical Records be true) began before or about the time of Policarp, Bishop of Smyrna, and disciple of Saint john, and Anicetus Bishop of Rome, Euzeb. 5. 24. Socrat. 5. 22. and who readeth the antiquity with any observation, that shall not perceive in the undoubted writings of the most ancient Fathers, both of the Greek and Latin Churches the evidence hereof: as namely in Clemens, Alexand. Tertull. Cyprian, Basill, Ambrose, Hierom, Augustine, and others: And for the latitude of this variety it stretched very far, even over the whole face of the Christian world. Iraeneus in Euseb. 5. 24. and Firmilianus in Cyprian, Epist. 75. do show the great difference and variety of ceremonies between the Churches of jerusalem and Rome, that is, of the Eastern and Western parts of the world, and of the several Provinces among themselves. And Augustine to Casulan. Epist. 86. and to januar. Epist. 118. 119. declareth the difference of customs and rites in the City of Rome and Milan, and in multitude of other places of his days: Quae diuer sorum locorum diversis moribus (saith he) innumerabiliter variantur, Epist. 119. cap. 19 in as much as for the variety thereof, Socra. 5. 22. affirmeth that a man could scarce find two Churches retaining and following one order in both places, and for the multitude thereof he saith, that to set down in writing the divers and innumerable ceremonies and customs dispersed throughout Cities and Countries, would prove a very tedious piece of work and hardly, nay impossible to be performed: A taste whereof in both he giveth largely in that place, together with his censure. The like do Sozomen. 7. 19 who mentioneth other diversities. The reasons of which variety and number, if we would give we must distinguish of their quality, for if they were convenient ceremonies, rightly deduced out of the general grounds of God's Word, their variety and difference proceeded from the lawful liberty which God hath left unto all Churches to order and appoint fit ceremonies for themselves, as they see to be most apt to further their own edification, & if they were more studiously commended by them then was meet, it was as Sadeele saith, ut viam Schismaticis obstruerent, De verb. Dei script. cap. 5. fol. 32. Or if otherwise they were inconvenient, frivolous and needless, and as many of them proved to be evident occasion of following superstition & contention. The cause of them in general, is alleged by Martyr Loc. come. class. 2. cap. 5. §. 17. to be this that the devil did presently begin to sow his tars upon the good seed, which was sowed by Christ and his Apostles, the particular reasons whereof shall be showed in that which followeth.  
2 Touching the kind and quality of the Ceremonies, and traditions used by the primitive Churches if we would examine the particulars, we should find them to have been far more scandalous and hurtful, then ours can be imagined to be, not only in their abuse (which I will note in the next member) but also in their nature: which to mention only is to make evident; as for examples sake I will give instance of some part.  

Touching Baptism they used,  
THe anointing of the Baptized, Tertul. contra Martion. lib. 1. Distinc. 11. cap. 5. the consecr. Dist. 4. cap. 87. & 90. This Ceremony signified unto them, that they were Christians and Champions, fight and contending for God, Tertul. and was commended as Apostolical, Basil de spir. sancto cap. 27.  
The putting of milk and honey into the mouths of the Baptized, commended as proceeding from the Apostles, Tertul. contra Martion. & de coron. milit. In some places also wine and milk without honey, Hierom. contra Lucifer.  
The arraying of the Baptized in a white garment, Tertul. ibid. de consecratione dist. 4. canon 91. 92. in token that they did put on innocency and purity, ibid. out of Ambrose and Rabanus.  
The crossing of the child in Baptism, Tertul. de resurrect. carnis. Caro signatur ut anima muniatur. August. tract. 118. in joan. serm. 55. saith that they used it in every Sacrament, and that else Baptism was not performed after the rites and manner, unless the sign of the Cross were made in the child's forehead.  
To dip the child three times in token of the Trinity, Basil. de spir. sancto cap. 27. Sozomen. 6. 26. commended also as Apostolical by Basil & Turtul. in other places they used to dip the child's head only, and that three times, Hierom. contra Lucifer. cap. 4. and that in token and remembrance both of the Trinity, as also of Christ his three days death, and burial in the grave, as also of his resurrection, which was performed the third day, Tertul. ibid. de consecra. dist. 4. can. 78. 80. 81. out of Augustine, Hierom, & Gregory: in other places they dipped the child but once only, Cyp. to signify the unity of God's essence, the consecr. Dist. 4. can. 82.  
To baptize only once in the year, and that in the Easter holidays, Socra. lib. 5. cap. 22. also three times in the year, viz. on the days of Christ's Nativity, Easter, Whitsuntide, Zopper. polit. eccle. lib. 1. cap. 12. fol. 76. They deferred the baptizing of their converts, two years after their conversion to the faith, Caranza. summa council. in Elibert. council. can. 42.  
To abstain a week after Baptism from washing, Tertul. count Mar. lib. 1.  
To renounce openly the Devil and his Angels, and to give the Ministers the right hand, Tertul. de coron. milit. commended by him as Apostolical, De consecrat. dist. 4. can. 95. also Decree. part. 1. dist. 11. cap. 5. ex Basil. commended as Apostolical.  
To bless the font with oil, ibid. Dist. 11. cap. 5. ex Basil. commended also by him as Apostolical.   

Touching the Lord's Supper.  
THey were accustomed, to sign the elements with the sign of the Cross, for so was every Sacrament signed, August. tract. 118. in joan. Serm. 55.  
To mingle water with wine, Cypr. l. 2. Epist. 3. & 63. and he calleth this Dominica traditio.  
They also used only water in steed of wine, which persons so celebrating the Eucharist, are in the fore-alleged place by Cypr. called Aquarij.  
To give the Eucharist to infants, Cypr. serm. de Lapsis.  
To receive the Lords supper every day, August. Epist. 118. cap. 2. thus it was received in Rome, and in Spain, Hierom. Epist. ad Licin. 28. in other places only on the Lord's day, Socra. 5. 22. In other places on Saturn day, and the Lords day, August. Epist. 118. cap. 2.  
To receive the Lords supper in some places in the morning, and that fasting, but in other places after supper, and that being well fed, Socrates 5. 22. Cyprian. lib. 2. Epist. 3. Augustine Epist. 119. cap. 6. commendeth the receiving of the Lords supper fasting, to be a tradition Apostolical, and that it was observed in all the world.  
They sent the Eucharist to other Churches, for a token of their consent in the faith, and of their love to one another, Eusebius 5. 24.  
They reserved part of the bread of the Eucharist, and sent it to such as were absent, justin. Martyr.  
The people carried the bread of the Eucharist home, and kept it in a little box, Cypr. de Lapsis. Tertul. lib. 2. ad uxorem: in other places they burned that which was left, Origen in Leu. 7. Hesych. in Leu. 8.  
They gave the Eucharist unto the sick if they required it, even when they were speechless, Euseb. 6. 43. Decret. cause 26. quaest. 6. 7. 8. 10.  
They gave the Eucharist unto the Baptized, immediately after Baptism, Cries. Epi. 1. ad Innoc.   

Touching Prayer.  
THese were their Ceremonies, to stand in prayer and not to kneel, and all the Dominical or lords days, Basil. de Spiritu sancto cap. 27. Tertullianus de resurrectione carnis, Hieron. count Lucif. cap. 4. This Ceremony was done in token or signification of their resurrection, and further to teach them that on the day of Christ his resurrection, they ought to seek heavenly things, Basil ibidem August. Epist. 119. the consecrat. dist. 3. cap. 10. quoniam, out of the Nicene Council where it was decreed: This was commended to be an Apostolical tradition, Tertull. count Marci. & de coron. mil.  
To stand in prayer and not to kneel, on all days between Easter and Whitsuntide, commended also as Apostolical, Basil. Tertul. Hieron. ibid.  
To pray towards the East, and that for this cause and signification, because we seek to Paradise our old and ancient country, and is commended and Apostolical, Basil. ibid.  
To pray in some places by candle light, Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 22. in the day time, Hier. con. vigil.  
They did also wear a linen garment, or Surplice in the worships of God, Cries. hom. 83. in Mat. Hier. lib. 1. contra Pelag. and of this judgement is Zanch. de redemp. cap. 16. lib. 1. fol. 444. a. and citeth Hier. P. Martyr. Loc. Epist. Hoopero fol. 1087. citeth Chrisostom, and Cyprians examples out of Pontius Diacon. and Saint john's Petalus out of Ecclesiastical History, to prove that the original of the Surplice was not of Antichrist, Bulling. and Gual. in an Epistle do cite Theodoret. hist. 2. 27. Socra. 6. 22. john the Evangelist his example out of Euzebius, Pontius Diacon. of Cyprian, and Chrisostom. It is cited by A. B B. C. Whitgift defence. fol. 2618. Polanus citeth Hieron. comment. in Esec. cap. 44. fol. 807. Zepperus citeth Chrysostome and Hieron. showing that they used them for a sign and admonition of honest and pure life de Polit. Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 12. the like doth Zanch. ut sup.   

Touching days.  
TO celebrate the days of Christ's Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension to heaven, and descension of the Spirit, or Pentecostin the remembrance of these things, this was observed in all the world, August. Epist 118. cap 2. Origen count Celsum lib. 8. council. Agatheus can. 14. 39 also the feast of the nativity of john the Baptist, ibid. can. 14.  
To keep Saturn day holiday, and frequent the Ecclesiastical assembly, as on the Lord's day, Sozomen. 7. 19 & 6. 41. Socrat. 6. 8.  
To keep the Friday holiday, using thereon the Ecclesiastical assemblies, in remembrance of Christ his passion, as they did observe the Lord's day in remembrance of his resurrection; this was commanded by Constantinus Magnus, Sozomen. 1. 8. Hist. tripartit. 1.  
To celebrate Easter day on the fourteenth of April in half the world, namely in the Eastern part, but on the Lord's day in the Western part; this was commended on either part to come from the Apostles, which yet could not both be true, but the truth is (saith Socrates) that the Apostles left no Laws concerning days, but left them as a matter free, lib. 5. cap. 22.   

Touching fasting.  
TO fast on Thursdays all the year, in remembrance of Christ his ascension, and on Fridays in remembrance of Christ his Passion, this was commended, as an Apostolical tradition, Epiphanius count haer. in Epilogo.  
To fast on Saturnedayes in some places, in other places not, Augustinus Epist. 118. cap. 2. Hieronymus ad Licin. Epist.  
To fast every Lord's day, so they did at Rome, Socrates ibid. this Augustine reproveth in his days as an evil and scandalous thing in the Roman custom, because it was used by the Manichees, and enjoined to their followers: in other places they would by no means fast on the Lord's day, Augustinus ibidem, Hieronymus ad Lucif. Tertull. de coron. mil.  
To fast the time of Lent before Easter, by some three weeks, by some six weeks, and by some seven weeks, Socrates, 5. 22. Dist. 4. cap. 5. This was commended also, as an Apostolical tradition by Ambrose, & Hieronimus, ad Marcell. And by Epiphanius Haeres. 75. 80. who showeth, that the Apostles enjoined, that all men should eat in Lent nothing but Bread, Salt, and Water, howbeit, this is denied by Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 22. by affirming that namely, the Apostles neither made, nor left any laws for fasting, but left it also as a matter free, the like doth August. Epist. 86.  
To fast from kinds of meat: some from every kind of living creatures: some eating only fish, and fowls of the air: some not eggs, nuts, apples, nor any kind of fruit: some only dry bread: some not so much as that: Socrat. 5. 22. some only bread, salt, and water, Epiphan. Haer. 75.   

Touching sundry other Ceremonies.  
TO sign once self with the sign of the Cross ad omnem progressum: at every going abroad, and coming home: at putting on of apparel, putting on of shoes, washing, sitting, lying down, etc. Tertull. de coron. mil. Dist. 11. cap. 5. eccl. ex Basilio, commended to be Apostolical.  
To make an offering yearly for a man's birth day, Tertullian. count Martion. lib. 1. & de coron. mil. commended as Apostolical, yet afterward abolished for Gentilism.  
To wash one's feet at a certain season, Aug. Epi. 119. cap. 18.  
The Temples were erected to stand East and West, the Altars of the Church stood Eastward; and some toward the West, Socrat. 5. 22.  
III. Lastly concerning the effects of these Ceremonies and abuse of them. It is also manifest, that they far exceeded our Ceremonies prescribed in their evil effect, and were much more abused: First in the Fathers themselves, and next also in the people.  
Touching the Fathers and Bishops of the Church some being simple and of small capacity, and shallow judgement, as Eusebius saith, received traditions without any searching of writings, as out of bare report. Such one was Papias, the hearer of S. john, and companion of Policarp, who in this simplicity broached fabulous doctrine of the Chiliast error: by whom Irenaeus & others which were of the like opinion were deceived, namely by pretending and reverencing of his antiquity, Euseb. 3. 35. such were Tertullian and Lactantius.  
Some were endued as Caluin instit. 4. 10. 18. and P. Martyr. noteth Loc. come. class. 2. cap. 5. §. 20. & Zanch. de redempt. lib. 1. cap. 15. fol. 366. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quadam, with a certain false, and erroneous zeal, by being desirous to imitate the jewish Ceremonies: which they do both confirm and justify out of Aug. cap. 20. the catechizand. rudib. and Caluin noteth, that many of those Fathers, were non satis considerati & nimis curiosi ac cupid, iquorum ut quisque posterior erat, ita stulta aemulatione cum suis decessoribus certavit ne rerum novarum inuentione cederet.  
Some were deceived by Heretics, who to cover their pernicious heresies, did studiously broach traditions under the Apostles names and authority, so did Artemon, Basilides, Valentius, Martion, Eusebius 5. 25. Clemens Strom. lib. 7.  
And thus Tertullian is noted to have been deceived by Montanus his Paraclet. and inspiration, as appeareth in his book de veland. virgin.  
Some are noted to have ascribed too too much unto traditions: So did Papias, Clemens, Origen and they cite Apocryphal book to countenance them, and commend very sorry matters, both of doctrine and of practice to themselves and others. So did Papias, Clemens, and Origen, and Basil, and Epiphanius, of which point, look Chemnitius examp. part. 1. the tradition. fol. 85, 86, 87. and what they could not sound from any true original, sundry of them did usually ascribe to the Apostles; So Hierome, Epiphanius, and Ambrose do affirm Lent to be an Apostolical tradition: So Aug. Epi. 86. makes report of such, as alleged james, john, and Peter the Apostles, for fasting on the Sabbath, the urging of which kind of ground or allegation he saith is, interminabilis contentio, generans lights, non finiens quaestiones: So the Eastern Churches did refer their observations of Easter to Saint john, and the Churches of the Western parts unto Saint Peter, and Saint Paul: But hereof sayeth Socrates, 5. 22. Sozomen 7. 19 There is no evidence in writing, and therefore he noteth them most likely to arise from custom, rather than from Canon.  
Some of the ancient Bishops, governing at several times, in divers places, did commend the traditions, which they liked or fancied themselves, to their posterities for laws. And this is Socrates' observation ibid. a precedent whereof a man may see, Dist. 12. cap. 5. Ridiculum: and other places: see Caluin instit. 4. 10. 18. & quia periculum, etc. And their posterity were no less superstitiously obsequious in observing, than they in prescribing; for Sozomen saith, that in those days, in Cities and Villages, very many customs, which for reverence of those which brought them in at first or of those which succeeded the bringers in, they who had been trained up in them, did by no means hold lawful or tolerable to violate, which very thing fell out unto men in this very feast of Easter, lib. 7. cap 19  
Some of the Fathers did bring in the Ceremonies with no superstition or opinion of merit, or necessity, but with a good intention; namely, to stir up the more reverence and admiration towards the Sacraments, and to stir up a kind of devotion in the minds of men: which going further and further, and increasing, took strength until at last they turned to that manifest impiety, idolatry, and superstitions, as we see in that supposed Church of Rome this day, Zepperus de Politia eccl. lib. 1. cap. 10. fol 55.  
Some were derived from the Gentiles, and though sometime they were used, yet they were afterward abolished; such as the yearly offering for the birth day, Sadeel.  
Some of the Ceremonies were brought in upon occasion such as the signing of a man's self with the Cross, which was used on occasion of the Pagans mocking of the Christians crucified God, that they might testify unto them, that they were Christians, and not ashamed of the Cross of Christ: this Martyr Loc. class. 2. cap. 5. §. 20. noteth out of Augustine,, de verbis Apostoli ser. 8. which after grew to superstition. So the not fasting one the Sabbath was established, on occasion that the Manichees did in join fasting on that day to their disciples August. Epist. 86. so the gloria Patri, and as some suppose the threefold dipping of children in Baptism, was brought in by way of opposition to the Arians and Antitrinitarians, Sozom. 6. 26.  
All, or the very most part of these their ceremonies, were significative, as before appears; many of them in the event were holden opperative, such as the imposition of hands, sign of the cross, anointing with oil, Tertullian de resurrectione carnis. Caro ungitur ut anima consecretur: Caro signatur ut anima muniatur: Caro manus impositione adumbratur ut et anima spiritu illuminetur: look more in Bellarm. Tom. de Imag lib. 2. cap. 29.  
They were in process of time, & increase of superstitions (as many little streams meeting in a long tract, do end in an Ocean:) So multiplied for number and burden, that to the more sincere and prudent Fathers, the estate of the jews seemed more tolerable and easy than the estate of the Christians of those times, Augustine Epistle, 119. cap. 19  
Some of them were very eager and inexorable for the observation of them, it was accounted nefat on the Lord's day to kneel in prayer, Tertull. count Martion. lib. 1. & de coron. mil. and who hath not heard of them foul coil which Victor the Romish Bishop kept, or at least began to keep against the Churches of the Eastern world: whom only for not observing the order of the Western Churches, he would have excommunicated, and given them all unto the Devil at a clap: which audacious and frantic attempt of that turbulent and boisterous Prelate, albeit it be cogingly blanched over by 
a Sanderus visib. Monarch. lib 7. num. 22, 23, 24, 25 fol. 246, 247, 248.  , 
b Bellarm de Rom pont. l. 2. c. 19  Bellarmine, 
c Baron. Annal. Tom. 1. anno. 198.  Baronius, & 
d Genebrard. Chronol. lib. 3 anno Christi, 206 fol. 389.  Genebrard (fit daubers of so tottering a wall) as if it had been by him, as by the primacy of the Romish Sea, yet it is far otherwise reported in the records of antiquity: for first it is plainly said by Irenaeus that this excommunication was flat against the minds and practice of the most reverend Fathers, such as Policarp the disciple of Saint john, and other Romish Bishops his predecessors: such as Amicetus, Pius, Higynus, Telesphorus, & Xistus, who in the like difference gave not the like example, neither did they hold this odds of such trifles as Irenaeus calls them, a matter of that quality to break communion, but held fast the band of love and unity, Euseb. 5. 24. Socrat. 5. 22.  
That this censure of the man, was done in excessive heat, or in a pelting chafe on his part, as Socrates affirmeth, 5. 22. that Irenaeus Bishop of Lions, did put Victor in remembrance of his duty, Eusebius 5. 24 sharply reproved him, ibidem, and bitterly inveighed against him, and contested with him by letters, Socrates 5. 22. that all the Eastern Bishops still kept their old by as from the Romish Sea, for all the threats of Victor, even unto the time of the Nicaene Council, when all agreed without any absolution at all, from Victor's thunder-clappe, yea that Polycrates, the precedent of the Eastern Bishops, and all the rest which were very many, were not moved an hair at these rattles, set up to fright them, Euseb. 5. 23. Where by the way we may understand two points.  
First what a feeble Primacy, the Pope had in those times, besides his possibilities and actuality of erring, even in Catheàra being so countermanded reproved, and disobeyed, by such incomparable Churches, and teachers.  
Secondly, how dangerously the Papists put the jump of all their sempiternal expectations upon the credit, even of the greatest clerks, which so untruly, falsely, and corruptly relate the records of antiquity.  
Next, for the effect and abuse of these things in the people, we may easily see that if the fountains be troubled the streams cannot be clear, as may appear by that which followeth.  
Many things commanded in the holy Scriptures, and of very wholesome and good use, were less respected and cared for, than many light matters, whereof they overbouldly presumed, August. Epist. 119. cap. 19  
Many of them neglected and swallowed great things, placing opinion of religion, and showing great diligence in following or practising such things as had in them small profit, Hieronymus. in Mattheum cap. 23.  
Many of them were observed to be troublesome to others by being carried on with a contentious obstinacy, others by a superstitious timorousness about such trifles, as neither were comfirmed, by authority of the holy Scripture, nor by the custom of the Church in general, neither served for any profit to the amendment of life and manners, August. Epist. 118. cap. 3.  
As for example they were very superstitious and precise in bearing about certain little pieces of the Gospels: and of the wood of the cross. & istiusmodi rebus, and in the like things, and usque bodié factitant, doing it even to that day, having the zeal of God, but not according to knowledge, straining at a gnat and swallowing a Camel, Hieron. in Matt. cap. 23.  
They were marvelous precise in their fastings; for on their fasting days, they would eat no oil nor bread, but figs, pepper, nuts, dates, flower, honey, pistachia, all herbs and fruits growing in the garden (& delicias) and other delicates, they would not drink water, but they would have instead thereof, sorbitiunculas delicatas: delicate suppings, and the juice of herbs pressed out, and that not in a cup, but in the shell of a Sea-fish: they sought famam abstinentiae, in delitijs, commendation of their abstinence, by using, delicates: Hierom. calleth these things, ineptiae: superstitiones: jeiunium superstitiosum in Epist. ad Neapot.  
They censured such as dined on the Sabbath soberly, and did not fast as the manner of some places was: that namely they were in the flesh, and could not please God; that they were wicked persons, belly mongers, and that they savoured of the flesh, and of death, and their voice was this, recedant a me iniqui, viam eorum esse nolo, and they separated from them, Aug. Epist. 86. ad Casulanum.  
They would not serve God in a temple once abused to Idolatry, neither eat any herbs growing in the garden, nor drink any water running from the fountain of an Idoll-temple, Idem Epist. 154. Publicol.  
They would more sharply reprove a man (qui per octavas suas terram nudo pede tetigerit) Who during the time of their octaves, should touch the ground with his bare feet, than a man which was with wine stark drunk, Idem Epist. 119. cap. 19  
Some of them did abstain from eating flesh, with such a mind, as that they judged those persons unclean which did eat thereof: This Augustine writeth out of the report of januar. Epist. 119. cap. 20. and giveth his censure thereof, that namely, apertissimé contra fidem sanamque doctrinam est.  
In a word, many of them, out of their own fancies, or from the custom of other places, did cause such litigious questions about these matters ungrounded in the Scripture, and unprofitable in their nature, that they thought nothing right, which they did not themselves, August. Epist. 118. cap. 3.  
And thus in part, we see a small glimpse of the state of the primitive Church of Christ, which we commonly account and is here extended from the days of the Apostles, until the time of S. Augustine or there about: For afterwards the same (which then was clouded) declined unto dark night, and we will descend no lower, knowing that just exception might be taken at it in this argument.  
Now in the next place we will give a taste of the doctrine and practice of the Fathers, and the faithful in the midst of these corruptions, that we may see how the doctrine of suffering deprivation for inconvenient ceremonies (far more for number, and worse for quality than ours are pretended) hath by them been proposed and practised. Touching their doctrine of this point, thus they taught:  
That the Apostles driftin their writings, was not to set down Canons and Decrees concerning Feasts and Holidays (or such like Ceremonies of the Church) but to set down a precedent of piety, good life and godly conversation, Socrat. 5. 22.  
Seeing there is no man able to show any precedent or record in writing (of fasting days or the like traditions) it is evident that the Apostles did leave free choice and liberty to every Church at the discretion thereof, without fear, compulsion, and constraint to use that which seemeth good and commendable for itself, ibid. the like doth Augustine, Epist. 86. speak of fasting.  
They observed three sorts of Traditions or Ceremonies in the Churches of their times; First, such as Christ left to his Church, expressly set down in the Canonical Scriptures, which Augustine calleth an easy yoke and light burden, very few for the number, very easy for the observation, very excellent for signification (he mentioneth only baptism and the Lords Supper) whereby he hath knit together the society novi Populi of the new Church.  
Secondly, such Traditions or Ceremonies in the Churches of their times, as are not written but delivered, and are observed throughout the whole world, supposed to proceed from the Apostles, or from the prescription of general councils (whose authority was wholesome (quoth he) to be esteemed of) such as the days observed yearly to the memorial of Christ his passion, resurrection, asension, and descension of the holy Ghost, commonly called Pentecost or Whitsuntide.  
Thirdly, such as in divers parts and places of the world are observed diversly, as for example, that some do fast on the Sabbath, others do not so; some do daily receive the Communion, other receive it on certain days: In some places it is celebrated on all days without exception, other where only on Saturn days, and on the Lord's day: Et si quid aliud huiusmodi animaduerti potest, totum hoc genus rerum liberas habet obseruationes, August. Epist. 118. cap. 1. & 2. januar.  
That there ought of necessity one faith to be spread over the whole Church, as the soul within the members, albeit this unity of faith, be celebrated and solemnized with divers observations, by which diversity that which is true in the substance of faith, nullo modo impeditur, is no way hindered because all the beauty of the King's daughter is within: but the outward Ceremonies which are diversly observed, are as upon her garment, August. Epist. 86.  
That the difference and variety of fastings, or of days observed in divers Churches (or Ceremonies of like nature) doth not interrupt or impair but commend the unity and consonance of faith, so saith Irenaeus, Euseb. 5. 24. the like is, in Distinct. 12. cap. 3. scit. Sancta.  
That if their be any matter of this quality, which is contrary to the grounded observation of Christ and his Apostles; It must be reduced to the doctrine & practice of Christ and his Apostles; again, though their predecessors of simplicity or ignorance had erred (which by God's mercy might be pardoned to them) in which case men ought not to observe, what any man before them did think fit to be done, but what jesus Christ (who is far before all) did perform himself, Cypr. Epist. 3. lib. 2. Legantur plura.  
That Ceremonies and Traditions (such as fasting on a certain day, as on the Lord's day) after that they have been usurped and abused by detestable and damnable Heretics (as that was by the Manichees) ought not to be observed, but disused for the scandal thereof, Aug. Ep. 86. Casul.  
That all such Ceremonies and Traditions, which are not contained in the holy Scriptures, neither established by general Counsels, neither universally observed in the Church, but are varied innumerable ways in divers Churches, which either for number did overload the Church with a servile burden, or for whose continuance there could not be given a sound reason, albeit it do not appear that they be contra fidem, yet ubi facultas tribuitur, sine ulla dubitatione resecanda existimo: They ought without staggaring to be cut off, when conveniently they may saith Augustine, Epist. 119. cap. 19 januario.  
That these cautions in establishing of Ceremonies (being observed) such Ecclesiastical Traditions as do no hurt unto the faith, are so to be observed, as they are delivered of the ancients, neither aught the opposite custom of some, overthrow or prejudice the custom of other, dist. 12. cap. 4. Illud. out of Hier. Epist. 28. ad Lucinum. In the which Epistle he concludeth also thus, Vnaquaeque provincia abundet in sensu suo. Touching Ceremonies, let every Country abound in their own sense, presupposing their former caution that therein they impair not the faith.  
That whatsoever is enjoined in any Church, which is, Neque contra fidem, neque contra bonos mores, neither opposite against faith, neither yet good manners, is to beholden as indifferent, and to be kept, according to their custom with whom we live, August. Epist. 118. cap. 2. januar.  
That in matters whereof the Scripture hath determined no certainty, the custom of God's people is to be followed, August. Epist. 86.  
That there is no rule or discipline better, or more fit for a grave and prudent Christian, then to do after that manner as he seethe to be performed in that church, to the which it falleth out that he shall come, Aug. Epist. 118. This is to be understood of such Ceremonies, as before he saith are not contrary to faith nor manners, for of such he expressly speaketh, and then also he presupposeth a true Church.  
That into whatsoever Church a man shall come, he ought to observe the customs or Ceremonies which he findeth there to be in use, if he will not give scandal to others, neither receive scandal from other. This was the counsel of Ambrose to Augustine, on the behalf of his mother Monica; Ego verò (saith Augustine) de hâc sententia etiam atque etiam cogitans ita semper habui, tanquam eam caelesti oraculo susceperim, Epist. 118. cap. 3.  
That upon occasion of refusal of these matters, Cavendum est ne tempestate contentionis serenitas charitatis obnubiletur, August. Epist. 86. The law of charity must moderate this controversy.  
That if disputation be once admitted on the one side, from the divers custom of some Churches, to condemn others in these Ceremonies, there will arise interminata luctatio, a boundless struggling or contention, which with toil of ianling will produce no conclusions of any certain truth, Agust. Epist. 86.  
That if on the other side, men do labour to ground their particular Ceremonies on the authority of the Apostles: thence also cometh interminabilis contentio generans lights, non finiens quaestiones, an in determinable contention breeding strife, without deciding of the question, Idem ibid.  
That it was most evidently opposite to faith, and to sound doctrine for Christians, about the using or not using of these things, to censure one another, in respect of their standing in true grace, by judging one another to be unclean, August. Epist. 119. cap. 20.   

Thus of their doctrine: Now of their practice.  
ALthough the teachers of divers Churches, did vary very much in the judgement & practice of divers Ceremonies, as for example in the observation of fasting, some fasting one day, some two, some more, some forty, as Euseb. 5. 24. as also in the celebration of the days, as of the day of Easter, some observing it on the Lord's day (as the Western Churches did) some keeping it on the fourteenth of the month: both sides deriving their practice from the Apostles, Socrat. 5. 22. yet for all this difference they were at unity one with another, thus writeth Irenaeus to Victor, Eusebius. 5. 24. they were not at discord one with another, neither fell they out, Socrat. 5. 22. they varied not among themselves about these trifling matters, Euseb. 5. 24. they persuaded not one another upon either side to practise other than they did, Euseb. 5. 24. they used not a word of discord about this matter, ibid. they did not ever excommunicate one another for this difference, Euseb. 5. 24. they did communicate on with another for all this difference, Socrat. 5. 22. they parted when they met one from another in peace, Euseb. 5. 24. they never divided the Communion of the Church, neither broke they asunder the bonds of amity, Socrat. 5. 22. nor departed from their mutual Communion, Sozom. 7. 19 but all of them in their variety held fast the bond of love and unity, Euseb. 5. 24. and the reason is well added and expressed by Sozom. 7. 19 for they held it (quoth he) a frivolous thing and that deseruerdly, for those to be mutually separated from the benefit of either's Communion: Qui in praecipuis religionis capitibus consentirent, which agreed in the chief and fundamental points of religion: For neither (saith he) shall you find the same traditions in all Churches alike in every point, albeit they agree among themselves: and to prove this he setteth down a multitude of differences, of divers Churches, both of discipline and Ceremonies.  
They sharply reproved such, Euseb. 5. 24. and bitterly inveighed against them, Socrat. 5. 22. as troubled the Church by attempting to compel other Churches from their own ancient custom to their practice, and for threatening them with excommunication, for not obeying their admonition, as before we noted.  
They regarded not those excommunications, neither obeyed they such admonitions, but persisted in their course, and so protested openly that they would do, Euseb. 5. 23. 25.  
The Church of God in those times, being placed among much chaff and many tars, did tollerat many things (which for the time she could not well amend) & tamen quae sunt contra fidem (saith Augustine) vel bonam vitam non approbat, nec tacet, nec facit, yet neither did she approve, conceal, nor practise any thing which is contrary to the faith▪ or good life, Epist. 119. cap. 20.  
They held their Ceremonies not necessary, but alterable: for Constantine sent Osius Bishop of Corduba, to make an uniformity of observing Easter, Sozom. 1. 15. but Osius returned and could do nothing therein, cap. 16. thereupon the Necene Council was by Constantine gathered, wherein the matter of the Eastern controversy was ended, and all conformed in one order, ibid. namely to the order observed in the Western part, Theodoret. Hist. Ecclesi. 1. 9 fol. 585.  
They grieved and lamented to behold many perturbations of weak Christians, to have been wrought, partly by the contentious obstinacy, partly by the superstitious timorousness, quorundam fratrum, of certain brethren, which raised such contentious questions about Ceremonies, and matters of this nature, which were neither grounded on authority of holy Scripture, nor on the general observation of the Church, nor were profitable for correction of life and manners in as much, as they thought nothing to be right, but that themselves did▪ August. Epist. 118. cap. 3.  
They grieved exceedingly to see many wholesome precepts of divine Scripture to be less regarded, and such abundance of presumptuous every where, that they would more sharply reprove a man for the violating of a trifling Ceremony, than they would reprove a man for drunkenness August. Epist. 119. cap. 19  
There were many such inconveniences, which they durst not reprove more freely than they did, that they might avoid the offence and scandal, partly of certain holy persons, and partly also of some other turbulent persons, ibid.  
They practised the Ceremonies of every Church, wheresoever they came, as they saw them there practised and used, so they were not opposite to faith and good manners: so did Ambrose, and so did Augustine and his mother Monica, at the persuasion of Saint Ambrose, August. epist. 86. & 119. cap. 3.  
They persuaded every Church to follow her own custom, Sozom.  
They persuaded every Minister compassionately to correct, as much as in him did lie, whatsoever was amiss, and that he could not amend, to bear it patiently, and with a tender and loving affection to grieve and mourn at it, August. contra Parmen. lib. 3. cap. 2.  
They persuaded the members of the Church, every one of them to observe, as much as in them lie, the ceremonies & customs of the Church, wherein they did come or remain, if they be not contra fidem aut contra bonos mores, ut decet ecclesiae prudentem ac pacificum, as becometh a prudent and peaceable, some of the Church, August. Epist. 118. cap. 5. 7. thus did Ambrose teach and persuade Augustine, telling him that he would teach him none other, than he practised himself: Et si melius nosset, id potius obseruaret: herein also did Augustine and his mother rest, this advise they reverenced as an Oracle, and practised the same; and thus the same Saint Augustine persuaded others, as namely Casulan. and januar. to whom he wrote, Epist. 86. & 118. c. 3.  
Lastly, they taught unto men the doctrine, and persuaded them unto the practice of their Christian liberty, from all human ordinances when by them it was endangered or questioned, as also in a case of necessity, or of superior reason, so Spiridion the B B. of Cyprus, when his guest having nothing else to eat, denied to eat Pork flesh in the time of Lent, because he was a Christian; yea rather eat (quoth he) because thou art a Christian, for that all things are clean to the clean. Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 11. Hist. tripartit. 1. 10. of the like nature is that of Augustine before alleged, Epist. 119. cap. 20.    

And so much of the judgement and practice of the Primitive Churches and fathers, out of the which I know it is not possible, that any man should conclude the doctrine of the necessity of suffering deprivation, for refusing inconvenient Ceremonies; for my part, I suppose it clearly crushed and quelled, in the uniform judgement and practice of the Primitive times. Neither truly do I know, or have ever read, or heard any thing much differing from this which is here set down, not that I make their judgement or practise the infallible rule of truth, to overrule and guide my conscience or the consciences of others by, but it proveth the point in question clearly, that namely the doctrine and practice of deprivation, is opposite to all the best judgements, the most spiritual and Godly minded, yea the most eminent lights, and must sanctified vessels of God's grace, after the times of the Apostles in the primitive Churches. Neither do I think that there were any better or many other than these to be found, unless a man should pick out the opinions of convinced and condemned Heretics and Schismatics. And for my part since I perceived this their uniform consent, I durst not be peremptory or refractory in dissenting therefrom, especially perceiving withal the consenting harmony of all our later writers, and reformed Churches, to agree and jump with them, both in doctrine and in practice of these things, and in matters of this nature; which now in the next place, by the help of God, I will labour to make manifest.  
Secondly therefore I will prove the second part of the assumption, namely, [that the doctrine and practice of leaving one's ministery by suffering deprivation for not conforming to the Ceremonies prescribed, is opposite unto the doctrine and practice of all true reformed Churches and teachers or all classical writers.]  
That this point also may be made evident, we must consider (as we did before) two points: first of the estate of reformed Churches in respect of Ceremonies: Next, the judgement, doctrine, and practise of the most excellent teachers and classical writers of our time.  
The former of these points will teach us, that the estate 
Point. 1.  of reformed Churches, in respect of inconvenient Ceremonies exceedeth ours, (supposing ours to be inconvenient, as is pretended) in three points, even in number, nature, and effect. For the Ceremonies of other reformed Churches, are for number more, and for their nature and effect much worse, whereof the intelligent Reader may easily understand, in considering some of their particular Ceremonies, which I here set down.  

Touching Baptism.  
THey do use the sign of the Cross in the Danish and Lutheran Churches: Heming. syntag. 4. lege Decalog. §. 3. fol. 365.  
They do use exorcism in Baptism: planè Papistico more, ibid. Putaeus lib. 2. exercit. 24. fol. 170. Lutherani exorcismum cum signatione crucis defendunt, ut Muller. Leiser.  
They permit allow and defend the Baptism of Women, Colloqu. Mompelgart. fol. 499. Conrade. Schlusselb. lib. 1. cap. 18 fol. 60.  
They use the old hallowed Fonts to baptise in Berne, and Lansanna: Beza in vita calvini anno 1538. and every where.  
They have such as undertake for children's education in Baptism, commonly called Godfathers, Caluin. Ep. 302. fol. 491. So in the Low Countries, as appeareth, in Acts inferioris Germaniae, M. Can. 41. anno 1581. apud Sculting. Anachr. Hierarch. lib. 9   

Touching the Lord's Supper.  
THey use kneeling at the Communion in all the Lutheran Churches, Harmon. confess. Bohem. §. 14. fol. 120 and that is the more dangerous, because of their doctrine of consubstantiation.  
They use the Wafer cake, as the Papists do, in the Church of Geneva, Bez. in vita Caluin.  
They give it in private, and unto the sick, Schluselb. lib. 1. cap. 30. fol. 161, 162. Harm. confess. §. 16. Witenberg. fol. 197. Yea, they gave it unto only two, ibid. §. 14. fol. 146.  
They retain the name of Missa, the Mass, Harm. confess. §. 14. fol. 107. Augustan.  
They keep none back from the Communion, be they never so scandalous of life, in the Churches of Helvetia, in libello de ritibus Eccles. Tigur. fol. 16.  
The ministers do put in the Bread and Wine into the mouths of the Communicants, ibid. fol. 15.   

Touching the holy Scripture.  
THey make the Epistle to the Hebrews, and that of 
Solom. Gesner. compend. de Script. fol. 11.  james, and the second and third of john, and Jude, with the Apocalyps, to be either Apocryphals, or at least of more doubtful authority than other parts of Scripture in the Lutheran Churches, Chemnit. Enchir. fol. 63. propositiones Marpurg. tom. 1. Hunnij. fol. 3. tom. 2. Winkelman. fol. 5. Laelius de verbo Dei proposit. 22. fol. 113. propos. 22. 130.  
They read the Scriptures after the form of Epistles and Gospels in the Churches of the Lutherans, Helvetians, Nassovians, County Palatines, as appeareth by the Epistle of Luther, Melancthon. Heming. Gualt. Olevian. Textor. So Harm. confess. §. 1. fol. 9 Bohem. lib. de ritibus Eccles. Tigur. fol. 4.  
They read publicly the Apocryphal Books of Scripture in the Church.   

Touching prayer and liturgy.  
THey retain the form of their liturgy like unto the Mass book, Harm. confess. §. 14. fol. 127. Augustan. fol. 131. ibid. Look the Book de ritibus Eccl. Tigur. fol. 12, 13, 15, 16. they have the Angelical Hymn, Gospels, gloria Patri, gloria tibi Domine after the Gospel, etc.  
They have sundry prayers and Hymns in the Latin tongue, Harm. confess. §. 14. fol. 127. Aug.  
They have the use of Wax candles in the Lutheran and Danish Churches, Heming. syntag. 4. lex. Decal. §. 33. fol. 365. Simlerus de vita Bulling. fol. 34.  
They use the Surplice, Heming ibid. Simler. ibid.  
They use no singing of Psalms in some Churches of Helvetia, in lib, de ritibus Eccle. Tigur. fol. 9 b.  
They suffer and do use private prayers at burials, ibid. fol. 27. a. b.   

Touching Churches.  
THeir old Churches idolatrously abused, standing East and West, with the Chancel, and in form of a Cross retained every where.  
They retain Images in their Churches, and maintain a lawful use of them, Colloq. Mompelg. fol. 390, 403, 404. Schlusheb. Theolog. Calu. li. 1. cap. 10. fol. 35. 36. Eckhard. Fasc. quaest. cap. 8. quaest. 3. Heming. syntag 4. lex Decal. §. 33. fol. 365. Siml. b. sup.  
They retain Altars, in stead of the Communion Table, so placed in the Church, as are the idolatrous altars of the Papists, Colloqu. Mompelgart. fol. 424. 425. In the Lutheran Churches, and also in the Church of Berne, Ibid. Heming. syntag. 4. lex decal. §. 33. fol. 365. They retain the use of Organs in the Church and other musical instruments, Colloq. Mompelg. fol. 391. 409.   

Touching discipline.  
THey have Diocesan Bishops and Archbishops in 
Simler. in vit. Bulling. fol. 35, 36. Heming. enchirid. class 3. cap. 10. ord. fol. 348. Idem. Syntag. tit. gubernat. Eccl. §. 15, 16, 17. fol. 228.  Denmark, and superintendants, and even Abbots in Germany among the Lutherans, Melancht. consil. part. 1. fol. 95, 96, 225, 276, 610. Harm. confess. §. 17. fol. Augustan. Some Bishops of France converted from Popery, retained their place and office still by common consent of the French Church, Caluin. Epist. 373. fol. 646, 647, 648. So Martyr. Loc. come. ad finem, inter Ep. fol. 1143. Bezae.  
They have no use at all of excommunication in the Churches of County Palatine Helvetia, of Witenberg, & Mompelgart. Erast. de excommunica. fol. 356, 382. Vrsin catech. part. 2. qu. 83, 84. fol. 620. Caluin. Epist. 166, 170, 366. neither ruling Elders, T. C. his admonit. fol. 83, 84.  
They have holy days of Christ his Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, Pentecost, etc. in the Helvetian Churches, lib. the ritib. Eccl. Tigur. fol. 4. In the Churches of the Low-countries. Brownist 2. Letters to junius, in the Churches of Denmark, Heming. Syntagm. 4 lex Decal. 22. 24. 25. fol. 363. 364. Also in the Church of Berne, Aretius' Problem. loc. 99 fal. 289.  
They have holidays consecrated to the memorial of the Virgin Mary, the twelve Apostles, S. Paul, S. john Baptist, S. Stephen, Innocents', Saint Michael, All Saints, as appeareth in the Epistles which are before alleged, also Heming. ubi sup. Harm. confess. §. 19 fol. 176. Bohem.  
Their Ministers are called by them, Sacerdotes Priests, as are the Popish Mass-priests Harm. confess. Bohem. §. 11. fol. 47. & fol. 4. 62. Aug. Item. §. 13. fol. 93. Bohem. Heming. syntag. 4. lex Decal. §. 11. fol. 43. albeit otherwise the Tigurines disclaim this name being taken in the worse sense Harm. confess. §. 11. fol. 38.  
They have Deacons not Collectors for the poor, but a degree to the Ministry and an assistant to him: yea supplying the place of a Minister in his absence. Harm. confess. 11. fol. 47. lib. 2. de ritibus Eccle. Tigur. fol. 7. & 16.  
Their Ministers in the Helvetian Churches do play the Deacons, and gather contributions for the poor, lib. de ritibus. Eccles. Tigur. fol. 22.  
They practise and maintain auricular confession and private absolution Harm confess. §. 8 fol. 142. 143. Bohem § ibid. fol. 147. 150. August. ‖ ibid. fol. 154. Saxon. ‖ ibid. fol 160. Wittenberg. schlusselb. Theol. Caluinist. lib. 1. cap. 19 fol. 6. 9 Simlerus in vita Bullingeri. fol. 34. calleth it privatam quandam confessionem parum a Papistica differentem: yet look Zepper. de Sacram. cap. 35. fol. 787. 798.  
They allow and practise a kind of preaching and absolution of repentant sinners by women, in the absence of the minister among the Lutherans, Colloqu. Mompelg. fol. 499.  
And thus we see in part the estate of reformed Churches in respect of ceremonies, Not that hereby I do go about to justify these Ceremonies which they do practise, but thinking and professing many of them rather most fit to be abolished in many respects, and the Churches of Christ to be reduced so much as is possible to Apostolical simplicity. 
‖ Non damnamus veteres illos qui morem hunc seruârunt; habuerunt enim graves pro ratione illorum temporum causas. Chemnit. Exam. part. 2. fol. 102.  As neither do I utterly condemn their practice of these things, as knowing that there may be just and many occasions for Churches to retain inconvenient ceremonies, and that by the examples of the very Apostles, yet here we may see how far more justifiable our Church's estate is which (to speak the truth) hath fewer, and those more convenient and decent ceremonies, than many other reformed Churches, whose ceremonies are more liable to exception than ours, whether we respect the number, or the nature, or the evil effect of the said ceremonies. Now it followeth that we consider of the judgement, and practise of the most excellent teachers and classical writers of our reformed Churches; who excelling in the greatest measure of knowledge, sanctification, power, & blessing, were made the marvelous and mighty instruments of God in this latter age, to propagate the everlasting Gospel to the Church and to reveal, and ruinat the kingdom of Antichrist. First of their judgement touching ceremonies in general appeareth to be this that followeth.  
First touching the Fathers, albeit they do testify their dislike of the want of heedfullnesse, with abundance of curiosity, emulation and of Zeal, with some Lack of knowledge for their injunction strict defending and multiplying of ceremonies in sundry of the Fathers, as may further appear, Caluin. Instit. lib. 4. cap 10. sect. 18. Beza confess. de eccles. cap. 5. §. 20. fol. 129. Idem Epist. 8. fol. 71. 72. 73. P. Martyr Loc. class. 2. cap. 5. §. 20. Zanch. de redempt. lib. 1. cap. 5. fol. 366. b & c ‖ yet they all generally approve of the fore-alleged doctrine and practice of the Father's concerning the ceremonies namely:  
They justify Irenaeus for reproving Victor, and condemn Victor for censuring other Churches for the difference in such trifles. Also they commend the saying of Irenaeus: That the difference of fasting, doth not dissolve the consent of faith, Caluin. inst. 4. 7. 7. Idem Epistola 118. fol. 215. Zanch. confess. cap. 24. §. 10. fol. 207. Idem compend. Loc. 16. fol. 654. Harm. confess. § 16. fol. 176. Heluet. Poster. Beza. Epist. 8. fol. 71. calleth the message of Irenaeus to Victor, insignis Epistola. Look also Polanus Symphonia, Cathol. cap. 47. fol. 1212. Zepper. Polit Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 11. fol. 74. Idem de Sacrament. cap. 13. fol. 329. Paraeus in Rom. 14. Dub. 4. fol. 1203.  
They commend the judgement and saying of Socrates: That the Apostles left no ordinance of Ceremonies in writing: That these things were left by them free for every Church: That no Religion doth observe the same Rites: That they who agree in the faith, do differ in their Rites among themselves, Harm. confess. § 16. Heluet. Poster. fol. 176. & ibid. Augustan. fol. 187. 191 Where they allege the saying of Socrates out of Tripartit. Hist. 9 38. Harm. confess. §. 17. Heluet. Poster. fol. 211. Zanch. Compend. Loc. 16. fol. 654. Zepper. Polit. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 11. fol. 74.  
They commend the practice of Polycarp with Anicetus, Pius, Higinnus, Telesphorus, and Xist: who as Grinaeus noteth in his note on Eusebius 5. 23. Propter adiaphora non movebant certamina.  
They commend the doctrine of Ceremonies contained in Augustine, and of Ambrose, alleged by him, Epist. 86. 118. 119. before alleged, Harm. confess. §. 16. fol. 187. 189. August. Caluin. Instit. 4. 10. § 13. 14. 19 Peter Martyr Loc. Class. 2. cap. 4. § 39 fol. 203. and Class. 4. c. 4. §. 4. fol. 7. Sadeel de verbo Dei Scripto, cap. 5. fol. 32. Regula 4. Ibid. fol. 34. Obi. 9 Aretius' Problem. cap. 83. the adiaph. fol. 267. Paraeus in Rom. 14. Dub. 4. fol. 1203. Quibus de rebus in genere vehementer probamus atque amplectimur utramque Epistolam Augustini ad januar. saith Zanchius confess. cap. 24. § 15. fol. 2●1. and cap. 25. §. 30. fol. 251. yea they do specially commend the practice of that council which was given by Ambrose to Aug. Namely that all men ought to fashion themselves for ceremonies according to the custom of the church, whereof they are, or whereto they come; So as those ceremonies be not against faith or good manners, Zanch de operibus redempt. cap. 10. fol. 188. 6. & cap. 19 fol. 696. item Danaeus Isag. part. 3. lib. 4 cap. 18. fol. 410.  
They allow of the doctrine of Hierom: ad Lucin. Epist. That the constitutions of every Church are to be kept, and observed which do not hurt unto the faith, Sadeel de verbo Dei Script. cap. 5. Regula. 4. fol. 32. Zanch. comp end. Loc. 16. fol. 655. Polanus. Symphon. Catholic, cap. 49. Thess. 4. fol. 1239. and of this saying also of his in place, In his rebus abundet quaevis in sensu suo P. Martyr Loc. Clas. 4. cap. 4. §. 4. fol. 711.  
They do partly excuse, and partly commend and allow the ceremonies, used by the Fathers, and mentioned in Tertullian Zanch. in Eph. 5. fol. 448.  
They give a probable and a commendable reason of the Father's Studious commending of traditions & Ecclesiastical rites, ut vias omnes schismaticis obstruerent, Sadeel. de verbi Dei Script. cap. 5. fol. 32.  
They commend the saying of Pope Leo 9 & Nicholas the first, that the rites and customs which are diversified according to the circumstances of the place and time, do neither hurt the unity of the Church, neither the Salvation of believers, Harm. confess. §. 16. fol. 191. August. & §. 17. fol. 215. Bohem. taken out of Decret. part. 1. Dist. 12. cap. 3. scit sancta.  
They persuade and enforce the doctrine of Augustine against the Donatists cont Parmen. 2. 1. and 3. 1. 2. that if private people do perceive the corruptions of the Church to be but slackly reform, they must not therefore presently departed from the church: or if the pastors themselves cannot reform all abuses and corruptions as they would themselves, they must not therefore cast off their Ministry or (inusitatâ asperitate) with extraordinary harshness and eagerness trouble the whole Church, because the life of Church discipline stands in this, to retain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace: and therefore out of Cyprian they do exhort, Miserecorditer igitur corripiat homo quod potest quod autem non potest patienter ferat, & cum dilectione gemat atque lugeat, Caluin. inst. 4. 12. 11.  
Next, let us see their own uniform and entire doctrine and judgement of those things, thus they teach.  
That all Churches should labour, as much as possible may be, to Apostolical simplicity and paucity of Ceremonies, which they judge the safest, purest, and the best, Pet. Martyr. loc. come. inter Epist. fol. 1086. Hoopero & fol. 1125. amic. in Angl. Beza confess. de Eccle. cap. 5. §. 20. fol. 129. Zanch. confess. cap. 25. §. 30. fol. 249. Caluin. Epist. 303. fol. 497. Bucer. script. Anglican. fol. 705. Resp. ad literas, jocun. Hooperi. de re vestiaria. Zepper. de Sacrament, cap. 13. fol. 32.  
That jesus Christ would not prescribe the particulars of external discipline and ceremonies what we should follow: for that he foresaw that these things depended upon the condition of the times, neither did he judge one form to agree to all ages, & therefore in this case the Church must run unto the general rule of the Word, namely of order, decency, and edification: of the which rules determination, charity must be the moderator, in adding, altering, abrogating, Caluin inst. 4. 10. 30. Bucer. ubi superius, fol. 708. Hoopero.  
That albeit the Apostolical doctrine be exactly perfect, to the which we may neither derogate, neither add anything: yet in rites and ceremonies of the Church it is otherwise, for that the Apostles themselves could not set down at the beginning what was expedient for the Church herein: and therefore did of necessity proceed by little and little. And that even in their times the same rites or ceremonies were not used in all Churches: and again, that many ceremonies in their times in use, were afterwards abolished, Beza Epist. 8. fol. 71.  
That there must needs be some certain form of rites and orders in all Churches: and those established by laws, else the Church must of necessity be weakened, and dissolved, and that it would prove the mother of contention and confusion to suffer every man to do as he list himself, Caluin. inst. 4. 10. 27. 31.  
That the same ceremonies, rites and orders cannot possibly, nor aught to be the same in all places, or in all Christian assemblies, Harm. confess. §. 16. fol. 187. 191. Augustan. 11. ibid. §. 17. fol. 214. Heluet. poster. Zepper. de Sacram. cap. 13. fol. 328.  
That ceremonies are alterable and to be disposed, according to the circumstances of places, times and persons: some external rites are profitable to some places, others more available for other places, Zanch. de operibus Redempt. cap. 19 fol. 695. Zepper. de polit. lib. 1. cap. 11. fol. 73. 74.  
That all true Churches have liberty left unto them of God to ordain and establish, and to command such ceremonies and traditions, in their nature not evil, but indifferent, as they shall perceive and judge to be fittest for the edification of the Church, and furtherance of the Gospel, which therefore are to be left free to every Church, to 
Alexander. Alesius in Prooem. ad lib. ordinat. Angl. Bucer fol. 374 375. Polanus Syntag. Theol. lib. 9 cap. 29. fol. 4078. Canon 6.  make their choice as they shall perceive and judge to be fittest: To this end Bucer. script. Anglican. Hoopero de re vestiaria. Idem in Epist. joan. Alasco. Zanch. de redemp. cap. 19 fol. 696. Polani Symphon. cathol. cap. 49. thes. 4. fol. 1234 Whitaker. controver 3. the council. qu. 1. cap. 3. fol. 18. Zepper. polit. Eccle. l. 1. c. 11. fol. 73.  
That albeit in the manner of governing the Church, churches must not turn aside in any point that Christ hath specially ordained: yet this doth not hinder, but that there may be certain instituta ordinances in every particular place, pront commodum visum fuerit, as shall seem most commodious, Harm. confess. §. 17. fol. 216. Gallic.  
That B Bs. may ordain with the consent of the Church canons, or injunctions of days, feasts, reading Sermons for edification and instruction of the true faith in Christ, Har. confess. §. 17. fol. 229. Witemberg.  
That men must not immoderately contend, that rites and ceremonies be in every Church the same, and observed every whereafter the same manner: But they should be most careful of this, that these ceremonies be not repugnant to God's Word. But that they may be by our uttermost endeavours so ordered, as that they may further order an edification in the Church. P. Martyr. loc. class. 2. cap. 4. §. 34. fol. 203. Zanch. confess. cap. 25. §. 30. fol. 250. 251. That unity of ceremonies in all Churches, albeit as much as may be should be laboured for, yet it is not necessary, but for the diversity of places and divers respects and reason of the time, it is profitable to have divers rites in divers Churches, Zanch. Confessio. Scriptu. 24. §. 15. fol. 21.  
That diversity of Ceremonies in divers Churches doth serve to testify the Christian liberty, and doth greatly conduce to teach and manifest the true doctrine and judgement of ceremonies, namely that all men may by this diversity understand, that those things which are not delivered in the holy Scripture are not necessary to salvation: but may be altered according, as the time and circumstance of edification doth require, Harm. confess. §. fol. 194. Witemberg. P. Martyr. loc. clas. 2. cap. 4. §. 39 fol. 203. Zepper. polit. Eccles. 1. 11. fol. 74.  
That the external use of things indifferent, must be guided and moderated by the rule of charity or love: which is the end of the law and bond of perfection: Wherefore ceremonies must be squared to the edification & unity of the Church, Caluin. in act. 15. 28. fol. 235. Idem. Inst. 4. 10. 30. Alesius ubi supra. fol. 375.  
That the Law of Love or of charity teacheth men to observe things in their nature indifferent (though in their use in sundry respects inconvenient) for the sake of weak brethren to prevent their scandal: or hindrance of the Gospel and hurt of the Church, Piscator in act. 15. 20. observat. in which respect the use of such Ceremonies may be necessary not always and every where, but necessary for the peace of the Church, Piscat. ibidem in scholijs act. 15. 28. Caluin. in act. 15. 28.  
That one Church must not condemn another, for the divers observation of indifferent things: as it came to pass in the Primitive Church (ingenti malo) with incredible mischief, about the observation of Easter and fasting, Bucan. loc. 33. qu. 14. fol. 384.  
That the Church of God, is every congregation which worships God according to his Word, albeit there be great dissimilitude of Ceremonies: The true Church of God is distinguished by doctrine and worship, and not by Ceremonies [he citeth Ambrose and Augustine] Hemming. Syntag. in 4. Decal. legem. §. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. fol. 364. 365.  
That to the true unity of the Church, it is sufficient to consent in the doctrine and administration of the Sacraments. Neither is it necessary that human traditions or rites ordained of men, should be every where alike, Harm. confess. 10. fol. 19 August. Alesius ut sup.  
That the unity of the Church, it resteth not in external rites and Ceremonies, but rather in the truth and in the unity of the Catholic faith the brief of which Catholic faith is the Apostles Creed. Hence among the ancients there was divers varieties of rites, but such as was free: by which difference no man ever thought the Ecclesiastical unity to be dissolved. Wherefore the true agreement of the Church standeth in doctrines and in the true preaching of the Gospel, and in the rites expressly delivered by Christ, Harm. Confess. §. 10. folio 8. Heluet. poster.  
That it is a general rule, that men must not contend about indifferent things, that the unity of the Churches should be thereby broken, Zanch. de redempt. c. 19 in 4 precept. fol. 696. Neither the peace thereof troubled, Zepper. de sacram. cap. 13. fol. 314.  
That if different rites be found in divers Churches, no man may thereby think that they are at dissension, Harm. confess. §. 17. fol. 20. Heluet. Posterioris: so that they agree in the sum of doctrine, Beza Epist. 1. fol. 7.  
That the diversity of rites, is no sufficient cause why we should separate from any Church, seeing the Church hath always varied in rites, according to the diversity of places and of times, Aretius loc. 57 fol. 177. He citeth Augustine, and approveth Irenaeus his reproving of Victor, Bulling Deca. 5. serm. 2. fol. 360. 361.  
That it is not lawful for any man, ullâ de causâ, for any cause to make separation from the Church of Christ: that is as much to say; as in which, at least sound and sincere doctrine is retained, in the which standeth, incolumitas pietatis▪ the safety of piety, & where the use of the Sacraments ordained of God is preserved: and they are Schismatics that separate, and that therein they do sin, Beza Epist. 24. fol. 148. No not although there be sundry errors and corruptions in doctrine, manners, external policy, ceremonies, Morneus de Eccles. lib. 2. fol. 32. Zanch. confess. cap. 24. §. 10. fol. 207. Idem in Philipians, 1. 25. 26. fol. 45. 46. Danaeus, Isagog. part. 3. cap. 13. fol. 148. Bucan. loc. 41. Qu. 22 fol. 505. & qu. 25. ibid.  
That contentions and strifes about things indifferent, as rites and ceremonies, are such as before are mentioned in particular, to have been in the Primitive Churches, must not be raised in the Church, Polanus symphon. cathol. cap. 49. thes. 4. fol. 1234. & cap. 47. thes. 1. fol. 1212. & cap. 48. thes. 2. fol. 1227. Idem syntag. lib. 9 cap. 29. fol. 4078. Zanch. de redemp. cap. 19 fol. 696.  
That if there be found any not pernicious dissimilitude of rites and ceremonies, no man ought to be offended, or to take scandal thereby, or for this cause to reproach or to harm others, or to be the author of Schism or faction seeing the form of Ecclesiastical constitution, was never heretofore one and the same, neither yet is to this day, Har. confess. §. 17. fol. 215. Heluet. poster.  
That those persons do grievously sin, who for indifferent Ceremonies for the Church's edification, do trouble the Churches, or condemn other Princes, Magistrates, and Churches, for that it is opposite both to piety and charity. Zanch. de redemp. cap. 19 fol. 697.  
That where there is a certain form of Ceremonies for the Church's edification ordained and received, there unity in those Ceremonies must be retained of every one, and the Ecclesiastical order must not be troubled, or interrupted, according to that of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 1440. Zanch. confess. cap. 24. §. 15. fol. 211.  
That in Ceremonies of indifferent nature, such as fasting, etc. every faithful person (to avoid the giving of offence) is to follow the custom of the Church wherein he is, or to which he cometh, Polan. symphon. cathol. cap. 47. thes. 7. fol. 1226.  
That because we are men, and do live amongst men in the Church, it is not meet that in humane manners, rites and traditions we should be found froward. Let divine things be observed as divine, and human as human, so long as with a free and pure conscience they may be kept, Musculus Loc. part. 2. de tradit. §. 6. fol. 31.  
That if any person wrangle, and will be more wise than he ought against a common established order, let him look how he can give a reason, of his frowardness to God, howbeit the saying of Paul should satisfy us, 1. Cor. 11. 16. we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God, Caluin. instit. 4. 10. 31.  
That things otherwise in themselves indifferent, do after a sort change or alter their nature, when they are either commanded or forbidden by any lawful authority, Beza Epist. 24. fol. 143.  
That albeit Christian liberty hath taken away the yoke of the Law Ceremonial, and in steed thereof it is not lawful for any mortal creature to lay or impose any other yoke: yet the too licentious use of things indifferent, is by God's word restrained; both in general by the law of charity, whereby we are commanded to do nothing which may scandalise our neighbour, or omit any thing which may edify him, so far as in our calling we may; as also in special by the politic, or Ecclesiastical constitution, so far as the Church's governors under God do judge it profitable to the Commonwealth or Church, and thereupon frameth a law, Beza Epist. 24. fol. 143.  
That such constitutions do bind the conscience, in as much as no man sciens & prudens rebellandi animo, witting and knowing with a mind of disobeying, or in case of scandal may without sin do that which is so forbidden, or omit that which is so commanded, Beza Epist. 24. fol. 143. Caluin. institu. 4. 10. 31. Harm. confess. §. 17. fol. 230. 231. Sweu. ibid. fol. 218. 224. Augustan.  
And whereas it might be here objected, that these writers do speak of Ceremonies rightly established, thus much they farther teach in general;  
That the Word and Sacraments are not administered rightly and exactly, secundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as altogether agreeing with the prescript of the Lord, no not in all the world; yet albeit they be not administered according to that exact rule, and by reason of our frailty cannot be suddenly reform, yet may they be so performed, that they may be pleasing unto God, and healthful to the Church, yet so as the defect should be lamented and acknowledged; which point if it be not granted, there will be no pure or true Church in all the world, Vrsinus catech. part. 2. ad quaes. 84. fol. 620.  
That albeit many evil things do go along and be done, yet these things are done by such as hinder reformation, and by the disobedient; not by such as wish and sue for amendment: For blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness, Matth. 5. 6. (that is) which do desire good things to be done in the Church, which if they be not done it is not their fault, they may in that case retain a good conscience, Vrsinus ibid. fol. 618.  
That every Ceremony, or tradition have some certain causes, for which, and some certain end to which they be ordained, and therefore every Ceremony must be so observed of the faithful, that the observation thereof may answer to the reasons, and may be aimed to the fulfilling of the end. And seeing there is a diverse reason of traditions, some serving to faith some to piety, some to charity and concord, others to discipline of manners and sanctity of life: the people of God, must be instructed by the diligence of Ministers, and understand how they may apply themselves to every of them, with fit and competent observation, Muscu. Loc. part. 2. de traditionibus § 6. fol. 31.  
That if any man hath so profited in Christ's religion, that himself can receive either no profit, or very small from any on tradition: yet if this tradition be so fitted as that it may serve for edification unto the unskilful multitude, he ought to observe that Ceremony with that study of charity, whereby such as are perfect, are debtor to the more imperfect, so far forth that they harm them not by their example in those things wherein they are bound, in the whole study of their life to profit them, Musculus ibid.  
That when men under the colour of the study of perfection cannot endure any imperfection, either in the body or members of the Church; then are they admonished that the devil attempteth to puff them up with pride, and to seduce them with hypocrisy, Caluin adversus Anabaptist. art.  
That where the foundation remains entire, albeit there remain behind some stubble error, or corruption in doctrine, external policy, manners, or Ceremonies: there we may, and ought be present at Sermons, and receive the Sacraments, and exercise, or hold charity and peace with our brethren, yet so as making manifest our more sound doctrine, and persuasion of these corruptions, and farther to signify that for these corruptions, we will make no schism, Zanch. in Philip. 1. fol. 37. Idem confess. cap. 24. §. 10. fol. 207. Mornaeus de ecclesia cap. 20. fol. 32. and in respect of corruptios it were to be wished indeed that the church were pure and without spot, yet if it be not, we must use patience, else it is inevitable, that we must needs make a private schism, which is most diligently to be avoided of every Christian man. Wherefore those errors for which a man shall separate from the Church, in which he is baptized and is conversant, must not be of any other sort, but only such as overthrow, and violate the very substance of faith, and articles of the faith, either directly and clearly, or in sense and consequence: Danaeus Isagog. part. 3. cap. 13. fol. 148. Bucanus Loc. 41. qu. 22.  
That there are many things which are not to be approved in the Church, which are not worthy of contention, Caluin. Epist. 51. fol. 100  
That there may and aught many things to be tolerated, 
By tolerating them also, we mean practising, Beza Epist. 8.  which yet are not rightly commanded, Beza Epist. 12. fol. 98.  
That many things must of us be tolerated, which is not in our power to reform, Caluin. Epist. 148. fol. 254.  
That albeit men must endeavour to purge the Church of corruptions, which sprung up out of superstition, yet this exception must go along, that certain things although they be not to be approved, yet must be borne with all, Caluin. Epist. 305. fol. 504. to john Knox.  
That some rites and Ceremonies, albeit not necessary are yet to be tolerated, or borne withal for concord's sake, Beza Epist. 8. fol. 70.  
That as the manners of doting parents so the customs, of our unadvised country must be endured: yea the servitude which is without impiety, and that in matters of lesser nature [in the Church] must be borne withal, Harm. confess. §. 11. fol. 860. Melanctho council. Thelog. part. 2. fol. 107. and that there is ever some kind of servitude of the Church, more mild somewhere, somewhere more hard: howbeit more or less, there is ever some, Malanch. ibid. fol. 92.  
And thus we see their judgement and doctrine concerning Ceremonies in general. Now let us see the general practice of the Churches in these points: Thus they speak thereof,  
Albeit our Churches do not equally observe all Rites and Ceremonies with other Churches, a matter which both cannot, neither yet is necessary to be done that namely in all places of Christian assemblies, one and the self same Ceremonies should be used, yet do they not impugn or oppose themselves to any good and godly constitutions: Neither are they so minded, that they would raise up any dissensions for the cause of Ceremonies, albeit some of them might be judged not very needful: so as they be not found opposite to God, and to his worship and glory, and to the true justifying faith in jesus Christ, Harm. confess. §. 17. fol. 214. Bohem.  
We the reformed Churches of these days, having diversity of Rites in the celebration of the Lords Supper, and in some other things: yet in doctrine and faith we do not dissent, neither is the unity and society of our Churches rend or divided thereby: But ever the Churches have in these Rites, as in things indifferent, used liberty: That which we (the reformed Churches) at this day do also use, ‖ Harm. confess. §. 17. fol. 211. Heluet. Poster.  
So much for the judgement and practice of the Churches, and of our classical writers, concerning Ceremonies in general: Now also we will consider of them in particular: wherein we will give notice of four points. First of the judgement & censure of our classical writers, touching these Ceremonies which are prescribed in our Church, and the like, and their advice to others touching the practice thereof, especially in a case of Deprivation. Secondly the use and practise of these ceremonies, by the most excellent and worthy persons in this case. Thirdly, the reasons moving them unto this judgement, practice, and advice. And lastly, the objections against these things, especially in the case of Deprivation answered by them.  
Touching their judgement and censure of our Ceremonies, I find them in a threefold difference. For some of them do approve sundry of our controversed Ceremonies as fit and commendable. Some again do judge of many of them as of things indifferent, to be used or not used, even as the Church shall think fittest for itself. And lastly, some there be who account them as things in many respects unlawful and inconvenient: but yet in respect of greater inconveniences, (and namely of Deprivation) do hold them tolerable and excusable: which difference if any man be desirous to make use of, he may discern it in the reading and observing of them severally.  
In the judgement, censure, and advice of the godly learned touching our Ceremonies, we may observe first, what they thought in general of the Common prayer Book of our Church, and of the Ceremonies therein contained. Secondly what they thought concerning them in the several particulars, which are usually excepted against.   

Touching the Common prayer Book in general.  
BVcer: In perusing the Common prayer Book of the Church of England▪ wherein he was set a work by Bishop Cranmer I gave God thanks who had given you to reform these ceremonies unto that purity: I have not found any thing in the Ceremonies of that liturgy, which is not taken out of the word of God, or at least is opposite thereto, if it be favourably taken or construed on the better part. For (I confess) there want not some few matters, which if they be not 
* candidè.  fairly taken, may seem not altogether to agree unto the word of God. Script. Angl. fol. 456. Praefac. ad censur.  
Caluin: In the English liturgy, or book of Common prayer which you describe I perceive sundry 
* tolerabiles ineptias. Look the discourse of the troubles at Frankford fol. 28. wherein is showed, that Knox, Whitingham, and others, described the English liturgy: to which description this was the answer of Caluin, as appeareth there fol. 34, 35  tolerable unfitnesses: In which two words I express thus much that there was not that purity therein contained, which were to be wished; which blemishes at the first day of reformation could not be corrected. Wherein seeing there is contained no manifest impiety, these things therefore ought to be borne with for a season, Ep. 200. fol. 336. and a little after to the English exiles at Frankfurt, which desired reformation of the English liturgy, he giveth this advise: Vos ultra modum rigidos esse nolim, Epist. 200. fol. 336. Of the which advice of his he thus speaketh, in Epist. 228. fol. 374. in Anglorum controversia moderationem tenui cuius me non poenitet. & in Epist. 206. fol. 342. he persuadeth one part to incline themselves to all possible moderation, and is displeased with the other part, that nothing by them was yielded or mitigated.  
Martyr. loc. come. inter Epist. fol. 1127. amico in Angliam: For mine own part, I wish that all things may be done simplicissimè▪ most free from human mixtures, in the worship of God. Yet when I think with myself, that if peace between the Saxon Churches and ours, might be obtained, there would follow no separation for such matters as these Ceremonies.  
Alexander Alesius, a worthy Scot, of great account and note, in Proaem. before his Translation of the Common prayer Book, in Script. Anglican. Buceri. fol. 373. commendeth the performance of it by our Countrymen exceedingly, with their great diligence and care therein, and calleth it, Preclarissimum & divinum factum, in constituting and ordering the Church of Christ, according to that Book, & further declareth that the virtue and piety of English men in this matter, would rejoice many minds, and be an help to the endeavours of others in the like, and that it was evident that the enemies of the truth, were very sorry of the good success, and progress herein. Also he complaineth with Gregory of some,  commotis studijs contentio semper irritet aliquorum indignationem, utque nimio ardore interdum admodum peccetur, dum nemo minus videri altero, ac potius solus sapere vult, fit ut non necessarijs quaestionibus, & disputationibus necessariarum rerum cognitio negligatur: further he showeth this contention of brethren about this book, to come of the devil, who failing one way, seeketh another to mischief the Church, he complaineth of some, Aliquam divisionis occasionem arripientibus, non iam nulli, & vocabula, & penissyllabas expendendo verbis tantùm litigant, reipsa si placidè exquiratur futuri concords. Of the common prayer book itself, he saith: Hic liber & per se utilis futura lectio ipsius quàm plurimis & hoc tempore divinitus oblatus esse videatur, ibid. fol. 375.  
Cranmer Martyr: In his purgation of slanders against him: If the Queen's highness will grant thereunto, I with Master Peter Martyr, and other four or five which I shall choose, will by God's grace take upon us to defend, not only the common prayers of the Church, the ministration of the Sacraments, and other rites and Ceremonies: but also all the doctrine and religion, set out by our said Sovereign Lord King Edward the sixth, to be more pure and according to God's word, than any other that hath been in England these 1000 years, so that God's word may be judge, Acts & mon. fol. 1465.  
Bishop Ridley: When Bishop Grindall from beyond Sea wrote to him (in prison being condemned to be burned) concerning Knox his peremptory and violent exceptions, against our book of Common prayer (which was even misliked by Caluin himself, Epist. fol.) answered by writing thus. Alas that brother Knox could not bear with our book of Common prayer, in matter against which although I grant a man (as he is) of wit and learning may find apparent reasons, yet I suppose he cannot sound by the word of God, to disprove any thing in it, Act. & mon.  
Doctor Taylor Martyr: There was after that set forth by the most innocent King Edward for whom God be praised everlastingly) the whole Church service with great deliberation, and by the advise of the best learned men of the Realm, and authorized by the whole Parliament, and received and published gladly by the whole Realm, which book was never reform but once; and yet by that reformation it was so fully perfected, according to the rules of our Christian religion in every behalf, that no Christian conscience could be offended with any thing therein contained, I mean of that book reform, Act. & mon. fol. 1521.  
Exiles at Frankford: Among them was great division and dissension, about the using of the Common prayer book of England, one part refusing it as john Knox, William Whittingham, Christopher Goodman, David Whitehead, Miles Coverdale, john Fox, Anthony Gilby, etc. The other part standing for it, which also were reverend persons, as Thomas Leaver, john jewel, john Mullins, john Parckhust, Laurence Humphrey, james Pilkington, Alexander Nowell, james Haddon, Edwin Sands, Edmund Grindall and others: Look the discourse of the troubles at Frankford, fol. 16. 23. 19 Which dissensions caused them to seek the judgements of other churches, and their teachers, as of Caluin, Beza Bullinger. fol. 25. 199.  
Also Robert Horn, Thomas Leaver, Io. Mullins Tho. Bentham, W. Cole, Io. Parckhust, Laurence Humphrey, etc. were all fully determined to use none other, than the order last taken in the Church of England, Discourse fol. 16. 223. The same order of service concerning religion, which was in England last set forth by King Edward, fol. 10.  
Also james Haddon, Edwin Sands, Edmund Grindall Christopher Goodman, etc. not doubting or distrusting their good conformity and ready desires in reducing the English Church now begun there, to it former perfection it had in England, lest by much altering the same we should seem to condemn the chief authors thereof: whereas they now suffer, so are they not ready to confirm that fact with the price of their blood, etc. fol. 22. 23.  
They also at Frankford (writing to them at Zurick exiled also, dissenting from them about our Ceremonies:) Thought not that any godly men would stand to the death in defence of those Ceremonies, which, as the book specified, upon just occasions may be altered, accounting it an argument that they are slenderly taught, which for a Ceremony will refuse such a singular benefit, as to join with the Church. Master Fox was one of the seventeen that subscribed to this Letter.  
Also after all those stirs upon the point of their return into England, after Queen Mary's death, james Pilkington, Io. Mullins, Henry Carow, Alexander Nowell, etc. writing an answer to Io. Knox, Christopher Goodman, Miles Coverdale, Anthony Gilby, Willi. Whittingham, W. Williams, etc. We purpose not (as we trust these shall be no cause) to enter into contention with you. For Ceremonies to contend (where it shall lie neither in your hands or ours to appoint what they shall be, but in such men's wisdoms as shall be appointed to the devising of the same, and withal received by common consent of the Parliament) it shall be to small purpose but we trust that both true religion shall be restored, and that we shall not be burdened with unprofitable Ceremonies, and therefore as we purpose to submit ourselves to such orders as shallbe established by authority, being not of themselves wicked, so we would wish you willingly to do the same. For whereas all the reformed Churches differ among themselves in divers Ceremonies, and yet agree in the unity of doctrine, we see no inconvenience if we use some Ceremonies divers from them, for that we agree in the chief points of your Religion, etc. Discourse of troubles at Franck. fol. 189.  
B B. jewel: We are come as near as possibly we could to the Church of the Apostles, and of the old Catholic Bishops and Fathers, which Church we know was sound and perfect, and (as Tertullian termeth it) a pure Virgin, spotted with no Idolatry, nor with any fundamental or evident error. And besides that, we have aimed not only our doctrine, but our Sacraments also, and form of our public Prayers after the pattern of their rites and ordinances, Apolog. fol. 170.  
Master Deering against Harding: Our Service is good and godly, every title grounded on holy Scriptures; and with what face do you call it darkness? sure with the same that the Prophecies of the holy Ghost were sometimes called dreams, the doctrine of the Apostles Heresy, and our Saviour Christ a Samaritane. As Elias said to the Priests of Baal, Let us take either our Bullocks (namely their Mass book, and our book of Common Prayer) and lay the pieces on our Altars, and on which God sendeth fire, let that be the light— a little before— O Master Harding turn to your writings, examine your authorities, consider your counsels apply your examples, look if any line be blamable in your service Book, and take hold of your advantage; I think Master jewel will accept it as an Article.  
This was their judgement of our Ceremonies in general, which how opposite it is unto the doctrine, of suffering deprivation, for not conforming to them, I need not say, no not to men of a contrary judgement: we will descend unto the judgement of the particulars.   

Touching the Surplice.  
MElancthon & Benhagius, in the territories of Marquis Albertus the Prince and court required the Pastors, to embrace and follow the whole book of the Augustane confession: refusal thereof was made (pio consensu) by the godly agreement of the Nobility, or Gentry, of the Citizens and Pastors. The Court hereupon runneth on another deliberation, proposing Articles which altar not the doctrine, and the liturgy, but thrust upon them more Ceremonies, which yet howsoever may well enough be borne, adding withal a threatening, that they who will not follow this prescription should departed; albeit many Pastors had rather have departed then yield to such condition; yet the Churches requested that they might not be forsaken. In such a strait what council should be given? some more forward affirm, that it were good the Court were frighted with some terrible writing, with the fear of sedition, and with this scarecrow to repress and hinder farther alteration.  
There be many causes why we would not give any such advice: Neither would we have the Churches forsaken, as it came to pass in Swevia, where in many Churches there remaineth either no Minister, or a Wolf, which bring in again impious doctrine and false worships. That it may evidently appear that we wilfully descent not from the Papists our adversaries, we contend about great matters, in the which the evidence of truth doth convince the more sound, even among the adversaries: that we judge to be more profitable, then to wrangle about a Surplice or the like matter, where wise men will exclaim against us, that we withstand and disobey authority, and nourish dissensions with a foolish frowardness, Concil. Melanth. part. 2. fol. 90. 91.  
Again, we persuade not that (by the use of these Ceremonies, as the Surplice) the Churches should be troubled, neither are we (which thus persuade in this case to conformity) in less grief and peril than they who stand against it. But where new burdens are imposed, we think fit that it be judged, whether Churches be to be left to Wolves, or solitude and utter overthrow of them to be admitted: or else whether servitude (of using these prescribed Ceremonies) be to be endured. For neither would we have any impious Ceremonies to be received, neither the Churches to be forsaken, without most weighty reasons, as it is written, Not forsaking the fellowship, etc. ibid. fol. 92.  
Again Melancthon: Surely I could have wished in these great occasions, that these Churches had by no alteration or imposition of these Ceremonies (such as Surplice, etc.) been troubled. But I cofesse, I persuaded the Franck. Church and other, that they would not forsake the Churches for such servitude, which without impiety may be sustained. Miricus out cries, that rather desolation should be made in the Church, and that Princes are to be frighted with the terror of insurrection. For my part I will be author of no such sour advice: And for our part it is evident, that we endure far more heavy and hard burdens in our places, then is a linen garment, etc. fol. 106.  
Again Melancthon: I persuaded that desolation should not be made in the Church for the refusing of a linen garment, or matters of the like nature, ibid. fol. 108.  
Bucer: I am persuaded that godly men may use these garments godly, In Script. Anglican. Censur. fol. 458.  
Again: To the question moved by Bishop Cranmer to him, Whether the Ministers of the Church of England might use the Surplice prescribed by the Magistrate: After he had put in this caveat, that his answer concerned only such as were true and faithful Preachers of God's word, answereth, that he judged those Ministers who are such in the English Church, might by the grace of God use these garments, if so withal they did preach the whole truth, and perfect detestation of the Antichrist of Rome; and teach withal that their meaning is not hereby to establish any Antichristian corruption; that the Ministers by them are nothing more holy than other men, neither the more effectual to please God; neither that they thereby intent to revolve Aharonicall garments, but only in obedience to the King his Majesty, and those with whom God hath left authority to determine of external Rites of the Church (yet according to God's word) and further, that they do it to avoid the scandal of troubling the public order and agreement: and last of all, testifying to godly men, that every creature of God is good, and therefore all Christians may use such things godly, howsoever others have impiously abused them, Idem ibid. in Epistol. ad Cranmer. fol. 682.  
Again, I can by no means affirm these garments by antichrist's abuse to be so defiled, that they are not to be permitted to any Church; notwithstanding that, that Church knoweth and worshippeth Christ, and withal knoweth and practiseth the Christian liberty of all things. Neither do I see any Scripture whereby I may defend this condemnation of the good creature of God, Ibid. in Respons. ad litter as Hooperi, de re vestiarian, fol. 707. To make it (impium pierce) an evil thing in nature for a man to use these garments in God's service in any respect, I see no Scripture to permit or affirm so much, ibid. fol. 709. §.  
Again, I verily (as I have confessed unto you, and declared to our Countrymen) had rather that no kind of vesture, which the Papists used, were retained amongst us, for the more full detestation of the Antichristian Priesthood, for plainer avouching of Christian liberty, for the avoiding of dangerous contention among the Brethren: Yet I cannot be brought by any Scriptures (as far as to see hitherto) to deny that the true Ministers of Christ his Church may use without superstition, and to a certain edification of faith in Christ, any of those vestures which the Antichristians abused, Idem in Epist. Io. Alasco, at the end of the examination, a book so named and written in answer of a book called the unfolding of the Pope's attire.  
Again I know very many Ministers of Christ, most godly men, who have used godly these vestures, and at this day do use them: So that I dare not for this cause ascribe unto them any fault at all, much less so heinous a fault, as communicating with Antichrist: For the which fault we may utterly refuse to communicate with them in Christ, Ibid.  
Peter Martyr: Seeing these garments are things in different and in themselves good, they neither make any man godly nor wicked; yet (as you also think) I judge it rather expedient that these garments and other things of that kind be removed, when conveniently they may, that matters of the Church may much more simply be performed, Loc. come. ad finem inter Epist. Amico. fol. 1085.  
Again, the reasons by you (Bishop Hooper) alleged persuade me not to hold the use of these garments to be pernicious, or in their nature contrary to the word of God, which I suppose to be altogether indifferent; being not ignorant of this, that things indifferent may sometimes be used and sometimes should be removed, Ibid. Hoopero. fol. 1086.  
Again, albeit I do but slenderly approve these of garments, yet I perceive sometimes, that some indifferent things albeit troublesome and bird some, yet must needs be borne with, thus far forth as we cannot do otherwise: lest if it be contended more bitterly than it ought to be, it prove to be an hindrance unto the Gospel, and by our vehement contention we teach those things to be impious, which in their nature are indifferent, Ibidem.  
Again, surely to me it should be far more pleasing, (as I have often testified) that we might only do those things which Christ himself practised and delivered to his Apostles: Howbeit if some indifferent things be added, such as the Surplice, I would not have men too eagerly to contend about this matter, especially when we see those by whom the light of the Gospel is much furthered in England, and may yet more be furthered, to oppose themselves to us herein, Ibid. fol. 1085.  
Again, First I exhort that you withdraw not yourself from your calling, (to the Bishopric:) which is offered you, in regard of the wonderful penury of able Ministers: Whence this mischieve will come; that if you that are the pillars of the Church pull back, and refuse to execute the Ecclesiastical affairs both the Churches will be destitute of faithful Pastors, and you shall give tomb to Wolves and Antichrists after. Concerning the square Cap and external Apparel of Bishops, I suppose that it ought not much to be disputed of; seeing it is free from superstition, and may have a civil reason, especially in this Kingdom of England: Touching the holy Garments as they call them; I wonder that they be so strictly retained: For I wish that all things in God's worship may be performed with greatest simplicity: Howbeit when I think with myself that if reconcilement in points of doctrine might be made between the Saxon Churches and ours▪ there would be no separation for such garments as these: For albeit we like them not a whit, yet we would bear with their use among them, and gratulate ourselves, that we have abolished them: Wherefore you may lawfully use these garments either in preaching, or in administering the Lords Supper: yet so as you proceed to speak and teach against the inconvenience in the use of them, Idem. ibid. fol. 1127. amico in Angliam.  
Caluin of Bishop Hooper: As I commend his constancy in refusing unction and annealing, so I had rather that he had not so exceedingly contended (de pileo & vest linea) about the square Cap and Surplice, Epist. 120. fol. 217.  
Again, to Melancth: To that you say the Magdeburg Ministers do move brawls about a linen garment only: I see not whereto such brawls of theirs did appertain or tend: a little before; It may be some will urge some things, & as in contentions it came to pass, will odiously ventilate some ceremonies, wherein there is not so much evil as they pretend, Epist. 17. fol. 213.  
Also, although at first Caluin being demanded his judgement, de rebus adiaphoris, of things indifferent in the Saxon Churches, such as Surplice, etc. did freely manifest his judgement, and admonish Melancthon whom some accused as to soft and too remiss (for he persuaded to conformity, rather than to suffer deprivation, ut superius) yet saith Beza they accused him immerito quidem, very undeservedly, as afterwards Caluin knew more thoroughly. For than it was not known with what intention that evil spirit, and whole troup of Flaccians (which persuaded rather to be deprived then conform) which after occasioned so many tumults, and now saith Beza at this time doth hinder the work of God against the Papists, with that impudence and fury, as if he had been hired with large sums unto it by the Pope of Rome, Beza in vit. Caluin. anno. 1540  
Beza: But if any man demand, whether nothing at all of those things which are indifferent in themselves, may be retained, at least for the sake of the weak, and whether I think the ministry rather to be forsaken, then to use or observe any such Ceremonies, especially if this caveat be also added; That these things are brought in, or tolerated to this hour, not properly to tie men's consciences, but for other not trifling reasons: I answer that it appeareth not to me, that the Churches ought to be forsaken for surplices, or Caps, or any other the like thing which is truly indifferent, Epist. 8. fol. 77. Grindallo.  
Again, But our Brethren demand of us, What judge you that we should do in this case, upon whom these inconvenient Ceremonies are imposed? We answer; Hear needeth a distinction: For the condition of Ministers and people is different, besides sundry may and aught to be tolerated, which are not rightly commanded. Therefore first I answer, albeit in our judgement these ceremonies are not rightly commanded. Therefore first I answer; Seeing these Ceremonies are not of the kind of those things which are impious in themselves, they seem not unto us of so great moment as that therefore the Pastors should rather forsake their ministry then wear those garments, or that the flocks should omit and leave the public food of their souls, then hear their Pastors, being arrayed in such attire. And these things which they cannot reform or alter, let them rather endure and bear withal, then by forsaking of their Churches to give way to greater and more dangerous evils, so yielding to the will of Satan seeking herein nothing else, Idem Epist. 12. fol. 98. 99 This Letter is set down & translated in the discourse of the troubles at Frankford, fol. 211. and subscribed unto by divers Ministers, among whom are these; Theodorus Beza, Nicol. Colladonus, Simon Goulartius, Franciscus Port. Henricus Stephanus, etc.  
Bullinger and Gualther: If you wear a Cap or a peculiar kind of apparel, as a civil and politic thing, it smelleth neither of judaisme nor Monachisme. For these will seem to separate themselves from the civil & common life, and account a meritorious deed in the wearing of a peculiar garment. If in case any of the people be persuaded that these things savour of Papisme, Monachisme, or judaisme, let them be told the contrary and perfectly instructed therein: And if so be through the importunate crying out hereon before the people by some men many be disquieted in their conscience; set them beware which so do, that they bring not greater yokes on their own necks and provoke the Queen's Majesty, and bring many faithful Ministers in such danger as they cannot rid themselves again. In an Epist. sent into England by them to Mr. N. and Mr M. It is cited in Whit gift his defence fol. 277. They press the use thereof in the primitive Churches, Idid. fol. 288.  
Zanch. Touching the form of garments, which Ministers ought to use publicly, either in the execution of their Ministry, our judgement is that about these things we must not so contend, that for this cause the peace of the Churches should be troubled, Confess. cap. 25. §. 30. fol. 249.  
Again, albeit seeing Christ neither his Apostles did not forbid, that any man should take other garments, than the usual, honest grave and clean garment, Liberum est per se uti, vel non uti alijs vestibus: and albeit it be a free thing, and be accounted among matters indifferent, yet for signification it rather should become a Minister in the administration of the Sacrament to use a linen then a  garment: for that that colour is an emblem of innocency and sanctity, hence in the Apocalyps, white garments are given to the Saints, Idem de operibus Redem. lib. 1. cap. 16. fol. 445.  
Heming. I would not have private persons to alter any thing in Ceremonies ordained, and approved of our Magistrates by grave, and weighty reasons and authority: neither ought a most exact reason of every particular Ceremony be inquired, so long as they savour not of manifest superstition and impiety: neither do we judge Ceremonies to be of that moment, that for them schism should be moved in the Church, [he nameth there among other Ceremonies the Surplice] let the sincerity of doctrine be retained, as also the pure worship of God; let other things serve partly to the peace of the Church, partly to the infirmity of men, and let us leave these things to the wisdom of governors, and let them determine of these matters, Syntag. in 4. Legem. Decalogi. §. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. fol. 365.  
Again, It is indifferent in nature to celebrate or perform holy things, as Baptism and the Lords Supper, in a white and linen garment: howbeit if the use be not free but be reserved (superstitionis gratia) for superstition, it cannot be any longer accounted among things indifferent, for then as in a case of confession of the truth, they leave to be indifferent, Idem Enchiridion Tit. de adiaph. cap. 16. clas. 3. fol. 375.  
Polanus moves a question whether a Minister of the reformed Church, when he speaketh in the pew or pulpit, ought not to put on a linen grament, which they call a Surplice upon his usual attire? To which he answereth thus, Liberum videtur vtivel non uti in Sacris vest linea: then he showeth that in the time of Hieron. the custom was in the Church that such as did administer the Sacraments, did were a linen garment in the act of practice, citing the said, Hier. contra Pelag. l. 1. thus speaking, quae sunt rogo inimicitiae contra Deum, si Episcopus Presbyter, Diaconus, & reliquis or do Ecclesiasticus in administratione sacrificiorum, candidâ vest processerit, yet he inclineth to the removing of these graments out of the Church.  
But further he demandeth and putteth case, that if in any reformed Church, the use of a Surplice may not be omitted without the fear of schism, or encroaching of heretics, what shall a Minister do then? He answereth, In that case it is better for a man to wear a Surplice, as an adiaphorall or indifferent thing, then by the obstinate refusal thereof, to stir up schism to interrupt the course of true doctrine, and to give occasion unto heretics of possessing the Church, which he confirmeth by the example of Paul, which circumcised Timothy for the jews sake, because they all knew that his father was a Grecian, Act. 16. 3. howbeit if God grant a full reformation unto any Church, so as that with Idolatry itself, all instruments and helps thereof be utterly banished, by so much the more is the grace of God to be acknowledged, celebrated, and preserved, in Ezech. cap. 44. fol. 807.  
Zepperus: Although he testify his dislike of the superstitious histrionical, and corrupt use of the Surplice among the Papists, calling it an Aharonicall garment, whereof there is no use, but adviseth men to use such a simple and decent garment in the worships of God, as may seem most honest or agreeable to every Country or place; and that from the example of Christ, the Apostles and Primitive Church: yet he confesseth that Chrisostome Homil. 83. in Mat. & Hieron. lib. 1. contra Pelag. do make mention of a white garment, which the Ministers in those days used without superstition, in token and admonishment of leading an honest life, De politia Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 12. fol. 19  
M. Cartwright: Touching the point whether a Minister should wear it, although it be inconvenient: the truth is, that I dare not be author to any to forsake his Pastoral charge for the inconvenience thereof: Considering that this charge, being an absolute commandment of the Lord, ought not to be laid aside for a simple inconvenience, or uncomeliness of a thing, which in the own nature is indifferent. After, if the Prince upon the declaration of the inconvenience of such Ceremonies, and humble suit for release of them, will nothing lose of the cord of this servitude, for my part, I see no better way, then with admonition of the weak, that they be not offended, and prayer unto God to strengthen them thereunto, to keep on the course of feeding the flock committed to them in the end of his second Reply, fol. 262, 263.   

Touching the sign of the Cross.  
BVcer: This sign of the Cross, both in respect that it is of most ancient use in the Church, as also that it is (admodum simplex & praesentis admonitionis crucis Christi;) A Ceremony 
Sign of the Cross neither indecent nor unprofitable.  of much simplicity, and of present admonition of the Cross of Christ: I do hold it nec indecens, nec inutile, neither indeecnt, nor unprofitable. With this condition, that in the use thereof it be purely understood, and Religiously received, without the addition of any superstition or bondage of the element, or common custom. In Script. Anglican. Censur. cap. 12. fol. 479.  
Beza: Seeing these things (the sign of the Cross 
Not Idolatrous in itself  & other things) are not pierce Idololatrica, Idolatrous in their own nature, we think of these things, as we did of the Ceremonies going before, fol. 100 and what was that, 
Not of that moment to suffer deprivation.  namely (fol. 98.) that it seemeth not a matter of that moment, that for it Pastors should leave rather their charge, then use (this sign) or that the Flocks should let alone the public food of their souls, then hear their Pastors using this sign.  
Again: Touching the Cross, what shall I say, admit there was a time wherein there was some use of this Sign, in opposition to the cotemners of Christ crucified. Admit also that it was willingly, and of long time used by Christians for the external profession of the true Religion. After: Yet I know, that some renouncing the adoration of the Cross, retain the use of this Sign [utantur igitur ipsi sicuti par est sualibertate.] let them therefore use their liberty as is meet; we in the French Churches for sundry necessary causes may not tolerate it, Beza contra Baldwin.  
Heming: Some are offended with our Ceremonies (in the Denmark Churches, and cry out that they are popish: they say we have (Sacerdotes) Priests, Altars, surplices, Candles, Images, Exorcisms (signationes Crucis) signings with the sign of the cross, (plane Papistico more) merely after the Popish fashion. To those men I answer, the true Church is distinguished from the false by doctrine and worship, and not by Ceremonies, Quae per se adiaphora sunt; which are 
Of itself indifferent.  in themselves indifferent. Neither do we judge indifferent Ceremonies to be of that moment, as that Schisms should be moved for them in the Church. Let the sincerity of doctrine be retained; let other matters (ceremonial and circumstantial) serve partly for the peace and quiet of the Church, and partly to the infirmity of men, Syntag. ad 4. legem Decalogi. §. 33, 34. fol. 365. Also, in commentar. super 1. cap. joan. he saith, Minime improbo signum Crucis.  
Zanch: Other sort of Traditions there are, not necessarily to be retained in the Church, albeit very ancient, and mentioned of the Primitive Fathers: As that a Christian ought to arm his forehead with the sign of the Cross, as also to fast on Fridays, and Saturndayes. For albeit they may be used, si absque superstitione exerceantur, if their use 
It may be used.  be without superstition: yet they bind not the conscience, Compend. Relig. loc. 16. De tradit. Ecclesiast. fol. 654.  
Again, If we diligently consider the things which are reported of the sign of the Cross, we shall find that many things were fabulous, other matters feigned of the Devil, other uses thereof true, but not to the confirmation of superstitions: others also of that quality which in those Primitive times indeed, when as they were not as yet turned into superstition, Tolerari potuerunt, & verò fuerunt laud 
In some case tolerable.  digna, might be tolerated, nay they were worthy of commendation: yet from which uses of this sign, for the present we must wholly abstain for the danger of superstition. Other uses in a word there were of this sign: Quae tolerari etiam nunc possunt, cum nihil in tali crucis usu insit periculi: which may be tolerated even now in the Church, seeing in such use of the cross there is no peril, Deredempt. l. 1. cap. 15. fol. 367. After he showeth that the Primitive had the sign of the Cross in the forehead, to testify that they were not ashamed of the Crucifix: which was causa praecipua eaque non improbanda, The chief cause moving them to use it, and that not to be disliked, Ibid.  
Polanus: The sign of the Cross might have been used of the holy Fathers without sin, so far forth as it was a free and open testimony of the confident confession of Christians concerning Christ crucified, albeit he acknowledgeth that it was with good right abolished out of many reformed Churches, because it was Idolatrously abused by the Papists, and that all true worshippers might know, that God is to be served by them in spirit and truth, In Ezech. cap. 9 v. 4. fol. 258.  
Zepperus acknowledgeth the practice of the sign of the Cross to have been an usual and ancient custom of Christians in the Primitive Church, and maketh apology and good construction of the holy Fathers use thereof, namely, that they used it not superstitiously as the Papists do, but to testify their trust and confidence in the cross, that is, in the passion and death of Christ, as the jews in Egypt did, which signed the door post of their houses, not as if the blood of the Lamb had any power to preserve them from the destroyer, but because it was a type of the blood and Cross of Christ, though otherwise he dislike the use thereof in Baptism, because not commanded of God but hath been abused by the Papists to Idolatry: yet hereby he showeth, as also do the rest of our classical Writers, that the use of this sign is not a thing simply and in nature evil, the Sacrament. cap. 16. fol. 357. 358. & de politia Eccles. l. 1. c. 10. fol. 57 58.  
Gowlartius: The ancient or Primitive Christians, did use the figure of the Cross without superstition, because the doctrine of the merits of Christ preserved them from error, which afterward crept in, Annotat. in Cyprian lib. ad Demetr. cap. 19 he calleth it a thing indifferent. Annot. Cyprian Epist. 56.  
Master Perkins showeth, that the transient cross, that is, the sign of the cross made with the finger in the air, was in common use with the Primitive and purer Church, and was used as a simple rite, as a sign of the external profession of their faith, and confidence in the Cross, that is, the death of Christ, and as a certain monitory, whereby they stirred up their faith, and that it was not adored or superstitiously used, as among the Papists. Problem. tit. signum crucis. Sect. 1. 2. 3. fol. 83. 84.   

Touching kneeling in receiving the Communion.  
Church's reformed: Bohem: Geneva: The Bohemian confession touching the manner of their receiving the Communion saith thus, The faithful members of our Church do most usually receive this Sacrament (in genua procumbentes) kneeling on their knees with thanksgiving, joyfulness, and singing Psalms. Harm. confess. §. 14. Bohem. fol. 120.  
Low-countrieses Churches: In the administration of the Lords Supper, let every Church impose or use such Ceremonies, as they shall judge to be most expedient, so they look that the Ceremonies taken out of God's word, be not rashly changed, and superstitions be diminished. Ex actis Synodalibus general. inferior. Germ. Middleburg. anno 1581. Can. 45. apud Sculting. Anachrys. Hierarch. lib. 9  
Caluin being questioned of one, whether he might receive the Supper of the Lord from the Lutheran teachers, (in whose Churches kneeling is used, as appeareth before in the Bohem confess. as also appeareth in admonition of T. C. fol. 84.) In his answer to this question, makes no difficulty in respect of kneeling, but of their erroneous doctrine of consubstantiation, and therefore insinuateth it unlawful to receive, nisi clara & ingenua praecedat sanae doctrinae confessio: In which case he alloweth the receiving thereof, notwithstanding their kneeling. Epist 292. fol. 479.  
Bucer: If you admit not this, I do not see how you can grant any Church, that it may celebrate the Lords Supper in the Morning, and in an open Church consecrate to the Lord, that the Sacraments may be distributed to men kneeling or standing; yea, to women as well as to men: For we have received of these things neither covenant of the Lord, nor any example; yea, rather the Lord gave a contrary example in these things, in Epist. ad joh. Alasco.  
P. Martyr: Neither do I judge that we ought immoderately to contend that rites and Ceremonies be the same, and every where observed after the same manner. But this must be looked unto, that they be not repugnant to God's word: yea, they ought to be squared unto that, as much as possible may be, and to our uttermost endeavour, edification and decent order should be furthered: which conditions if they be observed, it is nothing material whether we receive the Lords Supper standing, sitting, or kneeleng, so as the institution of Christ be kept, and occasion of superstition cut off. Neither is it much to be respected while the Church receiveth the elements, whether some place of holy Scripture be rehearsed openly, or whether Psalms and thanksgiving be sung of the people. Loc. come. class. 2. cap. 4. §. 39 fol. 203.  
Again, concerning adoration, how it may be used in receiving the Sacraments, I will say something, namely, in a clear case: For if ones mind be applied not to the elements, but to the things signified, adoration may lawfully be interposed. Therefore when the Sacraments are received, & the promises as pertaining thereto, if we adore the Lord by kneeling, we do not thereby testify the real and corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Idem in defen. ad Gardiner. de Eucharist. part. 1. ob. 1. fol. 5.  
Beza: Kneeling at Communion while the elements are received hath indeed a show of Godly and Christian reverence, and therefore might heretofore be used, (cum fructu) with some benefit, yet because from this original, that same detestable bread worship did first arise, and sticketh as yet in the minds of many, it seemeth worthily removed (in the Churches where they use other gesture) yet again seeing this Ceremony is not per se idololatrica, idolatrous of itself we judge of it as we did of the Surplice, and other foregoing Ceremonies, Epist. 12. fol. 100 namely that it is not of that moment, as that for the refusal thereof the Ministers should leave their Ministry, or the people the Sacrament, Ibid. fol. 98. in another place, Epist. 8. fol. 77. albeit he hold it inconvenient, yet he confesseth that it is not, per se impium, in itself impious.  
Vrsinus: To a question whether among them that defend Consubstantiation, a man might lawfully receive the Lord's Supper? he answereth thus, seeing in those Churches the same foundation of salvation, and the same Christ is taught as is in ours: albeit some defects and blemishes do stick upon their Sacraments, and seeing the authority and use of the Sacraments, as also of the whole Ministry, dependeth not on the persons of the Ministers, neither can their false opinions or sins hurt and prejudicate, such as rightly do use Christ's institution; a man rightly informed, may holily communicate with them on these conditions. 1. If he have no more pure Ministry in the place, or about the place of his abode, or be driven from the use thereof against his will; as now in these parts the communicating in the purer Churches is for bidden, to the orthodox under pain of proscription. 2. If he receive not the Communion with them, as a badge of approving their error, and disliking of the true doctrine; as it is used, saith he, in the quarters of our neighbourhood. 3. If before he come, he make confession plainly, and ingenuously, without darkness, and doubtfulness unto the Ministers, and know whether they will receive him with this confession, and acknowledge him as a member of the Church, yielding confession of the truth to others also, but profess it before all, requiring of him a reason of his faith, either in public or in private: If the Minister refuse him on these conditions, let him abstain, if he admit him and there be objected to him, and laid before him his practice (vitiosae Ceremoniae) corrupt Cemonies, false opinions, scorn of the truth by the adversaries, as if he should be infected with some superstition thereby, and that he giveth scandal hereby to the weak, which may suspect that he approveth their opinions, and so may be confirmed also in these things. It is answered thus, that this is scandal taken, not given, if he who endureth this servitude, enjoying in the mean while his Christian liberty, doth not omit the confession of the truth unto the Ministers and others; and with all do openly profess for what cause, on what conditions, on what persuasion, and to what end he communicateth, and in what different reckoning he holdeth the ordinances of Christ, and the traditions of men; for thus all just cause of offence is taken away.  
Neither is a person of sound judgement defiled, when as he useth the Ministry of such as err; yea and observeth also haumane Ceremonies, if with all he clearly and constantly disliketh the errors, and do neither commit in word nor deed any thing openly and impious in itself, and repugnant to the word of God, and withal profess that he esteemeth not human traditions for the worship of God. So the Prophets & other Saints in the old Testament, and Christ and his Apostles in the New, did use the Ministry of the Priests, which many ways did corrupt the doctrine & worship of God: but in the mean while they themselves did nothing in itself idolatrous or forbidden of God, but did sharply reprehend the errors of the Pharisees & Saducees: So Paul by the observation of jewish abolished Ceremonies did apply himself unto the weak, when they fled from him as from an enemy of the Law, and of their country Customs, and in this thing did not sin. Peter applied himself unto the jews also, and yet is reproved, we see, of Paul: The cause was because Paul did add, but Peter did omit the necessary confession and doctrine of the truth: Therefore Peter gave scandal to the weak, and confirmed them that erred in their error, which Paul did not. Of this question (saith Vrsinus) I conferred heretofore at Zuricke, with P. Martyr of holy memory, not for mine own scruple, but for others, of whom I was importuned for advice, neither was his answer different from this of mine, Exercitat. part. 2 fol. 835, 836, 837, 838, 839.  
Zanch: As he who with some kind of reverence and honouring doth bear himself unto the Sacraments, is not to be blamed, so he committeth idolatry which adoreth and worshippeth the same: He giveth a reason hereof, because the Bread & Wine of the Lords Supper are no longer common or profane things, but holy, by which Christ doth communicate himself & his grace, and in that respect those elements are worthy of reverence. For as the word which is preached, although it be not to beadored, yet it is reverently to be heard and handled, as the word, not of man, but as the word of God: So also the elements of the Sacraments, in the act of the administration of them are worthy of some reverence and honour, as things not profane, but holy, and to this purpose is that where the Apostle commandeth the Bread to be eaten, and the Wine to be drunk worthily. For albeit this dignity consist properly in the mind, which is endued with faith & love, yet not from the purpose do we also refer the same to external reverence: Hence they who approach unreverently to the Lords Supper, as to a common or profane supper, were of God grievously chastened, as the Apostle teacheth, 1. Cor. 11. 29, 30, 31. Wherefore there is no doubt but he doth well and godly, and according to the will of God; which adresseth himself to come with external reverence (as bareheaded, kneeling, or the like gestures) and so handleth, and partaketh of the Sacraments, De Redempt. lib. cap. 17. fol. 486.  
Zepperus: These Ceremonies of good order or matters indifferent, may be thus distinguished, as that some of them may be considered about the administration of the Sacraments: others are accessaries, or furtherers of good order, and of honesty about external worship: For albeit the Sacraments are not to be accounted among the number of adiaphorals, or things indifferent, yet there is a real and great difference between the Sacramental Ceremonies themselves, which at man's pleasure neither can, nor aught to be altered or changed, and between the circumstances of those Sacramental Ceremonies; which circumstances for the state of Churches may by the Christian liberty be differently appointed and observed, as for example, the time of administering the Sacraments, Situs vel positus corporis in utendâ coenâ, the site and position or gesture of the body in using the Lords Supper; And the like, Polit. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 11. fol. 76.  
Again, it is usually objected, that if we will so exactly, and peremptorily sift all things▪ and square them to the institution of Christ, than it will follow, that the Supper of the Lord, shall not be celebrated but once a year, and that in the evening or night season, and that lying along about the Table, as Christ did in his institution, etc. He answereth thus, as if there were not great difference between the Sacramental Ceremonies themselves, and the circumstances of the Sacramental Ceremonies, such as are the circumstances of time, place, & site, or state or position of body, to which we are not bound in the New Testament, but do here rejoice in the Christian liberty, according to that of Galat. 4. 10. & Col. 2. 16. And as Saint Paul of the use of the Supper of the Lord doth bring in and apply the Word Quotiescunque. But the case is far otherwise of Sacramental Ceremonies, which appertain unto the substance of the Sacraments. Idem de Sacrament. cap. 13. fol. 321. 322. Look Saravia contra Bezam. defence. cap. 25. fol. 582. 583. and Luther in Gen. 47. where he alloweth this Ceremony of Kneeling.   

Touching holidays.  
THese are of two sorts: some bearing title to the memorial of Christ our Saviour, and the parts of our redemption by him performed; as namely, the days of Christ his Nativity, Circumcision, Passion, Resurrection, ascension, and Descension of the Holy Ghost: some others bearing the name and memorial of the Virgin Mary, the Apostles and other of the Saints. The former sort as they are in every reformed Church in the world that I have heard of practised (excepting in Geneva which only observeth the day of Christ's Nativity, Caluin. Epist. 118. fol. 215. & Argentorat or Strausbourg, Caluin. Epist. 128. fol. 226.) as namely in the Churches of Denm. Heming. Syntag. in 4. leg. Decal. §. 22. fol. 363. 364. Of Bohem. Harm. Confess. §. 16. fol. 179. Saxony and high Germany, Harm. Confess. §. 16. Augustan. fol. 186. Helvetia Harm. Confess. §. 16. Heluet. posterior. fol. 179. Item in libello de ritibus Eccles. Tigur. 8. fol. 1. of Basil. Polan. Syntagm. lib. 9 cap. 35. fol. 4147. Belgic or Low-Countries as appeareth in the last letter of the Brownists unto junius last letter. Berne. Aretius' Problem. loc. 99 fol. 289. Fulke in Rhem. Apoc. 1. 10. fol. 854. and in Gal. 4. 10. §. 5. fol. 63. So do all good and godly judgements that I could light of (excepting only Piscator in Gal. 4. 9 10. 11. observat. fol. 426.) concur together to approve of them, so doth Bucer. Script. Anglican. in censura fol. 493. cap. 26. Pet. Martyr. loc. come. inter Epistolas fol. 1087. Bulling. in Epist. Caluin. 129. fol. 227. Zanch. confess. cap. 25. fol. 250. & in Col. 2. 17. fol. 67. Zepper. de politia Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 13. fol. 94. Aretius' Problem. de Ferijs fol. 289. Paraeus in Rom. 14. dub. 4. fol. 1203. 1204.  
The latter sort of holy days, albeit they be not used in some Churches, as in Helvetia, Belgia, France, county Palatine, etc. but are by sundry godly persons in some respects misliked, as Har. confess. §. 16. Heluet. Poster. fol. 175. Bulling. in Ep Caluin. 129. f. 227. & Dec. 2. Ser. 3. f. 126. Caluin. Ep. 278. fol. 456. & Ep. 379. fol. 658. Muscul. loc. part. 1. in 4. precept. fol. 133. 134. 135. Zegedine loc. con. fol. 324. the fest is Christianorun Olevian. in Rom. 14. 5. f. 691. 692. Idem in Gal. 4. 10. fol. 95. Rolloc. in Coloss. 2. 16. fol. 164. 165. Paraeus in Rom. 14. dub. 4. fol. 1204. 1205. 1206. Bb. Hooper on Command. 4. fol. 48. Paraeus in Rom. 14. Idem exercit. 29. lib. 2. fol. 200. Yet by sundry reverend persons they are excused, and by some allowed and practised in sundry Churches, as the Churches of the Augustane Confession Danish, Bohem. Berne. and others Harm. Confess. §. 16. Bohem. fol. 179. Hemming. syntag. in 4. legem Decal. §. 27. 28. fol. 363. 364. Aretius' Problem. loc. 99 f. 289. Bucer. script. Anglic. censura. cap. 26. fol. 494. allow them upon condition that they be sanctified by preaching & practising of holy duties; and not profaned by sin, belly cheer and vanity. Zanchius excuseth them in that the Fathers who first ordained them, did upon those days worship God, and not the Saints and beside by this, Quod nulla lege prohibebantur id facere quod faciebant de redempt. cap. 19 fol. 601. as also in respect of their ends of institution, the remembrance of the Saints excellency to our own profit, the declaration of their virtues to God's glory, and an excitation of men's minds to thankfulness unto God. Idem in Col. 2. 17. fol. 67. And therefore he concludeth, that as those Churches did well to abolish the Popish supestitious days, which were abused to Idolatry; as the day of the Conception and Assumption of the Virgin Mary, etc. yea, they also did not evil, which for the state of their Church did abrogate omnia praeter diem Dominicum, all days, being matters merely indifferent, and to prevent future superstition, Zanch. in Coll. 2. 17. fol. 614. & de redempt. cap. 19 lib. 1. fol. 618. yet seeing they are matters in their nature indifferent, Liberum est Ecclesiae deligere sibi dies Festos, Every Church hath liberty to choose holy days for the edification of itself. Idem de redempt. cap. 19 fol. 615. Idem confess. cap. 25. §. 30. fol. 250. on condition that they be not too many, neither used profanely or superstitiously, or when they be so abused, if they cannot well be reform to abolish them. Idem de redempt. cap. 19 fol. 615. 618. confess. ubi supra. And so he affirmeth, that these holy days ought by no man to be contemned, and that by the example of Christ, Zanch. in Col. 2. 17. fol. 67. a. Idem de Redempt. ibid. fol. 612.  
The obseruators on the Harmony of confessions on sect. 16. ad Bohem. 1. do thus affirm of these Holy days: As some Churches do so far submit themselves to their infirmity with whom they converse, as that they do observe these holy days (titled with the names of the Apostles) albeit with an uneven, yea altogether a repugnant reason: So other sundry Churches being driven unto it by no such necessity, have taken these holy days also, not only as unprofitable, but also in some respects hurtful.  
Hemingius showeth, that there is great difference between the observation of these Holy days distinguished by the names of Saints, as it is performed by the Papists and Heathens: The ends of whose observing them (being idolatrous and profane) we abhor, (saith Hemingius) as unworthy of whom any mention should be made among Christians, and as it is observed among the reformed Churches, whereof he giveth 6. profitable ends: That the history of the Church may be the better made known: That the benefits of God towards the members of his Church may be thought upon: That thanksgiving may be given to God for them: That the divers cases of the Saints may be considered & weighed: That we may imitate the Saints in repentance, life, worship, confession, constancy, patience, and in other virtues: That lastly with holy sighs, we may desire the communion of Saints, Syntag. ad 4. legem Decal. § 25. 26. 27. 28. fol. 364.  
Caluin to the French Church at Mompelgart concerning the not receiving of feasts: I could wish you to be more constant, yet so (ut non litigetis de quibus libet) as ye contend not about all the holy days; but about such only which neither make anything at all for edification, and beside, do manifest themselves to be superstitious in the very first appearance. He giveth instance of the holy days of the Conception and Assumption of the Virgin Mary, [which are built the one on false doctrine, the other on a lie] Epist. 51. fol. 100  
Again, In another place, touching Festival days, and other ceremonies, as I suppose then to be subject to the censure of God, which under the colour of I know not what conformity and agreement among Churches, have both nourished an inconvenience, and turned aside the remedy: and it is an hard matter for the godly Brethren to subject themselves to such things which they apprehend neither to be right, nor profitable, Ita etiam defectus multos tolerandos judico, ubi emendari non possunt; Even so I do judge that many defects are to be borne withal, where they cannot be reform: Wherefore I do not think it fit that any of the Brethren should for this cause insist so far, as to departed and separate from the Church, whereof he is a member, if the greater part of the Church be carried in a contrary course; because in such cases it seemeth unto me sufficient if that which we know to be right be of us laboured unto: for albeit it be thrust upon us, & malam caudam trahat, and do draw a long some evil effects with all, yet because it is not repugnant to the word of God, concedi potest, it may be yielded unto, especially where the greater number doth overcome the lesser, when as there is no possible way or means for him, which is only but a member of that body, to porcure and to further reformation, Idem Epist. 379. fol. 658.  
Aretius: Because the appointing and determining of Feasts hath ever been a matter free, that is, that other Churches may add other days to the Sabbath to be kept holy, Nihil & in hac re vitij inesse iudicamus, Probl. Loc. 99 fol. 289.  
Polanus: The observing of holidays in the beginning of the Christian Primitive Church, was a matter indifferent, and therefore discord and contention for the celebration of them should not be moved, Polan. Syntag. Tom. 2. lib. 9 cap. 35. fol. 4148.  
The Churches of the Low-countries make this Canon for themselves, as holidays shall be abolished, excepting the Lord's day, and the days of Christ's Nativity and Ascension; howbeit, if more festivals be to be kept by the Magistrates command, the Ministers must be admonished, that they labour by preaching to turn the people's idleness on those days into godly business or excercise, Ex acts Synod. inferior. German. Middleburgi anno. 1581. canon. 50. apud. Schulbrig. Anacrysi.  
Fulk: That other days also, besides the Lord's day, may be kept by the Church's ordinance, for the assembly of Christians to the exercise of religion, we acknowledge: But that any are simply necessary, more than be of the Holy Ghosts appointing in the Scriptures, we deny: In Rhem. Test. ad Gal. 4. 10. §. 5. fol. 603.  
Again, that any contention should arise for keeping or not keeping of the such feasts, it is a fault in our time, but yet such a fault as was very ancient, as appeareth by the contentions of Victor, and the Bishops of the East, for the celebration of Easter: and pursued with more bitterness by Victor Bishop of Rome, then by any of our time. For he presumed to excommunicate as heretics, all such as would not keep Easter after his manner, Euseb. 5. 25. we acknowledge it was a very ancient custom of the Church, to celebrate the memory of Martyrs, as the Church of Smyrna doth write in their Epistle, Euseb. 4. 12. For the remembrance of them that have fought before us, and for the excercise and preparation of them that shall fight hereafter. But your Popish manner of celebration is nothing like, either in the form or in the end, for you keep your holidays, as the jews did the feast of the Calf, wherefore it is written; The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up again to play: In your Churches, you solemnize them with idolatros worshipping of the creatures, and their images out of the Churches, with banqueting, reveling, and idleness, so that the people by your festivities of Martyrs, are not taught what true Martyrdom is, nor prepared to suffer for Christ, but rather to become Epicures, whose belly is their God, who glory in their shame, etc. In abrogating and retaining of feasts, our Church hath used that liberty, which Christians have in observation of days: To conclude we learn by many testimonies of the ancient Fathers, how Christian solemnities may be kept, that they be not jewish or Heathenish observations, as when they are free from superstition, idolatry, or opinion of holiness in the times, and when they be kept as things indifferent, wherein the Church may use her liberty to appoint or abrogate what is best for edification, & not to be servilely bound to keep them of necessity, as you the Papists defend that they are, Fulk. Rhemi. Gal. 4. 10. §. 5. fol. 603. 604. Also we show the Christian liberty in respecting all days alike that are not discerned by the commandment of God. As for the dung of your festivities, we condemn as open idolatry by manifest texts of scripture, forbidding God's honour to be given to creatures, & yet the days appointed by the Church for excercise of religion we observe, and that without superstition, Idem in Rom. 14. 5. §. 2. fol. 480. Look also Reu. 1. 10.  
Perkins: He reproveth the Papists for dedicating many of their Holidays to the honour of Saints and Angels: whereas the dedication of ordinary and set days, is a part of religious worship, he showeth that it is the privilege of God to appoint an ordinary day of rest, and to sanctify it to his own honour. After: Indeed the Church of England observeth Holidays, but the Popish superstition is cut off: For first, we are bound in conscience to the observation of these days: secondly, neither do we place holiness in them: thirdly, but we keep them only for order's sake, that men may come to the Church to hear God's word: four and though we retain the names of Saints days, yet we give no worship to Saints, but to God alone: fifthly, and such days as contained nothing in them but superstition, as the Conception and Assumption of the Virgin Mary, we have cut off. Thus doth the Church observe days with us, and no otherwise. Indeed the ignorant multitude among us fail greatly in observing of days: For they greatly solemnize the time of the Birth of Christ, and then they keep few or no Markets: But the Lord's day is not accordingly respected, and men will not be dissuaded from following on that day, On the Gal. cap. 4. 10. fol. 316.   

Touching sundry other Ceremonies, some used in our Church, others of much like nature used in other reformed Churches.  
THe other Ceremonies which are used in our Church, are thus by our classical writers that have written of them, partly defended and excused.  
The Ring in marriage with the words annexed, In the name of the Father, the Son, and she holy Ghost: This albeit some learned men condemn as the outward sign of a Popish Sacrament: yet Bucer calls it, admodum commodus ritus, a very fit Ceremony with this condition, if it be expounded to the people what all this may signify, which there he setteth down, Bucer. Script. Anglican. in censura cap. 20 fol. 488.  
The Purification of women delivered of child, now called more appositely, The thanksgiving for women delivered, some condemn it as jewish, yet Bucer giveth this censure and excuse for it, Haec omnia Scripturis congruunt; This Ceremony is agreeable to the Scriptures, with that which in the Common prayer book is expressed; He excepteth the offering of a white garment, which is since abolished, Bucer. ibid. cap. 24. fol. 490.  
Private Communion to be given to the sick: Bullinger granteth, that good men might admit of a private Communion to be given to the sick, even in these our days, for a time, to these which have not as yet understood the full use of the Lords Supper: yet he would not have this liberty granted unto all, neither they that receive it to hold it as viaticum, a necessary supply to help them in the way to heaven Decad. 5. Serm. 9 fol. 498. a.  
Caluin alloweth it, if there be some company of the kindred, friends and neighbours of the sick, that the distribution thereof may be performed according to the institution of Christ; and withal, if the action of this communicating be explained to the receivers, neither any different matter done from the common practice of the Church, yet he would not have this used commonly: He holdeth it valdè periculosum huc & illuc promiscuè defer, very dangerous (for superstition, and ambition, or vain ostentation) to have the Sacrament carried hither & thither, Epist. 360. fol. 625. Bucer holdeth it in our Church, Scriptures satis consentanea, sufficiently agreeable to the holy Scriptures, for the consolation of troubled consciences, if it be received as the Lord appointeth, Censura cap. 22. fol. 489. The obseruators of the harmony of confessions, albeit they dislike the Communion of two alone, obseru. ad §. 15. Wirtemb. 6. yet they grant private Communions, upon condition that the liberty of other Churches be reserved, wherein the Lords Supper is not administered but in public assembly, lest salvation might seem to be tied to the Sacraments, or the Supper of the Lord to be tied to that time only, observat. §. 16. Wirtemberg. 1.  
Bowing the knee at the name of jesus: Zanchius thus excuseth; This name which was before by all the jews blasphemed: after his death his Godhead being manifest, is adored of all, Insomuch as he is adored of all, so as all men bend their knee at the only mention of his name. Hence I doubt not (saith he) came first this most ancient custom in the Church, that when jesus is named all should uncover their heads, in token of reverence and adoration: and it was established against the Arrians and other Heretics, which affirmed Christ to be only man. Consuetudo fuit non improbanda: sed postea versa est in superstitionem ut multa alia pie & Sanctè instituta: It was after turned into superstition, as were sundry other godly and holy ordinances, Zauch. In Philip. cap. 2. 10. fol. 123.  
Paraeus to the question, whether the putting off the Cap to the hearing of the name of jesus may be proved by the scriptures answereth negatively: In the mean time, saith he, We condemn not this Rite, if it be not esteemed as a worship of God, but for a decent adiaphoral, and then again if such as do it not be not condemned, Colleg. 2. cap. 31. Sect. 13. fol. 280. Master Fulke: Capping or Kneeling at the name of jesus, is of itself and indifferent thing, and therefore may be used superstitiously, as in Popery, etc. It may be also said well, when the mind is free from superstition, in sign of reverence to his Majesty, & as in a matter wherein Christian liberty ought to take place and due reverence to our Saviour, may be yielded without any such outward Ceremony of Capping or Kneeling, Fulk. Rhem. on Phillip. 2. 10. §. 2. fol. 628.  
Witnesses at Baptism, Sponsores, commonly called Godfathers, Bucer in his censure dislikes it not. It is used in most Churches of the world, even in Geneva, which Caluin liked of, so that the Parents were also present, unless urgent occasion should hinder, Epist. 302. fol. 491. Beza allowed of this custom and asks a question thereof: Quis tandem damnare ausit? Who dareth to condemn it, unless he would be reproved, by those express words of Paul, commanding that all things be done honestly and by order, Epist. 8. fol. 75. to Bishop Grindall. Pet. Martyr calleth it utile institutum, a profitable ordinance, yet he reproveth the usual negligence of such in casting off the care of children, of whose Baptism they are the witnesses, loc. class. 4. cap. 8. §. 5. fol. 822.  
Private Baptism to sick and weak children, Bucer alloweth it, and saith it is holily proposed in our common prayer Book: He wisheth that it might be observed; especially that infant's Baptism be not deferred. Whereby he observeth, that a door is opened to the Devil to bring in the contempt of the Church, and so of our whole redemption and communion with Christ, which prevailed greatly by the opinion of the Sect of the Anabaptists. Censur. cap. 15. fol. 481. So Caluin judgeth hereof, that infants may be baptised out of the Temple, so it be done wheresoever there is numerus aliquis fidelium qui Ecclesiae corpus efficiet, & qui baptizat pro Pastore agnoscatur; A certain number of the faithful, which may make the body of a Church, and he which baptizeth be acknowledged of them as their Pastor: And further, that it be not performed in private without any witnesses at all. Epist. 185. fol. 304.  
Perambulations in Rogation week: Peter Martyr, albeit he affirm to have risen from the Heathen custom of perambulating, and could not well tell how to give advise thereof: yet on condition that only Prayer be used unto God for his mercy, and for the use and blessing of the fruits coming up, with thanksgiving for his blessings on the creatures the last year; he doth not altogether condemn it as superstitious, though otherwise he wisheth the Magistrates to abolish it; Loc. come. inter Epist. fol. 1128. amico in Angliam.  
Epistles and Gospels (the readings of holy Scripture so called) used in sundry Churches, as before appeareth, and is so far forth approved by the obseruators of Geneva on the Harmony of confessions, that liberty be left to every Church of using these, or not using them, upon condition that this dividing of the Scripture do not produce a neglect of the rest; observat. §. 1. ad Bohem.  
Reading of Homilies: Albeit that all learned and godly teachers do with one consent condemn an ignorant unlearned slothful Minister, and by all means do persuade to their uttermost endeavour in the furtherance and planting of a Godly, learned, and painful Ministry, as Caluin. Epist. 127. fol. 124. & Epist. 87. fol. 164. 165. Bucer. censura cap. 2. fol. 458. & cap. 7. fol. 465. & Epist. ad Cranmerum fol. 683. Idem deregno Christi lib. 1. cap. 15. fol. 52. 62. Beza Epist. 12. fol. 95. 96. & Epist. 8. fol. 79. Hyperius de Scriptur. lect. lib. 1. fol. 122. add fol. 136. & Tom. 2. fol. 675. 676. 677. 678. P. Mortyr loc. inter Epist. fol. 1085. Danaeus Isag. part. 3. lib. 3. cap. 45. fol. 373. Zanch. observat. ad confess 25. fol. 66. 67. Whitaker in Epist. dedicat. contra Paraeum, with divers others: yet in a case of necessity Bucer saith, that it is better that godly and learned Homilies made by others should be rehearsed or read unto the people, so long as Preachers are wanting, which may holily and wholesomely teach and exhort them, Censur. cap. 7. fol. 465. Also in another place he commandeth the order used both in the Primitive times among the Fathers, as also in England in his time of appointing Readers in the Church, with condition, si idonei, if they be fit: if they read gravely, religiously, clearly, and to the people's edification: if they be de singulari pietate commendati, of singular piety: Else he concludeth Illos non esse Ministros Christi, that they are not the Ministers of Christ, which chop and mumble up their reading, as they cannot be understood with edification by the people. I script. Anglican. de vi & usu ministerij. fol. 564. 565. This Zanchius also citeth and approveth out of Bucer. observat. ad confess. cap. 25. §. 10. 11. fol. 65. 66. 67.  
Sundry other Ceremonies there are, partly used in our English Churches, and partly not such, as Christ's picture, and Crucifixes, Beza colloqu. Mompelgart. fol. 49. Heming.  
Images of Saints, Beza ibid. fol. 401. Heming. ibid. fol.  
Altars of stone, Beza ibid. fol. 424. 425.  
Exorcisms, Heming. ibid.  
Candles, Heming. ibid.  
Organs, Beza ibid. fol. 410. 411. 423.  
Name of Priest by the Latin word Sacerdos, Heming. ibid.  
Against which Ceremonies, albeit the said Beza doth by many pregnant reasons show his dislike, yet doth he and Hemingius conclude them to be things of their own nature (adiaphora) indifferent, howsoever in use inconvenient: also the obseruators on the harmony of confessions do mention other Ceremonies, such as the use of Ecclesiastical discipline in Sect. 8. August. observat. 6. Of Excommunication, in Sect. 10. Bohem. 3. in Sect. 11. Anglic. 1. Of Suspension, in Sect. 17. Gallic. 1. Of private Absolution, in Sect. 8. Bohem. 1. and Saxon. 1. and Wirtemberg. 1. and in Sect 11. Bohem. 8. Putting on of hands on the head of the baptized, in Sect. 13. observat. 1. Imposition of hands on the head of the Minister, in Sect. 11. Heluet. prior. obseru. 2. All of the which they do not simply condemn, but do leave them to be done, or not, at the liberty of every Church upon two conditions. First, that the liberty of other Churches of different practice being kept entire not prejudiced. Secondly, that the inconveniences of such Ceremonies be carefully prevented.  
So that we see here the unity of judgements of the godly learned to be opposite unto the doctrine of suffering deprivation, for not using or conforming to our inconvenient Ceremonies, or to the like.   

Secondly also after the survey of their judgement, we will take a view of their practice also, what it hath been in this respect.  
In Geneva about Wafer-bread in the Lord's Supper: This Church in the reformation thereof used common bread in the Lord's Supper, and had abolished the use of the Wafer-cake, as also their fontes to be baptized in, and all their holy days except the Lord's day: Now it fell out that the Church of Berne assembling a Synod required a restoring of these things unto the Churches of Geneva, Caluin. Coraldus, and Farell refusing to consent unto them, or to administer the Sacrament in such manner, they were banished thereupon the City of Geneva, and within three days after their refusal, were deprived of the use of their Ministry in that place, the great part commanding over the better. Now in their absence sundry godly persons were so offended, with this change from common bread to the Wafer-cake, as that they thought best for them to abstain from the Lords Supper, and to separate from their Ministry, rather than use the same with the said Wafer-bread: Whereupon Caluin. seriò monuit ne ob istud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 litem moverent, seriously admonished them that they would not raise contention about this indifferent matter, which is set down in his Epistle 17. fol. 37. 38. 39 40. so (saith Beza) the use of the Wafer-bread took place and was established; about the which, Caluin after he was restored to his Ministry again [Nunquam contendendum putavit, minimè tamen dissimulans quid alioqui magis esset probaturus] did not think it meet to contend, yet not dissembling his mind what otherwise he did mean to approve. Beza in vita calvini anno. 1538.  
In Germany, about excommunication and discipline, Bullinger: There was never any contention about excommunication between our Church of Zuricke, and the Church of Geneva most beloved of us, Apud Erast. de excom. fol. 365. also in another place: In the mean space, we never condemned the Church of Geneva which hath her discipline, albeit, we have none, Ibid. fol. 350.  
About the Surplice: It being enjoined to the Ministers of Suevia; they utterly relinquished their Ministry rather than they would conform unto it: this practice did Melancthon, and Pomeranus utterly dislike and persuaded the Ministers of marquess Albertus' dominions, to conform rather than to suffer deprivation, which they yielded unto for the most part, Consil. Melancth. part. 2. fol. 91.  
About an Altar: There is a history related of two great persons, a Prince and an Earl, the one a Lutheran, the other a reformed Protestant. The Earl supposing that he had more jurisdiction in a certain Church then the Prince had, commanded an Altar in the Church to be pulled down, and a table to be erected in the place: The Lutheran Prince understanding thereof, commanded the table to be taken down, and the Altar to be again set up: The Earl repeated his practice the second time, so did the Prince, at last the Earl (in a matter of that nature) let alone the Altar in the Church, & suffered the contentious Prince to have his will, Colloqu. Mompelgart. fol. 424.  
In the Low-countries, about breaking bread of Lord's Supper: A certain person was accused to the general Synod of the Low-countries, gathered at Middleborough 1581. That he would not have the bread in Lords Supper to be cut (as the manner is of those Churches) but would have it broken out into parts, out of the whole loaves, the which Ceremony of breaking is doubtless the more agreeable to the institution of Christ who broke the bread, Mat. 26. 26. and to the analogy it had to Christ his Passion whose body was broken, 1. Cor. 11. 24. howbeit, it was demanded of the Synod, what was to be done and practised in this case? It was answered by the Synod, that they must remain in the received custom of the Belgic Churches, and if any should do against the custom, they must be admonished to desist and leave of that their practice: In acts Syn. inferioris Germ. partic. interrogat. numb. 76. apud Schul. Anachrys. Hierar. l. 9  
In America: When Villagagno transported the French Coloniae into Brasil, anno 1555. under direction and protection of Gasper Colignius, Admiral of France, there was a question on occasion moved touching the elements of the Lords Supper, whether in defect of Wine, and so of Bread of Wheat, they might administer the Sacrament in the Bread of roots, and common drink of the Americans, made also of Roots? Hereof there was difference in judgement, some holding that it were better to abstain from the Lords Supper, then to administer or receive it, seeing Christ mentioneth expressly, Mat. 26. 16. Marc. 14. 25. of the fruit of the Vine: Others on the other side thought that our Saviour speaking of Bread and Wine, mentioned them only as the common or usual meat & drink, not as determining those very elements. To which controversy, joan, Lerius, the reporter that was then present, inferreth, Albeit (quoth he) the greater part inclined to the latter judgement yet because there was not so great scarcity of the things questioned, as then the controversy rested to be determined by further judgement, yet this peaceable disputation was cause of no kind of discord among us, who by the grace of God remained most nearly knit in our affection, in as much as I could willingly desire and wish, that there were so good agreement between all those which do profess the true Christian Religion, as there was at that time among us, joan. Lerius. Histor. navigat. in Brasil. cap. 6. fol. 69.  
In England: About Episcopal garments and Surplice, Bishop Hooper was a person exceeding peremptory both in preaching against the Ceremonies (as appeareth in his Sermons on jonah, and on the Commandments, and in the objections which he made against them to Bucer, and P. Martyr as we may perceive in their answer to his Letter) as also in his flat refusal of them; whereupon he was by the high Commission convented, and for his constant refusal was imprisoned by them, where he remained for a season. Howbeit, after his objections were by Bucer and P. Martyr answered and by them, and by Caluin persuaded to conform, rather than to suffer deprivation: He conformed at the last, and wore the garments; and being appointed to preach before the King to try his conformity, he appeared in his Bishoply Robes, namely, a white linen Rotchet, a long scarlet Chimere, and a square Cap, Caluin. Epist. 120. fol. 217. Bucer. in Script. Anglican. fol. 705. de re Vestiar. Hooper. Pet. Martpr Loc. Com. ad fineminter Epistolas, fol. 1085.  
About receiving the Lords Supper with inconvenient Ceremonies, and persons in differing doctrine: P. Martyr when he came into England first, and the opinion of the corporal presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper was in force, and when the Ministers albeit differing from him in judgement, yet did not refuse to admit him with open confession of contrary judgement, he joined with them, and received the Lords Supper, Non obstantibus illorum Ceremonijs sibilicet ipsi molestis, notwithstanding the Ceremonies, though very much troubling him. This counsel did P. Martyr give to Vrsinus, and to other Christians in Germany Vrsin. exercitat. lib 2. fol. 840.  
About the Surplice: M. Deering: While any law did bind me to wear Cap and Surplice, I did wear both; since I never persuaded any man to refuse them etc. Register, fol. 84.  
M. Greenham: Albeit he affirm that he neither could, nor would wear the apparel, no, not so far as he thought it might be observed, Register. fol. 87. yet from the objection from authority, namely, that Bucer, Martyr, Bullinger, Beza, and Gualther, do think rather that these inconveniences should be borne withal for a time, than the Flock should be left to Wolves, sure (saith he) this reason is main enough of itself, if it were not authorized with these learned and godly men's writings; And I pray to God the Father of jesus Christ, by his holy Spirit, to move others to be as unwilling to use it, (i) to suffer their flocks by deprivation for the Ceremonies to be left to Wolves, as I am unwilling to answer it, and have it practised on me. I will not answer therefore this reason until there be no remedy, Regist. fol. 90.  
The judgement and practice of Bishop jewel, Doctor Whitaker and Doctor Fulke, is known this way.  
Doctor Humphrey: Albeit it be known that he was a great adversary in his judgement and long practice of refusal of the Surplice, as appeareth in a letter of his written of that thing; yet he did at the last conform unto the Surplice.  
The like of late we know did Doctor Reinolds, Doctor sparks, Doctor Chaloner, Doctor Ayray, Master Chaderton, Master Knewstub, though they stood out and testified their dislike against sundry of the Ceremonies established, yet did they in case of deprivation yield unto them, and conform, and studiously persuaded others in this case unto this practice: The like did many other very godly and learned men at divers times and in divers places. Thus we see their practice also.  
Thirdly, there cometh to be considered the reasons moving these persons to this judgement & practice, namely, wherefore they persuade and practised conformity to prevent deprivation or the Church's desolation, viz.  
Because these ceremonies, seeing they are (adiaphora) indifferent, they make no man in themselves godly or ungodly, Martyr amico loc. fol. 1085. And therefore albeit it were granted that these Ceremonies were not fit to be used: Yet if other things which are prescribed by God's Word do remain entire, these things may well be thought neither impious nor pernicious per sese aut sua natura, of themselves, or of their nwne nature, Idem Hoopero loc. f. 1088.  
Because, where the doctrine itself is sound and pure, and the Ceremonies used to a civil honesty and decency, the inconveniences are rather to be passed by in silence, then that by occasion of them men should proceed to contentions and more grievous tumults, Caluin. Epist. 303. fol. 497.  
Because, albeit these things be not to be approved, yet, sometimes these indifferent things, howsoever offensive and burdensome, are to be borne withal, so far forth (quoad aliter non liceat) as conveniently we cannot do otherwise, lest if men contend about them more bitterly than they ought, it be both an hindrance to the progress of the Gospel, and the things which in their own nature are indifferent, be taught by our vehement contention to be plainly wicked; which two points do bring with them most grievous inconveniences, P. Martyr. Hooper. loc. come. f. 1086. And therefore these things which the Pastors cannot change, they should rather bear withal, then by forsaking the Church for that cause they should give occasion for far greater and more dangerous mischiefs unto Satan, who seeketh nothing else, Beza Epist. 12. fol. 99  
Because it is better to use these Ceremonies (he mentions a Surplice) as a thing indifferent, then by the obstinate refusal thereof to raise up Schism, and to interrupt the course of the doctrine of truth and to give occasion to Heretics to possess the Church, Polan. in Ezec. 44. fol. 807.  
Because such is the example of Paul, who circumcised Timothy for the jews, in that they all knew his father to be a Grecian, Act. 16. 3. Idem Ibid.  
Because we must give place unto the sway of the times wherein we live, so far forth as may stand with keeping faith and a good conscience, Act. 28. 11. & 19 10. 26. & 15. 28. 29. Master Perkins cases of Consc. lib. 3. cap. 2. fol. 483.  
Because, if we cannot do the good that most we desire, in such exquisite manner as we would, we must content ourselves with the mean, and in things which are good and to be done, it is the safest course to satisfy ourselves in doing the less, lest in venturing to do the more, which cannot be, we grow to the extremity, and so fail to offend in our action, Eccles. 7. 16. read the proofs, Perkins cases of Consc. lib. 3. cap. 2. fol. 484. 485. 486.  
Because it may be thought expedient, that these things for a time be borne withal; for it may perhaps produce this effect, that these contentions may be avoided, by the which contentions there is great peril, lest greater and far more important benefits be hindered; and lest the minds of men be at the first beginning turned from the Gospel, as we see it come to pass, Martyr. ibid. fol. 1085.  
Because, if the parity of Doctrine and of Faith do remain entire, the Pastors may openly teach and press unto their flocks such doctrine as may serve to take away offences arising by the use of these Ceremonies, Beza Epist. 12. fol. 99  
Because, if we preach and teach indifferent things to be impious, we shall so alienate men's minds from us, that they will no longer endure to be attentive and patiented hearers of sound doctrine, and of necessary instructions, P. Martyr ib. fol. 1086. Hoopero.  
Because it is far better to contend about greater matters, in which the evidence of truth may convince the Papists and other our adversaries, then to wrangle or brawl about a Surplice or the like thing, where wise men cry out upon us, that with peevish way wardness and obstinacy we cross our governors, and nourish dissensions, Melancth. council. part. 2. fol. 91.  
Because the sinew and principal members of Antichrist should first of all be studiously oppugned [such as an unlearned Ministry, slackened discipline, etc.] The which things, if all of us on either side did uniformly with united force and endeavours set upon, the abuses of surplices and of all other inconvenient things would easily be abolished, and all the marks and shadows of Antichrist would vanish: Elsevaine will be the labour of driving or expelling antichrist's relics and shadows from the Church, Bucer script. Anglican. Hoopro fol. 706. For if we did suffer the Gospel first of all to be spread abroad to take deep rooting, perhaps men would better and more easily be persuaded that they might remove these external inconvenient shows and Ceremonies, like as a sick man lusting after some small trifling meats, which, after he is well again, doth voluntarily renounce as unfit. Wherefore let England be first diligently instructed, and confirmed in the chief and most necessary perils of Religion, and so afterwards in my judgement the Church shall not much be offended to have these things somewhat superfluous to be removed, P. Martyr loc. fol. 1086. Hoopero.  
Because if some things in their nature indifferent be imposed it is not meet too eagerly to contend about such matters; especially when as we see those Magistrates by whom the light of the Gospel is much furthered in England, and by whose authority it may much more be furthered, to oppose themselves against us. Peter Martyr ibid. fol. 1085. Hoopero.  
Because, whereas the Ministers are willing to reform abuses, & the Magistrate is peremptory and resolute, not to reform for some reasons of policy, the Minister in that case is not to leave his ministry, or to trouble the Church, intempestivis clamoribus, or to contest or contend with the magistrate: The reason is, because this course tendeth to the overthrow of the Church, and is opposite to that charity which he oweth unto Christ & to his church, out of which ground and rule he ought to preach, and to hold on in the course of his ministry. He ought indeed to teach publicly and privately (as the matter requireth) what is to be done, but this he must perform without sedition and troubling of the Church; but peaceably and discreetly. Charity will inform the Pastor, if he love the Church indeed, how he ought in these cases to behave himself, Zanch. in Philip. 1. fol. 45. Look also, Musculus loc. part. 2. de tradit. §. 6. fol. 31.  
Because the Apostles in this case being guided by the rule of love, did at the instant request of the jews, enjoin the Brethren, and the Churches which were gathered out of Gentilism, to abstain from strangled meat and blood; and chose rather to burden them for a season with the observation of these things which savoured of jewish superstition. Also by the same rule of love was Paul led whenas he came into the Temple with those four jews which had a vow upon them, and purified himself with them. Yet these Rites of those times were (Stipulae cum fundamento Christo non congruentes) Stubble not agreeing with Christ the foundation: But the edification of the Church required this thing. Wherefore many things are to be tolerated by the Ministers, that the peace of Churches be not rend, and that Schisms may be avoided, so that they be not such things, or doctrines which do fight with the foundation and do heave at it, Zanch. ibid.  
Because if Pastors cannot reform all things which need amendment, according to their desire, they must not therefore cast away their Ministry, or trouble the whole Church with an unusual asperity. The reason: Because all godly ground and form of Ecclesiastical discipline ought ever to have respect and have reference to the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace; which the Apostle commanded to be kept by serving one another; and which rule not being kept, the medicine of discipline groweth to be superfluous, and pernicious. It is confessed, that Pastors ought with their uttermost endeavours to labour, that there remain no corruption in the Church: but they must use that wisdom which our Saviour prescribeth, lest by plucking up the tars, they hurt the good corn. Wherefore the precept of the Apostle of separating the evil, (or of mending corruption) must by no means be neglected, cum sine periculo violandae pacis fieri potest, when it may be done without the danger of violation of the Church's peace: for else he would not have it done. Caluin. instit. 4. 12. §. 11. 13.  
Because the charge of preaching the word of God is an absolute commandment of the Lord; and it is so necessary for him that is called thereunto, that a woe hangeth on his head if he do not preach it: It ought not to be laid aside for a simple inconvenience, or uncomeliness of a thing, which in its own nature is indifferent; such as the Surplice is, whereof he speaketh, or the like Ceremonies, Master Cartwright in the rest of the 2. reply, fol. 262. 263.  
Because when two commandments of the moral Law are opposite in respect of us, so as we cannot do them both at the same time; then the lesser commandment (as avoiding inconvenient Ceremonies) gives place to the greater, (such as preaching of the Word) and doth not bind for that instant, Master Perkins in his Treatise of conscience, cap. 2. fol. 14. 15.  
Because it is evident that jesus Christ our Lord did only prescribe the substance of the Ministry both of the Word and Sacraments in his own words; and all other things which appertain to the decent and profitable administration of his mysteries he hath left and admitted to be ordered by his Church: Hence we celebrate the Lords Supper, neither in the evening, neither in a private house, neither leaning, neither yet with men only. Now who would condemn the Church, if by a pure and holy consent of the members thereof, it should be the custom that every communicant (as in the Primitive Church the new baptized did) should wear a white garment? Bucer. Script. Anglican. fol. 708. Hoopero. so also he argueth in his Epistle to Io. Alasco: Christ no where hath forbidden such a use of them, as we have expounded, namely of Ceremonies significative ordained by the Church, not superstitiously, but purely used. This argument also hath Zanch. de redempt. cap. 16. fol. 445. a. There is a great question (saith he) in these our days about Ministerial garments: surely we read not that Christ and his Apostles did appoint any thing of this matter; neither that they changed their garments, either when they baptized, or when they administered the Lords Supper, but neither did they forbid, that men might not take other garments. Wherefore it is (liberum pierce) a matter free in itself to use or not to use other garments in the administration of the Sacraments.  
Because, if true Christians, having the pure doctrine of Christ & discipline in their Churches, should enjoin some special garment though abused by the Papists, for the commendation of the Ministry to the simple people, there is no Scripture forbidding a man to leave such Christians to their judgement: But there are sundry Scriptures clearly teaching a man why he should leave them to this their practice, as Rom. 14. 1. Cor. 8. and 9 and many other places, namely, wheresoever we are taught of the liberty and good use of the creatures, not of meats only, but of all creatures else. He giveth instance of a white garment used on the Baptized or Communicants of the Lords Supper, Bucer. Script. Anglican. fol. 708. Hoopero.  
Because they which defend these things, may pretend some honest and just signification, not strange from the Scriptures: As, [touching the Surplice] the Ministers of the Church are Angels, Mal. 3. 1. and the Angels always for the most part appeared as appareled in White garments, Pet. Martyr. loc. fol. 1085. Hoopero. Bucer will have them signify (Caelesten puritatem & candorem, omniumque virtutum ornatum) heavenly purity and sincerity, and the ornament of all virtues, Script. Angl. fol. 682. so also fol. 707. 709. Again, What should let, but that the Churches may use this white Vesture, or more Vestures, to monish us precisely of that divine benefit, of the light and dignity of the heavenly doctrine, which he giveth us by the holy Ministry, and by the which the Ministers themselves may be the more mindful of their office etc. Bucer in his Epistle to Io. Alasco, at the end of the examination. This reason also hath Zanch. Albeit a garment be a free thing, saith he, and numbered up among matters indifferent; yet for signification, a linen garment were more decent than a woollen for a Minister to use in administering the Sacraments, for that it is the Impress, or type of innocency and holiness; Hence in the Apocalyps white garments are given to the Saints, Zanch. de redempt. cap. 16. fol. 445. a.  
Because these Ceremonies are ancient, and have some good use, it was an old custom in the Church, that such as administered the Sacraments, should wear a white linen garment, Zanch. ibid. ex Hieron. count Pelag. li. 1. The sign of the Cross is vetustissima, very ancient, Beza Epi. 8. fol. 75. There was therefore some use thereof, though since it hath been horribly abused, and there be small profit thereof, Bez. Ep. 12. fol. 99 Kneeling at the Communion hath a show indeed of godly & Christian reverence, and therefore might heretofore have been used (cum fructu) with some profit, ibid. fol. 100  
Because if we proceed to dissuade from these indifferent things, as from pernicious and evil things, we shall thereby condemn very many Churches, not disagreeing from the Gospel; and shall tax too bitterly innumerable Churches, which have ever, and are of old celebrated, as most commendable and approved, P. Mart. loc. fol. 1086. Hoopero. If agreement in doctrine might be procured between the Saxon or Lutheran Churches and ours, there would be no separation made for surplices, or Ceremonies of the like nature, ib fol. 1127. Bucer hath also this reason; If there be no liberty granted to the Churches, of ordaining Ceremonies about the Lords Supper, whereof they have not the express commandment of Christ; By this means will all Churches be condemned (impiae audaciae) of impious boldness: For all Churches do observe in the Supper of the Lord, such a time, place, and habit or site of body, and beside do admit women to the Communion; of all which things they have not only no commandment of the Lord, but they have also his contrary example; For our Lord did celebrate his Supper at night not in the morning; in a private house, not in a public; leaning with his Apostles and after the receiving of the Paschal lamb notwithstanding: Also, he admitted not the women, among whom he had sundry his most holy Disciples, Bucer. Scrip. Anglic. fol. 807. 809. To this reason Pet. Martyr moveth an objection. The Church authority present or past, ought not to be of that force, that the truth of God's Word be thereby wronged; which (albeit the world do fall about our ears in pieces) ought to be kept inviolable. It is true (sed propter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) but for things indifrent, I am resolute, that by no means we may admit that either Churches should be condemned, or that we should less reverently or honestly speak of them, Ibid. fol. 1086.  
Because we must take heed, lest these things which be of less importance through our contention, may be the means or occasions that those things which should be esteemed of greater force and value, either cannot at all be brought unto the Church, or if they be once brought in they cannot be established with continuance, Peter Martyr ibid. 1086.  
Because we must take heed of Satan's accustomed sleights, whereby he leadeth us away from the care of necessary things, to the immoderate carefulness of those things which may well be let pass, and from searching out of the true doctrine of Christ, to induce us to those things wherein few can consent alike: and finally, by the which he kindleth in divers men a zeal to purge those things which are without us, thereby to neglect our inward deformities, Bucer. Epist. ad joan. Alasco. After at the end of that Epistle, This coulorable craft of Satan must be taken heed of, by which often he effecteth this, that we reckon those things sins which are no sins, and those that be sins indeed, we seem not to regard them in ourselves, or else against those sins which our consciences define to be sins indeed, we use no such severity as we ought.  
Because we should in this Realm take most godly heedfulness that we further not unawares the devils intents, who throweth in among us sundry questions and controversies, lest we should take in hand to handle the question of setting forward the doctrine of the Gospel, and restoring of discipline, and thereby to remove all drones from Ecclesiastical ministries, Bucer. in Ep. Io. Alascco.  
Because things in themselves otherwise indifferent, do after a sort change or alter their nature, when as by any command of lawful authority, they be either commanded or forbidden: because they may not be omitted contrary to a just commandment, if they be commanded, neither may they be done against a prohibition if they be forbidden, as appeareth by the Law Ceremonial, Bez. Epist. 24. fol. 143.  
Because there is some burdensome servitude in every Church, in some more mild, in others more hard and the sorrows of such servitude and burdens should be comforted by the Brethren, and not increased by their condemnation so long as the foundation is retained, Melancht. consil. part. 2. fol. 92.  
Because concord and mutual love must by Brethren be defended, lest invocation in themselves, or in the people be interrupted, and lest lamentable and pernicious doubts be produced from questions not necessary, as of old time it did about Easter; they who have their Christian liberty less restrained should give God thanks and use the same godly, for the illustration of doctrine, & not for that cause to slacken the rains of discipline the more: others in more burden some servitude should acknowledge themselves to be corrected of God, and let them not suffer the true worship of God to be corrupted, as it is written, All this hath come upon us, yet have we not forgotten thee, Melancht. consil part 2. fol. 92. And so much of the reasons moving these persons to this judgement and practice of admitting rather inconvenient ceremonies then to suffer deprivation, or the overthrow of the Church.  
Fourthly and lastly, we will observe such objections, as have been made against this doctrine and practice, which have by them the said excellent persons and pillars of Christ his Church been answered and resolved.  
Object. Why have ye not abolished these Ceremonies and corruptions out of your Churches all at once?  
Answ. 1 Melancht. As it is with a Pilot of a ship, which must take that way, and run such a course, not which he knoweth to be most right, but which the winds do permit unto him: so we when we could by no means hinder the greater, it was sufficient to admit the lesser, Consil. part. 1. fol. 76.  
2 Zanchius: I approve not their intemperancy, which do nothing unless it be tumultuously, and which have more mind to tear and rend through all things, then discreetly and advisedly to unrippe them, Compend. loc. 14. de Scandalo. fol. 6. 15. taken out of Caluin. Institut. 3. 19 13.  
3 Illyricus: That medical and political rule here taketh very good place, [omnis mutatio periculosa] That all kinds of alterations are not without some peril: For alteration of Ceremonies cannot easily be made without offence unto the weak, nor without an imputation or aspersion of levity, or of ambition with the more wise, Clau. script. part. 1. fol. 33. verbo adiaph.  
4 Zepperus de Sacramentis cap. 13. fol. 324. 325. 326. 228.  
1 The furious clamours and persecutions of the Papists did not permit this reformation of Ceremonies at the first: which were so violent and bloody, that it gave small or no leisure to the teachers and lights of the Church, neither was it safe for them to bend their care or cogitations this way.  
2 The people were so drowned in the deep darkness and Idolatry of the Papacy, that the amendment of Ceremonies, and of external worship could not in those beginnings be undertaken. It was necessary to use doctrine, and to instruct the people of sundry and horrible errors, Idolatry, Superstitions, and abuses, which the whole Papacy and Popish ceremonies have in their departure, that so all those ugly things might first be removed out of their minds, before they were removed from their sight. That which is not the work of one year, but a task of long season: For as Ceremonies which are visible things, and apprehended by the eyes, do more affect and move then the invisible doctrine; So the people did closely stick to their accustomed Ceremonies, and opposed themselves vehemently against the reformation of them: Even as we see at this day to come to pass, when as yet sound doctrine hath prevailed and flourished for above these 80. years.  
3. The Church in Popery was nothing else but a sick body: In which from the sole of the foot, to the crown of the head, there was nothing sound and entire: Wherefore at the first beginning of reformation, that whole chaos and abomination of error, and of Popish Idolatry could not suddenly be perceived, but use and experience did daily manifest and teach every day more, then at the first. ‖  
Object. Bishop Hooper:] Your ceremonies are human inventions, and man's Traditions about God's worship, and are spoken against, Matt. 15. Col. 2.  
Answ. P. Martyr:] 1 All human inventions about God's service are not presently to be condemned: for it was an human invention, that we should rather receive the Lord's Supper in the Morning, then after dinner. So it was an human invention, that the price of the things sold in the Primitive Church, should be laid at the Apostles feet.  
2 I confess with you, that these ceremonies (such as the Surplice) are human inventions, and of themselves they do not edify: Howbeit, to some it may be thought expedient that they be borne with for a season: for it may bring this to pass, that by these contentions there is great danger, lest greater good fruit, and more rich commodity will be hindered, and that the minds of men be suddenly turned from the Gospel; the experience whereof, we have seen heretofore, Loc. come. inter Epistolas Hoopero. fol. 1087.  
Bucer:] 1 Whatsoever Scripture you allege against human Traditions, that altogether you know to be understood only of those things, whereby men will by these things offer worship unto God, and that also by letting pass the Commandments of God.  
2 To the place of Matt. 15. Even you B b. Hooper had rather receive your meat with your hands washed, then with your hands unwashed, (as the Pharisees did.) To Col. 2. Whatsoever is spoken there of beggarly and weak elements appertaineth to superstition: by which superstition these things were exacted as matters necessary or profitable to salvation, even after Christ was revealed: And whatsoever abuse there be of these garments, (or the like Ceremonies) that sticketh not on the garments, but in impure minds.  
Object. We must add nothing to God's word, Deut. 12. reve. 12. Pro. 30.  
Answ. No parts of worship to the worship of God.  
1. Beza: There is a twofold opinion concerning the reformation of Churches, some hold that nothing at all should be added to Apostolical simplicity, and by consequence are of mind, that whatsoever the Apostles did, they think they are to do it, but whatsoever the Church after the Apostles did add to the first rites, they think them fit even all at once to be abolished: There are others on the other side, which hold that certain ancient rites (besides the Apostolical ordinances) are to be retained, partly as profitable and necessary: partly also albeit not necessary, yet to be tolerated for concord sakes. For mine own part I doubt not, but the Apostolical doctrine to be most absolutely perfect without all exception, to the which it is not lawful to add, or to detract any thing, howbeit, touching Ceremonies my judgement is otherwise. For first, it is certain that even the Apostles themselves, could not determinately set down, what they judged to be expedient for the Churches in their first beginning: and therefore necessarily they proceeded by little and little, as the institution of Deacons doth make evident, in as much as they suffered, for a season many jewish Ceremonies, as appeareth in the story of their acts: again, to whom can it b●e doubtful, that the Apostles had exceeding regard unto their times, places, and persons in external rites. In as much as it is not profitable, that the same rites were observed every where, as appeareth in that excellent Epistle of Irenaeus to Victor; besides necessity itself abolished certain of their ordinances, as their common feasts of love. Wherefore whatsoever was performed by the Apostles in rites and Ceremonies, I do not judge that presently, neither yet without some exception, to be followed as a rule. And indeed I wonder not that those ancient Fathers, having respect unto their own times, did take away some things, some things add, and some what altar. Only herein (with their good leave be it spoken) they seem to me to have often failed, that they neither held any measure in their rites, neither had that due regard to Christian simplicity and purity, as was meet, Epist. 8. fol. 70. 71.  
2. Bucer: If there be no liberty granted to the Churches, of ordaining Ceremonies about the Lords Supper, whereof they have not the express commandment of Christ, by this means will all Churches be condemned (impiae audaciae) of most impious boldness. For all Churches do observe in the Supper of the Lord, such a time, place, and habit, or site of body; and beside do admit women to the Communion, of all which things they have not only no commandment, but they have also his contrary example: for our Lord did celebrate his Supper at night, not in the morning in a private house, not in a public, leaning on his side, (and after the receiving of the Paschall lamb) not standing; also he admitted not the women, sundry of whom he had for his most holy disciples, Bucer. Script. Anglican. fol. 708. 789.  
3. Caluin: Forasmuch as our Lord hath both faithfully comprehended, & clearly declared in the holy Scriptures, the whole sum of true righteousness, and all the parts of his worship, and whatsoever was needful to salvation therefore [in his solus magister audiendus est] in these things the Master, Christ, is only to be harkened unto: Howbeit, because he would not particularly prescribe what we ought to follow or practise [in externâ disciplinâ & ceremonijs] in external discipline and ceremonies: For that he foresaw that these things did depend upon the condition of the times, neither did he judge one form to be agreeing to all ages: Therefore here we are to have recourse unto the general rules which he hath left and given, that whatsoever the necessity of the Church for matter of order and decency shall require, may be determined by these rules, Instit. 4. 10. 30.  
4. Zanchius: If any thing be altered or added, which is not commanded of God being not essential, but accidental, and not as necessary, but as indifferent, appertaining to decency, or to order, or to edification; we cannot hence conclude, that any thing is altered of the appointed worship, or that there is another worship erected. As for example, Christ performed his Supper at night. The Apostles were wont to perform it also in the morning, and the Church followed afterwards this time: Should a man hereupon say, that any thing is derogated from the Supper of the Lord? surely no; because Christ commanded not the same to be celebrated in the night, as himself observed it, but only (hoc facite) that we should do that (for the matter or substance) which he did, but not at that time wherein he did it. Also to that the Primitive Church (as appeareth in justinus Martyr) did mingle Water with the Wine in the Lord's Supper; it is not a sufficient ground to say they altered or changed the institution of the Lords Supper, and that for two reasons; One, because it may be that the Wine which Christ jesus gave to his Disciples was mingled with water, seeing the Apostles do not report the contrary and it is probable, that the Primitive Church might receive this from the Apostles: Another reason is, because the Primitive church did not add water as a matter altogether necessary, and so as appertaining to the substance of the Lords Supper, but only to signify a mystery; but if any did commend it as necessary, they did undoubtedly deprave the Lord's Supper. But they much more, who used only water in the Lord's Supper, as the Aquarij did, against whom Cyprian did write: for it is evident, that Christ our Saviour used wine, and commanded that we also should do the like. To this add, in that the ancient Bishops in the celebration of the Lords Supper, did put on another garment, then that they usually did wear, appertaineth nothing to the alteration of the Lords Supper: For Christ commanded not that we should celebrate his Supper with our usual garments, as he did, but only that we should do that which he did himself. The like may be affirmed of sundry other things, as well in Baptism, as in the Supper of the Lord. The sum of all is this: Such things as are added, but yet as matters indifferent, for order, for decency, and to edification; such matters do not change the substance of the Sacraments, and therefore altar not the worship. But such things as are taken from the institution of Christ, or else are added as necessary, and appertaining to the substance, those things do corrupt the institution of the Lord, and so do establish another kind of worship. To this kind of addition appertain the places of forbidding to add to God's word, Deut. 4. 1, 2. Note that which he there saith, Ye shall not add to the Word which I command you: The Word of the Lord is necessary, it tieth the conscience, and delivereth the substance of the Worship, and hath nothing adiaphorall or indifferent therein: wherefore to add unto the Word, is to ordain or appoint in God's worship some thing as necessary, and as appertaining to the essence or worship of God, and which doth so bind men's consciences, even as the Word of God itself; wherefore he addeth not unto the Word of God, which by the consent of the Church ordaineth any thing, not as necessary, but as indifferent, and free for order only, or for decency, and unto edification, not binding the conscience of any by such an ordinance, Zanch. de redempt. cap. 19 fol. 447.  
Object. Bishop Hooper:] Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14. 23.  
Answ. P. Martyr:] This I acknowledge with you to be most true, hobeit that we may have a quiet conscience in our actions, that chief seemeth to conduce which is written by the Apostle unto Titus, All things are clean unto the clean, And unto Timothy, Every creature of God is good: But it is not necessarily required, that we have an express mention of every particular and singular thing which we use to do: This is sufficient in general, to know by faith that indifferent things cannot defile those which use them with a sincere mind and conscience, Loc. come. inter Epist. fol. 1088. Hooper.  
Object. Bb. Hooper:] These Ceremonies are aaronical and jewish, an imitation of the aaronical Priesthood, and therefore aught to be eschewed of all that love Christ.  
Answ. Bucer:] 1. Though I admit your antecedent, yet your conclusion followeth not, for to imitate Aaron's Ceremonies is not of itself vicious: but only when men use them as necessary to salvation, or to signify that Christ is yet for to come to take flesh upon him, Epist. ad joan. Alasco. Nothing can truly be said to appertain to the Priesthood of Aaron so far forth as it is abolished, but that which is used with such like superstition as if it were now (after Christ revealed) needful to salvation, or profitable of itself, or whereby some occasion is given to a man to assume or to retain this superstition with himself, or of troubling the peace and quiet of Brethren, Idem Script. Anglican. fol. 707. Hoopero.  
2 For a Rite or Ceremony to be aaronical, adheareth or sticketh not to any of the creatures of God in no garment, in no figure, in no colour, in no work of God: But in the mind and profession of such as abuse the good creatures of God to impious signification, idem ibid.  
3 If by no means it be lawful to use those things which were of Aaron's Priesthood or of the Gentiles; Then it is not lawful for us to have Churches nor holidays: For there is no express commandment by word in the holy Scriptures of these things. It is gathered notwithstanding from the example of the old people, that they are profitable for us to the increase of godliness, which thing also experience proveth, Idem ad joan. Alasco.  
Petre Martyr: In the Law or Priesthood of Aaron there were 1. Sacraments, whereby it pleased God to confirm and seal the promises of Christ to come, all which I know are abolished & that we must believe that Christ is already given, not to be given: And seeing other seals of God's promises are under the Gospel given by our Lord himself, namely, Bread and Wine; we ought not to recall the antiquated signs. 2 Howbeit, there were some actions in the Law of that nature, that properly they may not be said to be Sacraments: For they made to decency, to order and some benefit▪ which I do judge may be recalled and retained as agreeable to the light of nature, and furthering some profit to ourselves: Who knoweth not that the Apostles for the peace and more comfortable conversing of believers, did command the Gentiles that they should abstain from blood and strangled? Those things were out of question aaronical, if you will comprehend all things generally which were in the Law. Further, no man is ignorant that Tithes are enjoined in innumerable places for the maintenance of Ministers: besides▪ if I might more diligently search and consider, as the time now will not permit me, I could find out not a few things which our Church hath borrowed out of the law of Moses, & that from the first beginning of the Church: And that I may not omit this one thing we have the festival days in memorial of our Lord, Resurrection, Nativity, Pentecost, and death of Christ; shall all these things be abolished because they be shadows of the old Law? By these things I suppose you see (B b. Hooper) that all things appertaining to the aaronical Priesthood are not so abolished, as that nothing thereof either may be retained, or used by us. Martyr. loc. inter Epist. Hoopero. fol. 1087.  
Object. B b. Hooper:] These Ceremonies were of antichrist's invention.  
Answ. Bucer:] The use of such garments (as the Surplice, were used Godly by the holy Fathers, before the Pope became to be the Romish Antichrist, Script. Anglic. fol. 682. Cranmero.  
Martyr: I cannot easily grant that the diversity of garments had their original from the Pope, seeing we read in the Ecclesiastical History, that john the Evangelist ware Petalum, seu Lamina Pontificalis, a kind of garment proper to a Minister or B b. and Pontius the Deacon witnesseth of Cyprian the Martyr, that when as he was to be beheaded, he gave his garment (named Birrus) to the executioners: His garment called Dalmatica he gave to the Deacons, and stood in his linen garments. And Christians when they were converted unto Christ, did as the Father's witness, change their garment, and for a gown did put on a cloak: For the which when they were mocked of the Heathen, Tertullian wrote a most learned book (de Pallio) of the cloak. Besides, Chrysostome maketh mention of the white garment of the Ministers of the Church; Neither do I think that you (B b. Hooper) are ignorant, that there was given a Whitegarment unto those that were admitted unto the Church by Baptism. Wherefore it is clear that there were some differences of vestures before the tyranny of the Pope was in force. But admit these things to 
The like answer and allegations do Bullenger & Gualt. give to the same objection: Look Whitgifts' defence. fol. 268.  be the Pope's inventions, I cannot persuade myself, that the impiety of the Papacy is so great that whatsoever it toucheth, it maketh so polluted and defiled, as that the use of such things may not be granted to good and Godly persons. Martyr. Hoopero fol. 1087. Look more for answer hereto, in the answer to the next objection.  
Object. Bb. Hooper:] These things abused by Antichrist, are so defiled, that they may not be permitted to any Church howsoever, knowing and worshipping Christ, and acquainted with her liberty of all things.  
Answ. Bucer:] Surely I make great conscience to say thus much: For 1. I see no Scripture whereby I may defend it. 2. The Scripture doth every where preach, that every creature of God is good unto the good; that is, to such as do truly believe in Christ, and do godly use his creatures: And that this creature of God is good, not only in natural effects, as bread is good in the effects of feeding and strengthening our bodies, and wine in the effects of drinking and heating us, but also it is good in divers significations and admonitions: For godly men do stir up and nourish in themselves the remembrance and consideration of many of God's benefits from every thing which is a creature of God. From hence are those things in the Psalms, and in the Songs of the Saints concerning the praise and celebration of God's Name, to the which all the works of God do invite them. 3. What Scripture teacheth, that there is such power given to the Devil, or to evil men, that by their abuse they can make any creature of God which is good in itself, and good also in signification and admonition, to be in itself evil and impious? 4. Nothing can be said to be a rite of Antichristianisme, but such whereby some profession of, and communication with Antichrist is exercised, or whereby such profession and communion is furthered, Script. Anglic. fol. 707. Hoopero.  
Peter Martyr] By this which you allege I see not how it may be firmly concluded, that we may use nothing which is usually done in Popery, surely we must beware, lest we oppress the Church of Christ, with too much servitude or bondage, that namely it have liberty to use nothing which appertaineth to the Pope. Surely our ancestors (in the Primitive times) took the Idol Temples, and converted them into sacred houses, in the which Christ may be worshipped: and the revenues which were consecrated to the Gods of the heathen, to stage plays and Vestal Nuns, they translated for the maintenance of the Ministers of the Church, when as these things did not only serve Antichrist, but even the devil. Further the verses of Poets, which were consecrated to the Muses, and to divers of their Gods, or used in Plays acted on stages to appease their Gods (forsooth) the Ecclesiastical writers used such of them as were fit, comely and true, and that by the example of the Apostle, which did not disdain to cite Menander, Aratus, and Epimenides, and that in the very body of the divine Scripture which he delivered; and those words which were otherwise profane, he fitted and applied (divino cultui) to the service or worship of God: unless perhaps ye will say, that the words of Paul, which are written and set down in the holy letters, do less serve to the worship of God, than the visible words which are used in the Sacraments. Besides who knoweth not that wine was consecrated to Bacchus, bread to Ceres, water to Neptune, oil to Minerva, letters to Mercury, songs to the Muses or Apollo, and sundry other matters of this nature you may find in Turtullian (de corona militis) who there is most of all in this argument: All which things notwithstanding we are not afraid to use freely, as well in holy as profane uses, albeit, they have been dedicated to devils, or to Idols (look more in the former objection, & in that which followeth) Loc. come. fol. 1087. Hoopero.  
Object. Bishop Hooper.] These Ceremonies are notes of Antichrist, and they that communicate with them, do communicate with Antichrist.  
Answ. Bucer.] 1. For any thing to be a note of Antichrist, is not in the nature of any creature in itself (for to that end nothing was made of God) But it hangeth altogether of consenting to antichrist's religion, and the professing thereof: The which consent and profession being changed into the consent and profession of Christianity, there can stick in the things themselves, no note or mark of antichrist's religion. The use of Bells was a mark of Antichristianity in our Churches, when the people by them were called to Masses, and when they were rung against Tempests: Now they are a token of Christianity, when the people by them are gathered together to the Gospel of Christ, and other holy actions, why may it not then be, that the self same garment (or other like Ceremony) may serve Godly with Godly men, that was of wicked signification with the ungodly. 2 Truly I know very many Ministers of Christ most Godly men, who have used Godly these vestures, and at this day do yet use them: so that I dare not for this cause ascribe unto them any fault at all, much less so heinous a fault of communicating with Antichrist, for the which fault we may utterly refuse to communicate with them in Christ. 3 The Priests of devils did celebrate in their sacrifices, the distribution of bread, and of the cup, as justinus Martyr, and Tertullian make mention, what let is there why we may not use the same Ceremonies also?  
Object. You will say we have a commandment of the Lord touching this Ceremony.  
Answ. Very well: And by the self same it appeareth, that same thing to serve among the children of God, to the service of Christ, which the wicked abused in the service of devils, if the commandment of Christ be added thereto. But it is the commandment of Christ, that in our actions we institute and use all things, so as comeliness and order be observed, that faith may be edified, etc. 4 Many things which the Antichrists have made marks of their impiety may be tokens of the kingdom of Christ, as the signs of Bread and Wine, the water of Baptism, and the laying on of hands▪ Preach, Churches, Holidays, and many other things also: these places of scripture are of a great scope; The earth and the fullness thereof is of the Lord, not of the Devil, not of Antichrist, not of the wicked: And again, the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath, and the Sabbath is made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; and all hangs are pure to the pure, and every creature o● God is good, nor can be defiled to good men, by the abuse of evil men: The word of God must be followed in all respects, as well in our private actions as public: For all things are to be done in the Name of the Lord jesus, and to the glory of God. Then such liberty as we grant unto ourselves in our private use of external things, let us not deny in public, Bucer. Epist. joan. Alasco.  
Hemingius] Some are offended with our Ceremonies, which they exclaim to be Papistical. They say, we in the Denmark Churches have Priests, Altars, surplices, Candles, Images, Exorcisms, Signing with the Cross, plainly after the Papistical manner. To these I answer, that the true Church is to be distinguished from the false, by doctrine and worship, not by Ceremonies which are (per se adiaphora) in their own nature indifferent; neither do we judge indifferent Ceremonies of so great moment, as that for them Schisms should be raised in the Church. Let the sincerity of Doctrine be retained, and the pure Worship of God; let other things serve partly for public peace, partly for the weakness of men; and let us leave these things to the wisdom of our governors, and let them determine of these matters, Syntag. ad 4. leg. decal. §. 33. 34. fol. 365.  
Object. Bishop Hooper] If ye grant so great liberty to Churches, as that they may use all things for holy significations and instructions, we shall open a window to let in all manner of abuses, jewish, Gentilish, Antichristian, yea, Holy water, Censing, and innumerable matters of that kind.  
Answ. Bucer] This inconvenience need not to be feared at all: For the Churches which I have described, and to the which I judge that liberty, whereof I speak, cannot be denied, will so temper whatsoever Rites or garments, which they assume for their use, that they may serve to illustrate, and not obscure the Gospel of our Lord jesus Christ, Script. Angli. fol. 709. Hoopero.  
P. Martyr] 1. There is a measure to be appointed in those things, which they revoke, that the Church of the faithful be not burdened with these kind of matters.  
2. Neither that God's worship, or the opinion of Relegion be placed therein, as we see in Popish holy water, and in censing to have been done.  
3. Further, great care herein is to be used, that Christian liberty be not hereby endangered, that albeit some old Ceremonies be restored, yet they be not so restored or esteemed of, as a necessary means to obtain salvation: But so ought such things as these are to be tolerated, that when they seem less profitable, they be removed, Loc. come. fol. 1087. Hoopero.  
Object. Bishop Hooper] Therefore by this grant it is in the Church's liberty to communicate but once a year, or very seldom: To stand and behold the celebration of the Lords Supper, and not to receive, and the like.  
Answ. Bucer] These things I judge to be per se Papistica, (and the like to these) for they are contrary to the word of God, as there he showeth: But those other circumstances of place, time, site or habit of the body, in the celebration or receiving of the Lords Supper: of admitting women as well as men to the Communion: of the form and manner of public prayer to God, and of singing Psalms: as also of garments and other things appertaining to outward decency, I doubt not but the Lord hath given free power to his Church, of appointing and ordaining, concerning these matters, such things as every Church doth judge to be most expedient for the upholding and increase of reverence in the people towards all the holy ordinances of God, Scrip. Anglic. fol. 708. Hoopero.  
Object. Bishop Hooper] Thus by imposing of these Ceremonies, spiritual tyranny will be established on the conscience.  
Answ. P. Martyr] I do not think that tyranny is therefore brought in, if some indifferent thing (as the Surplice, whereof he speaketh) be undertaken or entertained to be practised in the Church, and be thereupon constantly observed of many. In these days we do so administer the Lords Supper in the morning as that we will not have the Communion administered after dinner; but who will call this tyrannical, which all of us do perform with like will & one consent. To me in truth it were much more pleasing, that we did only that which Christ practised and delivered to his Apostles, but if some indifferent things be added, I would not for this cause now that to sharp contention be raised about it. Loc. come. fol. 1088. Hoopero.  
Saravia:] 1 Tyranny appertaineth to the Pope, which undertaketh the command over men's consciences, and under penalty of eternal curse, commandeth & forbiddeth things (in their nature) indifferent, which cannot be approved for three causes. First, because he placeth religion in such things whereby God is not worshipped: Secondly, because he asscribeth merit, expiation of sins, and satisfaction to them: Thirdly, because he hath no authority to exact these things of the people of God.  
2 Yet we must know that the just commandments of lawful authority, concerning things in their nature indifferent, doth even with God tie the consciences of men, albeit the Magistrate, and such as have lawful authority, do commit them to God, as for example; A Father commands his son to dig his field: this son cannot with safe conscience disobey his father's command; that which was free unto him before his father's command, when the commandment came is made necessary. A Merchant desireth to transport certain wares, it is a thing indifferent, but if the exportation of those wares be forbidden by the Prince's Proclamation, albeit the Prince respect not his conscience, yet it is not a good man's part to carry out wares against the command of his Sovereign, albeit he may do it secretly without any punishment: the like I say of all other things, whether they concern the common affairs of our life or the external comeliness of divine worship, so as golden mediocrity be observed, Defence. fol. 580.  
Object. Bb. Hooper:] These Ceremonies are repugnant & opposite unto the Word of God: they are impious superstitions.  
Answ. Caluin: In the English Leturgy as you (the English exiles at Frankford) do describe unto me, I spy out many tolerabiles ineptias, tolerable unfit things: By which two words I express thus much, that there was not that purity which were to be wished, which errors could not immediately the first day be corrected (Cum nulla subesset manifesta impietas ferenda ad tempus fuisse) Seeing there was therein contained no manifest impiety, these things should have been borne withal for a time, Epist. 200. fol. 336.  
Bucer:] 1. In the Ceremonies of the English Leturgy, or Book of Common Prayer▪ I have not found any thing which is not taken out of the Word of God, or at lest which is repugnant to it, so it be favourably understood, Bucer. script. Angl. in cens. fol. 456.  
2 I am not persuaded that there is in them (the surplices) any impious thing (per se) of themselves, or in their own nature, so that godly men may not use them godly, Ibid. fol. 458. To make the use of these garments impious in themselves, I see no Scripture to allow it, Ibid. f. 709. Hooper.  
3 As for my part, if I thought that those Ceremonies and Vestures were impure of themselves, I would not take upon me in any wise the office of a Minister or Bishop, until by ordinary authority they were taken away, In Epist. to Io. Alasco.  
P. Martyr:] These garments are (per se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of themselves indifferent, and do make no man either godly or ungodly, loc. come. fol. 1085. amico cuidam. I do not hold the use of these garments to be pernicious, or in their nature contrary to God's Word, but do esteem this use of them (omnino 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) altogether indifferent, ib. fol. 1088, Hooper. This difference of garments I think not fit to be used, howbeit if other things which are prescribed unto us from God's Word, do remain entire, I hold this use of these Vestures neither impious, neither pernicious, (per se, aut suâ natur à) of themselves, or in their nature. Ibid. fol. 1089. Hoopero.  
2. I dare not condemn whomsoever I shall see use these garments: If I were so persuaded, I would never have communicated here in England with the Church, wherein such difference of garments is retained. Ib. f. 1486. Hoopero.  
Beza:] Of surplices: They are not (ex earum rerum genere) of those kind of matters which are per se impiae, of themselves wicked, Epist. 12. fol. 98. Some men will say they are indifferent things; I grant them verily so to be, being considered in themselves, Ibid. fol. 97. Caps and surplices verè media & indifferentia, truly indifferent, Ibid. Epist. 8. fol. 78. Round wafer bread, kneeling at Communion: non per se impia, Ibid. fol. 77. Sign of the cross in Baptism, kneeling at the Communion, are not per se Idololatrica, matters of themselves Idolatrous, Ibid. Epist. 12. fol. 99 100  
Heming: It is (adiaphorum natur â) a matter indifferent in nature to perform holy things, as Baptism, and the Lords Supper in a linen garment, Enchirid. tit. de Adiaph. class. 3. cap. 10. fol. 375.  
Zanch: It is (liberum per se) a free matter of itself to use or not to use a linen garment, De redempt. lib. 1. cap. 16. fol. 445.  
Bucan: Indifferent things are said to be such actions, which are neither precisely commanded in the Law, or word of God, neither yet expressly forbidden to be done: as to eat flesh, or this or that kind of meat, or not to eat it on this or that kind of day: to be clothed in this fashion or colour, or not to be clothed. Loc. 33. quaest. 13. fol. 382.  
Cartwright:] The Surplice is a thing in its own nature indifferent; In the rest of the 2. reply. fol. 262.  
Polanus:] The use of a linen garment is a thing indifferent, In Ezec. 44. fol. 807.  
Object. Your common prayer Book is framed like the Romish Mass book. This objection was made by such as Alexander Alesius calleth optimi & veritatus studiosissimi.  
Answ. Alesius: To this objection, albeit they give answer which framed the Common prayer Book themselves [in the Preface of ceremonies] yet we also may say truly, that it is best in all changes and alterations, as little to digress or differ much from those things which are in use, as possible may be: because sudden and great alterations are ever very perilous: And it is much more safe to follow the commendable consent of some few, then casting all away, to begin and ordain another altogether new. The errors and faults of the Mass books are not therefore approved, if something be defended which those errors have defiled, so the errors be removed. Neither doth the Physician flatter the disease, if presently he cut not off, and cast not away the member, which laboureth with a recoverable evil. This whether ye call it wisdom, or moderation, or timorousness, or whatsoever, I say it neither serveth, neither gratifieth the impiety of any, but doth perform a necessary duty warily and circumspectly, and with the fear of God; and serveth God and the Church, in professing and defending, and keeping the heavenly truth; and doth glorify the Son of God, which will be worshipped by holiness and righteousness before God, and adored by the holy Ghost. This moderation will not content him that is more hot of nature; yet let such a one look what he doth, and whither he goeth: Let him look that he be not overwise, more than he ought to be wise: Let him not cavil at other men's godly and temperate reasons; neither let him insolently condemn others less stout and confident: For all must stand before the tribunal of God, to give an account of the things they have done: Let not therefore the high minded too curiously pry into all the sayings and doings of the more humble: Let him bear with some things; let him slander none: Let him not hope by wrangling or brawling, that it is possible to give help to things out of order, but rather to all agreement making, to bring two necessary affections, one of knowing the state, another of pardoning the faults. judgement is a great and high thing. This by how much the business is greater, is by so much the more diligently intended, and opinion is less rashly to be given: The cause ought to be evident, (not ambiguous) and of great weight, and by no means to be dissembled, for the which one brother should accuse another, much less that it hold a right affection to condemn him. Let every one therefore look that he be not swift to speak, but rather attentive to know, and inclined to pardon, wheresoever he may lawfully do: but of this sufficient, Inter. Script. Anglic. Buceri fol. 374.  
Object. Bishop Hooper:] Holy significative signs are unlawful.  
Answ. Bucer:] 1. When as God by his word hath sanctified all things by our prayers, and hath made all things pure to the pure, what cause can we allege out of the word of God, to deny that God will not bless the use of such signs, (whereof we speak) that it should not be effectual to that Church; to some commendation of the Ministry, and thereof also to some edification of the faith? For how can it be but that he, which promised to bless the works of our hands, which we take in his name, will deny his blessing to these signs, seeing he hath no where forbidden such an use of them as we have expounded; and hath made us Lords of the Sabbath, and all other things in the world? In Epist. joan. Alasco.  
2. Let us consider what the Holy Ghost teacheth, of the signification of a woman's vail, and covering of the man's head, 1. Cor. 10. wherefore doth he particularly mention the bright garments of the Angels? The Holy Ghost doth nothing rashly, and doth by all creatures preach the salvation of his, which consisteth in the faith of the Gospel, Script. Anglican. fol 709. Hoopero.  
Petre Martyr:] The Ministers of the Church are the Angels, and Messengers of the Church, as Malachy witnesseth; and the Angels all ways for the most appeared, as appareled in white garments: [This he calleth honesta & justa significatio a Scriptures non aliena an honest and fit signification of the Surplice, not disagreeing, or strange from the Scripture.] How shall we deprive the Church of this liberty, that it may not signify some thing by her actions and Ceremonies; so as the people of Christ, be not burdened with Ceremonies, and better things be not hindered? ye will say, let them declare themselves to be Angels indeed, let them not signifieit. But this might be replied as well on Saint Paul, when he appointed among the Corinthians, that a woman should have her head covered, & a man have his head open, 1. Cor. 11. 5. for he only presseth the reason of signification, to confirm this Ceremony. Now any man of the Corinthian Church might here reply upon him thus; let the man declare himself indeed to be the head of the woman, and let the woman show herself subject to her husband, by their deeds and life; let them not strive to declare it by signs. But the Apostle saw that even this might profitably be done, not only that we live rightly, but also that by words and signs we be admonished of our duty, Loc. come. fol. 1089. Epist. Hoopero.  
Zanchius:] Albeit, a garment linen or  for a Minister, be numbered among indifferent things: yet for the signification (magis deceret vestis linea quàm lanea) a linen garment were more decent than a  for a Minister to wear in the administration of the Sacrament: for that it is the Symbol, or type of innocency and holiness. Hence in the apocalypse, white garments are given the Saints, De redempt. cap. 16. fol. 445.  
Object. These Ceremonies be offensive and scandalous; to the godly who are grieved and burdened with them; to the Papists who rejoice in our practice, and are confirmed in their damnable will worships; to the weak who stagger, and can by no means be persuaded of the lawfulness of them, and many have occasion hereby to separate; and in a word generally to all sorts.  
Answ. Caluin:] 1. Touching holidays and other Ceremonies: It is a very hard condition to the godly brethren to subject themselves to those things, which they understand to be neither right nor profitable. For my part, I do judge, that many defects are to be tolerated, and borne with, whereas they cannot be amended: wherefore I do not think that any of the brethren should for this cause proceed so far, as to separate and departed from the Church, whereof he is a member; if so be the greater part of the Church be of a contrary judgement, because in such cases it seems to me sufficient, if that which we know to be right, be of us laboured unto.  
Object. That which is thrust upon us doth bring with it scandal, and also draws along an evil tail, namely, sundry evil effects.  
Answ. Notwithstanding this, because these Ceremomonies are not repugnant to the Word of God, they may be yielded to, especially where the greater number doth oversway, and whenas there is no means for him that is only a member of the body to proceed further, Epist. 379 fol. 658.  
2. I understood some difficulty cast in your way about certain Ceremonies, which those your Hosts, and entertainers would have you to use: Surely I see nothing more expedient, then to use most few Ceremonies in the Christian Church: For it is sufficiently evident by experience itself, how easy a matter it is, by occasion of them to slide into superstition, howbeit the matter is otherwise, when authority resteth not in us, of admitting or refusing what seemeth to us meet: And those Ceremonies are not matters of that quality, on occasion whereof we should voluntarily suspend, or separate ourselves from the Supper of the Lord, and as much as in us lieth, we must procure that which is manifest to be the best. But if we may not obtain what we desire (feramus illos defectus) let us bear with those defects, and not approve of them, so as there be therein no impiety, or other thing repugnant to God's Word: As for example, If any show or kind of Idolatry were therein, we ought to withstand it, even to the death: But where the doctrine itself is sound and pure, and the Ceremonies be used to a civil kind of honesty and decency, they are by us to be passed by in silence, rather than by occasion of them we should proceed to contentions, and more grievous tumults, Epist. 303. fol. 497.  
3. This must be ever remembered, that by whatsoever scandals Satan and the world do labour to draw us away from the commandments of God, or to hinder us from following that which he prescribeth, we must notwithstanding this stoutly proceed, just. 3. 19 13.  
P. Martyr] 1. We confess we must yield something to the weak, but yet with Paul we must not suffer this to be done, but only in things indifferent; But that which is in itself evil, and forbidden of God, we advise that it be not done for any man's sake: For the rule remaineth unremovable, which granteth to no man to commit evil that good may come thereof, yea, and neither may we always yield unto the weak in things indifferent, but only so far forth, until they be taught better and more perfectly: But when they understand the matter, and yet notwithstanding this do stick, their weakness must not be nourished in them. Besides, so much may not be yielded to the weak, as that we should harm others, and many more of the members of Christ by our example, Loc. come. clas. 2. cap. 4. §. 32. fol. 201.  
2. In that you writ, that very many will be offended with your wearing the Episcopal garments, and holy garments as they call them; I do easily believe it: but you shall avoid the fault of scandal, if ye declare in your Sermons, that those garments also are displeasing unto you, & withal do with all care endeavour, that they may at last be abolished Epist. Amic. in Angliam, fol. 1128.  
3. If occasion of erring be given to the weak hereby, let them be admonished, that they persuade themselves these things to be indifferent: Let them be taught by Sermons, that God's worship is not placed in those things, Loc. fol. 1089. Epist. Hoopero.  
4 To this Objection, that the eyes of the beholders will be turned aside from thinking on serious matters: He answereth, This it may be, will not be judged to be true of all beholders: For first it may be answered, that will not come to pass if without cost these garments be used simply, as they have been hitherto; for the use and profit of them do take away admiration: Again perhaps it may be answered, that it is probable that the people being moved with admiration, may think of attentively the things that be more serious, for which cause the Sacramental signs seem to have been imposed, that from the very sight and sense they may be drawn to think of divine things, ibid.  
Bucer: 1 Holds that the faithful preachers of God's Word may then use the Surplice, if they join withal the clear preaching of Christ our Saviour, and with all the detection and detestation of whole Antichrist, as well of the Roman, as of any other, that they by the use of these garments mean not to establish any of antichrist's wicked lies which be thrust upon the people: That the Priests are in themselves no whit holier, or more effectual to appease God then other Christians are: That they do not set Christ before his Father in the Communion, neither apply his merit by their deed and will to any man, morethens any man doth receive by faith out of the words of the Sarcrament: That aaronical Rites are not to be recalled: That by the wearing of these garments, they only give obedience to those governors, within the compass of whose authority God will have the determination of external Rites (consentientes tamen Verbo Dei) though yet agreeing to God's Word. And that hereby they flee from the offence of troubling the common order, and the public consent, as also that hereby they do witness to godly persons that every creature of God is good, even by the way of signification, and therefore that all Christians truly believing may well and godly use these things, howsoever impiously others have abused them, Script. Anglic. Cranmero fol. 682.  
2 To this that in England many use Vestures with manifest superstition, and that they do nourish and confirm in the people superstition; even so it may be answered, very many abuse all this whole Sacrament, as also Baptism and all other Ceremonies, Epist. joan. Alasco.  
Zanchius: In things indifferent something is to be yielded to the weaker, and that for a time; namely, until they be taught the truth. For if after that the truth is sufficiently and clearly laid abroad unto them so as being convicted they have nothing more what they may object and yet will notwithstanding stick in doubt; sure their infirmity is not to be nourished by their dissembling with them or winking at them. For this is rather strong obstinacy than weakness, Deredemp. cap. 17. fol. 493.  
Beza in a case of deprivation adviseth to conform; yet before they conform he thus counseleth them: That both the Pastor and the flock sin not against their conscience (presupposing the purity of doctrine to be left entire:) We persuade the Pastors that after they have freed their conscience, both before the King's Majesty and the Bishops, by a modest (as it becometh Christians to be free from all tumult and sedition) and yet weighty protestation (according as the greatness of the case requires:) they then do openly press unto their flocks those things which do tend to take away the offence arising from conformity, and do withal discreetly and peaceably give diligent endeavour for the amendment of these abuses, as the Lord shall offer occasion (and so to conform) Epist. 12. fol. 99  
Cartwright: The offence in occasioning the weak to fall, and the wicked to be confirmed in their wickedness, is one of the foulest spots cast upon the Surplice: But when it is laid in the scales with the preaching of the word of God, which is so necessary for him that is called thereunto, that a woe hangeth on his head if he do not preach it, it is of less importance, then for the refusal of it, we should let go so necessary a duty. As for that which is uttered against the offence, it is as the rest of this disputation, to show how inconveniently such things are established, not that they may not in any respect be borne with. In the use of those indifferent things, and abstaining from them, we are so straightly bound to have regard unto the weak brother, as no Magistrate is able to lose the knot of that bond. But where offences cannot otherwise be redeemed then by leaving that undone, which the Lord himself hath not left free unto us, but cast a yoke of necessary service upon us, there the case is otherwise: For if the Prince upon declaration of the inconvenience of such Ceremonies, and humble suit for the release of them, will nothing lose of the chord of this servitude, for my part I see no better way, then with admonition of them thereunto, to keep on the course of feeding the flock committed unto him. This is in few words my simple judgement of the matter of this apparel and such like ceremonies. In the rest of his second reply, fol. 262. 263.  
Saravia: To the objection, that the Papists will be confirmed in their most damnable will-worships, by the use of these ceremonies. 1. This is denied for two causes: First, for the public contrary doctrine, which challengeth and reproveth those which profess the use of these ceremonies for superstition: Secondly, for the Public authority, which, (as is known to all, doth forbid the Subjects of eating of flesh, and commandeth other things) not for that end which the Pope intendeth. For there is great difference between those things which are performed by way of obedience to public authority, and those things which are superstitiously assumed to be done by private council. There was a controversy among the Primitive Christians about the observation of legal ceremonies; Some thought that every kind of food was sanctified: others believed the contrary. They which thought rightly, might eat of strangled meat, and of blood, and it was superstition for them, to abstain of conscience: Neither could any man make a Law unto himself of abstaining from strangled meat and blood, more than from swine's flesh. But after that it was upon good advice established by the authority of the Church, (not to confirm any man in a false opinion) that such as were converted from Paganism unto the faith of Christ, should abstain from strangled meat and blood, that, which to do on a man's private council had been a sin, was made to be godly by the authority of the Church's constitution, Defence. de divers. grad. ministr. cap. 25. fol. 580. 581.  
2. Touching the scandal of the weak (by the use of these ceremonies) which is objected, it cannot take place against a public law, to the which private persons ought not to prefer their judgement, but subject it according to the public doctrine and profession, as well of the Magistrates, as of the chief governors of the Church, Ib. f. 851.  
3. Touching the Papists scandal: Small regard is to be had of them in this Kingdom; their error can admit of no excuse, after so many years preaching of the Gospel: Paganism being abolished, and the Idols with their worship being cast out, the Idolothytes or things offered Idols, did cease. Even so the Pope, being cast out and renounced, there ceaseth whatsoever he brought in and polluted, in as much as those things which are done this day with us at the Prince's command, or for obedience sake unto our Laws: whereas withal, sound and Christian doctrine flourisheth of the grace of God, and man's merits: such Ceremonies and actions cannot be compared neither with the eating of a thing offered to Idols, neither with Popish will-worship, etc. Ibid. fol. 582.  
Object. Bishop Hooper:] By the strict pressing and obedience to these Ceremonies, Christian liberty will be infringed and broken.  
Peter Martyr:] The endangering of our Christian liberty will be prevented, if such Ceremonies as be restored be not so respected, as if they were necessary to obtain salvation: and again if we do so bear with such matters as these are, that when they seem to be less profitable, they may be removed, Loc. fol. 1087. Hoopero.  
Beza:] Albeit, the Christian liberty hath taken away the yoke of the Ceremonial law, and instead thereof it is not lawful, for any mortal man to put another yoke, yet the too promiscuous use of things indifferent is lawfully restrained, both in general and in special. In general it is restrained by the law of charity, which is universal, that is respecting all persons and things, and carefully bewaring, that nothing otherwise indifferent and lawful be done, whereby one's neighbour be destroyed; and that nothing be omitted, whereby he may be edified. But here two cautions must be presupposed, one that whatsoever may and aught to be done, or omitted, ought always to be judged by the word of God: the other that every man have a respect unto his calling, thus are we to understand that of the Apostle, I am made all things to all men. In special, if the use of things indifferent be restrained by a constitution, whether politic or Ecclesiastical. For albeit, God only bindeth the conscience porperly: yet so far forth as; either the Magistrate, which is the Minister of God doth judge it to be good for the Commonwealth, that some thing otherwise lawful in itself be not done; either the Church having respect of order, and decency, and edification, doth establish some laws orderly concerning things indifferent: such laws are altogether to be observed of the godly, and so far forth do tie the conscience, as that no man wittingly, and willingly, and deliberately, with a purpose to disobey, may without sin either do the things which are forbidden, or omit the things which are commanded, Epist. 24. fol. 143.  
Zanchius:] Christians, albeit they be subjecteth to no laws of men in respect of their conscience, but are exempted from all power of men: yet in respect of their outward man, in respect of the flesh, they are not exempted from all power of men, but are rather subject to Magistrates, as well Civil as Ecclesiastical, and are tied to obey them both for God's commandment, and the public good, and for keeping of order in the Church, as Rom. 13. 1. 1. Pet. 2. Compend. cap. 14. fol. 620.  
Hemingius:] That no man abuse this his Christian liberty, both piety to God, and charity to his neighbour persuade us that we observe the godly Rites and Ceremonies, established for order and discipline sake, so as the necessary worship of God, opinion of righteousness, merit and necessity be not placed in them, Enchirid. clas. 3. cap. 14. fol. 372. de libertate Christiana.  
Saravia:] Christian liberty doth not exempt men from the obedience of those, to whom God hath made us subject. The pure doctrine of the Gospel doth take away the abuse of things, and restoreth the true use of all things, which infidelity had polluted; in as much as albeit, the actions outwardly are very like: yet they are diverse, aswell from the cause efficient, from which they are done, as the end for the which they are done, Defence. de gradibus Ministr. cap. 25. fol. 582.  
And so much for the proof of this argument: In all which precedent allegations, I think fit to observe and note thus much▪ that albeit, I confess there be some difference among those worthy writers primitive and latter, about this matter circumstantial and ceremonial, some looking more upon the practice of the Primitive Church, and the substantials and main worships of God, and danger of their removing; by removing of these Ceremonies, were more inclined to the defence of ceremonies; other looking into the inconveniences, & many evil effects of the ceremonies, & wishing Apostolical simplicity, & in the just detestation of Antichrist & all his superstitions, have been more stern against them; & yet all of them have uniformly agreed in the substantials of Religion; as also in this point, for the which they are alleged only, namely, that such Ceremonies as are with us prescribed, suppose they were inconvenient, and fit to be abolished, yet they are not of that moment for a man to lose his Ministry, and to hazard the overthrow of the Church, for the refusing of them: and this is worthy to be noted for the confirmation of this argument, that they are all and every one among the Orthodox, ancient and late classical Fathers and Divines, of this very mind. And again, there is not one, I say not one of any sound judgement or good report in the Church of God, for the contrary opinion, unless Heretics, & Schismatics, such as Donatists, Anabaptists, Separatists. As for Illiricus, (and his few associates and defendants) who only is alleged to be of this mind, albeit he well deserved for his labour in the Centuries, and certain other of his works: And something might besaid for his excuse, and to show the difference of his case from ours; as that,  
1. The Ministers of Germany were compelled to use 
Illir. clau. Scripture. par. 1. fol. 23. verbo adiaph.  such Ceremonies, which were cast out by the Church before.  
2. That they were commanded and enjoined them by the Romish Church: Charles the fift, by the advice of 
Sleid. comment. li. 20. ann. 1548. fol. 330. a. & foe 332. b. f. 349. a  his Clergy imposed the Interim (wherein were sundry Popish errors to be received and approved) on the Germane Churches, which was refused & confuted by divers Churches, in which respect Illiricus, and the rest, refused the Ceremonies, as in a case of confession; and in which respect Hemingius himself, an adiaphorist, maketh an excuse for 
Heming. Enchirid. class. 3. cap. 16. tit. adiaph. fol. 375.  the Minister's refusal in that case, because superstitionis gratia seruabatur, whereas in another he pleadeth for the use of them, as being things indifferent. Yet for all this, the condition of Illiricus is not unknown to the Church of God, how furiously and turbulently he was addicted to the peremptory maintenance of unsavoury and gross errors divers other ways, and unsufferable disgrace of his betters for desert unto the Church of God, whereby we may the more probably guess of the truth of his opinions this way, and supposing that his case were the self same case with our deprived Ministers; yet what is one to universality? Illiricus to all the Church of God, to broach a singular and new opinion of suffering deprivation for inconvenient Ceremonies, not known nor heard of since the time of Christ, yea, accusing and condemning of all others besides himself of errors and false doctrines. But if any be desirous to see further of Illiricus, and of the iniquity of his cause and proceed, let him look Melancthon. consil. part. 2. fol. 104, 105, 106. 107, 108, 109. and Beza in vita calvini anno 1549. And it is worth the observation that a French Historian saith of him, Mathias Flaccius, homo vehemens, & quocunque loco pedem figeret acerrimus turbarum incentor, jac. Aug. Thuanus hist. l. 38. fol. 806. b. anno 1567.  
Thus we have seen the judgement of all true antiquity, and of all their pure posterity, to be opposite to the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation for using inconvenient Ceremonies; whereby his argument is proved: And therefore the conclusion which followeth is, that the doctrine of suffering deprivation for not using inconvenient Ceremonies, cannot be admitted with a good conscience: and lastly, to admit and practise it, it is a sin against God.  
The whole foregoing argument is thus concluded in a Syllogism.  
Whatsoever doctrine or practice tendeth to condemn all true Churches, and godly learned teachers (which are known to have declared their judgements of these things) since the time of the Apostles, without exception of any one for teaching of false doctrine and for maintaining of a sin, is contrary to God's Word, an error in doctrine, and a sin in practice: But  
Thus doth the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation for refusing to conform to the prescribed Ceremonies in the Church of England.  
Ergo, the doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation is contrary to God's Word, an error in doctrine, and a sin in practice.  
This whole argument I shut up with the sayings of Lumbertus, which he used on another occasion, In Ep. dedicat. de Christo seruatore contra Socinum: Nihil novi attuli, sed antiquam & receptam doctrinam, quam hoc saeculo Martinus Chemnitius, johannes Calvinus, Petrus Martyr, Zacharias Vrsinus, & multi alij Sancti Viri ex Dei verbo clarè &  docuerunt, defendi & tutatus sum: Idem ibid. Subijcio hunc librum judicio sanctae & orthodoxae Ecclesiae, quae Augustanam, Helueticam, Gallicam, Brittanicam & Belgicam confessiones sequitur. Hanc enim esse veram Ecclesiam, & de his dogmatis quae in hoc libro tractantur rectè sentire credo, cum hác me concordiam colere profiteor.  
To these authorities there are some things excepted, which here I will setdowne: And  
Object. Frist, that there is not that consent in these authorities, no harmony nor agreement neither in judgement nor in practice: Not in judgement, for they disagree among themselves; some commend the Ceremonies, others discommend them, esteeming them unprofitable, inexpedient, hurtful: Not in practice, for the first 200. years their uniform practice was answerable to the simplicity of the ordinance of Christ and his Apostles, in the parts of God's public worships, which will appear if ye cite the undoubted writings of the pure Fathers, and not their Apocryphals or Bastard and supposed writings.  
Answ. 1 This objection is quite besides the question, and is nothing to the point in hand, and therefore might have well been spared. The question here is not whether the Churches and Writers agree or disagree in their judgement & practice of such Ceremonies as ours are, but whether in a case of deprivation a man ought to conform to Ceremonies as evil & inconvenient as ours are pretended to be, rather than suffer deprivation. The answer by me is affirmative, which conclusion all the forealleaged Authors, as well one as other, do uniformly hold consent and agree upon: and of this there is an undoubted harmony. For their differences, let them be urged when question is concerning any point wherein they differ. To give instance hereof, suppose a question between Timothy and Titus, whether it were fit that the Apostles should visit the Church which they had by preaching converted to the faith; and to find out the truth hereof they will refer themselves to the judgement of Paul and Barnabas, who converted them unto the truth: Timothy saith, that they should do well to visit them, and allegeth that Paul and Barnabas did consent in that judgement and practice as appeareth, Acts 15. 26. Titus denieth it and saith, there was no consent nor agreement in their judgement nor practice: For Barnabas counseled to take john called Mark with him, but Paul thought it not meet. Hear may Timothy reply, that the question between us is not about the taking a long of Mark, wherein they disagreed, but about the visiting of the Churches wherein they were both of one mind.  
Touching their practice of 200. years, that it was answerable to the simplicity of the ordinance of Christ and his Apostles: I grant that it was much more pure for that space than it was ever after; for as the time ran on, so purity vanished, and superstition grew on, as in a praecipitium and desperate downfall: Howbeit the mystery of iniquity began to work even in the Apostles times: The Devil in those days began to sow his tars (as the watchmen began to sleep) both of false doctrine and corrupt Ceremonies, the controversy which troubled all the Christian world, was within one hundred years. And Anacletus, Evaristus, Telesphorus, Anicetus, Victor, as also Polycarp, Irenaeus, which note the controversy about Easter, and others, were within the 200. years: So were the Heretics, Valentinus, Montanus, Chiliastae. and others, who brought innumerable ceremonies. Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian within the 210. year did stir in their writing: Origen about the 216. year: Cyprian about the 240. year. In whose undoubted and not bastard writings may be seen, and hath been alleged the diversity and multitude of Ceremonies which were then in use: and much more might be said touching the confirmation of this point, namely, that such ceremonies as were then in use, as inconvenient in use and nature as ours, were practised by them: and the doctrine of suffering Deprivation for refusing to conform unto such Ceremonies as ours, was not by any of them taught, but by all of them confuted, partly by their doctrine, and partly by their practice.  
Object. These Churches and writers were strangers to our cause, nor so well acquainted with the state of our Church, and therefore could not so well judge of our case.  
Answ. The persons whose judgements are alleged, were either strangers to our Church, or acquainted with the state thereof. The strangers thereto were the Fathers of the Primitive Church, and the Lutheran authors; Both which because they were the practisers of more and worse Ceremonies than ours can be imagined to be, it is nothing to the point, whether they were ignorant of our Church, or not: For they that for the Church's peace did practise and persuade the practice of Ceremonies, more in number, and worse for quality, would much more practise and persuade the lesser and the fewer in the same case, as all men know. For the rest which were acquainted with the state of our Church, they were either foreigners, or members of our Church: The foreigners were some of them informed of our Church's estate, by such as were not partial in the relation thereof; Such as Caluin, who had our Leturgy translated, and sent him to peruse; Beza, Bullinger, Gualther, Zanchius, Vrsinus, Polanus, etc. Others were such as dwelling in our Church, were eye-witnesses themselves of the state thereof, such as Bucer in Cambridge: For whose censure the common prayer Book was translated into Latin. P. Martyr in Oxon. The members of our Church were no less worthy than the Foreigners and could not be ignorant of the state of this Church; such as the Martyrs, Cranmer, Ridley, F. and Hooper who at last conformed. Exiles, as Fox, jewel, Nowell, Parkhust, Sanders, Grindall, Humphrey, etc. And the latter teachers, as Deering Fulke Perkins, and especially Master Cartwright, who with most exact diligence did sift every thing to the utmost of his power, that might carry any show of the warrant of an opposition.  
Object. These persons which had notice of our state, considered not of our grounds of Scripture, and of the arguments which we allege: they professed that they saw: but if they saw our reasons, and so urged as we urge them, they would doubtless have been of other judgement.  
Answ. They considered of all the main reasons which are now urged, as appeareth before in the Answers of Master Bucer and P. Martyr, to the several objections of B b. Hooper; Besides, the members of our Church were well acquainted with the reasons urged against them, especially the later.  
Object. Some of the Authors which persuade to use the Ceremonies, do give such allegations as overthrow their own grounds, and thereby we are more confirmed, that so great lights bring so weak grounds. For example: The Fathers did with one consent teach a refusal of all Ceremonies, which were contra fidem, & bonos mores: and therefore seeing our Ceremonies are contra fidem, & bonos mores, it followeth that the doctrine and practice of refusing our Ceremonies, agreeth with the doctrine of the Fathers: as for their practice, if it were contrary to their doctrine, in that part it was their ignorance, we must leave their practice, and follow their doctrine, Mat. 23. 2.  
Answ. 1 Neither doth this objection touch the question, which is whether all Churches and faithful teachers do uniformly teach conformity to such Ceremonies as ours, in case of deprivation: yet I answer, that these allegations of theirs must be produced and better sifted, before it will be granted, that they overthrow themselves with their own grounds, which when it is performed I will further answer if I can.  
It is petitio principij, or a begging of the question to conclude without any further proof that our Ceremonies are contra fidem & bonos mores, and I think verily that our brethren themselves, which do thus object, will not say that they are fundamental, or overthrowing Christ, which they should do if they were contra fidem & bonos mores. Let this be sound proved and then I will yield the whole cause, but then with all it must be concluded, that no Church can be a Church, which retaineth fundamental errors; No conformer to them without repentance can be saved: the practice of the Ceremonies overthrow faith & a good conscience, and let it be considered how far this will stretch, even to the Apostles, and all Churches and faithful teachers since the time of Christ.  
Object. Many of the things alleged touch not our cause, they might have been spared.  
Answ. Though some things concern not the peculiar cause of the Ministers deprived: yet all which I have alleged, do touch the question proposed, which every intelligent disputant is to follow and intend, neither is there any thing that I know proposed, which may not serve as a true medius terminus, or pregnant argument tending directly to prove this conclusion: that all true Churches & teachers since the Apostles▪ did teach & practise conformity, rather than they would suffer deprivation or separation from the Church. But if any among so many things as are alleged be impertinent, let it be showed and put out with my good liking: there is enough besides which is without all controversy to the purpose.  
Object. The times are different, there may be a matter fundamental now, which was not then; in respect of the most clear manifestation of the truth thereof now, which was not then. Therefore their judgement (though pure) is no rule for us to follow now: It is no true arguing; They thus judged, therefore we must thus judge of these Ceremonies, as for example, It was a truth that Christ should be borne at Bethleem, and of the Virgin Mary, this truth being fundamental now, was not so before Christ was borne and manifested. Cornelius was a faithful man before he believed in Christ the son of the Virgin Mary: yet he had the faith of the Messiah in general, sufficient to his salvation; but after it was revealed by the Apostles to him, even this was also fundamental.  
Answ. This objection containeth a truth; but it faileth in the application thereof unto the case in question. For there must be proved these two points, that this objection may be firm: First, that the use of these Ceremones is grown to be a matter fundamental, which sometimes it was not, and the sound reasons thereof must be alleged, which as yet they are not: it is not known as yet by any light that ever I preceaved or heard of, how these Ceremonies here questioned should be rather fundamental now then before, when by the same reasons they were opposed as they are now: Secondly, that the refusal of the Ceremonies questioned, be a matter of that weight and nature, with the instance brought of believing in Christ the son of the Virgin Mary, between which I confess there seemeth to me to be so great and so real a difference, as that I suppose it to be brought in quite besides the point: When these two points be solved, I will answer as occasion is offered further.  
Object. You have omitted some things in this your argument or reason, whereunto we must also conform: Besides conformity is not sufficient, we shall be required to subscribe, and further, these our ceremonies are now far more strictly enjoined and imposed, then ever before.  
Answ. The question is, of what in this case we may lawfully conform unto; if there be any thing besides which may be proved simply unlawful even in this case of deprivation, to conform unto, let it be sound discovered, wisely and zealously eschewed, and a reformation humbly laboured unto by authority, or prayed for to God. In the mean time, let us consider whether in this case our consciences be not tied to conform, to redeem the liberty of the ministery. Touching the urging or pressing of these Ceremonies, it is true, they have been imposed with some vehemency, yet they are not imposed (nor pretended so to be) upon the conscience, as the worships of God, or needful to salvation, but they are taught as variable and free things, and in their nature indifferent but as they are commanded by authority, and so imposed.  
Object. The force of your argument lieth in this, that rather than we should suffer deprivation, we should receive and use Ceremonies as inconvenient, hurtful and scandalous, as were the jewish Ceremonies, and those which the fathers embraced: but the jewish Ceremonies were holden necessary to salvation, Act. 15. 1, 3. and the Ceremonies of the Fathers were holden operative: your argument ergo concludeth a necessity of receiving Ceremonies, though even holden necessary and operative, rather than to suffer deprivation for refusing such. Thus may we also dispute for all other Popish Ceremonies, as for the shaven Crown, Exorcism, White garment in Baptism, Soot, Spittle, Cream, holy Water.  
Answ. 1. My argument concludeth only for conforming to the Ceremonies which are prescribed in the case of deprivation, and for none other, from an argument drawn from the consent of all true Churches, and faithful teachers of all ages and places, which did rather conform to more and worse than ours are pretended to be: argumento à maiori ad minus ducto; which holdeth strongly for conforming to our Ceremonies, which are far more tolerable, and less inconvenient and burdensome than theirs. Neither can my argument be farther drawn or racked than I urge it.  
2. Touching the jewish Ceremonies, they were holden necessary to salvation by refractory jews, not by the Apostles and the godly well grounded Christians. So our Ceremonies are holden by the Papists, but not by us, therefore that instance concerneth us no more than the Apostles, and the faithful of those times.  
3. Touching the Ceremonies of the Primitive Fathers, they were also holden operative, not by the sounder Fathers themselves (as Zepperus, Perkins, and others do allege for them) but by others, which did so accidentally, as the sign of the Cross was not holden operative by the Orthodoxal Fathers of itself opere operato, but they held their faith operative, which was exercised in them when they exercised that sign. Only Tertullian is cited to hold that sign operative, but he is noted thereby, as by many other his singularities, to have been a Montanist, who thus used the sign, & other Ceremonies, as operative in themselves: and in like sort our prescribed Ceremonies are holden operative in themselves, opere operato, by the Papist, but not by us: Therefore neither doth this part of the objection concern our Church or this my argument, who utterly and professedly disclaim these things.  
4. For the Popish Ceremonies alleged, such as shaven Crown, holy Water, Cream, Spittle, Salt, etc. they are not mentioned in this my argument, and there may be other weighty causes alleged wherefore we may except against them justly. The Lutherans use some of them, and we all account of them as of true Churches: And it is not possible for the true Church to put operation in them, or opinion of necessity, or God's worship or merit in the deed doing, for that this tendeth to overthrow the foundation, and so to nullify the Church: But excluding these gross apprehensions of those Ceremonies, it might prove a matter very questionable, whether in case of necessity, as of deprivation of ministry and overthrow of the Church, they ought not to be used, even by this my argument. Howbeit till question be made and justly moved upon these points, we will omit further disputation, because it is a matter merely needless and unprofitable. And so much of this matter.    
Deo soli sit Gloria.   

¶ A Brief and plain Answer to Master SPRINTS discourse concerning the necessity of conformity in the case of Deprivation.  
BEfore particular answer be made to Master Sprints several arguments, one thing is necessary to be premised that maketh much against the whole scope and drift of his Treatise, viz. That the cause why so many godly and worthy Ministers, have been heretofore, and are daily deprived or suspended; or why so many able men that have desired to enter into the ministry have been kept back, is not this only that they have refused to conform; but that many have been and are daily deprived and suspended only for refusing to subscribe according to the Canon: yea, many that at the time of their convention, have not so much as been charged with nonconformity, and of whom (by reason they were Lecturers only, or for that there were some other that did use conformity in their churches) the use of the ceremonies was not at all or little required, have been deprived or suspended for this cause only, because they durst not subscribe. And who knoweth not that by the 36. Canon no man may be either received into the ministry or suffered to preachor catechize, except he shall first willingly & ex animo, subscribe to the 3. articles there mentioned, & to all things contained in them. Yea, admit that a man were contented both to conform & subscribe also, yet if he shall but at any time affirm (as it is evident many conformers & subscribers also will not stick sometime to do:) That the Book of common Prayer containeth something in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures, or that some of the 39 Articles are in any part superstitious and erroneous, or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto, he is to be excommunicated, ipso facto (which must needs imply suspension from his ministry) and not to be restored till he have publicly revoked such his wicked error. So that though all Master Sprints arguments shall prove good & unanswerable, whereby he goeth about to justify the use of the Ceremonies in this case: yet will he never be able to convince a great number of them, that have either been kept out, or put out of the ministry, of so foul a sin as he would make the world believe they stand guilty of, unless he can also justify the subscription, which he seemeth altogether unwilling to do, and can prove it unlawful for a godly minister to say, that there is something in the Book of common Prayer repugnant to the Scriptures, or that some of the 39 Articles are in some part superstitious and erroneous, and such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto. And if those conclusions which he setteth down in the first page of his Treatise, and which he saith will follow upon the proof of this point, That to suffer deprivation or suspension for refusing to conform, is a sin; be the very mark he aimed at in his whole Treatise, and the only fruit he expecteth of all these pains he hath taken (as indeed they seem to be:) then hath he surely bestowed his time very ill, and spent a great deal of labour to no purpose at all. From hence it will follow (saith he) first, That seeing those Ministers have sinned that have suffered deprivation so refusing to conform, they ought of conscience to offer conformity that they may return to their ministry. 2. That such as not conforming do remain in their places, are bound in conscience to conform, rather than to suffer deprivation. 3. That such as are profitably or probably fitted to the Ministry, and desire that calling, are tied in conscience before God to promise and practise conformity, rather than for refusing it, to be kept out of the Ministry. And where be those Ministers to be found in England, that have suffered deprivation for no other cause, but for that they have refused to conform? or that being deprived; might have had assurance to enjoy again, and continue in the use of their Ministry, if they would offer conformity? Or what Prelate hath he known, being to admit any into the Ministry, hath been wont to require of him a promise of Conformity, and to allow him thereupon, though he did refuse to subscribe? It is not to be doubted indeed, but that the only cause that hath been pretended for the deprivation and suspension of some, hath been their refusing to conform, and that liberty hath been offered unto others, upon this condition only, if they would conform; But that this hath been the only cause, why any have suffered Deprivation or Suspension, will hardly be proved by Master Spr. or any other man. If then he knew it not before, let him now understand, That the true cause why so many able and faithful Ministers have suffered themselves to be deprived and suspended, rather than they would conform to the Ceremonies prescribed, hath been partly (but not only,) this; that they have judged the ceremonies unlawful, and partly, that they knew though they should have yielded to the use of them, they could by no means have been assured, that the bearing of this heavy yoke would have kept them in their Ministry, unless they could be content also to subscribe to the Book of common prayer, and those 39 Articles according to the Canon, or at least forbear to speak either publicly or privately against any thing contained in them. This being so, M. Spr. should either first have made it plain▪ that the only, or at least chief cause why the Ministers have been deprived usually, or suspended in England, hath been their refusing to conform; or else he should have made this the state of his question, Whether the suffering Deprivation, rather than a man will conform to the ceremonies in this case, when besides conformity upon the same penalty subscribing to the Book of Common prayer, and the 39 Articles, or at least forbearing to speak against any thing contained in them, is required, be a sin.  
And this shall suffice to be premised for a general answer to his whole treatise. Now the arguments whereby he laboureth to prove the lawfulness and necessity of Conformity in the case of Deprivation, are to be examined particularly.  
His first main argument is this, The doctrine and practice of suffering deprivation (specially upon the reasons urged against our ceremonies) is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Apostles.  
The antecedent of this Argument (for the consequent is strong and good) he laboureth to prove, first in this manner.  
To refuse to do that, which the Apostles with the whole Church at jerusalem did by Divine inspiration and commandment do themselves, and both advise and command others to do, is a sin.  
But to refuse conformity in the case of deprivation, is to refuse to do that which the Apostles and whole Church at jerusalem did themselves, and both advised and commanded others to do: for they practised themselves, and commanded others, even whole Churches to practise ceremonies as inconvenient and evil, for number, nature, use, and evil effects, as ours are supposed to be, and that for reasons equivalent or inferior to the avoiding of Deprivation.  
Ergo, to refuse to conform in the case of deprivation, is a sin.  
The proposition of this argument, he never goeth about to prove, which yet is most false and unsound: for the Apostles and whole Church a jerusalem might by divine inspiration, and some special commandment of God, both themselves use and enjoin others to use some Ceremonies, in themselves as evil and inconvenient as ours, & yet it may be unlawful for a Minister now to use ours, except he did it by the same in spiration, and had the like commandment from God, as they had. Abraham to manifest his faith was commanded by divine vision to kill his son and if he had done it, he had in so doing done an excellent work; will this make it lawful for all other believers for the manifestation of their faith, to do the like, when they have not the like special commandment from God to do it? The contrary would be much better concluded by this argument, viz. that the Apostles doctrine and practice, doth not so warrant a Minister now to conform to such like Ceremonies, because they that command them to do so, do it not by divine inspiration, or commandment, as the Apostles did.  
That which he allegeth afterward for the confirmation of this proposition in his answer to the first object. pag. makes it never a whit the stronger. For first, the answer he gives, doth but begin the question, and is the very same with the proposition itself, whereof it should have been a proof. If the Apostles authority (saith he) were immediate from God, and that they did was done by the direction of the Holy Ghost, we may be the boulder to imitate them. Secondly, his second answer, that though we may not imitate the Apostles in things peculiar to the office, persons, and times; yet we may in matter of common equity, and general reason: Instead of confirming he doth directly overthrow his own proposition, for he grants here that it is no sufficient warrant for us to do any thing, for that the Apostles did so, because they did many things by divine direction, that were peculiar to their office, persons, and time. Thirdly, he doth expressly in this his second answer affirm, that the Apostles did urge the practice of these Ceremonies, not from the immediate authority of God, nor from the inspiration only of the Holy Ghost, but by reasons and rules of common equity and perpetual: Wherein besides that, he forgets what he had urged before in the proof of his assumption, and expressly contradicts the text, which affirms that all the things they did write, even concerning matters of order in the Church, were the commandments of the Lord, 1. Cor. 14. 37. and that when they decreed these things in question, they said it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us, Act. 15. 28. he hath also weakened his own proposition here, and made it of no strength at all. For if the Apostles had used, or enjoined these things, and not done it by divine inspiration, and immediate authority from God, whatforce could there be in their example or commandment to bind our conscience? The Apostles we know were men, and subject to error (as other men) in all cases wherein they were not immediately directed by the spirit of God. And if the reason why we are to conform, be not this; because the Apostles did so, or because they did so by immediate direction from God: but because they did that, which the rules of common and perpetual equity, and general reason did require: then an argument drawn from the doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees, as well as of the holy Apostles, might have served the turn. For we are bound to follow them also, where they do, or teach that which the rules of common and perpetual equity, and general reason do require.  
But let the reasons be examined, whereby he is moved to judge, that the Apostles did use and enjoin these Ceremonies, not by immediate authority from God, nor from inspiration only of the Holy Ghost, but by reasons and rules of common and perpetual equity.  
They used & enjoined these things (saith he) for expediency and necessity to win the more to Christ, and to further & propagate the Gospel; which though it be granted to be true, yet shall we be as far to seek as we were before; for still the question will be, whether there be the same reasons now to move us to the use of our Ceremonies, as moved the Apostles then to use those. There might be such special causes as made it expedient and necessary for them to use and enjoin such Ceremonies then, as never did fall out before, nor shall do again while the world doth stand. It is indeed a rule of common and perpetual equity, that things expedient and necessary, that may make for the winning of more to Christ, and furtherance of the Gospel, be done; but that may be expedient and necessary unto these ends for some persons at sometimes, which yet would be neither necessary nor expedient for other persons at another time to do, without a special and immediate calling from God. It was expedient and necessary, that the Apostles should preach the Gospel to all nations, and do sundry other things that were peculiar and proper unto their function, which yet none in these days may take upon them to do, because they have not the like immediate calling and authority from God; neither is there any thing more evident to every reasonable and understanding man, than this, that the same things, which in some places and times have been both expedient and necessary to be done, have at other times, and in other places proved far otehrwise.  
That which he allegeth in the same place (viz. in his answer to the first objection) to confirm this, that the reasons for which the holy Ghost moved the Apostles to do those things, do warrant and bind us to use our ceremonies now, because the holy Ghost being ever the same, teacheth and ruleth the Church by one and the same reason revealed in his Word, as well now as then; is not easy to be understood: For if this be his meaning, (as by his words it seems to be) that upon what reason the holy Ghost at any time teacheth any person in the Church to do a thing he teacheth all persons in the Church to do the same, when they shall have the same reason, because he is always one and the same; it would follow, that whatsoever God hath by any special commandment, for any special reason required, of any should be done of all, where there is the same reason, though there be not the same special commandment of God. And so, forasmuch as God (upon this reason, that Abraham might make known his faith) commanded him to sacrifice his son, all men shall be bound to show the like readiness that he did, to kill his own children, seeing the reason that moved God to require this of him▪ concerneth them as well as him, all men being bound to manifest and make known their faith.  
Where he addeth, that by the same rules whereby the holy Ghost teacheth the Church to pray, and sing in a known language, & Prophets to speak one after another, and women to be silent in the Church, he teacheth that Conformity which is in question; because they be all cases of one nature; namely, of order and Ceremony in the Church, and worship of God; he affirmeth that which seemeth to have no colour of good reason in it: For these things are of themselves, and by the very light of nature at all times, and in all places, matters of order and decency, and such as if no precept had been given, common and general reason would say are fitting: And the contrary (in themselves, and not in respect of circumstance only) unseemly; which he will never (surely) say of any of these Ceremonies. And what consequence there is in this reason the holy Ghost doth no less teach the one than the other, because they are all cases of one nature, namely, of order and Ceremony in the Church? Are there not some impious and idolatrous orders, or (at least) Ceremonies, such as a man ought to die rather than to yield unto them? Are there not, or may there not be some contrary to all these general rules? Doth not the damnablest idolatry, that is, lie in orders and Ceremonies? how can it follow then that they are of the same nature, and required by the same rules, because they are matters of order and Ceremony?  
And so much shall suffice for answer to the proposition of his first main argument, and to that which in his answer to the first objection he hath brought for the fortifying of it: now let us come to consider how he proves the assumption of this argument. All that he hath said to this purpose (though it be by him spread into thirteen several branches) may well be referred unto these four heads, and yet nothing omitted that is worthy consideration, or carrieth any weight in it at all, viz. 1. That the Apostles and whole Churches in their times, used as many Ceremonies as ours doth. 2. That these many Ceremonies which they used, were every way as inconvenient and evil as ours are supposed. 3. That the Apostles by divine inspiration and commandment from God, required the Churches to use so many Ceremonies of such sort. 4. That the Apostles were moved to do thus, upon reasons of no greater weight than the avoiding of deprivation and suspension with us. These four points, if he can indeed make good, as he hath undertaken to do, then will no man deny but that he hath confirmed his assumption sufficiently.  
The first of these points concerning the number, though it be not set down by him in so many words, yet it is evidently collected from that which he hath here written, without any wresting of his words or perverting of his meaning. For when he saith, The holy Apostles, with the whole Church at jerusalem did practise themselves, and enjoined whole Churches the practice of ceremonies in number equal unto ours, there is no doubt to be made but that he intended to say as much, as in this first point he is charged to say. Let us therefore observe well how he proveth this. The Ceremonies (saith he) that they (that is the Apostles and Church at jerusalem, and whole Churches of divers and far distant Countries and Nations, namely the Gentiles in Antiochia, Syria, Cilicia) did use, were divers: as namely circumcision, shaving the head, vowing, purifying, contributing, offering sacrifices for the persons purified, observation of the jewish sabboth's, abstaining from blood, abstaining from strangled. Whereunto this answer may be given; first, that sundry of these 9 things which he hath here reckoned up, can with no good reason be called Ceremonies. In the last clause of his answer to the first objection, when he had matched praying and singing in a known tongue, the Prophets speaking one after another, and women's keeping silence in the Church, with our Ceremonies, he makes this the reason of it: Because (saith he) they be all cases of one nature, namely of Order and Ceremony in the Church and worship of God. Whereby he seemeth to understand that this is of a nature of a Ceremony to be used in the Church and in the worship of God: which if it be so, then surely can neither abstaining from blood, nor abstaining from strangled be accounted Ceremonies. And though it be granted that all these nine things he mentioneth, were once commanded in the Ceremonial Law, yet that the Apostles or Churches he speaketh of, did use any of them as Ceremonies, or as in obedience to that Law, he will never be able to prove. If a man in these days should abstain from flesh in Lent in the presence of a Papist whom he is loath to offend, and of whom he conceiveth hope, that by condescending to him in this he may win him to the Gospel: or if a Minister coming to a people Popishly affected; should he (having the gift of continency) for the same reason for bear to marry? would any man say, that either the one of these, or the other did in so abstaining practice any Ceremony? or was it a Ceremony in Paul, when having preached long among the Corinthians and Thessalonians, he departed from his right, and forebare to take any maintenance from them?  
2. If he will needs have all these 9 points to be Ceremonies, yet can he not make their Ceremonies any whit near equal in number unto ours: For it will be easy (specially accounting ceremonies as he doth here) for their 9 to reckon up 49. that are used among us. 3. These 9 ceremonies of his, can never be proved to have been used or practised by the holy Apostles, the whole Church at jerusalem, and those whole Churches of divers and far countries and Nations he speaketh of, namely of the Gentiles in Antiochia, Syria, and Cilicia. For the use of Circumcision, he brings the example of the Apostle Paul only, who is mentioned once to have used it; But for Purifying. Contributing, offering Sacrifices for the persons purified, he proves that not Paul only, but four men more did once so, Act. 21. 23, 24. 26. for vowing and shaving of the head, that Paul did so, not only at that time with those four men, Act. 21. 24. but once before, Act. 18. 18. For the observation of the jewish Sabbaths; That in one place Paul and Barnabas preached on the jews Sabbath in a Synagogue, Act. 13. 14. In two other places, Paul himself disputed with the jews in their Synagogue upon their Sabbath day, Act. 17. 2. & 18. 4. for as for the place Act. 13. 42. he hath much mistaken it: For the Gentiles desired them to preach to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. on some day between that and the Sabbath. And lastly, for abstaining from blood, and strangled, he allegeth the decree of the Council at jerusalem, sent unto certain Churches of the Gentiles, Act. 15. 29. Thus we see, that whereas he did undertake to prove, that the holy Apostles, the whole Church at jerusalem, and sundry other whole Churches of sundry Nations in the Apostles times did use and practise more Ceremonies than the Church of England doth, he hath not been able to show that either the Church of jerusalem, or any one Church then, did practise any one Ceremony, or any Apostle either besides Paul: or that Paul did at any time use more than 6. Ceremonies at the most: or that he used any of those six above once or twice at the uttermost. For neither abstaining from blood or strangled, was enjoined as any Ceremony to the Churches of the Gentiles, nor the preaching or disputing in the Synagogues upon the Sabbath, 
Mat. 20. 55. Act 13. 42. and 20. 3. Act. 17. 17. and 19 9  can with any better reason be called a religious observation of the jews Sabbath, than Christ's or Paul's preaching and disputing daily when occasion was offered, will argue, that they did religiously keep and observe as holy, every day in the weak. And this may suffice to have been said of the first point, wherein he equalleth the Ceremonies used in the Apostles time, with ours now; namely, the number of them.  
The second point, wherein the confirmation of his assumption consisteth, is this; That those ceremonies which the Apostles and the Churches in their times used, were every way as inconvenient and evil as ours are.  
And that he may make this good, he takes upon him to show, 1. That they were as evil in nature, as ours are. 2. That they had been, and were as much abused as ours are, or have been. 3. That the use of them wrought as dangerous effects, as the use of ours can do. 4. That whatsoever is objected against our ceremonies, might have been said against them.  
To all which this answer may be given, that no one of all those testimonies of holy Scripture, which he here citeth to show what names and titles the holy Ghost giveth to ceremonies, that were used in those days; how Ceremonies were then abused; what evil effects the use of them did bring forth, doth make any whit at all to his purpose, nor can with any colour of reason, be applied unto any ceremony which either the Apostles themselves, or any Church by their appointment did use. For 1. they were no yokes or burdens, or burdening Traditions, as the places which himself (a strange thing) citeth, do evidently show: for by Act. 15. 10, 28. it is manifest, that the Apostles would by no means be drawn to enjoin Ceremonies as were such yokes and burdens. Neither could they truly be called ordinances of the world, commandments or doctrines of men, or voluntary religion. For besides that, neither the Apostles, nor the Churches that used them by their appointment, did put any religion in them when they used them: if they had done it, yet had not this been voluntary religion, or a subjecting themselves to the commandments, or doctrines of men. Because as these things at the first, were of divine institution, so during the time that the Apostles did enjoin the use of them, they remained still the commandments of the Lord, as it is evident by that we find written, Act. 15. 28. 1. Cor. 14. 37. no more could they be termed impotent and beggarly rudiments, so long and so far forth, as the Apostles did use or enjoin them, but were of great force and sufficiency, and served unto very good use, for the winning of the jews unto, or retaining of them in the love of the Gospel. This is made the reason, both why james counseleth Paul, to do as he did, Acts 21. 20. 24. and why Paul became a jew, to the jew, 1. Cor. 9 20.  
If it be admitted, that all these places were meant of the jewish Ceremonies (as indeed the most of them were) and even of those which the Apostles and Churches did yield to the use of; yet will Master Spr. be never able to prove (and if he prove not this he saith nothing to the purpose) that when and where the Apostles of those Churches used them, they had been notoriously known to have been so abused, or to have wrought such evil effects, as he here speaketh of. Nay it is evident, that after they grew into such abuse, and such evil effects followed the ufe of them, the Apostles were so far from using or enjoining them, as they did utterly refuse the use of them themselves, and forbade it to the Churches, therefore Paul who once had used circumcision, and some other of the Ceremonies himself doth afterward, with great sharpness, and bitterness, reprove, and condemn the use of them, Gal. 4. 9 10. and 5. 12. Tit. 1. 14. which places and such like, it is very strange that Master Spr. would allege to prove that the Apostles, and Churches in their time by their appointment, did use Ceremonies as bad as ours. For can any man be so absurd, as to imagine that the Apostle would ever practise, or command those things after that they were grown so bad, after that he had seen just cause to inveigh against them, and condemn them in that manner? To this purpose also the Apostles resolution, in not suffering Titus to be circumcised (when he saw what an abuse that Ceremony was grown unto, and how dangerous an effect was like to follow it, if he had yielded unto it) maketh very strongly, notwithstanding any thing that he would seem to say to the contrary in his answer to the sixth obiction, as shall further appear in the discussing of the fourth point, that hath been observed in the confirmation of this his assumption.  
3. If it were granted, that the Ceremonies which the Apostles used and appointed, had been notoriously known to have been subject to so great abuse of some, and to have had in them so evil effects, even before or at that time, and in those places also, where the Apostles enjoined them: yet could not this have proved them every way as inconvenient, and evil as ours are. For ours are said (and sufficiently proved also, as they suppose who have suffered deprivation, or suspension for this cause) to be evil, not only because they have been grossly abused, and very evil effects have followed the use of them (for so much may be said also of some of Gods own ordinances) but for that they never were good, nor can ever serve to any good use. Those, as they were at the first the ordinances of God, so they are here said by Master Spr. to have been still enjoined to certain Churches by the Apostles; which if it be so, then could no abuse, that obstinate jews, or other wicked men had put them unto, make the use of them either unlawful, or inconvenient unto the faithful, that by Apostolical (that is divine) authority, were required to use them.  
And here fitly cometh to be examined, whether that be true which is affirmed by him in his second reason, which he brings for the proof of this point, viz. that nothing in substance is objected against our Ceremonies, which might not have been said aswell against those which the Apostles and Churches of their times did use. In handling of this point, as he hath left out much of the force and substance of every argument, which in the Abridgement (the book which himself quoteth) are set down against our Ceremonies, so hath he affirmed much more against them which the Apostles then used, than he is able to justify and make good. The truth is, that though every one of those four arguments doth strike to the heart the ceremonies of our Church; yet is there never a one of them that doth give the least touch unto those which the Apostles and Churches than did use.  
For first, Ours are human inventions, notoriously known to have been of old, and still to be abused to idolatry and superstition by the Papists, and yet of no necessary use in the Church: Theirs, as they were at first by divine institution, so were they not at that time when they used them, notoriously known to have been abused, either to idolatry, or to the confirmation of false and pernicious doctrine, and were at that time of necessary use: and though they had been never so much abused, and had been also in any other of no necessary use; yet because they were used, by warrant of Apostolical and divine authority, this first argument toucheth them not at all, he doth indeed deny all this, and quoteth Scripture to prove that they were human inventions, of no necessary use, and abused to superstition. But it hath been already showed, that all these Scriptures are misunderstood, and applied by him; & no more shall need to be said for the convincing of him in this point, when that himself (clearly and strongly contradicting himself) hath both elsewhere in this argument, and even in this very place affirmed. For were they human inventions, which himself here saith were practised and taught by direction of the holy Ghost? were they of no necessary use, which he in the proof of his first proposition of his first argument, Num. 8. affirms to have been commanded by the Apostles, as matters good and necessary in that case, and brings for proof thereof? Act. 15. 28.  
2. Ours are human Ceremonies appropriated to God's service, and ordained to teach spiritual duties, by their mystical signification. Theirs, as they were not appropriated to God's service, so neither were they used or appointed by the Apostles to be used for mystical signification; or if they had, yet (seeing as hath before been showed) they were not human Ceremonies, this argument doth not concern them. It is true indeed that they were in their first institution significative and mystical, and thus much the places quoted by him here, viz. Col. 2. 16. 17 Heb. 8. 5. & 9 8 23 & 10. 1. do prove: But that either the Apostles used them or ordained them, that they might teach some spiritual duty by their mystical signification, that he hath not so much as endeavoured to prove. And surely if Paul did use circumcision as a Sacrament, Acts 16. 3. then by the force of Master Spr. argument here (which maintaineth it lawful for us to do now what the Apostles or Churches in their time did:) it may be concluded that it is lawful for us to use in God's service, other Sacraments than those which God hath ordained.  
3. Ours being but human Ceremonies are esteemed, imposed, and observed as parts of God's worship. Theirs cannot be proved to be observed by them, much less imposed upon them as parts of God's worship; and if they had, yet because they were not human Ceremonies, this argument maketh nothing against them: For what is this to the purpose that here he takes upon him to prove, That the jews esteemed, imposed, and observed them as necessary to salvation, Acts 15. 1. 5? That the zealous jews were violently offended with Paul, for teaching that Christians ought not to circumcise their children, and to live after the legal customs Acts 21. 27? That the Apostles ordained them as good and necessary, Act. 15. 28. 29? That the Apostle conformed himself unto them for their sakes, and in their presence that esteemed them as worships of God, Acts 15. 1. 5. & 16. 3. & 21. 26? Seeing the question between us is not here, whether the jews observed and imposed Ceremonies, as bad as ours; but whether the Apostles or any Church by their appointment did so. Did the Apostles or any of them, whose conformity of Ceremonies is now in question between us, use any Ceremony as imposed by those jews he speaketh of here? And what though the Apostles called those things that by their decree was enjoined good and necessary? will it follow from thence that they imposed them as parts of God's worship? or can nothing be good and necessary, but that which is a part of God's worship? Though the superstitious estimation the people among whom they are used, have of them be objected by the ministers in the abridgement (& that justly and materially) against our ceremonies: Yet doth not the main forces of this third argument lie in that, but in this rather; that though they be but human Ceremonies, yet they that enjoin them do esteem and impose them as parts of the worship of God, which puts a manifest difference between them and the Ceremonies that were used by the Apostles, or any Church by their appointment.  
4 In the imposing and using of ours, those rules that are prescribed in the Word for matters of direction in the Church concerning Ceremonies, are not kept. For they are no way needful or profitable for the edification of the Church, but are known to cause offence every where, and hindrance unto edification▪ and are observed only for the will and pleasure of them that do enjoin them. Theirs though they were used and appointed by them, who had more far absolute authority, and might lawfully have commanded in the Church of God, specially doing that they did by the inspiration of the holy Ghost: yet were they also squared & directed by the rules of the holy Scripture, and were no way offensive, but tended greatly to the edification of God's people. And how often hath Master Spr. affirmed in the prosecuting of this argument, that they were profitable and necessary, and alleged for proof thereof, Acts 15. 28. 29. though here as forgetting himself he do deny it? Yea this very Section here, wherein he takes upon him to prove they were not needful or profitable, they served rather to destroy then to edify the Church, he concludes with this clause; Yet their use and yielding served to edify, by making way to the Church's peace and furtherrnce of the Gospel. And this vain of contradicting himself he taketh such pleasure in, as he continueth it to the end of his discourse, wherein he laboureth to prove that the fourth argument against the Ceremonies in the abridgement, maketh as strongly against the Apostles, as against our Church. They were not profitable for order (saith he, in the beginning of that Section) and in the conclusion of it affirms, yet it was order to use and practise them in that case. And in the beginning of the next Section, having said, they were not profitable for decency; for what was more undecent then for a Christian to use idle, unfruitful, needless and beggarly rudiments; by and by he adds, yet did this indecency uphold an higher decency: Which last phrase of speech (besides the contradiction) is very hard to be understood; for how can indecency support decency? or in what sense can the establishment of the faith, and the daily increase of the number of the Churches be termed a higher decency? or how could the indecency of these Ceremonies establish the faith and increase the Churches. After this in going about to show that they were offensive many ways, in the fift Section he saith, that in the event they did serve indeed as means to infringe the Christian liberty, and immediately after; yet the use and practise of these things by the direction of the Apostles did procure the liberty of the Gospel: So that if M. Spr. himself be to be beelieued, every indifferent and understanding man will easily discern that the 4. Argument which the Ministers have used against our ceremonies in the abridgement, doth not any way concern those which the Apostles did use. And surely it would be altogether needless to insist longer upon this part of this his Discourse, but that there is one thing affirmed by him, which may not be passed over: For noting this to be the 4. way, whereby those ceremonies were offensive; that the Apostles themselves were offended in imposing that they did, he addeth that they taught against the things which they enjoined; that namely, they ought not to be used by the jews or Gentiles. It is strange any learned or Godly man should so far forget himself, as to charge the holy Apostles to have inoyned the faithful to use those things which themselves did teach ought not to be used, either by jews or Gentiles; specially when the text expressly saith, that what they enjoined, they enjoined by the direction of the Holy Ghost. The place he citeth to prove this that he saith, viz. Act. 21. 21. doth not affirm that Paul had taught so indeed, but that the jews had been so informed of him: and by james his words vers. 24. it appears also that information was false. And if this which he speaketh of the Apostles preaching this against that which they did so decree, were to be believed, (which God forbidden) what had he gained by it? surely that there could be no force in this example or decree to bind us in conscience to use those things which they in their doctrine did teach ought not to be used by any Christian: And so this his first Argument, wherein he hath laboured so much and with so great confidence, is by himself utterly overthrown.  
The third main point in confirmation of the assumption of his first Argument is this, That the Apostles by divine inspiration and commandment from God, required the Churches to use so many Ceremonies, and such as were as inconvenient and evil as ours are supposed to be. That whatsoever the Apostles did enjoin the Churches, they did it by divine inspiration & commandment from God, is so undoubted a truth, as he needed not at all to have troubled himself in the confirmation of it, it being so hard to find any scholar that would so much gainsay, or call this in question, as he himself hath (sometimes) done in this Treatise. All the question in this point is, Whether ever the Apostles did enjoin unto whole Churches so many Ceremonies as ours are, and those also as inconvenient and evil as ours are: This he goeth about to prove after this manner; They caused others to practise ceremonies: for Paul circumcised Timothy, Act. 16. 3. and took the men, and was purified with them, Act. 21. 26. They advised one another to practise ceremonies: for james and the Elders persuaded Paul thus to conform, Acts. 21. 23. 24. They enjoined or commanded the practice of Ceremonies: for thus did the Council at jerusalem, Act. 15. 28. 29. This constitution is called the decrees that were ordained by the Apostles and Elders, Act. 16. 4. and the determination of the Apostles, Act. 21. 25. and this commandment they gave to whole Churches of divers and far distant countries and Nations, namely to the Gentiles in Antiochia, Syria, and Cilicia, Act. 15. 23. and afterwards he adds that the Ceremonies that they did thus cause others to practise, advise one another to practise, enjoin whole Churches to practise, were as inconvenient and evil as ours, both for number, nature, and evil effects.  
For answer unto all this: First, it were sufficient to say, That he hath not performed that, which he hath undertaken, because he proves not that the Apostles enjoined so many Ceremonies as we have in our Church; or that any one of those Ceremonies which he saith they did enjoin, were as inconvenient and evil as ours are: And for this point he is to be referred to that which hath been answered unto the two former parts of his Assumption.  
2. Though he had proved, that they did enjoin unto some one, or some few persons such Ceremonies, as were both for number and for nature as bad as ours: yet unless he had showed, that they had enjoined them unto whole Churches, he hath not concluded that which he took in hand. And therefore that which he brings of Paul's circumcising of Timothy, or james persuading Paul to purify himself, is nothing to the purpose.  
3. He hath not proved (nor ever will be able to do) that the Apostles did join the practice of any one of those Ceremonies to any one Church, or to any one person, either by inspiration of the Holy Ghost. For as for circumcision of Timothy though it be true that Paul did it, & did it well: yet it would be a harsh speech and uniustifieable, to say, that he compelled, or enjoined, or commanded Timothy to be circumcised. And for that which james and the Elders said to Paul concerning his purifying, besides that it cannot hastily be called a commandment, or injunction (because no Church or Apostle had so much authority over Paul, as to command him any thing, 2. Cor. 11. 5. Gal. 2. 6. 9) Master Spr. knoweth well, that some are 
‖ Magdaburg. Centurion. 1. lib. 2. p. 603. Gualt. in act. 21. hom. 139. Zanch. de red. p. 491. b.  great Divines, who have plainly affirmed that james and the Elders, did ill in pressing Paul so far in this matter; 
† Caluin. in act. 21. 22. 23.  others stand in doubt whether they did well in it or no; sure it is, he can never sound prove, either out of this or any other place of Scripture, that they did it by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, or commandment of God. The place which he puts most confidence in for the proof of this third point is Acts 15. for there we read indeed of a decree sent by the Apostles unto sundry Churches, and that decree was made by the inspiration, or direction of the Holy Ghost. But to this place it may be answered that things mentioned in this decree, were so far from being so many Ceremonies, or so bad as ours are (which he must still be put in mind, that he should have proved) that in very deed they were no Ceremonies at all, neither ever came into the mind or purpose of the Apostles, when they made that decree to enjoin the use of any Ceremonies to the Churches. For to omit this that the mere abstaining and forbearing the use of many things, can with no good show of reason be called the use, or practise of a Ceremony; though the abstinence from blood & strangled, were once a ceremonial duty (while the law was in force) yet it was now enjoined by the Apostles to the Gentiles, not as a ceremonial, but as a moral duty, that they should abstain from their libertiy in the use of these indifferent things, when they saw the use of them would offend their weak brother. And surely seeing the reason and end of this abstinence was not any such mystical signification, as it had under the law, but only to avoid the offence of the jew; it could no more be called a jewish Ceremony, then if either out of a natural loathing of those meats, or respect had to their health, or some such like consideration, they had forborn the same. Neither let Mr. Spr. think it strange that the same thing, which being commanded in the law, was a Ceremony, should now, being commanded by the Apostles, altar the nature and become no Ceremony. Let him consult with the best Divines, and Interpreters of the Scripture, and he shall find, that though circumcision, was a Sacrament under the Law, yet Timothy his circumcision 
Caluin. in Act. 16. 3.  was no Sacrament; and that all the Ceremonies of the law were so abrogated by the death of Christ, as that (though some use of them did remain for a time) yet they did no longer belong to the worship of God, nor were figures of spiritual things, nor were observed in conscience of obedience to the ceremonial law: In which things consisteth the very life and essence of a jewish Ceremony, and without which nothing can in good propriety of speech be called a Ceremony. But what need any more be said of this matter, when the Apostles themselves speaking of this decree affirm that they that said the Gentiles ought to keep the law, did in saying so, seek to subvert their souls: that they had written and concluded, that the believing Gentiles should observe no such thing, (as vowing, shaving of the head, purifying, etc.) save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication: By which words also they do plainly intimate, that this abstinence which they enjoin in this decree, was no such thing, (but of another kind and nature) as vowing, purifying, shaving of the head, offering, etc. and consequently was not enjoined by them as any Ceremony of Moses Law.  
The fourth and last point in the confirmation of his assumption is this, that the Apostles and Churches were moved thus to enjoin and practise such Ceremonies, so many, so inconvenient and evil, upon reasons of no greater weight, than the avoiding of deprivation is with us.  
This he proveth by specifying the causes and reasons that moved the Apostles to practise and enjoin those Ceremonies, which he saith were these three: First, for the believing jews that they might not be offended, nor occasioned to turn back to judaisme, Acts 16. 1, 3. and 21. 20, 21, 24. Secondly, for the unbelieving jews, that they might be won to the Gospel and saved, 1 Cor. 9 20, 22. and 10. 32, 33. Thirdly, to avoid the persecution of the malicious jews, and so to redeem the liberty of the ministery, which otherwise was like to be endangered, Act. 21. 22, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32.  
For answer unto all this, it may be said, that if the Apostles had practised & enjoined such as are evil Ceremonies as ours are, they had far greater reason so to do, than the avoiding of deprivation is with us. For first, as their ministry was of more great excellency than ours, whether we respect the extraordinary gifts wherewith they were endued, or the wonderful power of God, which did accompany them, and give success and fruit to their labours: so the redeeming of the liberty of their ministry (if that were any cause, as he here supposeth it was) was, and aught to have been of much more weight to move them to do as they did, than the continuance of us in our ministry can be to persuade us to the use of our Ceremonies. What one Minister of the Gospel is there that dare to be so presumptuous, as to say that his preaching and ministry can be of that necessity and use for the glory of God, and good of his Church, as was the ministry of any Apostle? The work whereunto the Lord hath called and separated the Apostles, (viz. the planting of the Church, and preaching of the Gospel to all nations) was such as could not have been performed by any other but the Apostles alone: But in the deprivation of our Ministers that refuse conformity, there is no such danger, and of their preaching, there can be no such necessity imagined; though they preach not, the Gospel is preached still, and that sound and fruitfully. And how then can Master Spr. say, that the avoiding of deprivation with us, is a reason either superior or aequivalent unto that which moved the Apostles to do as they did? if he had said, there is great similitude and analogy between these two cases, he had spoken probably, but to maintain a parity between them he hath no colour of reason at all.  
2. The Apostles in using and enjoining those Ceremonies, might be well assured that they should greatly further the success of the Gospel thereby, the believing jews would be preserved from Apostasy, the unbelieving (many of them) would be gained and that they should not only obtain liberty, and freedom for their ministery by this means among the jews, but that the very using of these things would edify them. Now our Ministers have no reason that is either Superior or aequivalent unto this, to persuade them to the use of our Ceremonies, for they cannot be assured that the using of our Ceremonies would do any good at all: no they are well assured by many reasons & long experience that they would do much hurt every way, both unto the believer, and to him that is not yet called to the faith. And should not he (think you) have great cause to brag of this bargain, who after that he had purchased the liberty of his ministry by yielding unto conformity, should find ever after a woeful experience, that he hath done much more hurt by his conformity, then good by his ministry.  
3. The Apostles in using & enjoining those Ceremonies (if they had enjoined any) and the Churches also in observing them by their appointment (if any such thing had been were well assured in their consciences they did that which was not only lawful but necessary for them to do, and that they had sinned if they had not done so: for they had divine authority to warrant & command to do as they did. Will Master Spr. say that the avoiding of deprivation with us, is a reason either superior or equivolent unto this? our Ministers can discern no such warrant for the use of our ceremonies, but are fully assured they have this commandment expressly to the contrary: And will any man persuade them that for the avoiding of deprivation, or a far greater penalty (though indeed that be very great) they may do a thing which they are assured is evil in the sight of the Lord.  
For a conclusion to this answer unto his first main argument, it shall not be amiss to set down and repeat sundry material differences between the case of the Apostles and Churches in their times and ours now.  
1. They used such Ceremonies only, as both at the first were divine ordinances, and the use whereof was warranted unto them by divine authority; We are required to use such as are inventions, not human only but Antichristian.  
2. They used them in this persuasion of their conscience, that they might in that case and aught to be used: neither did they ever enjoin them to any that held them unlawful: ours are imposed upon such as are persuaded in their conscience they cannot use them without sin.  
3. They used them but once or twice upon extraordinary occasion: we are required to use ours constantly and continually in the ordinary exercise of our ministry.  
4. They never used them, but when they saw evidently that the use of them would prevent scandal, and tend unto edification: we are required to use ours, though we see evidently the use of them would hinder edification, and give offence many ways.   

¶ A Reply to the Answer of my first Reason for Conformity in case of Deprivation.  
LEst the answers of my reasons should hold me void of charity, which is not suspicious, or to be carried on with evil surmising: I will omit, that sending an answer to me, which am the second person from them, they give answer as to a third. Neither will I insist upon the Ironies which may seem too palpable, & among godly minds needed not especially in disquisition of a truth of so great consequence: Only I put my brethren and myself in mind, for our better prosecuting of this question, that piety is meek and gentle, equalling herself to the lower sort: it scorneth not such as are differing from it in judgement, it is not provoked to anger, but in evidence and demonstration of the truth, approveth herself to every man's conscience in the sight of God.  
Now as there is none end of making many books, so God's wisdom should instruct us, by contention not to leingthen controversies, for which cause I have purposed to be short in reply.  
Touching the Preface or general answer, made before the Answer to particulars, it might, as I suppose have been well spared▪ as being to small purpose, and quite besides the point in question: For,  
1. The Answerers could not be ignorant and my Conclusion, drift in handling, matter, manner, whole course of prosecuting in every Argument, do plainly stretch no farther than to enforce Conformity in case of Deprivation. Therefore this caution is but a voluntary and studious wandering from the question; Neither do these arguments labour to make the world believe, that all deprived Ministers have sinned in suffering Deprivation, but so many only as for not conforming, have suffered deprivation. Therefore this speech of theirs is either an untrue surmise, or a scornful Irony.  
2. Though the Answerers should be ignorant that any Minister should suffer Deprivation for only refusing to conform; yet all the faithful Ministers of these our parts do know the contrary of sundry: myself do know it of myself, and others. And who can be ignorant, that divers Ministers have been deprived only for not conforming, by inditements at Assize and Sessions, as well as by the Bishops, and do perpetually stand liable to that censure; and is a cause overruled, as appeareth in the Lo. Cook's reports? Again, it is well known, that for these later 5. or 6. years, subscription hath not been urged to Incumbents or settled Ministers, but mere conformity: And Bishops have acknowledged▪ being put in mind by men of learning in the Laws, that they could not urge Subscription, either by virtue of the Statute, or the book of Canons, to such as were already placed and settled in their charges. It was therefore unadvisedly and untruly affirmed (to say no more) that M. Sprint surely bestowed his time very ill, and spent a great deal of labour to no purpose at all. And the question is easily solved, which asketh, Where be those Ministers to be found in England that have suffered Deprivation for no other cause, but for that they have refused to conform.  
But besides the caution here made, the Brethren my Answerers were not ignorant of the principal point, which they should have thought upon chief, and would have qualified this their censure; that for mine own necessary resolution in a doubt of deprivation, I undertook this business at first; and yet beside they do forget, that in my reasons there are specified other ends and use of this my labour, that it should not be ill bestowed; namely, to move all Ministers who were deprived, even for Subscription, as well as for nonconformity, to try whether by offer of conformity they might not return unto their Ministry, which would be a cause of wondrous benefit and comfort to the Church. Also it serveth to resolve and quiet such as are to enter, which being scrupulous to conform, can receive admittance by none other means. And lastly, it hath use for professors of Religion, which without conformity to the ceremonies, (as kneeling at the Communion, or admitting the cross) can by no means in the most places receive the Sacraments of Baptism, or the Lord's Supper: which things have bred no small perplexity of mind, and outward trouble to many godly persons, who if by this means of my labour they might be resolved (as they may be, if they will follow the judgement and practice of all true Churches and faithful teachers since Christ) would prove labour to great and good purpose, and far from labour very ill bestowed. Men should beware of bearing false witness against their neighbour, or his honest labours: If therefore the brethren's answer prove no sounder in the particular then in the general, out of all question it is but weak, which now I will further consider of.  
And before I give reply unto the particular answer, let my Brethren know, that this Argument urged by me, is no fancy of mine own, but hath been thus conceived, even as I urge it, by persons of most reverend note in the Church of God, such as Caluin, Martyr, Zanchius, Vrsinus, Piscator, Polanus, to the end that they do not so lightly esteem of it and cast it of, but may be moved more seriously to consider of it: Their judgements, I will deliver in these two propositions.  
1. The jewish Ceremonies after the death of Christ, were in sundry respects as inconvenient, & unlawful to be practised by Christians, as the Ceremonies of the Church of England are pretended to be: yet the holy Apostles of Christ did lawfully practise them, and cause others to practise them in cases of necessity, as of the peace of the Church, or propagation of the Gospel.  
Caluin in Act. 21. 24. fol. 355. That Ceremony of vowing, practised by Paul, seemed to have in it some things mingled with it (Parum consentanea cum fidei professione) smally agreeing with the profession of faith: yet he defends his practice by the place, 1. Cor. 9 20. Idem in Act. 16. 3. fol. 27. saith, Non licuisse fidelibus eas retinere, nisi quatenus earum usus in adificationem faceret: That it was not lawful for the faithful to retain their use, but only so far forth as their use did make for the edification of the Church: yet in this case he defendeth the practice of Paul, Paulo circumcidere Timotheum licuit. fol. 270. the like he doth in Act. 21. 23. citing, 1. Cor. 9 20.  
Zanchius saith of the forbidding of strangled and blood, Act. 15. 28. that they were things Superstitionem judaicam redolentes, also of Paul's vow and purification, Act. 18. 18. & 21. 23. thus he speaketh, Fuerunt tamen etiam illi tunc temporis ritus stipulae, cum fundamento Christo non congruentes: yet he defends their practice by the law of charity, and for the peace and edification of the Church, Comment. in Philip 1. fol. 45. (b▪)  
Pet. Martyr calleth the Ceremony of abstaining from blood and strangled Citra controversiam Aharonicam: yet he defendeth the action as lawful; Pro pace & convictu credentium faciliori, Loc. come. inter Epist. fol. 1087.  
Piscator calleth the circumcision of Timothy, rem molestan both to Paul and Timothy, in Act. 16. 3. yet he defendeth that practice of his, by that saying of 1. Cor. 9 19 20. as also that practice of Act. 18. 18.  
Now, that the Ceremonies practised by the Apostles, were as evil and inconvenient in their judgement, as our prescribed Ceremonies, the proofs of the next proposition will manifest.  
2. The practice of the jewish Ceremonies, by the Apostles in a case of necessity, such as deprivation of Ministry, is a sufficient ground to move us to conform to the Ceremonies prescribed in our Church, in a case of the like necessity.  
Peter Martyr defending the lawful use (Vestium Ministrorum Ecclesiae Anglicanae) allegeth the Apostles injunction, of Act. 15. 23. of judaical Ceremonies. Quis non videt Apostolos, pro pace & convictu credentium faciliori, mandasse gentibus ut a sanguine & praefocato abstinerent? Erant haec citra controversiam Aharonica, si generaliter omnia quae in lege fuerunt complecti volveris. Loc. come. fol. 1087. inter. Epist. Hoopero.  
Vrsinus: Speaking, De vitiosis Ceremonijs falsis opinionibus, cum veritatis insectationibus saith, Neque verò polluitur rectè sentiens, cum utitur Ministerio errantium, & Ceremonias etiam humanas servat, si modò errores disertè, & constanter improbet, & neque verbis, neque factis aliquis palam, & per se impiam, & verbo Dei repugnans committat, & humanas traditiones pro cultu Dei se non habere profiteatur, Paulò Post: sic Paulus observatione Ceremoniarum accomodabat se infirmis, cum aversarentur eum tanquam hostem legis & moris patrij & in hâcre non peccabat. And that we may not doubt but that he speaketh of Ceremonies, as inconvenient as those of our Church, in their judgement; he addeth presently after, that such was the judgement of P. Martyr; as also his practice, who when he came first into England, and the error of corporal presence was as yet in force, did yet with profession of his opposite judgement, receive the Lords Supper with them, Non obstantibus sibi illorum Ceremonijs licet ipsimolestis. exercitat. part. 2. fol. 838, 839, 840.  
Zanchius persuadeth the Ministers being compelled by necessity of Magistrates compulsion, and threats to the practice of such Ceremonies, which may be termed stipula & faenum. And giveth instance of the Apostles practise of jewish Ceremonies, (as before is alleged) concluding thus, Ergo multa toleranda sunt ministris, ne pax scindatur Ecclesiarum, & ut vitentur Schismata, modò ne tales sint, vel res, vel doctrinae quae pugnent cum fundamento, fundamentumque convellant, in Philip. cap. 1. fol. 45.  
Polanus in Ezec. cap. 44. fol. 807. moveth a question de vest linea, of the Surplice; Simo in aliqua Ecclesia evangelica prorsus non possit omitti usus vestis lineae seu superpelliceae, absque metu Schismatis, aut subreptionis haereticorum, quid tum faciendum? He answereth, Praestat tum uti vest linea, tanquam re adiaphorâ, quàm obstinata eius reiectione excitare Schisma inter rumpere cursum veritatis doctrinae, & praebere occasionem haereticis occupandi Ecclesiam. And of this his judgement he giveth instance in the Apostles practise thus, Exemplum est in Paulo qui circumcidit Timotheum propter judaeos sciebant enim omnes Patrem eius Graecum esse, Act. 16. 3.  
Now to the answer of my first reason.  
Which first reason of mine, when my Brethren went about to answer, if they would needs unstrip out of his own coat which I had framed, and draw into a Syllogism of their own, yet ought they not to make an argument, or new reason of their own, and so to fight without an adversary: But their duty was (as they well know) faithfully to have taken all the substance of that I set down in the whole reason, and that especially included in my Syllogism, which they have not done: piety and sincerity, and faithful dealing should go together; and thus they should have laid it down.  
To refuse to practise such Ceremonies, which the Apostles by direction of the holy Ghost, and upon reasons of common and perpetual equity did practise themselves, and caused others to practise, yea advised and enjoined (as matters good and necessary to be done) on others, especially in a like case in sundry main and material respects, is a sin.  
But to refuse conformity with our Ceremonies in the case of deprivation, is to refuse to practise such Ceremonies, which the Apostles by direction of the holy Ghost, and upon reasons of common and perpetual equity did practise themselves, and caused others to prctise; yea, advised and enjoined (as matters good and necessary to be done) on others, and that in like case in divers main and material respects.  
Ergo: To refuse to conform in the case of deprivation, is a sin.  
The Proposition of this argument thus proposed, is sufficiently confirmed in that which is included in the second member of mine answer to the first objection, in these words [though we may not imitate the Apostles in things peculiar to their office, persons and times, yet we may follollow them, and are bound in conscience so to do in matter of common equity, and general reason: for as the Apostles had warrant from the holy Ghost, so have we warrant from the Apostles examples, and from the reasons for which the holy Ghost moved them to do these things.]  
Thus if my Brethren had proposed mine argument, they needed not to have spent so many words, nor sounded such a triumph before the victory: viz. 

1. That the proposition is false and unsound.  
2. That I never go about to prove it: which assertion of theirs they straight confute themselves, by setting down my proofs of the proposition.  
3. That I forgot myself what I had urged before.  
4. That I weaken my proposition, and make it of no strength.    
But let us see what material show of exceptions they bring against the proposition of mine argument.  
Whereas I said that the Apostles did use and enjoin the jewish Ceremonies, not only by immediate authority from God, but by reasons also and rules of common and perpetual equity, and further did give instance of the rule of expediency and necessity out of Act. 15. 28. The answer is, that though it be granted to be true, yet shall they be as far to seek as before they were: For still the question will be, whether there be the same reasons now to move us to the use of our Ceremonies as moved the Apostles then, because they suppose there might be some special causes might make those Ceremonies necessary, which never fell out before nor shall do so again. And to this I say that there needed no such further seeking as before: and the questions demanded touching common reasons with the Apostles, were set down in the self same place where they read the other, in the words immediately following, which reasons are these; namely,  
1. To win the more, 1. Cor. 9 19 20. 21. 22. Now all men know, that this reason should move every godly minister in his place, and according to his parts and calling to labour the winning of souls, no less than it did move the Apostles, for all are required to be faithful, 2. Cor. 4. 1. 2. all are alike commanded of God in the Prou. & all alike are to receive reward, Dan. 12. 3.  
2. To further and propagate the Gospel, 1. Cor. 9 23. which also is a common care appertaing to us now, as to the Apostles then. For the commandment given to the the Apostles doth stretch in respect of place to all Nations, Matth. 28. 19 Luk. 24 47. and in regard of time, to the end of the world, Mat. 28. 19 20. Reu. 14. 6. 7.  
Wherefore the following (might be or) supposal of causes might have well been spared, unless they had been named: For my Brethren do well know that A posse ad esse non val et argumentatio.  
Howbeit they confess at last that the two forenamed reasons be matters of common and perpetual equity (what need then was there to seek for that they had, or question that they grant at last?) and yet again they overwhelm them with a new supply of unwarranted supposals [that something may be expedient for some persons and times, as are not for other without a special calling from God:] But here again the former rule cuts them off from arguing from a naked and unproved supposal: And indeed it is but petitio principij, an encroaching on the point in question: Besides, it is a very feeble answer that is only affirmed without proof; so might a man argue against the practice of every part of discipline practised by the Apostles, which may be said to be proper to their function, time and place. Therefore it followeth by this kind of argumentation: their practice may seem to give us no stronger warrant, than the practice of those Ceremonies in the case of necessity, unless we were inspired and had immediate authority from God: The like might be argued from other sundry matters.  
2. To the exception of the next member or allegation, that namely, the holy Ghost teacheth & ruleth the Church by the same reason revealed in his Word, as well now as then: and therefore the reasons warranting the Apostles to conform to the jewish ceremonies, may move us to conform to these in the like case;] It seemeth to me a palpable cavil, and it may seem probable to others, that my Brethren would here studiously not understand my meaning. For what need was there for me (as they could possibly suppose, to prove a duty of common equity, by an extraordinary case, or by a sentence of extraordinary sense? And if there had been that difficulty in that sentence which they pretend: yet Grammar might have put them in mind that sentences of doubtful interpretation, should be construed by that which immediately goeth before, or followeth after, especially if it cohaere therewith. Now the rules or reasons spoken of in that very place immediately before, as also immediately after this sentence, are expressly specified to be rules and reasons of perpetual and common equity, which they could not be ignorant of, and therefore the instance of Abraham urged this second time cometh in here as unseasonably as it did before, that is as much to say, as to no purpose at all.  
3. Lastly, to the instance which I gave out of 1. Cor. 14. 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 40. It is answered by my Brethren, that I affirm that which seemeth to have no colour of good reason in it; namely, because of the different natures of the jewish ceremonies, and of these prescribed by S. Paul in the forenamed place. Howbeit. I say again, although there be disagreement in respect of dissimilitude of Ceremonies, the one sort of them decent of themselves, and by the light of nature, the other sort (namely, for a Christian to practise jewish Ceremonies) unseemly; the one sort fitted to all times, the other only practised in certain cases, and in some Churches; yet there is agreement between them in those things for which they are alleged: For 1. both sorts are matters ceremonial and circumstantial, not substantial or fundamental. Ceremonia may be genus to them both. 2. Both sorts were prescribed and practised by the holy Apostles. 3. Both sorts had the same rules, grounds, or ends of practice: namely, Necessity, expediency, profit and edification of the Church. Now touching our Ceremonies, albeit they be not of that nature altogether with those prescribed of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 14. yet I suppose them to be of the nature of the jewish Ceremonies practised by the Apostles, and therefore do conclude with all godly learned teachers that ever uttered their judgements herein, that for necessity, expediency, profit, and edification of the Church, as for the liberty of the Gospel, and preventing the deprivation of faithful Teachers, they may lawfully, and must necessarily be practised, no less than the jewish practised, or the Christian Ceremonies prescribed by the Apostles, 1. Cor. 14. As for the question concerning impious and Idolatrous orders, such as a man ought rather to die, then yield unto their practice, I marvel my Brethren would not consider, that if they speak of other Ceremonies than ours, they are beside our question, and touch not the point in hand. If of ours, yet that they do still petere principium, unless they plainly prove our Ceremonies as they are used in our Church, to be such indeed. And thus much also shall suffice for the defence of the proposition of my Argument.  
Now to the answer of the Assumption.  
The answer, which my Brethren make, they have reduced to 4. heads, replying to 4. parts of mine Assumption. Touching 1. the number, 2. the nature, 3. the warrant or ground, 4. the reasons of practice of the jewish ceremonies and ours.  
In the first part of mine Assumption, whereas I affirmed that the ceremonies which the Apostles practised and prescribed, were in number equal to our ceremonies; The answer of my Brethren hath three members.  
The first member saith, That sundry of the things I allege, can with no good reason be called Ceremonies, because they would enforce my words against their will, to say that I defined a ceremony to be that, which is used only in God's worship: But sundry of the things alleged were not such, and therefore by mine own account they were not Ceremonies. But my Brethren should know, that howsoever I say, that there be Ceremonies in God's worships, yet that letteth not, but that there may be ceremonies out of G●ds worship; and so that collection of theirs is marred: But if for once I shall let it stand, and be as they would have it, what could they get by it? As though every ceremony of the ceremonial Law, whereof we spoke, were not a worship of God, because whatsoever God commandeth, is a worship to perform: Therefore these things were both worships, and Ceremonies in God's worships sometimes, which if my Brethren had remembered, they would have blotted out this for a cipher; yea, by this reason, abstaining from blood, and strangled, must needs be Ceremonies, though they would not have it so: Which might further appear, because it is one distinction of the Ceremonies of Moses law, that they were either of action, as circumcision, or of abstinence, as abstaining from swine's flesh, blood, and strangled: Because they had signification, and were shadows of good things to come, and therefore Ceremonies. Lastly, because ceremonial duties, and therefore Ceremonies, seeing they were included under, and commanded by the ceremonial law of God, and so receiving denomination from that law: Which last reason my brethren themselves do give hereof; therefore by their confession they are Ceremonies. But they add that I shall never be able to prove, that the Apostles or Churches did use them as Ceremonies, or as in obedience to that law: And I say again, suppose I never go about to prove it, what needeth me to do it? What if I grant (as I do freely) that it is true and evident, and that it can by no means be proved, nay that the contrary is manifest? It sufficeth me that they inoyned these things, that were some times duties, though not as they were duties of the law, merely ceremonial, and now after Christ his death, when as the holy Apostles practised them, were fruitless, dead, unprofitable in themselves: yea which might & did prove hurtful unto some, which held them still as worships, Col. 2. 23. and means of justification, Gal. 5. 2. 4. and even necessary to salvation, Act. 15. 1. 5. Wherefore the instances of abstaining from flesh, or from marriage, for the winning of a Papist, and of Paul's departing from his right, are of no value.  
To the second and third members, concerning the number and often use of the Ceremonies alleged, I answer, that albeit they grant but six of the jewish Ceremonies, and allege nine and forty Ceremonies of our Church: yet the Ceremonies which are questioned by the deprived Ministers at this time, such & so many I mean, as come under the compass of their practice, or of this our question, that is so many, the practice whereof would keep a man from deprivation, are not six, as Cross in Baptism, Surplice, Ring in Marriage, observation of Holidays, & if there be one or two more, let it be so. It is a matter needles to contend about the number, and about the often use and injunction of them. For if I prove but one jewish Ceremony, at one only time used lawfully by the Apostles, yet as evil in the most main and material respects, as ours are, and that by reasons of common and perpetual equity, thence I will argue the lawfulness of the Apostles using them an hundred times, and in an hundred Churches. Again if Paul did lawfully practise circumcision on Timothy, and shaving, vowing, offering, and purifying on himself, I will conclude, that he might as lawfully practise on the like occasions, and for the same just reasons, the most part of the Ceremonies of the law ceremonial, if need had been, which amount to a far greater reckoning, than the Ceremonies of our Church make them, as many as my brethren may. In a word, if they were lawfully practised, then might the practise thereof be lawfully enjoined un-the Churches where necessity enforceth; seeing it is the injunction of a lawful and needful thing. As for those proofs of mine, which my brethren do sift clean contrary to my drift or practice; there was no need for themselves so to wrest them, and then to lay the wresting of them to my charge, as if from them I had concluded, quidlibet ex quolibet. They were orderly and perspicuously set down by me under every head or member, in as much as that without wresting and abusing, they could not intend more than I did there clearly prove by them: For though I did undertake to prove every head or member of my proposition, by the Scripture annexed to them in several; yet I did not undertake to prove every member, or any member by every Scripture, as my brethren would enforce upon me: This dealing of my brethren was not so direct as I could wish.  
And one thing more, that whereas I allege the Apostles injunction of abstaining from blood and strangled; My Brethren answer, that these Ceremonies were not by them enjoined as Ceremonies to the Churches of the Gentiles: That also of their observation of preaching on the jewish Sabbath, they say it cannot be called a religious observation. As if they could produce or conclude out of my words, any such absurd or unsound doctrine as my Brethren would seem to thrust upon me: Or as if it were not sufficient to my purpose, that the Apostles enjoined to the Churches of the Gentiles, and observed the time of the jewish Sabbath, matters which were Ceremonies of Moses law, and in themselves fruitless, though not religiously, or as Ceremonies of the Law (as before I noted) such an assertion would serve a Papist well, who observeth human Ceremonies, as religious observations, which our Church disclaimeth, and therefore were it needless for any man to strain himself to such a purpose.  
The second point of mine assumption, is touching the nature of the ceremonies, where my brethren do respect the second member of my confirmation of the assumption to be this: That those Ceremonies, which the Apostles and the Churches in their times used, were every way as inconvenient, and evil as ours are in their judgement: And to make this good, my Brethren tell the Reader that I take upon me to show.  

1. That they are as evil in nature as ours are.  
2. That they had been, and were as much abused as ours have been.  
3. That the use of them wrought as dangerous effects as the use of our can do.  
4. That whatsoever is objected against our Ceremonies might have been said against them.   
To which report of theirs, I say, before I proceed further to answer, that, seeing truth needs no falsehood or fraud for confirmation (for God needs not the help of man's lie) I do greatly marvel, that my Brethren (men of that approved piety, learning and sharp judgement, should be found failing in their fidelity, as I do herein challenge them.  
1. In the untrue reporting of my assertion, as is evident by collation of either part.  
1. They report that I should say, that those Ceremonies which the Apostles used, were every way as inconvenient and evil as ours, and that it may appear it was no slip nor oversight, they proceed to misinterpret, that I should say that they are, first, as evil in nature, as our ceremonies are; secondly, as much abused; thirdly, and having as dangerous effects in the use as ours have.  
2. Whereas it is true, that I say, that they were as inconvenient and evil as ours; but I say withal in sundry main respects, which is far from that which my Brethren do report, namely, every way as evil.  
2. The like dealing my Brethren use in misreporting me touching the fourth member of the things alleged: First, I say, the same objections in substance, and for the most part which are objected against our Ceremonies, to prove them simply evil, might be objected against the Ceremonies practised by the Apostles. But they will have me say, that whatsoever is objected against our Ceremonies, might have been said against them. But thus an elder Brother might easily put beside his younger Brother from that benefit of enjoying his poor patrimony: The Father's will saith the elder Brother shall have his Father's goods for the most part; but the elder Brother saith, that his Father gave him all whatsoever; what equity were this, let my Brethren judge.  
Secondly another exception against my brethren's lack of fidelity towards me is this, that they allege the heads of probation, but they conceal the most part of the proofs of those heads, by which they be confirmed. And further in taking such things, which they think they may say most against, with greatest probability, and leaving much more that strongly maketh against them as by collation the Reader may judge easily: But by this dealing who may not easily confute the clearest truth, or confirm the strongest error?  
Now to the reply of my Brethren to this second point, touching the nature of the Ceremonies, which is by them distinguished into three members.  
First, they say that no one of those testimonies of Scripture alleged by me touching the titles given to Ceremonies, how abused, what evil effects they had, doth make any whit to my purpose, or can with any colour of reason be applied to any Ceremony used or enjoined by the Apostles; and they bring out three or four instances to which they speak, leaving clean out and passing by all the other Scriptures cited by me and annexed to the evil use and effects of those Ceremonies, which are very many: which places and proofs do still remain in full force, and had been answered, as I suppose, if there were not that force in them which is unanswerable. Wherefore my Brethren should not have thus said, that no one of the testimonies make any whit to my purpose, unless they had answered all; for wherefore should they say [not one] and leave so many untouched? To answer three, and suffer more than thrice three or four to escape their censure? But let us see the places which they deal withal. First, they say the Ceremonies used or enjoined by the Apostles were no yokes or burdens or burdening traditions] This is untrue: For circumcision urged, Act. 15. 1. is called a yoke. vers. 10. and a burden, vers. 26. Yet after that Paul circumcised Timothy, Act. 16. 3. Whereupon I infer that the holy Apostle did practise some legal Ceremony (though in his own purpose not as a legal Ceremony, or in obedience to the Law ceremonial, or as a yoke and burden, but in other material respects) in sometime and on some person after that it appeared to him, and was evident that the same Ceremony among other persons, and at other times was a yoke and a burden. And is it not strange that my Brethren should not see this, but impute it to me as a strange thing? But they enjoined none such Ceremonies as were yokes and burdens: admit of that, the question is of practice of Ceremonies to avoid deprivation, not of enjoining. Next they affirm that they could not be called ordinances of the world, commandments or doctrines of men, or voluntary religion; neither could they be termed impotent and beggarly rudiments:] I say again, yes they might be so termed and that lawfully. For the holy Ghost in the Apostle doth expressly term them so in the same words; both the observation of days, months, times and years Gal. 4. 9 10. Holidays, new Moons, Sabbath days, Colos. 2. 16. 22. as also abstinence from meats. Touch not, taste not, handle not, Col. 2. 10. 21. 22. 23. which was the very thing enjoined by the Apostles, Act. 15. 28. If the Holy Ghost called them so, we may be bold to term them such. But my Brethren say that they could not be termed such so long and so far forth as the Apostles did use or enjoin them. The which I answer by distinguishing between there nature and the use that the Apostles had of them. In their nature they were such as they were called yokes, burdens, or burdening traditions, impotent and beggarly rudiments; not only in respect of the unbelieving or ignorant believing jews abuse; but unto the godly and best instructed Christians also; for which of them would willingly have used them without occasions of necessity to avoid a further inconvenience? yea considering them also in themselves: for seeing Christ himself was come, the body of what sound use or erudition could they be, what could they teach but Christ to come, which was already come, which also was an untruth? or what comfort could they minister to the Gentiles to whom they were enjoined; or to Timothy and Paul by whom they were practised, but as yokes and burdens? only the comfort of their practice was the good purpose which they served for, the winning of the jews, or retaining of them in the love of the Gospel, as the reasons alleged by my Brethren out of Acts 21. 20. 24. 1. Cor. 9 20. do show, which were the causes of the Apostles use of them, & made their practice lawful. But this much is sufficient to prove the point in question: For this showeth the nature of those ceremonies to agree with the nature of ours. As the jewish ceremonies, so likewise ours barely considered in themselves, which the Papists & many professed Protestants abuse, may be accounted in a sort yokes burdens, burdening traditions, commandments and doctrines of men, voluntary religion, impotent and beggarly rudiments, etc. yet as the Ceremonies practised by the Apostles; so also ours by the same analogy in a case of necessity of expediency, to redeem the liberty of the Gospel in the Ministry of many good Teachers, they are good and necessary, and the commandments of God to practise.  
2. The second member of this Section affirmeth, That it will never be proved by me, (and if not, than nothing is said to the purpose) that when and where the Apostles, or those Churches used them, they had been notoriously known to have been so abused, or to have wrought such evil effects as I there speak of.] And my answer is, That it is true, these ceremonies were not at all abused by any well grounded Christians at any time or place. But it is not possible but my Brethren should know, that the ceremonies well used by the Apostles, Churches, and other godly persons, were known by them to have been grossly abused (even as I alleged in my first reason) by the refractory and weak Christian jews every where, even then when as they practised them (like as we know that our Ceremonies have been, and are abused by Papists and weak Brethren) notwithstanding which abuse & knowledge thereof, they persisted to use them as often as necessity enforced, and just occasion was offered. For Paul knew how the jews abused circumcision, to establish an opinion of the necessity thereof unto salvation, Act. 15. 1. yet after this knowledge he used it, Act. 16. 3. and when S. Paul circumcised Timothy for the jews sake, is it not evident that the jews had a false and abusive opinion and practice of circumcision (to prevent whose unjust offence, Paul did it) notwithstanding which, the Apostle practised Circumcision on Timothy. Likewise S. Paul his reproving of Peter for abuse of jewish ceremonies, in causing of Gentiles to conform unto them, Gal. 2. 11, 12, 14. whether we refer the time thereof to 
Paraeus in Gal. 2. 104.  Act. 11. 26. or as Paraeus doth to Act. 15. 30. 35. was before his circumcising of Timothy, and his vowing and shaving of himself, Act. 18. & 21.  
Lastly, was it not known to the Apostles, when they observed the occasion of the jewish Sabbath to preach unto them, that the jews had an opinion of necessity of observation of that day? as they had, joh. 9 16. Luc. 13. 14. Matt. 12. 2. Or could Paul and the Apostles be ignorant, that vowing, offering, contributing, shaving, (duties of the ceremonial Law) were abused by the jews both before they practised them, and where they practised them, and even by occasion of their practice, which doth easily appear by the violence which the jews used on a bare suspicion, that Paul was a professed enemy unto the Legal rites, Act. 21. 21, 27, 29. As for that which my Brethren allege concerning Paul, who having used circumcision and other Ceremonies, doth after with great bitterness reprove and condemn the use of them, Gal. 4. 9 10. and 5. 12. Tit. 1. 14. I will omit that which some 
‖ Gual. in Gal. 2. Hom. 10 fol. 29. b. Codoman. annal. s. Scripture. Ambros. Chrysostomus.  learned men observe, that the Epistle to the Galat. was written before the Council of jerusalem, Act. 15. (and then those reproofs of his must go before the circumcising of Timothy, and shaving of himself, Act. 16. & 18.) because it is controverted and holden otherwise by 
† Paraeus prolegom. in Ep. ad Rom. fol. 48. 49. Idem pro. 'em. in Epist. ad Gal. fol. 22. 23.  other godly learned men; But to it I say, that that reproof of Paul was not used in respect of the time after, but in respect of the different case, it was a case of confession, that is, he was called to confess a fundamental truth in Titus' case, which he was not in the case of Timothy. For the false Brethren would have compelled Titus to have been circumcised, meaning his conscience, as pressing it 
* 
Thus do all our godly learned men hold Paraeus in Gal. 2. f. 81. 82. Paulus Titum ●●●cumcisione defendendo recte fecit, quia fals●●●●nionem circumcisionis necessariae ad salutem sta●●lire non debuit.  
Aretius' in Act. 16. 3. f. 75. Titum noluit circumcidere, quia videbat hoc peti tanquam ad salutem necessarium. Idem ad Gal. 2 f. 224. circumcisionem Galatis obtruserunt ut ad salutem necessarium, post obserua hîc quando sint 〈…〉 adiaphora, túm scil. cùm necessitas illis ani●●ctitur, habet enim meritum aliquod in causa salutis.  
Gualt. in Act. hom. 106. f. 199 Propter ho● Titum circumcidere noluit, eo quod illos libertati fidelium astutè insidiari videret. Gal. 2. lege reg. universalem eo loci. Idem in Gal. 2 Hom. 11 f. 32. quando Timotheum circumcidit, nulla erat eo loci de circumcisione controversia. In Titi autem causus de circumcisione controvertebatur, & erant qui hanc ad salutem dixerint esse necessariam.  
Piscator in Gal. 2. obseru. ad v. 3. 4. 5. Titum circumcidere noluit propter judaeos pertinaces 〈◊〉 exemplo isto abuterenter ad iactandum consensum Pauli de suo dogmate quasi s●●l circumcisio ad huc in N. T sit necessaria ad salutem.  
Calum. Titum circumcidere non poterat, quia puram evangelii doctrinam proderet in Act. 16. 3. fol. 271. a.  
Perkins. in Gal. 2. tom. 1. fol 218 b. as if he should say, For my part I was ready to circumcise Titus, if there had been a meet occasion: False brethren would have imposed a necessity upon us: Then I and Titus refused. After learn that a thing indifferent, when it is made necessary to salvation (as circumcision was) is not to be used. This conclusion serves to overthrow the Popish religion, etc.  
Look Beza and Roll. on this place.   ex necessitate salutis, as Acts 15. 1, 5. or as a work justificatory, Galat. 5. 2, 3. whereby Paul notes, that circumcision would have been a bondage, as they did, Act. 15. 10. Whereupon I conclude that Paul, even after the reproofs of the Epistle to Galat. 2. and 4. and Tit. 1. would have been no less ready to have circumcised Titus, in a like case with Timothy, than he was to circumcise Timothy after the decree of the council of jerusalem, as Master Perkins noteth on Galathians 2. and so I say touching our Ceremonies, though in our Church to redeem the ministry and liberty of the Gospel, a man were bound to conform to the prescribed Ceremonies: yet if we were called to a case of confession, if the Ceremony were urged as needful to salvation, if our conscience were compelled to use them, if justification were taught in their use, I hold plainly, that a man should lose goods, liberty, life & ministry, then to conform unto them: wherefore there is no such absurdity, as my Brethren presuppose, in affirming that which is with so good evidence approved, and that which I alleged in my answer to the sixth objection (though my brethren promised to answer it but did not) standeth firm.  
3. The third member (fearing lest it might be proved, which in the former member is denied) putteth case, that if such abuse, or evil effects of such Ceremonies used by the Apostles, had been known before, or when they used them: yet would not this prove them every way, as inconvenient and evil as ours] where my brethren forget that they go on in perverting my words. For I said not, that I would prove them every way simply as inconvenient as our Ceremonies, but added expressly in sundry main respects. Let it be supposed that those Ceremonies, were sometimes God's ordinances, & enjoined to Churches by the Apostles, & that these our Ceremonies were never good, nor in themselves may serve to any good use, what serveth this to overthrow my conclusion, which is this, that the jewish Cermonies were as inconvenient, and evil as our Ceremonies? then in conforming to the like case we shall do well: and if we do evil in conforming to the Ceremonies to prevent deprivation, than did the Apostles and other persons evil in a much like case to conform to Ceremonies, as evil and inconvenient as ours are deemed in many main respects. And here my brethren think fit to examine the contents of my second reason, which is brought for the proof of this point: Which is this as they affirm for me [that nothing in substance is objected against our Ceremonies, which might not have been said as well against those, which the Apostles and the Churches in their times did use.] Here again I call upon my brethren for fidelity, for I proposed my second reason thus [That the same objections in substance, and for the most part which are brought forth against our Ceremonies, to prove them simply and in nature sin, may be objected and applied to the doctrine, and practise of the Apostles.] The differences are these: first, I propose the reason affirmatively, they negatively: Wherewith they give themselves more advantage to confute, and me less to defend, as all men know. Secondly, they say, that nothing in substance is objected, leaving out that which I added [and for the most part:] Thirdly, they add, which might not have been said, [as well] which words I have not, but they have added for their own advantage: Which alteration if my Brethren had not made, they needed not accuse me, that I left out much of the force and substance of their arguments; For I well know, that in some things, agreement in both cases would not stand, and yet my reason would have justified itself. But I must go along to see how well my Brethren prove the point they affirm, namely, that the arguments made by them do overthrow our Ceremonies, and yet never a one do give the least touch to those which the Apostles and the Churches used; and to this purpose they run over four members, or orders of differences between the Ceremonies of our Church, and those practised by the Apostles.  
The first sort of difference affirmeth that our Ceremonies are, first, human inventions; secondly, notoriously known to be abused to superstition & false doctrine; thirdly, and of no necessary use in the Church, all which suppose I grant, let my Brethren tell me plainly, whether these exceptions might not have been urged by the Pastors of the Gentiles, touching the injunction made at jerusalem, as abstinence from blood and strangled, and touching the practice of Circumcision, shaving, vowing, offering, and observation of the jewish Sabbath by Paul and the Apostles: That namely, these Ceremonies are simply unlawful, and in nature evil. First, because jesus Christ being come, which was the body, of whose coming they were shadows, and therefore in their nature rudiments of great poverty and weakness (impotent and beggarly rudiments) and in themselves considered, of no use or profit; and therefore leaving to be God's commandments, (for God commanded them as ceremonies, in the time of the Law, not in the time of the Gospel) in as much as being pressed by the blind and wilful jews, they were called the commandments of men, Col. 2. Tit. 1. I would know here of my Brethren, what main difference there is between the inventions of men, and the commandments of men.  
secondly, because they were abused to superstition, and false doctrine many ways, and had very many evil and pernicious effects, as I have proved in the first reason of my first argument, Numb. 11. 12. which cannot be denied with any show of contradiction.  
Thirdly, because they were notoriously known to have been so abused, even wheresoever the Christian faith was planted in Italy, Graecia, Asiaminor, Syria, Coelosyria, judaea, Creta; and may we think, that the famous controversy and Council at jerusalem for deciding thereof, about the false opinion about Circumcision was not notoriously known unto all the Christian Churches, which also prescribed some jewish Ceremonies, on occasion of abuse of other, as also the tumult made on Paul by the furious jews at jerusalem: In a word, wheresoever the jews were (as they were scattered almost in every part) and new jewish converts, there must needs be known their notorious abuses of the legal Ceremonies; and I much admire that my Brethren should deny this.  
Fourthly, Because they are of no profitable use, because of no use at all, (I mean in themselves, and in their nature being considered) being as shadows without a body, weak rudiments without signification, shows without substance, types and similitudes without an antitype, yea, resemblances of nothing: Though I deny not but they were of necessary and very profitable use in the Apostles practise; but that was not in respect of any power in themselves, or of any virtue which the Apostles gave them by their injunction, but as means and weapons of necessity to defend the Church from mischief, and the Gospel from interruption, which by no means they would have practised without such necessity; the like I say of our Ceremonies. These things being so clear and evident, it must needs follow that these Ceremonies, in their nature, must be tainted with that formal and inseparable evil, which the arguments of the deprived Ministers do fasten on our Ceremonies, so far forth as they agree in these Circumstances alleged: which my Brethren fearing, are feign to run into their old and only refuge; That though they had been never so much abused, and had been also in any other respect of no necessary use, yet this aagument toucheth them not, because they were used by warrant of Apostolical and divine authority: But that I may drive my Brethren from this their ultimum refugium, I say their answer is of no force at all, which appeareth by these reasons.  
1. Because the answer of our Brethren is barely affirmed, without all show of proof or reason, which is sufficiently confuted with a bare denial and matter of this nature, Eâdem facilitate comtemnitur qua probatur, as the old saying of Hierome is: yea the Holy Ghost is silent and giveth not the  touch, to intimate that this action was peculiar to the Apostles, and how can my Brethren speak so confidently where the Holy Ghost is silent.  
2. Because of the equal necessity of the Church in all ages, and like care which God hath of his Church in giving equal remedy, who doth not only command and enjoin duties for the purity and comely order of the Church, but also provideth remedies against the diseases thereof. Now is there not a necessity for other things (aswell as for these Primitive Churches) to appease dissensions, schisms, tumults, interruption of the Gospel, deprivation of Ministers, arising from inconvenient and abused Ceremonies? Must all other Churches besides these for every inconvenient Ceremony, or other thing of like nature with the jewish Ceremonies, suffer the Church to be overthrown, and the Gospel interrupted? did God give them only privilege thus to conform, and not to others in other cases, or did he give remedy to their evils, and take it from us? If it seemed good & necessary to the Holy Ghost in one cause for the good of the Church, to give way to the practice of inconvenient Ceremonies of this nature; by what reason should it not be still as good and necessary for other Churches in the like case, in the sight of the same blessed spirit to practise the like Ceremonies?  
3. Because Saint Paul, rehearsing his practice of conforming to the jewish Ceremonies, doth draw his practice thereof out of a general doctrine, 1. Corinthians 9 19 The general doctrine is this; That though he were free from all men (as every faithful Minister is) yet he made himself the servant of all men (as in this sense every faithful Minister should do) to win the more. From this ground he deduceth his particular practice, vers. 20. of becoming a jew unto the jews, that is, of practising the jewish Ceremonies for the jews sake to avoid their scandal, and to win them to the Gospel; showing and declaring that out of this general doctrine any godly and sincere Minister of the Gospel, might lawfully and aught needfully to conform to the like Ceremonies of the jews in the like case, to win them and to gain liberty to the Gospel. Therefore I conclude the Apostles practise of jewish Ceremonies was not peculiar to them, as arising from mere Apostolical authority, and that the practice of like inconvenient ceremonies in the like case is lawful & needful.  
4. Because the same Apostle, declaring his withstanding of the practice of jewish Ceremonies in other cases, doth specify the reasons thereof, namely, 1. They would compel men unto it, Galat. 2. 2. and bondage their Christian liberty, Galat. 2. 4. with Act. 15. 1. 5. 10. 19— 3. And it was not the right way to the truth of the Gospel, Galat. 2. 14. Therefore I conclude they practised the jewish Ceremonies by a certain and standing reason, and not alone by Divine or Apostolical authority. If they had not been Apostles, by these reasons they would have practised them in these cases or the like.  
5. Because by this means any shifting disputant, may shift off all necessity of the practice of any part of Apostolical discipline and order, namely of excommunication of obstinate offenders, because a matter peculiar to the Apostles, as Erastus 
Erast, de excom. in Thes. fol. 46. Thes. 58.  & others do, or of the Churches meeting on the First day of the week, as many Libertines and Sabbatarians do, & things of like nature: yea also of our particular assurance of true grace, justification, remission of sins, and salvation▪ which we usually ground from the example of the Apostles, Rom. 8. 38. 39 Gal. 2. 20. 1. Tim. 1. 1. 15. which yet the Papists put off with this our brethren's answer, It was peculiar to the Apostles, it was of special revelation. For 
Bellarm. de justificat. lib. 3. cap. 9 in resp. ad 7. testimon. Staplet. de justific. l. 8. c. 24. f. 297. Rhem. in Rom. 8. 38.  what is the difference between their answer and the answer of my Brethren, being both alike pressed without reason, or rather contrary to sound reason.  
6. Because all godly learned judgements (before my Brethren) have judged as I judge hereof; Therefore their answer is against all godly learned judgements; with whom if I err, (not obstinately as seeing no better reason) I shall retain my peace. The Scriptures that I quote to prove the jewish ceremonies, practised by the Apostles, to have been in themselves of no necessary use, human inventions, and abused to superstition, my Brethren disallow, and say that they are misunderstood, and misapplied by me, as they have showed; the truth whereof appeareth in my Answer to that show of theirs. And they say further, that I contradict myself clearly and strongly, and therewith they convince me: But why? Because I distinguish of their different titles, nature, and use, in different respects; namely, that in some respects I said, that they were called commandments of men, and ordinances of the world, impotent and beggarly rudiments, shadows of things already come, and therefore fit to be abolished, as being of no necessary use, but very hurtful and offensive in sundry main respects, and because the Apostles taught against their not necessary use, and yet in other respects were practised and taught by the direction of the Holy Ghost, as matters good and necessary, Act. 15. 28. then both which members of affirmation, what can be more clear? unless my Brethren will say (which I am assured they will abhor to say) that the Holy Ghost doth contradict himself in the Apostles, for that I herein say no more than I am taught to say by the Holy Ghost in the holy Scriptures, by all classical writers. The second sort of difference which my Brethren make between our ceremonies, and the Ceremonies of the Apostles practise, showeth that our Ceremonies being human ceremonies, are first appropriated to God's service: Secondly, ordained to teach spiritual duties by their mystical significations, which theirs were not. To the first of which, I say, First, That some of the ceremonies practised by the Apostles, albeit they were not appropriated to God's service, that is, his immediate worships, yet they might seems to be appropriated thereunto; such as circumcising, offering vowing. For what were these things, being performed as God required, but the immediate services of God, or else as shows thereof? If he did them as shows only of God's services, and not as services there might seem to be a taking of God's Name in vain: or if he did by them serve God when they were out of use, and left to be commanded of God, there might seem to be some fault in Paul's action. Well then, how shall we clear Saint Paul of one or other error? Verily not as my Brethren would do, who would say, that he did it by mere divine authority, and nothing else; as if God should for a time command these Ceremonies a new unto the practisers thereof.  
But my answer is this, that if Saint Paul and the Apostles did not appropriate the practice of God's service one way, that is, to his immediate worship: yet did they appropriate the practice of them unto the service of God another way, that is, for the liberty of the Gospel, the appeasing of fraternal discord, the winning of the more: the compassing of which in the performance of these Ceremonies were the true services of God. Wherefore even the Ceremonies of the Apostles practise, were appropriate to the service of God: But these were not human inventions, but I have showed that they left in themselves, to be God's commandments, and should not have been practised without necessity, that is, of doing service to God in these forenamed ends. And touching signification, some man might thus argue, that either the jewish Ceremonies practised by the Apostles, had a signification in their intention, or none at all. If none, than they might seem needless and unprofitable, and so the Apostles might seem to be the practisers of idle actions, which (say I) is most true, were it not by their practice to wine the more, and to further the Gospel, which made them actions very fruitful, and to good purpose. But if they had signification in their intentions, than this signification was either true or false, not any false, as of Christ to come, which was their old and decayed signification, Col. 2. unless they might have still a kind of lawful, and yet untrue signification of Christ to come in their minds, which expecting the Messiah with an upright heart, believed not as yet in the Messiah come; therefore they must have some true signification, if any at all imposed on them; but this we read not, therefore we cannot affirm (as I suppose) that they had any signification at all: Wherefore I marvel my brethren would give instance of the use of other Sacraments (such a trifle to play withal) as knowing that in the Apostles, it might imply an absurdity in us, an evident impiety. But it will be demanded, I know, that if I grant the Ceremonies of the Apostles practise, to be void of signification in their intention, what then is this unto our Ceremonies, which are ordained to teach spiritual duties, by their mystical signification? But my brethren should remember, that the question here is not of the lawfulness of imposing signification on Ceremonies (not of Gods ordaining) but of the lawfulness of the use of Ceremonies, in a case of necessity, on which signification, signification is imposed by others: And thus these Ceremonies will accord to the point in question. For seeing those Ceremonies had a signification of the superstitious, and not well informed jews, before whom they were used by the Apostles, and for whose sakes some of them, were enjoined to the Gentiles; the question is whether an Apostle in a case of superior reason, as to redeem ministery, might conform unto them (or to the like in the like case) lawfully, notwithstanding that inevitable scandal, that he should occasion unto the beholders; namely, to apprehend by them I say, not a true signification (in which respect our significative Ceremony of the Cross seemeth more tolerable) but a false, namely, to signify to them Christ to come, which was already come. And if he might lawfully do this (as it is evident he might) then let my brethren tell me, wherefore a Minister of the Gospel, now may not lawfully use such a Ceremony, which (being no commandment of God) is by others ordained and imposed to teach spiritual things, by their mystical signification, and not intentionally, or approvedly in the mind of the user.  
As for that which is included in the third difference, I must needs confess it hath more weight, than any thing I know alleged against our Ceremonies, if my brethren can sound prove, that namely our Ceremonies are esteemed imposed, and observed as parts of God's worships (whereby first of all I doubt not, but my brethren do mean essential parts of Gods of worships, not accidental) And secondly, that these our Ceremonies are esteemed, imposed, and observed, by the intention and doctrine of the Church of England, for things of such nature. For this I constantly aver and resolutely hold, that if they can be proved matter of this nature, that they are doubtless to be refused of all, in a case of confession, unto the loss of Ministry, and of life itself: Howbeit of this I can by no means be persuaded as yet, and I will give my Brethren the reasons thereof, namely, because the Church of England doth not so esteem them, impose them, or observe them for parts of God's worship.  
But here it will be first asked, what I mean by the Church of England? To which I answer, that as the Church is considered two ways, first, for the Congregation of the faithful, scattered here and there, or for the whole society of English men compact in one entire body, visibly professing the religion of Christ distinguished from the bodies of Scotland, France, Germany, & other countries: So by the Church of England in either acception, ceremonies are not esteemed, imposed, or used as parts of God's worships. Of the Church in the former sense, I know my Brethren make no question; the latter I will justify: For the doctrine and practice of the Church of England, I take to be that which by common consent of the whole State, King, Nobles, Bishops, judges, Commons in Parliament is taught and commanded: Whatsoever cometh hence, cometh from the complete body of the Church of England, and is to be ascribed to it, as to the visible Church: Now the doctrine of this Church of England is included in the Books established by this power, which are, the book of Articles, and the book of Common prayer: Now for the doctrine of our Church in this point, the book of Articles expressly teacheth: first, that it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's word, Act. 20. Secondly, that the Church ought not to enforce any thing to be believed, besides the holy Scriptures, for necessity of salvation. Act. 20. Thirdly, that nothing of traditions and Ceremonies be ordained against God's word, Act. 34. Fourthly, that every particular or Nationall Church hath authority to ordain, change and abolish Ceremonies, or Rites of the Church, ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying, Act. 34. So likewise the Preface of the common prayer book, tit. of Ceremonies enacted by Act of Parliament (that is, by the authority of the visible Church of England) this doctrine of Ceremonies is set down: [We think it convenient that every country should use such Ceremonies as they shall think fit, to the setting forth of God's honour and glory, and to the reducing of the people to a most peafect and godly living without error or superstition: and that they should put away other things which they perceive to be most abused, as in men's ordinances, it often chanceth diversly in divers countries. And thus we see the doctrine of our Church doth not esteem any Ceremonies, as parts of God's worships but doth disclaim it utterly. And for the application of their doctrine to our Ceremonies that we may see what manner of Ceremonies, and of what nature the Church of England doth propose to be practised, and with what affection such as practise them should perform it: the said Preface to the Book of Common prayer saith of the Ceremonies prescribed in that Book: [That they are retained for a discipline and order, which upon just causes may be altered and changed, and therefore not to be esteemed equal to Gods Law.] Now according to this doctrine and application thereof by our Church all doctrines and practice of intention and action should be conformed, to this they should be referred: If there be any contrary direction or doctrine taught published, or enjoined by any one person, or many together, or in divers places, it is nothing to the point: For they who preach esteem, practi●e and impose any Ceremonies otherwise, by any conceit, word or act, then according to the afore mentioned direction they do it contrary to the judgement of the Church of England, and it is to be esteemed as the judgement and practice of private persons, violating the doctrine and laws of this Church, for the which they shall answer unto God, and are liable to the censure of authority. Whatsoever Ceremony therefore of our Church is either imposed, or the omission censured by any persons, or by any Minister practised, or observed by superstitious or ignorant people, as a part of God's worship, is only accidental, adherent, and not inherent to our Church; neither ought it to be laid unto the charge of our Church: Neither do any of the Divines, 
Abridg. fol. 38. 39  mentioned in the deprived Ministers reasons, nor can any Divinity justify or say that the questioned Ceremonies are imposed by the Church as parts of God's worships, for this cause, or will persuade men to suffer themselves to be deprived for refusing to conform unto them. For here is no such case of confession, to which we are enforced; seeing we may all freely and aught, as in obedience to the Church, confess the doctrine thereof agreeing to God's Word, and conform unto the Ceremonies according to the doctrine, namely, as to things which are no worships of God, nor needful to salvation. And as for them that hold, teach, or conform unto them, as to the parts of God's worships, they are to be esteemed as malefactors condemned by the Church, which can no more prejudice the doctrine of the Church, than the practice of thieves, rebels, and murderers can prejudice the good laws of our Commonwealth that are made against them; and it were no less strange to blemish our Church with the judgement or practice of the one, then to brand the Commonwealth with the practice of the other.  
Now where my Brethren say that the Apostles neither observed nor imposed the Ceremonies of the jews as parts of God's worship, I refer them to my answer in the former member touching the service of God; and do add that if they used them not as parts of God's worship taken strictè, yet they did use them & enjoin them as parts of his worship taken latè, or in a larger sense, seeing God may be said to be worshipped by that he is served, and he is served by duties done according to his will, and they conformed, & enjoined comformity to those ceremonies that they might do duties according to his will, viz. the winning of the jews, the freedom of their teaching and the like. But now whereas it is demanded further by my Brethren, what it is unto the purpose I allege, that the jews esteemed, imposed, observed them as necessary to salvation, Acts 15. 1. 5. and the rest. I answer, first, that I might make those Ceremonies analogical with ours, that as our Ceremonies were and are holden as parts of God's worship and needful to salvation by the Papists, so were those practised by the Apostles, esteemed by the jews; yet the Apostles used them in case of necessity, and so may we these in the like case. Secondly, 
Abridg. fol. 38.  I ever held it as an argument urged by the deprived Ministers to persuade to the disuse of our Ceremonies, that being in themselves needless (a man having no necessity to use them) there is occasioned the stumbling of the weak, by them the Papists and ignorant people's abuse and opinion of God's worship: In which respect the practice of the jewish Ceremonies might apparently be taxed, had it not been in a case of superior reason. For the practice of them was in that case good & necessary, notwithstanding whatsoever abuse or offence might have been taken thereat, so that they were done, first, voluntarily and not pressed on there conscience as God's worships; secondly on just occasion, as to redeem the preaching of the Gospel, and to win souls to Christ.  
The fourth and last kind of difference alleged by my Brethren between our Ceremonies, and the ceremonies of Apostolical practice and injunction of the rules prescribed in the word, for the direction of the Church in the matters of ceremony, which are not kept in the imposing and using of our Ceremonies, (as my Brethren say) but were in those others by the Apostles. First, they say they are no way needful: which may be understood either in respect of enjoining by our Governors, or of practising by our Ministers. In the enjoining of them, again we may consider the enjoining of them in their first plantation, or for the present. The enjoining of them in the first plantation in King Edward's days, of what necessity it was, it might easily be collected, if we either consider the nature of coacted Churches, gathered and reform by authority of Princes, where the most are worst, and of how great difficulty it is to reform all disorders at the first, in comparison of Churches gathered by voluntary coition, where all being willingly assembled, will also willingly unite their thoughts and proceed to the best: and this is one main reason of the different degrees of reformation of different Churches. This Church of England therefore being a coacted Church, it is easy to imagine of what difficulty it was to reform all things at the first; where the most part of the Privy Counsel, of the Nobility, Bishops, judges, Gentry, & people were open or close Papists: where few or none of any countenance stood for religion at the first, but the Protector, and Cranmer. Wherefore, howsoever those worthy persons were solicited and stirred up by Caluins' letters, howsoever they laboured at the first, and did what in them lay, desiring to do more, as appeareth in the Preface of the common prayer Book, & in the Rule before Commination: howsoever they refined the book of Common prayer in an 5. & 6. Edwardi; yet necessity compelled them there to stay. The general reasons whereof, are excellently observed and set down by Zepperus, which elsewhere I have cited in my reasons. Now if we look to the present injunction of our Ceremonies, it is not for me to contest with authority, or to call her to account for her proceed; she pretendeth necessity of enjoining them; that omnis mutatio est periculosa, & plena scandalis (and therefore also must be observed for the only will and pleasure of such as enjoin them.) Now if authority on these, or other like grounds will have the Ceremonies practised, or else will proceed to Deprivation, there is here an inevitable necessity of conforming in the Ministers: in which respect Conformity is simply needful. In this sense also, though the ceremonies themselves be supposed to be smally profitable, yet conformity to them in this case of necessity, is most profitable for the edification of the Church, though it be denied by my Brethren. And howsoever it may be granted, that offence and hindrance to edification do arise from these our Ceremonies; yet it is certain that there is no show of comparison between the offence and hindrance of the people's edification▪ arising from the practice of the Ceremonies, and the suffering of Deprivation for not conforming by every Minister, which my Brethren in their argument do teach. Now for the jewish ceremonies, to omit my brethren's repetition of Appstolicall authority, as being dealt withal before; they say they were squared and directed by the rules of the holy scripture. But to understand this better, we must needs distinguish between the different respects wherein we may consider them, first in their nature, and then in their practice, and then again as it was needless or constrained, or occasioned by just reason of necessity for the furtherance of the word, and good of the Church. In their nature they were fruitless, unprofitable, empty, burdensome, and most indecent. Also in their needless use they were not needful or profitable, they served rather to destroy then edify. They were not profitable for order or decency, they tended to infringe the Christian liberty, and they were so far from having no offence in them, that they were above measure scandalous; all which I have so proved to my Brethren, in my first and second reasons of this my first argument, that though they deny and wonder, yet they meddle not with any proof thereof, knowing that the very citation of the place would confute them. But in their constrained use, or use occasioned by reasons of necessity forealleadged, that conformity to these Ceremonies was profitable, necessary, serving to edify, by making way unto the Church's peace, and preaching of the Gospel, it was ordered to use them: and this use of the practice of indecent Ceremonies, in nature did uphold one higher decency, even the decency of Apostolical preaching, converting souls, planting of Churches, and unity of brethren, and thus that paradox or riddle is absolved, which my brethren thought impossible to be believed, that an indecency, supported decency, which if they had called to their remembrance, they might have seen how this fourth argument, of the abridgement against our Ceremonies, doth very fitly square to those which the Apostles used.  
Yet one thing remameth to be considered, which so much offendeth my brethren, that they scarce hold it possible, for a godly or learned man to hold, namely, to charge the holy Apostles; first, that they were offended in imposing that they did; and secondly, that they taught against the things which they iniòyed▪ that namely, they ought not to be used by the jews or Gentiles. But to the first I say, that if it were necessity, that moved the Apostles to enjoin abstinence from blood and strangled, which were legal Ceremonies, for they are called necessary things fol. 15. 28. yea without that necessity, they would not have enjoined them: if without necessity urging, they would not have enjoined them, yea they must needs be unwilling, and loath to do that which without necessity, they would not do: If they were loath to do it, than they must needs have some offence in them, for doing that they were loath to do: And for the second▪ let me remember my brethren, who think I forget myself, once again to say unto them, that the holy Apostles did teach against the things, which they enjoined and practised, as appeareth by these plain instances Paul preached against circumcision, Acts 21. 21. Gal. 5. 2. and so did Peter before the practice thereof; yet Paul practised circumcision on Timothy, Acts 16. 3. Paul preached against the jewish sabboth's observation, Col. 2. 16. 17. Gal. 4. 10. yet he observed them usually, Acts 13. 14. 44. and 18. 4. and 17. 2. Paul taught against abstaining from meats [touch not; taste not; handle not] Col. 2. 20. 21. yet the Apostles (and Paul among them) prescribed difference of meats, Acts 15. 28. Let my brethren therefore give me leave, to think without any further marvel, that though I grant it were absurd and impious, to suppose that the Apostles practised those Ceremonies they preached against in the self same respect, and so far forth as they practised them, so far forth to preach against them; yet in divers respects this may well stand. The Apostles therefore preached against the Ceremonies, not because they held them simply impious in themselves, for than they could not practise them without impiety, but because that Christ the body was come, the shadows were unprofitable, and because that many abused them perniciously, and held them necessary to salvation, in which respect, in some cases the Apostles refused the practice of them: Again, the Apostles practised them not, of any love they bore them, or for any opinion of necessity, or the least profit in themselves, being impotent and beggarly; but only being compelled for the necessity of the superior ends, which themselves do give of such their doings. My brethren deny not but that the Apostles practised these Ceremonies, 
Caluin. in Act. 21. 20. 21. fol. 353. 354.  and that lawfully. But they cannot be persuaded, that they preached against the practice of them, yet Caluin will teach them, that Stephen did long before preach the abolishing of the ceremonial law: And for this very place of Acts 21. 21. whereof my brethren are so peremptory, that Paul had not taught so in deed, but that the jews had been so informed of him, that he preached against the practice of the jewish Ceremonies: Howbeit, Caluin apprehends it otherwise [Etiamsi aliquâ ex part verus erat rumour, quo offensi fuerunt judaei, fuisse tamen callumniâ aspersam Legis abrogationem docebat Paulus.] Again. [Qui adventu Christi abolit as fuisse Ceremonias docent, adeò non sunt in legem contumeliosi, ut potius eius veritatem confirmant] Again. [Non minus judaeos, quàm gentes a Ceremonijs liberat, quas col. 2. 14. decretanominat] Aagaine [Paulus promiscuè judaeis & Gentibus libertatem docebat partam esse: Nam istae sententiae generales sunt, 1. Corint. 7. 19 Col. 2. 11. 16. Corint. 10. 25. Galat▪ 5. 1. and 4 3.] In a word, that my Brethren may altogether leave to wonder at that I wrote, as at a strange matter or that they should think that godly and learned men forget themselves in such a point as this, let themselves consider of the advice of those godly, learned, and 
Bucer. Script. Angl Ep ad Cranm. ●o. 6852 P. Mart. loc. come. inter Epist. amico in Angliam, fo 1127. Beza Epist. 12. fol. 99 & 8. fo. 77. V●sin. exercitat. part. 2. fol. 835, 836, 837, 838, 839.  excellent persons, which they give to Ministers in the case of necessity and deprivation; namely, that they practise the Ceremonies, and yet preach openly against the things they practise, namely, against the inconveniences of their practice, and of their unwillingness to do them: the names of them are these, Bucer, P. Martyr, Vrsinus, Beza. Wherefore, though my Brethren have laboured with so great vehemency against this argument of mine, yet is it not overthrown by them, or me, as they would have it, but still remaineth firm, for aught that my Brethren have said yet.  
And so much for the answer of my Brethren to thesecond part of mine assumption, touching the nature of our Ceremonies, & the Ceremonies practised by the Apostles. Now of the third member, touching the warrant & ground of conformity. In the answer whereunto my Brethren begin with the practice of a fallacy, which is called, fallacia compositionis, my Brethren might understand (for they lack not sense) that as the former part of their assumption (which they would have me speak [That namely, the Apostles by divine inspiration, and commandment from God, required the Churches to use] was not intended to be connected or joined with the latter part, which is, [To use such and so many Ceremonies] so was it not immediately joined with it in my proposition; nay, in the proof thereof, it was disjoined and placed by itself, and the proper or peculiar Scripture of probation annexed to it. Inasmuch as (without violence offered) they must needs understand the enjoining of the Apostles to be undrstood of Act. 15. only, and the number to have reference to Numb. 9 where the Ceremonies were enumerated: now my Brethren or their answerer, (whom it seemed they trusted in sundry things too far) takes my proofs for number, and apply them to enjoining; and the decree of enjoining, where there was but two Ceremonies, they applied to number: The which confused shuffling of things together, which should be separately considered (as they were proposed and proved) is done but to make show of absurdity in my reason, which is but the trick and cunning of a Sophister, to get advantage to his feeble cause, and not the direct dealing of a sound disputant, which my Brethren needed not to borrow for the defence of that they are assured is the truth.  
This being observed, my answer is the sooner made. To the Contents of their first member of Reply, touching the number, I refer them back to the place in my answer, which they refer me to theirs. To the second member my Brethren still remain unmindful, that the question is not of enjoining here, but of conforming in a case of necessity: But the force of my reason drawn from the Apostles enjoining those Ceremonies (Act. 15.) stands in this, that if the Apostles in case of necessity did enjoin Ceremonies to Churches, as inconvenient as ours are pretended to be in many main respects (as they did act 15.) then might they much more practise than, or the like in the case of necessity. As for the circumcision of Timothy, and james persuasion to Paul, they are brought in to prove another member of my proposition and not this. The matter of the third member might have been spared, as being altogether ludicrous and trifling (save only that they misreport the judgement of Zanchius, who inclineth to the 
De redempt. fol. 492. b. Also touching the judgement of the Magdeburgenses, look D. Reinolds de idol. lib. 1. cap. 4. fol. 158. 159.  contrary judgement, to that for which they allege him, and saith that it is recepta illius loci interpretatio) until they come unto the place which my Brethren say, I put most confidence in, which they find to be Acts 15. Which place itself unless they had gone about directly to confute, they could have said nothing to the purpose. For what is it to the point, when I speak of enjoining, and do bring a place to prove it, for them to insist upon the number; but according to the old saying, Ego de allijs, tu de caepis, which might be referred to the Dialogue of Erasmuus de absurdis? As for the ensuing repetition of the things which before they alleged in the same words almost, [that the things enjoined in Act. 15. were not Ceremonies: that they were imposed not as ceremonial, but as moral duties: that Timothy his circumcision was not a Sacrament, and the rest: they are by me sufficiently replied unto before.  
The fourth and last member of my assumption, is of reasons of suffering deprivation, where my Brethren in their answer begin again with misreporting of my words: For my reason saith not, that the Apostles and Churches were moved to enjoin and practise Ceremonies for reasons of no greater weight; but for reasons partly equivolent and partly inferior to the avoiding of deprivation. And I am sorry that in so little compass of two or three sheets of paper my Brethren should so many times overslip themselves, which if in this part of their answer they had not done, it had been to small purpose to bring in so large a proof of that (in the first Section hereof) which no man denieth that the Apostles office is of greater dignity or excellency, than the office of an inferior Minister. For in that I said partly equivolent, I left room enough for any man to understand that the reasons were not altogether equivolent; and yet this very point being caeteris paribus, understood as the office of a Minister, is the ordinance of God, as well as the office of an Apostle; so the one in these days is no less necessary for the salvation of the faithful man now, than the other then: and a Minister in these days ought no less to be careful of the loss of his Ministry; or interruption of the Gospel, than the Apostles then: and therefore I see not but the same reasons and practice they used then to that end, we should also now use for the profit of God's Church.  
Next, in the second place there is one thing by the way, that I cannot be persuaded of that my Brethren say, that the very using of the jewish ceremonies than would edify; whereas they should rather say, that the effect of such use did edify only: For that the bare use of them being in itself considered, might in many respects be scandalous, and did minister occasion to the corrupt jews of stumbling, as I have proved. But it is much, that my Brethren should affirm, that conformity to our Ceremonies to prevent Deprivation, should not do any good at all; and further, that a Minister should do much more hurt by his conformity, then good by his Ministry: As if the liberty of preaching the word were so great good by the Apostles practise to the Church, and with us (by God's blessing on his own ordinance) it were no good at all: Or as if the practice of the ceremonies would nullify or confound the blessing of God's ordinance of preaching (and then how can the preaching of Conformitans be blessed of God?) Or as if the use of our Ceremonies would destroy more souls, then preaching could convert or establish in the faith: Or (last of all▪ as if the use of the ceremonies were more apt and forcible to pervert a man to his destruction, then preaching to convert him to salvation. Which supposals as they are most untrue, and my Brethren I know will not deny: so if they grant them to be false, a Minister conforming to redeem the free passage of his preaching, shall have a better bargain out of question by his practice, than my Brethren here do undertake to drive on his behalf.  
Now touching the last point, if my Brethren will have me grant, that the Apostles were well assured in their consciences they did that which was not only lawful▪ but needful for them to do: Then still I must needs conclude, that so long as we do perform the like practice with them in the like case, and on the like reasons, (as it doth yet appear) we may very well have assurance sufficient for it in our hearts; And so in degree (according to our model) we may be said to have an equivalent reason for the avoiding of our Deprivation. As for that full assurance, which my brethren say they enjoy; namely, that they have Gods express commandment to the contrary, and that they should do evil in the sight of the Lord, to conform unto our Ceremonies, even to avoid the privation: It seemeth to me a speech, neither Theological nor safe. I say not Theological, for that Theology is assurance of matters fundamental, which in their nature are only evident, and unquestionable among the faithful, which this is not. And I say again not safe; because, as we are expressly charged not to call good evil: so if our Ceremonies should in their nature prove indifferent, we should fear to call them simply, and in nature evil, both because it is untrue, and the consequences are pernicious, which come from thence. And if it be good and needful in a case of deprivation, to conform unto our Ceremonies, as all good judgements, and godly learned teachers and Churches have taught, till now our brethren are become assured otherwise: methinks this plerophorical confidence of my brethren should not be so safe for them; but rather to set a side all ancient prejudice, to hearken carefully to that which is disputed, and concluded by the chiefest lights, and judgements that ever the Church of Christ since the time of the Apostles obtained of God; to judge charitably of their differing brethren, and modestly of themselves; and to judge nothing before the time, till the Lord come, who will lighten things that are hid in darkness: And if they will not yield unto this truth, yet to leave it as a matter of disputall nature till the day do try, and the fire consume the stubble of the errors of Gods faithful servants.  
FINIS.   

AN ADMONITION TOUCHING THE FAULTS escaped in Printing.  
THOU mayst understand (good Christian Reader) that this treatise was put in press, before I had knowledge thereof; and I had not perused the copy that was written: Whereupon there is great need of thy patience in respect of the many slips escaped in Printing, and other alterations thereof, yet without the Printers fault or mine. The chief whereof I have here corrected. Let no man take offence at my consent for the publication thereof; because I rest persuaded of the truth therein contained, and I bring not show of words, but weight of reason; and besides it was needful for me to publish those reasons, which the hazard of my deprivation did heretofore occasion me to frame, and enforced me of late to follow. The Lord give such blessing to the same as I heartily desire for the peace of the Church, and for the quieting of the consciences of such as need it.  
Pag. Err. Correct. 7 GAl. 5. 20. 21. 22. Gal. 5. 30. 10. 21. 22. 10 of Faith daily in the Faith daily 11 as ours are now as ours are not by our Church 13 mystically mutually 14 then sometimes they sometimes  or rather straw or rather tars  those many things those main things 16 noted to King noted by King 18 as also all as also did 19 both by otah, doctrine both by doctrine  Papists popishly Papists and Popishly 21 these days those days  Act. 25. 28. 29. Acts 15. 28. 29. 22 and 10. 13. and 10. 31.  of his judgement of this judgement 24 in one practice in our practice 25 reproved approved 27 2. King. 23. 12. 2. Chron. 32. 12. 28 being both works because both works 31 we cannot judge and therefore we cannot judge 31 by every person by all persons 35 the performance the forms 38 yea saints the Saints  essential practice effectual practice 39 sound & doctrine sound doctrine 43 to conform or the like to conform unto our ceremonies or the like 45 the Apostles in the Apostles case in 46 Contrariae. contrarius. 47 Exercit▪ part: inter thes. Vrsin Excercit: part. 2. inter thes. 126. 48 because all such because otherwise all such 49 or rather or other 50 kneeling high or low kneeling, outward habit as this or that form of apparel, voice high or low 51 Consider that which also Consider secondly that as also 52 obedience to good obedience to God 54 proved, a matter proved, that a matter 54 preaching of the work preaching of the word 55 practising of the word by preaching preaching of the word  no sin of adultery no time of adultery 57 the precepts these precepts 59 The former as a circumstantial duty to which all ceremonies as a lesser work to a greater the former as a circumstantial duty commanding fit ceremonies, the other as a substantial duty▪ to which all ceremonies, & ceremonial duties, must serve as a lesser work to a greater. 62 broken taken 63 of the fulfilling if the fulfilling  by well doing be well doing  violation of the Law violation of that Law 64 many thousands may thousands 72 as the Papist as the Papists will have it 74 as in condemning or in condemning  must needs be an error must needs be in error 78 the consent of Churches suppose then, the consent of Churches 79 Catholic Church taken Catholic Church may err being taken  Catholic Church have Catholic Church hath  here should we make how should we make 80 For they agree so they agree 87 Decret. caus. 26. qu. 6. 7▪ 8. 10. Decret. Caus. 26. qu. 6. can. 9▪ ex Nicaeno Conc. item. can. 6. 7. 8▪ 10. 88 Commended and commended as 90 only fish and fowls only fish, some fish and fowls 91 Valentius Valentinus 92 that in those days in cities in villages that a man in those days might find in cities and villages 97 afterwards the same afterwards the Sun 98 wholesome wholesomely 102 Eastern Controu. Easter Controu. 103 praesumptuous praesumptions  pacificum pacificum filium 106 M. Middelburgi  Putaeus Paraeus  Witenberg Wirtenberg. so Correct it. pag. 108. 109. 115.  gave give 107 Epistle of Luther postil of Luther, the like pag. 109. 109 Harm. Confess. §. fol. 176. Bohem. Harm. confess. §. 16. fol. 179. Bohem.  4. Lex Decal. §. 11. fol. 43. albeit. 4. Lex Decal §. 33. so do the Tigurines. Har. conf. § 11. fol. 43. albeit 110 First of their judgement touching ceremonies in general appeareth First of their judgement touching ceremonies in general, as also of their practice after, and then also of our cere.  Injunction Invention 113 jocun. joan. 115 an edification and edification  Scriptu. fol. 21. Cap. fol. 211. 118 for the Church's edification Deleatur 125 penislyllabas Paenè syllabas 128 Benhagius Bugenhagius 130 Myricus Illyricus  revolve revoke 133 Came Comes 134 therefore first I answer, albeit in our judgement these ceremonies are not rightly commanded. Deleatur 140 primitive had the Primitive Church used 144 yielding Confession of the truth yielding to his request herein. 4. if he conceal not this confession of the truth 151 dat better 152 wherefore it is written whereof it is written 153 we are bound following we are not bound following fairs 157 Paraeum Duraeum  Commandeth commendeth 159 mean to rather 162 then to then so to 165 parity purity 166 perils points 167 of mending of weeding out 168 admitted permitted 170 have some notwithstanding have had some not standing 171 to be kept inviolable to be kept inviolable: And he answered it thus 175 No parts neither parts 191 hold a right affection should prejudice a right affection 197 admonition of them admonition of the weak that they be not offended, & prayer unto God to strengthen them. 199 so respected so reserved 202 his argument this argument 203 Lumbertus Lubbertus 205 which note the controverfie which were the controvertists  did stir do show 288 though pure past 209 soot salt 213 so refusing for refusing 214 doctrine and practice of the Apostles doctrine and practice of the Apostles, therefore it is a sin 215 viz. that the Apostles doctrine and practice doth not so warrant a minister viz. that it is both against the doctrine and practice of the Apostles for a minister  begin beg  doctrine of the Scribes practise and doctrine of the Scribes 224 Apostles enjoined them Apostles used and enjoined them 225 when that himself then that himself 226 his first proposition his proposition  to be observed to have been observed 227 for matters of direction in the Church concerning ceremonies for the direction of the Church in matters of ceremonies 230 nature and evil nature, use and evil 235 this commandment his commandment 236 Answers Answerers