Sic fuit▪ (ah, fuit▪) Amesius. Quid funere tanto,  
Cum grege Papali, Pelagianus ovat?  
Quid rides Hierarcha? Viri nos arma tenemus,  
Astra animam, tellus ossa, sed os tabula.    

A FRESH SVIT Against HUMAN CEREMONIES IN GOD'S WORSHIP. OR A Triplication unto. D. BURGESS HIS REJOINDER For D. MORTON.  
The First Part.  Psal. 119, 113. 
I hate vain inventions: but thy saw do I love,  
Printed Anno 1633.   

An ADVERTYSEMENT to the Reader, Occasioned by the never enough lamented death of my dear friend the Author of this Fresh suit.  
Understand Christian Reader, that with the coming forth of this book into the light, the learned and famous Author Dr. Ames left the light, or darkness rather of this world. His name for divers reasons (not needful here to be recited) hath been hitherto concealed, and that which generally was but imagined before, (viz. that the Repl. and this fresh suit to D. B. rejoinder) to be his work, now it is certainly known to be his, that none need to doubt thereof. It pleadeth truth succinctly, yet perspicuously, and with sinewy Answers to B.M. and D. B. poor Sophisms, as indeed his veinc in all his writings and discourses did most admirably lead him to do. Concerning this matter, I may not keep back what I heard him speak as in the sight of God, that he was in his conscience more persuaded of the evil of these relics of Popery and monuments of that superstition then ever, and yet he never had seen good in them, or come from them: and that moreover if D. B. or any other of them would yet be daubing with suntempered mortar, and not give over to paint rotten sepulchers, he was by the grace of God resolved still to maintain the cause, and while he lived never let fall the vit commenced this way, not that he sought victory to himself, no; That truth might return out of the field with conquest was the highest pitch of his ambition. And though this worthy of the Lord be with us no more, yetGod (I trust) who is rich in mercy, and hath more than one blessing, will (as need shall require) supply the advantage truth had, and now hath lost in the loss of this glorious instrument. Together with his life God hath put an end to all his travails, wherein he shown himself a pattern of holiness, a burning and a shining light, and lamp of learning & Arts, a Champion for truth, specially while for the space of 12 years at least, he was in the Doctor's Chair at Franequer, and having fought the good fight of faith, whereunto he was called, & professed a good profession before nyamwitnesses, he hath now indeed laid hold on eternal life. His spirit gone to the spirits of just men, and his body committed to the ground, we commit his labours to thy use, wherein he being dead, yet speaketh, and his memory we hope shall live for ever.  
Far well in Christ, the Fountain of all welfare.   

To the renowned King, EDWARD THE sixth And so To our present Sovereign King CHARLES his Successor. JOHANNES ALASCO (a Godly Learned Polonian Baron and Superintendent of the Church of strangers at London) in the Epistle Dedicatory of his tractate Concerning the Sacraments, printed at London, An o. 1552.  
WEll doth that Father, and without doubt diserueth praise, who having a daughter a Virgin drawn by the guile of panders into some lewd and dishonest house, and there trimmed after the whorish guise doth presently rescue her thence and bring her home to his own house before she be utterly spoilt. But the same Father (if he be wise) thinks it not enough for the safety of his daughter, and the honour of his house, that he hath brought her home again, unless he take from her wholly whatsoever he knows to be accounted in those houses a whorish attire.  
Neither doth he inquire whence such attire came first: but judgeth it dishonourable to himself, and so unworthy his daughter and whole family, that any such thing at all as strumpets have used for dress in their houses, should appear in his.  
Neither doth he give ear to their persuasions, who bear him in hand that all things are to be Esteemed according to the Father's mind in his own house; and so think that the Father's approbation can make that honest, in his own house, for his daughter, and whole family, which in another house, is most dishonest, for any daughters that regard their own credits: ascribing so much to the Father's prerogative, that what soever he approves, must be of others well liked of, so fare as it concerns his own house. For he knows full well, that although all those things which he hath authorized in his own house be there well thought of, yet that is not enough, since the honour of his daughter, and his whole Family, must not only he cared for within his own house, but also throughout the whole City, that he may remove all evil suspicions from his family among all his neighbours; and is heedful that the panders have not the least occasion left them, of challenging or laying claim to the said daughter, as having some of their whor-house-marks upon her.  
Even so in the Church of God, as in a city, Magistrates and Ministers are in place of parents, having the pure and right Administration of the Sacraments committed unto them of God, for to be tended, and tendered as their own daughter. It is therefore very commendable in these parents of the church (as we may term them) if they rescue the lawful & pure Administration of the Sacraments from the violence and tyranny of the Romish Panders, by taking it into their own care and Custody.  
But here they ought to remember (Especially they who are called by the holy Spirit, Eminent Ministers of God, and Nursing Fathers of his church I.E. Christian Kings and Monarches, that it is not enough for them, thus to have brought this daughter out of the Papists stews, home into their own care and keeping, unless they also put of from her, all that dressing, which they know to be whorish in the said stews, that no such thing may be seen with them, which may be accounted whorish: Especially in that city where there is great Variety of judgements, the overruling whereof by man's Authority is not to be expected, and where there are so mamy hucksters for the stews remaining.  
Nor let them hear the delusions of those who suggest, that such kinds of dressing from whence soever they be taken may be made good & honest by Authority. For well they know, they are not set over the whole church of God, but only one part of it, as a Family in a City, and that therefore though they could bear out such things at home by their Authority; yet it is their duty (as they regard public Chastity and honesty) to procure the honour of their daughter and family not only within their own walls but also throughout the whole city; not suffering any thing to be seen within their house, which they know to be held, urged, and maintained by the Romish stews and their instruments as their proper whorish stuff.  
Last of all they must be wary, lest any signs or tokens be left upon their daughter, by which she may be questioned again by these panders as one of theirs.  
Now (if it please your Excellent Majestye) you are one of these nursing Fathers of the Church of God blessed be his name therefore: and in this high calling (by God's providence) you have this Ministry of the Sacraments rescued out of the popish Brothels, and brought into your own care and keeping: Here therefore be pleased to set before your eyes the foresaid example of a good Father in those things which yet remain to be performed, I. E. in providing for the credit of this your reduced daughter and so of your whole Family, not only in this your Flourishing Kingdom, but also in the Catholic Church of Christ whereof you are a citizen, unto whom a principal part thereof as an honourable family is Committed in trust.  
This is that which all the Godly throughout the Christian world do expect from your hand, and that the more earnestly because they know that God hath enriched you with such excellent gifts, & placed you in so high a place almost above all others; even to this very end, that you might remove from the Ministry of the Sacraments all those popish trinkets, wherewith it hath been fearfully profaned, & restore unto it again that virginlike attire, wherewith it was of old adorned by the high King of Kings, and lawgiver Christ the Lord in his holy Institutions. So shall your faith and fidelity be famous throughout the Christian world: and the Church of England grow more honourable under your Government.  
The Latyn words of johannes Alasco himself.   

Serenissimo Regi EDWARDO SEXTO Deigratia, Angliae, Franciae, & Hiberniae Monarchae, Fideiverae, Catholicae, & Apostolicae, Defensori; Omnium (in suis ditionibus) personarum etc. JOHANNES A LASCO, etc.  
REcte facit Pater, laudemque meretur proculdubio, si Filiam Virginem, dolis lenonum, ad ganeas forte abreptam, rituque jam meritricis ornatam, protinus illinc eximat, incolumi adhuc pudicitia illius, inque suas rursum ipsius aedes reducat: Sed idem satis non esse putat, ad tuendam suam, filiaeque illius, & totius adeo familiae suae honestatern, exemisse e ganeis filiam, inque suas aedes reduxisse; nisi illi id totum plane detrahat, quod in ganeis illis pro ornatu meretricio haberi videt. Neque disquirit, undenam ornatus ille originem suam habeat: sed indecorum sibi, adeoque & castitate filiae suae, & familiae etiam totius indignum esse judicat, ut aliquid omnino ejusmodi domisuae conspiciatur, undecunque tandem deductum esset, quod in ganeis ipsis pro ornatu meretricio haberi non ignoret. Neque hic audit eorum persuasiones, qui omnia ex Patris arbitrio domi suae, aestimanda esse dicunt; & proinde ornatum quoque meretricium illum in ganeis, honestissimum jam fore putant domi paternae, cum filiae illi, tum etiam reliquae toti familiae, si quidem paterna authoritate comprobaretur; eò quod in Patris id potestate positum esse videatur, ut quae illi probantur, ea jam honesta etiam domisuae omnia esse censeantur. Intelligit enim, etiamsi domi suae, pro honestis haberentur omnia quae ipse sua authoritate comprobasset; honestatem tamen filiae illius, & familiae suae totius, non intra domesticos sibi duntaxat parietes suos, sed per totam etiam civitatem reliquam, tuendam esse; ut omnem malam suspicionem, apud omnes omnino cives, a domo sua depellat: & cavet ne ullis rursus lenonibus, ullam deinceps etiam reposcendae denuò ad ganeas filiae suae occasionem quoquo modo relinquat, pro jure ipsorum; si quae apud illam notae adhuc tales, ganeis familiares, conspicerentur.  
Ita vero, etiam Parentum loco sunt in Dei Ecclesia, veluti in civitate quadam, & Verbi, & Gladij Ministri omnes; habentque sibi concreditum ab ipsomet Domino Deo, veluti filiae loco, purum ac legitimum ministerium Sacramentorum. Hic igitur istorum Ecclesiae Parentum (ut ita jam loquamur) fidem ac studium nemo non merito laudaverit, si concreditum sibi ab ipsomet Deo (veluti filiam quandam) purum ac legitimum Sacramentorum ministerium, ab Antichristi Romani, & lenonum suorum ganeis, in quas vi ac tyrannide ipsorum abductum fuerat, in suas ipsorum domos rursus, in curam (inquam) ac custodiam suam reduxerunt. Sed hic cogitare debent utrique, potissimum autem ij, qui non frustra Praecellentes Dei Ministri, Altoresque Ecclesiae Dei a Spiritu Sancto vocantur, Reges (inquam) ac Monarchae Christiani, satis non esse, si filiam illam e ganeis Papisticis, in aedes rursus suas ipsorum, hoc est, in curam custodiamque suam recipiant, nisi eam etiam omni illo ornatu plane exuant, quem in ganeis ipsis, meretricium ornatum & esse, & haberi sciunt; nequid ejusmodi domi ipsorum conspiciatur, quod pro meretricio haberi posset: in ea potissimum civitate, in qua varia sunt adhuc judicia hominum; neque ab uno homine gubernari possunt; & in qua adhuc multam, infinitamque lenonum turbam superesle constat. Neque hic audient persuasiones illorum, qui ornatum ejusmodi (undecunque tandem desumptus esset) honestum nihilominus domi paternae fore existimant, si Patris ipsius authoritate comprobetur. Intelligunt enim, non toti se Civitati omnino, non toti (inquam) Dei Ecclesiae, sed parti duntaxat illius alicui, veluti domui ac familiae cuidam praeesse: et proinde, etiamsi domi suae, pro honestis jam haberi videant, quae ipsi sua authoritate comprobassent; sui interim officij esse agnoscunt (quatenus equidem castitatis am●ntes, publicaeque honestatis studiosi haberi volunt) ut filiae illius, totiusque adeo familiae suae honestatem, non inter domesticos tantum parietes suos, sed per totam illam civitatem etiam, omni studio, ac cura tueantur, nihilque domi suae conspici patiantur, quod in ejusdem civitatis ganeis, ac lupanaribus, maximo lenonúomnium conatu, ac tyrannide, pro meretricio haberi interim, urgerique, ac propugnari vident. Postremo, cavendum sibi modis omnibus esse putant, ne eisdem lenonibus rursum, aut eorum similibus, ullam omnino occasionem (pro jure ipsorum) relinquant, quoquomodo reposcendae fi●●ae illius suae; si quae notae adhuc (ganeis illis familiares) apud illam conspicerentur.  
jam vero tu quoque unus es ex hisce Ecclesiae Dei Altoribus (Rex Serenissime) quo quidem nomine, summas Deo Patri nostro coelesti gratias agimus. Et concreditum tibi, in praecellenti vocatione hac tua, a Domino Deo, Sacramentorum Ministerium, veluti filiam quandam, ganeis jam Papisticis, in tuas rursum aedes (Divino beneficio) hoc est, in curam ac custodiam tuam domesticam reductum habes. Hic tu igitur tibi quoque sequendum esse cogitabis, in his quae adhuc restant, propositum jam boni Parentis exemplum, in tuenda reductae filiae, totiusque adeo familiae tuae, publica honestate, non tantum in Regno tuo florentissimo, sed in Chatholica etiam Christi Ecclesia, cujus alioqui & ipse civis es, ejusque partem pulcherrimam, veluti insignem illius familiam tibi concreditam habes. Hoc vero abs te pij omnes, toto orbe Christiano, exspectant. Etquidem tanto majore desiderio, quanto majoribus atque excellentioribus donis te a Domino Deo nostro ornatum, ac sublimiore etiam, supra alios fere omnes, loco, positum esse non ignorant: nempe ut Sacramentorum Ministerium, illecebris meretricijs, in Papae ganeis, nefandissimè profanatum, omni illarum ornatu meretricio exuas; suoque illud ornatu virgineo rursus induas; quo videlicet a summo illo Regum omnium Rege ac Nomothete, Christo Domino, in suis institutionibus ornatum esse constat. Sic enim nota demum erit toti Ecclesiae Christi, fides tua, in tuenda filiae tibi concreditae, non domi modo tuae, sed toto etiam orbe terrarum, publica honestate.   

THE PREFACE.  
THey who put to sea, according to their several scopes & purposes, so do they steer their Compasses, & proceed in their travels answearablely. Such as set out merely to satisfy their pleasure, or some private end; when once the heavens begin to be beset with clouds, the wynds grow high, & the storm approaching threatens apparent danger, when their companies are scattered & severed from them, or when the foulness of their stomaches and the noisome humours there, cause, that they cannot brook the sea, but with much tedious disquiet & sickness; They turn their courses & make to shore with as much speed as they may.  
Others who seriously intent to make a voyage of it, & are bound for some remote place, & resolved to fetch some precious commodities from a far country; they reckon upon hazards, expect the common calamities of the sea, & determine to undergo, what ever they do expect, or shall befall. The conclusion is: willing they are to adventure the loss of their lives, but not willing, to lose their voyage, therefore on they will: extreme necessities may overbeare them, but no fears can discourage them in their course.  
As thus it fares in travelling, so fares it also, with men in professing the truth; their aims are several, & their proceed suitable thereunto: Some take up the profession of the truth, as a voyage of pleasure: & such will be sure, to sail no further, then that they may see the smoke of their own chymneyes: they will serveChrist no longer, than they may serve there own turns, and therefore such will have no more of the gospel, than they may have their own private with it, not only within sight, but within reach: And its admirable to see, what falseness they discover in their course, & yet what fair colores, they put upon all their proceedings, & would bear the world in hand, they wyshnothing but soundness, when indeed there is nothing but shows & appearances, to please a sensual eye:  
It's not amiss therefore, to take the scantling of both these kinds, that the judicious Reader may be able to own them as they appear in his way, either in their writings, or behaviours: for the lives of men are like living books, which a wise man will search into, & observe: To this purpose therefore we shall shortly consider: 1 what is the cause of this declining? 2 what be the pretences, whereby they labour to excuse it?  
The cause of this declining, is the entertainment of the truth upon false grounds: The apple which is unsound at the coat, will discover rottenness in the skin afterwards: when the foundation is not sure the whole frame will sink, 
Causses of declining 1 Sext. 13 Luke 19  when it's shaken by the least storm.  
Some there be, like the stonyhearted hearers, who from the present apprehension of the comforts & promises of the gospel, are tickled with the sweetness the rof, though but in general conceived, & have their hearts suddenly cheered, with the confused & unapplyed grounds of good; 
13 Math. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  And therefore they are said to receive itsuddaynly with joy:  
But as they flourish speedily, so do they fade as soon: 
13 Math. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for these flashes of comfort, as they arise not from any deep root of an humbled & self dening heart: So they leave no deep stamp or impression upon the Spirit: and therefore when sad & heavy pressures of sorrow do seize upon the soul, these slight impressions of flashy joy vanish away:  
These comforts in Temporaries, are like the painting & complexion, which is laid upon the face by deformed harlotts, which the least violence of cold, or heat takes off immediately; whereas, a sound joy issuing from grounded assurance, is like ruddy complexion, which ariseth from good blood, & a wholesome constitution, which the greatest heats or colds may increase, but cannot remove as long as life & strength lasteth:  

2 Sort of decliners.  Others again are brought to embrace the truth because of the company or multitude, which they see give credit or countenance thereunto: 
13 Luk 24. 8 Math. 20.  thus the Pharisee would not to heaven unless he might go in the crowd. Or because of the safety & commodity which the Lord sometimes voutsafes to sincere Professors. Thus many turned jews in ester's time, 
Ester. 8.17.  not because they were the better, but the stronger party; not for the truth of their profession, but for the safety of the Professors. 
6 Ihon. 26.  These attend upon Christ for the loaves and follow the gospel no longer than profit follows them. The name of a prison, the noise of a chain, makes the truth so deformed in their eye, that they dare not, & therefore will not own it. As the leaves of a tree, while they be fed with moisture, drawn up in●o the branches by the Sun in the springe, theyflorish and cold frost drive back the moisture, they whither & fall. Like these leaves, is the love of these worldly gospelers. An instance of this temper is apparent in many of our Elizabeth Professors (as they are termed) who were hot at the entrance of the Gospel, when company, credit, & profit were attendants to it: but when the frowns & displeasure of authority, like winter blasts, plucked away their live & dignities which were as the moisture, to feed their desires, they dried away in their (discretion) & retained nothing but the name of ancient Professors, like boxes in Apothecaryes' shops, which carry fair titles on the outside, & fill up room, but have not one healing or useful drug in them.  
A third sort there be, 
3 Sort.  who at the first appearing of the gospel in a place, are taken up with the strangeness and novelty, either of the Doctrine, or the manner of delivery, & answerablely with some affection make inquiry after it. This was their practice, when john Baptist came preaching in the wilderness, 
3. Math. 5.  Then went out to him Jerusalem, & all judea, & all the Region about jordan. This also our Saviour acknowledged as their endeavour. 
Ihon. 5.35.  John was a burning & a shining light, & you would have recoyced in him for a season.  
It befalls the Gospel in this case, as it doth with some strange commodity: when it first comes to view, many see & cheapen, until the price proves too heavy, & then they depart & will not buy: So here: when our Saviour sets open the sale of the gospel, in some obscure place, many will be comers, hearers, Cheapeners, until they find that the word grows somewhat high rated, & the conditions of the Gospel seem too hard, & then they for sake it. Herod welcomes John Baptist, & observes him, but at last murders him.  

4. Fort of declyners.  Others lastly, after some sad conviction of the truth revealed, as also of the necessity and excellency thereof, hold it a point of honour, to persevere in the defence & maintenance of it: and hence for their own praise, may, & do Suffer heavy persecutions, as, poverty, Exile in the profession of the truth, the power where of they never approved in the exactness of it.  
Thus many in Queen mary's days, were exiled for the Gospel, who afterwards returned into England, 
13. Math. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  & opposed, yea persecuted the power & accuratnes practise of it.  
For there is a nick of temptation, which stuts the humour of these temporising hypocrites, & discovers them in their colours: & hence it is, that these of Diotrephes his generation, could endure banishment, because that hindered not, but promoted their honour in that kind of suffering: yet when they came into place of supremacy, fell to beating of their fellow brethren, as conceaving the strictness of their course, carried a condemnation of their careless and pompous sensuality.  
We have seen the causes, consider we now the excuses they would pretend for themselves. 
Statist his p●aetense.  And here as men's corruptions are divers, & act more or less strongly, their shifts carry more or less appearance urith them. Here first your statist is most gross, to whom his Religion is as his coin. All that, goes for currant gospel with him, that is stamped with the authority & allowance of the State: He is hover betwixt several Religions, that he may take any for his turn, waitss & eyes, to see which side is like to prosper, that so he may be of the safest side: And he ●esseth himself with the name of a Christian Church, & the substance of Religion. And what ever things are like to prove trouble some, these he will make indifferent, that he may take them, or leave them, as he likes best for his ease. 
Discretion is they sta●ists God & Gospel.   
He complains much of the restless strictness of men's Spirits, who cannot see when they are well, put too great weight upon things, that are of no worth, stand upon trifles. He crieth out for Discretion as that which would umpire & determine all doubts. And therefore he can run with the hare, & hold with the howd: 
Pranks played under colour of discretion.  (by discretion) He will do any thing, rather than suffer any thing: (by discretion.) He can solder with the times, & wink at the synmes of men, yea swallow them down, though with reluctance of conscience, & that he terms tolerating; & all (by discretion.) Authority is in stead of all arguments to this man, he inquires after no other ground or warrant.  
The Temporary gospeler having had some touch of Religion, 
Temporary Professors pretence.  & light of truth, in his mind, can find no rest unto his conscience, unless he have some show of reason to allege: for he remembers the charge of the Apostle: ye are redeemed with a price: be not the servants of men: he recalls the limitation of God's command: 
1. Cor. 7.23 1. P●t 2.13 1. Cor. 11.  obey in the Lord: that we ought to be followers of the Apostles no farther than they were followers of Christ. That the utmost extent of our Saviour's commission to teach, & for men to obey was: That men should be taught, 
28. Math.  to observe all that he commanded, not that men commanded.  
Resolving therefore to decline, they seek to catch at any appearance, which they may plead for their declining. 
A declining heart catch●th at any thing, th●t it may plead for declining.  And because they are most led by example, and sense, these are the weapons with which they use to ward themselves, & maintain their course.  
Common example carries a persuading power with them, it's a sufficient reason for their doing because they see it is done. Here they take up their stand. All men for the most part do so, & why may not they? 
Non quo eundum sed quo itur.  Thus like sheep they follow the drove though it be to the shambles. Especially if they hear of any noted & famous for piety, & godliness to go in such a way, they conclude forthwith, it is the right way: reasoning thus: They are wise and godly, & think you, they durst do it, they would do it, unless it were good and pious? when the truth hath told us, that all m●n are liars, 
3. Rom. 4.  & either do, or may deceive, or be decey●●d; even the courses of the strictest saints have their crackings: 
2. Gall. 12.13.  Peter was a good man, & yet dissembled: and Barnabas was a good man, 
Acts. 11.24 2. Gall. 13.  & yet was snatched away by example into the same dissimulation. What madness is it because a wise man happily falls into the mire, that we should foul ourselves & wallow with him? But the main bulwark whereby they beat back all assaults, is if they can hold out some Ecclesiastical Canon: The Church enjoins it, 
The authority of the Church, & theCanons of it, like wind & tide carry the Temporizer to any coast.  & are you wiser then The Church? This strikes it dead, no man must dare to dispute any further; nay they count it unreasonale, once to demur or doubt any more: but expect, that all men should captivale their conceits presently, & put off reason, & pluck out their eyes, to see by other men's spectacles: which is intruth not only to cease to be Christians, but to be men.  
Not that I detract any due respect & esteem, which each man should have both in opinion & affection of the true Church of Christ: 
The extent of the Church's authority.  I know she is the spouse of Christ; yet but the spouse. It is enough that she is next to her head, the Lord jesus, she must not usurp to be head, her power is subordinat not supreme, ministerium not imperium, 
28. Math. last.  she must deliver the laws which she hath received, from her King, not dare to make laws: And therefore we must beware, lest while (for our own es) we would honour the Church too much, we dishonour Christ, wrong & grieve both: 
The praetensetaken from the authority, dashed. 1. because its a poisoned d●ug of popery.  To crush therefore the former Cavil, & objection: I answer several things.  
It is the Romish tenet, to a hair, & one of the most fulsome points, & loathsome dregs of the filth of Popery. The jesuits themselves having no other bottom ●hey bear up, or to biuld up, their blind obedience: An opinion constantly & unanimously opposed by all our Divines (Chamier de votis, 
1. Bec: it overthrows the Soveranguty ofChrist & his prophetical & Kingly office.  lib. 11. cap. 11.) abhorred by all Christian self denying, and syncere-belleiving hearts: For what is it else, but to jusle Christ out of his prophetical & Kingly office: to resolve our faith & obedience lastly, into the determinations & commands of men?  
2. Why are the Berreans commended for examining Paul's Doctrine? 
Acts. 17. 1. Thess. 5.21.  why are all men enjoined to try all things, & to hold that which is good; If we be bound to take our Religion upon trust from the authority of the Church?  
3. If Paul an Apostle & Doctor of the gentiles, 
3. The Apost: would not challenge this power.  disclaims all such souveraignty as tyrannical usurpation, what man or Church dare challenge it? But disclaim it he doth. 2. Cor. 1. last. Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy, for by faith you stand.  
4. Had men, or Curches, power to coin Ecclesiastical Canons, to forge new articles of faith, to make these senses of the Scripture Authentic, which suited their minds, and to charge these upon the consciences of men, as necessary to be believed, Beleivers should not stand by their faith, but they, and their faith, should stand or fall, according to the feeble determination of men.  
5. If the faith of particular men depend upon the Church, 
That the authority of the Church is not the rule: & the fa●●e rule which guides the Church, doth guide each member.  upon what doth the faith of the Church depend? Either they be the rule, (which is too loathsome to affirm) or else they are guided by the rule of the word, in their determinations, which begets both saving light in their minds, & sound faith in their hearts: Eph. b. 20.10. Rom. 17. And if the word be ablé to give them light & faith, why not others as well as them?  
6. The authority of the Church, unto which we must captivate our judgements, 
Vniversale ne● existit, nec agit n●si●in individuis.  musteyther be the authority of the Universal Church, which acteth nothing but in the particulars; & these have varied in opinion, & practise, touching Ceremonies, & therefore cannot settle us in a certain determination; Or it must be the authority of a particular Church: but particular Churches have not only erred, but departed from the faith: Who Lorded it oter the la? did not the Church: 14. Math. 10? who condemned & crucified the Lord? (did not the Church?) who persecuted the Apostles & forbade them to preach & publish the Gospel? (did not the Church?) And this which is said of Churches, is true of Counsel's, of all kinds, as experience of all ages hath made it good.  
Others of this rank, plead the love of their people, 
3. Plea of the Temporizer is the love of his people & preaching; when indeed it is the love of himself & living.  the necessity of preaching, & hope of doing good: how precious men's pains are, & what need of laborers in the vynyard. And therefore conclude, if all men should sit do wur in silence, as some do, the ruin of the Church must needs follow. They confess (its true indeed) these popish relics, which are the bane of the Church's peace, being unprofitable & needless, nay scandalous & offensive, should be removed. But when they weigh that heavy charge: Woe if I: preach not the Gospel, they are then willing to bear all, rather than to deprive the Church of the benefit, & the souls of God's people, of the profit & comfort of their ministry: 
Favour thyself: is the serious arge: whatever is alleged ito colour it with.  whereas alas all this pretence of mercy is a miserable mistake, & commonly that worldly watch word (of favour thyself) lies closely covered under these curious flourishes of care & compassion for the common good. For the quaestion is not, whether preaching be precious, or the pains of faithful Ministers profitable? But the doubt here is, whether we may come to do lawful things, by unlawful means? To sin, that we may do service? As though the Lord had need of my lie; or else that he could not bring his servants to his own haven, without the devil's boat; or that Christ could not uphold his own kingdom without the pains & preaching of some men; now I conceyve, it is undeniably evident, that the suffering, in the time of Queen mary's days, did more settle & enlarge the bounds of the Gospel, than all the preaching did in King Edward the sixth his reign.  

A 4. plea of the temporizer.  Others speak out, & deal down right: profess, it is against the hair, & their hearts, to do this drudgery, but they are not able to undergo the extreme pressure which follows the refusal of them: Nay it's certain, some have openly protested, that, if it were but half an hours hanging, 
I. speak but what I. know.  they would rather suffer it, then subscribe. But for them & theirs, to lie in the ditch, & to be cast into a blind corner, like broken vessels; yea they & their families to dye many hundred deaths, by extreme misery, before they could come unto their graves; This they were not able to undergo. A condition, I acknowledge, which needs & deserves a great deal of pity & commiseration, since it is true, that some kinds of oppression make a man mad: But oh that the God of mercy would put it into the minds & hearts of those whom it doth concern, that they would never suffer such refuse relics, long, to hazard, not only the comforts, but even the consciences & happiness of many distessed souls.  
There is a third & last sort of men, more ingenuous than the former, who when they see, 
The close hypocrite his excuses▪  that such colours (of excuses, formerly propounded) are not laid in oil, & therefore willnot continue, nor can give them any encouragement in their course; such feeble pleas being like fig leaves, which cannot cover the nakedness of their cause, being neither true in themselves, nor honourable to their proceed: They come to the main hold; and profess the things are lawful, & commendable, & therefore they do no more but what they may, nay what they ought. And whereas they have been of another mind, they diversely discover the causes of their change; as they are diversely affected, or have a greater stroke of conscience, & conviction of judgement. 
1. Not willing to search.   
One man acknowledgeth, he hath been long staggering, about the things in quaestion: But now he hath got greater light, sees more, & understands better. And yet no man could ever see, his candle lighted, his arguments alleged, nor yet were his overswaying reasons, ever offered to scanning.  
Nay if he be put hard to, it will appear he hath, none: yea he is not acquainted with the things he doth, if he come to give an account, of what he hath done. Only you must believe, he hath private arguments, which do overpower his judgement: Otherwise he must grant, he doth practise without ground & reason: The sum in short is, he hath gotten a perspective about him, and perceyves that ease, & liberty is good, & therefore, (Issachar like) is resolved to sit under his burden: he sees the way by swallowing o● ceremonies, how to sleep in a whole skin, & that ●ourse he takes.  

His falsehood in his search.  If some searching truth delivered in public, press him, or some sincere hearted friend persuade him to a further inquiry, he seeks after the truth, as a coward doth for his enemy, being a frayed to find it. Loath he is, to be in the society of such, whon he conceives, to be either judicious in their dispute, or Zealous in their course, against this trash. Secretly desirous, that other should not occasion conference, or that such should not enter into serious communication of these things, & if they do, he is weary of it, 
Consult uviht these only who are of his judgement.  & blames the Author of the discourse, as that more savoury or seasonable talk were shut out: When he goes for counsel, and direction, it is to some such Authors, who writè for the things he would practise, or consul● only with those men, that profess to maintain them, & so they make up the match at midnight.  
But if yet, their own consciences, the arguments or persuasions of others, 
Or adviseth with thos● who are weak, if contrary they be in judgement.  provoke to a more serious examination of both sides: How wearishly & unwillingly go they to the vorke? Commonly they make choice of the weakest, whose opinion they know, to be cross, to their course: or if they advise with other, of more able understanding, it is upon a start or sudden, that ●her can be no sad dispute, & if yet such arguments fall, which they are not able to gainsay; They go their way, & can tell how to forget or neglect them, & profess ●hey were with such, but could not be convinced, ●or see any sufficient reason to set●e their judgements.  
But when they consult with such, whose opinions they know will please their palates, & persuade ●hem to that, which, they are resolved before hand to ●ractise; Though happily they propound no reason, but ●nly administer some grave counsel, or savoury advice to ●xpresse their own resolution, or allege that place Rom. ●3. 1. Let every soul be suject to the higher powers; Oh they go away with abundant content, admire & thank him for his advice▪ profess they never heard so much, & that now he is fully settled, & hath his doubts answered to his desire, gives it out, that such a man is able to give satisfaction to any: when in the mean while, he never asked any argument, but took his bare opinion, because it pleased him, & yet will reject the reason sometimes of another, because it crosseth him.  
May be, it so falls out, that some new book of great note & expectation, is published, which might clear the cause to these men's contents: After they have viewed it, & wiped their eyes, all things than are so clear, that there is not a cloud in the sky, nay not a mote in the sun: There was never said so much before: Oh this book of D. Burgess, hath made all things evident to them, even to admiration, & conclude, it will do as much to any that reads it: so that, if men be not obstinate, they cannot, but be convinced.  
But alas: these men, have they taken the arguments into serious consideration? have they laboured to search & examine the strength of them? have they propounded them to such who are held most able, & judicious, of the other opinion, who do not find themselves, yet persuaded? Alas here is deep silence? where is that ancient rule: Audi alteram partem? where is that charge of the Apost: try all things. Is it not likely the man should be persuaded by his author, 
1. Thest. 15 23.  who resolves beforehand never to quaestion any thing in him? He must needs be of his author's faith, who purposeth to believe all he says, or not to doubt of what he says. And while I was penning this preface, there was one curious prank of cleanly conveyance of a declining heart, brought to hand, & it was this: pressures growing heavy upon such, that would not conform themselves, The Court censures of the Commissary, proceeding to excommunication of such as refused, & adding aggravations thereunto: to wit, 
This was done at Leicester:  forbidding to buy or sell with such, that were so excommunicate, upon pain of excommunication: one amongst the rest was not able to undergo the burden: to profess he could not suffer, was too shameful, & therefore he professeth his judgement was changed by D. Burgess his book: & therefore he need not, nay he should not suffer. Some of his partners or consorts, desiring satisfaction with him, entreat that he would point at the place, express the argument, or arguments, in this book, that prevailed with him. To which he answers: no particular, or particulars, in the book, persuades, but the whole: The English of which speech & practice is this: I am resolved to conform: & I will be persuaded by Doctor Burgess his book to it; but neither I, nor you shall know, what persuades me; that so my grounds not being know, they cannot be answered, nor I unsettled any more: oh the desperate folly of a declining heart, to betray & deliver up itself unto the delusions of Satan!  
There is lastly another sort of profound disputers in the world, 
The shifts of ●ubtyll disputers.  who apprehending their reach to be beyond the reasons & writings of other men, have out of the depth of their judgements, devised a way judiciously to deceyve their own souls; & out of their picklock subtlety, count it easy to make way for themselbes, & maintain their way in any quaestion. And this they do by making a maze of Divisions, & cut things in so many shreds, by multitudes of distinctions, that at length they lose their cause, the truth, & themselves also in theissue, & must of necessity be wilder the reader, unless he be of a searching judgement: This kind of distinguishing is like snuffing of the candle too near, putting out the light wholly, while they intent to make the light burn more clear: so do these men darken the truth, professing to discover more of it. praegnable examples of this kind, the Rej. hath expressed unto us, when to avoid the dint of the argument concerning significant Cerem: & worship, his destinctions are so many & intricate, that one member destroys another, & the true nature of worship also, as may appear in the 85. & 136. pag. of the first part of this Dispute.  
All this I speak, not that I would fall out with any, who is not of the same opinion with myself: for I profess the contrary, in a word of truth: every man abounds in his own sense: Only this seems somewhat grievous, & I conceive also injurious to the truth, that after all hard dealing, she cannot get an indifferent hearing, Seing it is the fashion of the world, to have men's persons in admiration, to gain some countenance thereby to their own courses, And therefore to blow up the fame of men's abilities, (as they do bladders) to the utmost greatness they can, that the greater warrant they may seem to have, to follow their opinions & ways. And contrariwise, the person must be disparaged, when we would have his cause, or work come into discredit: a fashionable, but a shame less piece of Rhetoric: Thus the writing of the Repl: must be a pamphlet, his manner of writing scurrilous, that when both are thus disfigured, by the dirt and soot, which the Rej. hath fling upon them, it may be conceyved, they were so misshapen in their first frame: uhereas the answer of the Rei: must be lifted up & proclaimed, worthy, learned, & juditions: which puts me in mind of Demetrius his out-crye: 19 Acts: 28. Great is Diana of the Ephesians: 
19 Acts. 25  the ground whereof was not so much the love of the Goddess, as the greedy desire of that great profit, they reaped thereby: So here, the answer must be learned & judicious, that men may conform learnedly, and judiciously.  
Not that I envy the Drs. Honour, or would diminish any thing of his due, but I cannot endure daubing, much less that the praise of men, should be advanced, to the praejudice of the truth. Laying aside therfore-all praejudice, & partiality, cast we the proceed of the Repl: & Reioy. into the scales of righteous consideration, & where the blame most appears, let the Reader lay it on, & let-him bear it, to whom it is due by desert: And in this search, let no man think, I intent or seek the Rej. his dishonour, for my witness is in heaven, I do not; nay I dare not do it. I know the righteous judge would require it: but it is for the manifestation of truth, and innocency, where ever it is to be found.  
That I may do the Doctor right then, I will set down the rules how far the failings of others may be laid open. 2. How far, & in what cases, some kind of tartness, & sting of indignation may be expressed, in pen or speech, as allowable in holy writ.  
That we may lay forth the limits of the farst, & see how far the compass of our Christian Commission reacheth in the discovery of others faults, 
How far law full to lay open sins.  we must wisely distinguish of Persons & Sins that so we may not be deceived.  
Persons then undergo many conditions, & relations: some are members of the same congregation, who have covenanted, to walk in the fellowship of the faith of the Gospel: Others are subjects of the same commonwealth only, professing the truth.  
Both these again; are there repenting or pertinacious, & incorrigible sinner's.  
Sins also are of sundry kinds some are private, some are public: both these again, are lesser scandals: or more heinous & Capital Crymes, which threaten apparent hazard to the public good of a state, or the prosperous success of the Gospel: Now out of these distinctions, such conclusions may easily be collected, which may give answer to the first quaestion, so far as concerns our purpose: & these be 3.  
In private offences, the rule of our Saviour takes place: 
Rules of direction, how we may discover the faults of oth●rs.  If thy Brother offend, tell him his fault betwixt him & thee alone, if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy Brother: if our admonition attain the end, in removing the evil, we need not then crave further help, from any other, to redress it. Beside, our Brother having regained his honour by repenting, we should not cast the blot again upon him, by any fresh report.  
2. If under private admonition, a Brother prove obstinate, & incorrigible, we may, & should publish, both person & fault to the congregation, as our Saviour in that case enjoins it, as a duty to be discharged, & leaves it not to our freedom to omit: for the words run in force, & form a command: tell the Church.  
3. If the offence be public, either left upon record in writing, & made so notorious to all that will attend, & read it: or acted in some solemn assembly, or in open view before many witnesses, laying aside malice, & envy; which may stir us, or sinful and sinister ends, which may carry us hereunto, & spoil this, & the best service. It's very lawful, nay (in case) very necessary, to speak of such miscarriages, or write of them, as occasion may require, & that with out all breach of love: whether we look at others, who are but standers by, That they may not be scandalised, infected, or plucked away by the error of men: Or if we look at the offenders themselves, by way of Caution, & wholesome prevention, we stop the poison of their practice, that so they do no more harm to others; nor bring any more guilt upon their own souls: than which what greater love and mercy can be shown, to our fellow Brethren?  
And out of this ground, and after this manner it is, that we shall bring some of the Doctor's miscarriages to consideration, and present them to the view of the Reader: but such only, which he himself hath made open and notorious, either by writing or practice: and that for this end alone, that the false colours which he hath put upon his course, and proceed, may not prejudice the truth in in the hearts, or judgements of the ignorant, and unwary Readers; or any that are willing to decline, who would very fain have the Doctor's words without control, that so they might follow him without fear, and this may suffice for answer to the first quaestion, & the warrant for our way to walk in.  
The second admits satisfaction in short: to wit How far & in what cases, some kind of tartness may be expressed in pen or speech. 
How f●rr t●rt speeches may be used.   
Ans: theridamas be two instances in Scripture, which are plain & pregnant to this purpose, & left for our direction in this case.  
The first is the behaviour of Elias, towards Idolaters & their Idolatrous practices whom he jeers to their faces, & out of a holy kind of indignation, s●i●gs with a bitter & a deriding Irony. For so the 〈◊〉: And it came to pass at noon, that Eliah mocked them, 
1. Kings 18.26.  & said cry aloud, for he is a God, either he is talking, or is pursuing, or he is in a journey, & peradventure he sleepeth, & must be awakened: And hence it is, the Lord casts such loathsome terms of detestation, upon the Idol, that he besparckles the worshippers thereof with disdain.  
The second instance is touching ambitious false teachers, 
56. Isay 10.  or Idol sheapherds. So Isayah, his watchmen are blind, they are dumb dogs, they cannot bark, they are greedy dogs, they can never have enough. So the Apost. Paul girds the consciences, of those silken Doctors of Corinth, & their followers; which slighted the simplicity of the Gospel 1. Cor: 4.10. we are fools for Christ, & ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, & ye are Strong; ye are honourable, & we are despised; These tart Ironical speeches stable the heart, with a secret disdain, of their groundless, & ambitious folly: And indeed when the Lord enjoins it as a duty, & makes it a note, & argument of a happy man, 
15. Psal. 4.  that a vile person is contemned in his eyes; what expression of words, can suit such a contempt in the heart, unless they carry some tartness of disdain with them.  
We now see our limits & allowance: let the judicious Reader according to this rule, consider of some Keen passages of the Reply: and I suppose it will be found, that the most of them, if not all, are pointed against the unwarrantable standings, & places, the intolerable, & ambitious courses of our Prelates, or else their seeming & self-deceaving arguments.  
If in any he hath exceeded the bounds of sobriety, I profess, neither to defend, nor excuse it, I know the Replyer himself will not allow it: For he hath silenced, all such expressions in this second Reply: though he had never so just cause, to provoke him thereunto, & never so great advantage given him by the miserable mistakes of the Rej. in many places: which if the Rej. had found in him, (He that can haulke after words with such eagernes) we should have had exclamations, Proclamations, & outcries enough to have filled up a wordy & windy volume.  
How ever, was the Reply: never so worthy, to have the reproach of scurrility cast upon him, or his work; the Rey; was most unworthy & unfit te do it, who hath, (I dare say) much exceeded in this kind: 
Quis tulerit G●aecos?  How unseemly is it, & how ill sounds it, to hear thiefs complain of Robbers, harlots of adulteresses. The proverb is homely, but true: it's a hard world, when heerring-men revile fishermen. For proof whereof, I appeal to thine eyes to be witnesses Christian Reader. And that I may proceed, according to Allegata probata, I will not look beyond my line: Only that picture which the Rej. hath made of himself, I judge it not only lawful, but in this case necessary to present again to his view; that the world may know, & if God will, Doctor Burgess also, may know himself, & what his spleen hath been, against the people of the most High God, blessed for ever.  

A taste of the tartness of Doctor Burgess his Spirit, in the several passages of his answer.  
This tartness will appear in 3. kinds.  

1. His heavy Censures, and that, of the very hearts, & consciences of men.  
2. His open reviling of the persons of the non conformists: or secret inducements to bring them into distaste:  
3. His Keene & scornful jests, which are his pastime, frequently expressed through the whole.   

Heavy Censures.  
1. They who tell us, that all the Church may do touching rites is: but the application of circumstances, which are in nature, Civil: Adding that the Church may not ordain any Cerem: merely Ecclesiastical; do Manifest a spirit which lusteth after contradiction p. 37 of manuduc.   

In the answer.  
2. If it seem so to him indeed: God hath smitten his contentious spirit, with Giddiness: for who but a man forsaken of all wisdom. etc. 62. p.  
3. The Convocation house is not so likely to conclude etc. as this Libeler, is to come to shame for his factious, & intolerable comparison, unless God humble him. p. 62.  
4. For whosoever thinksnot as (they) must either be condemned of gross corruption, or excused, as having some good meaning: yet much weakness with all, scil. in (comparison of them) And this pride makes them so scornful: p. 65.  
5. It is so palpablely false, that I should hardly believe, any Friar durst have set it down in print: p. 67.  
6. And see how these men that talk & write in so haughty, & magistral a fashion, do but gull, & deceive them with the names of worthy men.  
Which is so great & shameful a sin, & in this Replyer, so frequent, that I wonder he dares dispute about Cerem: before he have learned the substance of common honesty: p. 83. in his allegations.  
7. How can you believe any truth, cross to your opinion? when as you seek glory one of another, & presume of your new traditions, as if the spirit of truth came to you, or from you alone. p. 103.  
8. As for terms of excrements, which he would be loath, one should apply to the hair of his head, It savoureth of a spirit of rancour, as doth the like Fowl speech, in the Scotch Dialogue. God will judge them for these reproaches, by which they labour, to breed scorn, and abhorring of these, in the minds of ignorant men. p. 131.  
9 This flim-flam Master jacob lent you, and both he, and you take it up, merely for a shift, Not out of conscience, or judgement; but of haughty desire of defending, what you have once spoke. 207.  
10. This Replier (in a common course) giving the name of a good Christian, to some unconformable. The Rej. breaks out into these words. This Addition savores Strongly of that spirit of separation, which hath been hunted after, in the chase of unconformity.  
For this shows, that with these men the adversaries of Ceremonies & Bish. are the only good Christians. p. 216.  
11. Doth this Repl. & such as he, who without la, without calling, without reason, without conscience, do smite with their tongues, and condemn to the put of darkness, ●he Bish. & the conformed Ministers, & in a manner, all that are not of th●ir party. 216. pa:  
12. Nor is it rightly taken up, that these men are counted factious, for neglect of Ceremonious Canons, upon conscience, but for stiff opposition to Ecclesiastical laws, which they despitefully speak, & write against, & for contempt of these statute laws, by which the book of common prayer is established. For that they draw (as fast as they can) into a body of themselves, engrossing a forehand, the name of brethren, The Godly, the Church, the good Christians, as though we had lost our Christ, & they had found him quite away: 222: pag.  
13. The terming of our Cerem: Popish, is done out of faction, & to make the imposers, & Observers of them, hateful with the people of God, which I believe no Church would suffer, I am sure it should not: pag. 238.  
14. This man forceth his wit, & I fear his conscience also, & doth not believe himself, when he saith, that these Cerem. are imposed as parts ofGods worship; but only for faction & opposition, would fain have it thought so, that their opposition might be justified before men. 243. p.  
15. For a wrangling spirit; yea an ill conscience, is so plainly to be observed, while he studies to persuade, what himself believes not. 243.  
16. But what should I press these men, with the authority of men, who have themselves in estimation, for soundness of judgement, before all men. p. 370.  
17. But the Repl. seeing no interpretation will help against the clear Testimonies of the Learned, by us alleged, confesseth they were men, (as if he, & his partners were more than men!) & that there is a little variety. So willing are men rather to cast dirt in the faces of others, then to confess any mistaking in themselves. Is this any thing, but the spirit of pride, thus masterly to judge the Lords worthies? 387. p.  
18. This answer you think good to give: because you are resolved to sink the reputation of all men, ancient or latter, how learned, & zealous soever they were, ratherthen to confess your own mistaking.   

Open Revile of the Persons of Nonconformitants: or secret inducements to bring them into distaste.  
In 52. pag. of the preface: some Noncomformists are brought in, & said to be of that temper: that when the remove all of Cerem. only was mentioned: Their answer was.  
They must not have a hoof-behinde them: And the note in the Margin tells us.  

1. This Sr. Fran: Walsingham told Mr. Knewstubs, of whom I had it.  
2. It is a ridiculous supposition; it's a malicious surmise; all this scurrilous bundle is of no use, unless it be to engraft himself, into the affections, (which he calleth the consciences) and applause of his own party. p. 633. Preface.  
3. These two notes, note you to be an egregious wrangler. p. 6.  
4. Did ever sober-man reason thus? p. 61.  
5. I should be sorry to found so much waywardness, & falsehood, in any man of our Religion; but cannot but wonder at it, in a man pretending more than ordinary sincerity p. 15.  
6. How ever these men, who in effect say to all other men, stand back, I am more holy than thou, etc.  
7. What a shame is it for men to glory of sincerity, for refusing Cerem. And use no sincerity in alleging authors, 284.  
8. But that use which the learned divines call Historical, these men call Religious, that they might by a false eare-mark, bring us into suspicion abroad, & into hatred uviht our Religious people at home, and yet they would be counted sincere men. 303.     

Certain Quaeres, by which these passages may be weighed, in the balance ofserious consideration.  
Of all, in general, the quaeres are these: 1. If the Replier did any where give sentence of conformists consciences? 2. If he uttered any one bitter speech against all Conformists? 3. The former being negatively true, if the Rejoyner (in his over & under-lashings) was not overcome of his own evil, rather than the Repliers?  

Quaere. 1.  
1. If a man upon probability affirm such a point, or out of ignorance & mistake, conclude it certain, & so relate it, as by him conceived, doth he hereby necessarily manifest a spirit of contradiction, or the weakness of his own apprehension?  
2. If charity hopes the best, that can be conceived in reason, to judge men's spirits by grounds weak, & feeble, out of which nothing can be concluded.  
Quaere, whether it be not uncharitable censuring?  
3. Do all those who contradict the like conceits of the Rej: as false, manifest a sinful spirit in lusting after contradiction?   

Quaere 2.  
Whether may not a man mistake a thing plain, & be of no contentious spirit?  
Whether in such a mistake, is it certain God smites with giddiness?  
Whether is not this to judge men's consciences, beyond warrant of any word of God, or the nature of the work will bear?  
But is not this, not only unreasonable, but intolerable, if the thing be true?   

Quaere 3.  
1. Whether these words come from a calm loving & merciful spirit?  
2. Whether God may not abate a man, for his falls in executing judgements here: or may lay many punishments on him beside open shame?  
3. Whether these definitive determinations of judgements upon men, for some light differences, & those not so clear, be not to jussle God out of the place of justice: & to cast thunderbolts where he doth not?  
But if the replier make his expression good by his defence, as he hath; is not this a strange censure, upon so small a thing, & so strange a mistake?   

Quaere 4.  
Whether this charge issues not out of a principle, desirous to make the Persons of non conformists, odious to all, proclaiming them as such, whose intolerable pride, scorns & contemns, all men in regard of themselves?  
Whether the Rej. his passion did not transport him beyond himself in this accusation, when it makes him contradict his own confession? preface: p. 5.  
There be some moderate learned, Godly, loving. etc.  
Whether his spleen is not great that would spare none, but even destroy the Nation of Nonconformists, in the esteem of men: As Haman the jews? For of all he speaks: They: Them.   

Quaere 5.  
Whether he be not more charitable to Friars, than Nonconformists since he knows, what they have printed?   

Quaere 6.  
Whether if this Repl. was faulty, was it reasonable to fly in the face of all Nonconformists? These men.  
Whether the Rej. his conscience in cold blood dare say, that their is not amongst the NonConformists, the truth of worthiness, but only the names?  
When in his preface he thus writes p. 3. some peaceable & very Worthy Ministers were cast out.   

Quaere 7.  
Whether they that cannot entertain truth cross to their opinion, & seek honour one from another, can have any truth of grace? our saviour seems to gainsay it 5. john. And therefore Whether there be any colour of argument, for the Rej. to condemn all Nonconformists as such, whom this charge condemns?   

Quaere 8.  
Whether doth the vilefying of a relic which one conceives superstitions, argues a spirit of rancour?  
How came the Rej: to be sure, that God will judge them for these?  
Whether may they not repent, & then God will pardon them, not judge them?  
How if the relics be base & deserve to be scorned?   

Quaere 9  
How knows the R●j: but they might do it out of ignorance, & an error of ignorance may stand with a good conscience?  
How knows the Rej: that it was a haughty desire, & no other passion?  
But if all this be maintained, is not the Rej: extremely harsh in his censures, when no room will serve him, unless he situpon men's consciences, & Pilat-like condemn the innocent?   

Quaere 10.  
If one call a non-conformitant a good Christian, doth he express a strong savour of separation?  
He that names a Non-conformitant a good Christian, doth he conclude, that the adversaries to the Bish. are the only Christians?  
Quaere whether reason, or passion against all colour of reason, make these consequences? And whether the Rej. would suffer us to make the like out of his words, when he calleth Conformists: the faithful servants of Christ, as he doth pag. 628.   

Quaere 11.  
Would not the Rej. make Nonconformitants monsters of men, who shall commit so capital a sin, as condemnation of men to Hell: & being void of law, calling, reason, conscience; in so-doing?  
Where doth this Repl: condemn all that are not his party, or all conformed ministers?  
●ay if neither he, nor any Non-conformitant ever writ, spoke, printed; nay thought so unreasonablely: quaere: whence such an accusation comes, & what ground it argues, which exceeds the bounds of truth, or reason; yea common sense?   

Quaere 12.13.  
Whether these hundreds of ministers silenced at the beginning of K. I. were despiteful speakers against the cerem: or conscionable forbearers of their use?  
Whether these, who desire to subscribe according to law, be despisers of the law, or those who deny them the benefit of it?  
Where is that body, into which the Nonconformitants gather themselves?  
How appears it, that they ever engrossed such Titles to themselves, so as to deny them to all others: or more than the Rej. engrosseth the title of the faithful servants of Christ, unto conformists, pag? 628.  
Whether this imputation be not to bring them into hatred & distaste of the state?  
Whether ever profane drunkards, riotous adulterers, scoffing Atheists, or the bitterest of the jesuits, jeered more tauntingly against many faithful? And is it not loathsome to lick up their vomits? For the worst of men, have not worse language, against the Nonconformists.   

Quaere 14.15.  
Whether the Rej. can judge of a man's heart any other way than by his expressions outward?  
Since the Repl: proffessions & expressions are plain one way, by what warrant can the Rej. conclude his conscience is other. Neither word, nor reason, nor love, nor Religion, learns or allows such inferences: what is the principle whence these proceed?   

16. Quaere.  
Whether any man, truly humble, & gracious, can prefer himself before all men?  
Whether the Rej. accounts all Nonconformists, void of all truth of grace, when he layeth this to their charge?   

17. Quaere.  
Whether he that says the Ancients were men, doth thereby infer, that he himself is more than a man?  
Whether to affirm the Fathers to be men, is masterly to judge them, or argues a Spirit of pride; when they themselves, so judge, & speak of themselves?  
Whether to affirm the Ancients to be men, argues a man resolved to sink all men's reputation, how holy & zealous soever they be, rather than to confess his own mistake?   

Quaere 18.  
Whether there can be a heavier charge laid against a man than rotten hearted & unfit to live in the society of men? And yet what lighter ground, & more insufficient can be pretended to bear it up?   

Quaere. 19  
What if no man should have known, what Mr. Knewstubbs told Dr. B: in private, conceaving him of the same judgement? ergo Quaere.  
Whether it be safe for fellow brethren, to betrust their secrets to the Rej. his keeping?  
2. Whether the Rej. did not rake up all the blind corners of his memory, to fetch out what might be, to bring Nonconformers into distaste?   

Quaere. 20.  
Whether this be not downright railing?   

Quaere 5.6.7.8.  
Whether the pharisees, in their Ceremonies, did not praetend more holiness, than other men? And whether Conformists be not therein more like the pharisees, then Non-conformists?  
Whether this be not to leave the Persons, & to gibe at sincerity itself?  
Whether do the professed enemies against the power of godliness, use any otherlanguage, when they would jeer at the sincerity of God's servants?  
Is not some historical use, Religious? what want of sincerity than is it, to distinguish that historical use of images, which is to stir up devotion, from other civil use, by the term Religious? Nay what sincerity is there, in branding such a declaration with a false affected ear-mark?    
His tart jests & taunts are not as grains of salt, but so frequent, that they seem as Pickle, in which the passages of his book are laid to steep, & therefore I will but point at some number of places, to ease the reader, & myself.  
PAg. 71. lyn: preface. pa. 14. lie. 29. pa. 19 pa. 33. lie. 22. pa. 15. lie. 1.2.11. pa. 37. lie. 24.25. And he not only takes, but seeks an occasion: yea is content to go some miles about, to reach men a blow, who were of Godliness & worth, by some slighting taunt to disparage their persons, or works.  
That judicious & painful labourer, & faithful servant of Christ he slights, 
pa. 4. Prae●ace.  on this manner: M ●. Parkars Gaudy & passionate treatise of the cross. A work in truth, of that strength, & beauty, that it blears & dazels the eyes of envy itself. And therefore men out of hope, either to imitate it, or answer it, would bear the world in hand, it was not worth the while to spend labour in it.  
But the Rej. wisheth, some would reduce it to Logical arguments: & then he doubts not, but it would soon be answered. 
pa. 75. preface.   
Which is such a mere put-of, & so unbeseeming the skill of a Logical disputer, much more the championlike confidence of Doctor Burgess, that had not his heart secretly misgiven him, in this seeming bravado, such an expression would never have fall'n from his pen.  
For let any rational man be judge in this case. Are not Logical arguments plainly expressed in a continued discourse, & by a Logician easily collected? & what needs a reducing to a form then?  
Beside Mr. Parkars discourse is either empty, & void of sinews of sound reason, & then the weakness of it, is soon discovered, & may be confuted; yea disgraced with more ease; or else there be arguments, of that solidity, & strength, which either the Rej. cannot reduce, or else is not able, or not willing to answer. To say he cannot reduce them to form, is a thing too mean to imagine, nor will the Rej. grant, nor will I, or do I think. To say he is not willing to answer, is to gainsay his own course, the profession of his care, to traverse this cause, & his love to our Cerem: & the peace of our Church, so much pretended in his answer.  
The third therefore must be concluded, for I do not see what fourth thing can be given.  
Only, Did ever any answerer, serious & judicious, amongst Divines, of any kind, Protestant Papist, Lutheran, propound such conditions, did ever any grant such? nay is it not to common sense ridiculous? For any Lutheran to send to a Calvinist, any Protestant to a Papist, having printed some serious treatise against them, to send I say this message; well: you have printed a treatise here, & you place some, yea great confidence in it: if you will (reduce it into sillogismes,) you shall be soon answered, & that there is nothing but bombast, & painted vermilion put upon it? Spectatum admissi risum? Would not the Papists laugh in their sleeves, at such an answer, I will say no more: but only propound this form to the Rej. & save him a labour to reduce it.  
He that propounds such terms of answer, which never were yet asked, or granted, & indeed are unreasonable to yield: professeth he cannot make an answer, being willing thereunto.  
But such terms the Rej. craves. The like jirkes he lends to Mr. jacob, p. 16. To Godly learned Fenner. p. 38.  
And he hath such a mind to chide, that upon the occasional mentioning of one word excrement, he fetcheth a vagary into Scotland, as it were, & sits in judgement upon the Author of theScotch dialogue: pa. 131. l. 20. without any confutation of any ground, which I suppose had better suited his place, being an answerer, and not a judge.  
In like sort, he vilifies Mr. Bradshaw: A pamphlet of things indifferent of Mr. Bradshaw. pa. 188. (your Mr. Bradshaw) Whom we are not ashamed to own, & suppose the Doctor would have been afraid to have grappled with him, in an arg: had he been alive.  
Venerable Mr. Cartwright he taketh up sometime, as if he had written upon praejudice, without judgement. Thus much I thought good, to add in short, to wipe away that supercilious disdain, cast here by the Doctor upon diverse of the Lords dear servants; many thousands of whom together, he accuseth after of stupidity, or praejudice, even all that allow not of Organs, in Divine service, or Psalmes-singing. We shall now summarily point at the rest of the places, as an inventory or treasury of the Rej. taunts p. 47. l. 22. p. 50. l. 7.8. p. 52. l. 33.34.35. p. 55. l. 26. p. 113. l. 32. p. 120. l. 12. p. 130. l. 10. p. 141. l. last. p. 180. l. 32. p. 182. l. 16 17. p. 213. l. 18. p. 247. l. 21.22. p. 312. l. 6.7. p. 315. l. 11.12. p. 316. l. 10.  
These are some of the many common places of scoffs, to be found in his book, & are all contained within the compass of the three first chapters. as for the last, I had neither leyseure, nor list, to trouble thee good reader, or myself, with writing them out.  
Only to give thee a guess, how prettily the Rej. can play with words, find himself talk, & fill up pages: I shall take so much pains, as to transcribe a place or two: Thus he writes. p. 66.  
So this & those rules after added, are as the proverb is, like a rope & butter, that if the one slip; the other may hold: So again.  
p. 73. The truth is: Mr. jacob could never get over the block, which Mr. Cartwright, & the Admonitors had laid in his way (how ever Mr. Cartwright himself a man of more activity, made a shift to leap over it) namely thus: What soever is not commanded in the word, must not be in the Church:  
And yet Mr. jacob, that he might seem to hold fair quarter with Mr. Cartwright, & other learned Divines, who acknowledge, that certain Ecclesiastical rites & Cerem: appropriated to holy actions, were left to the determination of the Church, under some general rules of the word, will seem to allow somewhat, he cannot tell what, some circumstances only civil, or occasional, as the time & place, which he rather calleth circumstances, then Cerem: that so, if any shall say, he alloweth nothing to the Church's determination, to be squared, by some rules: He may answer for himself & say: yes, certain circumstances are; namely such as are necessary in civil, as well as sacred actions. If on the other side, one challenge him to give some liberty to men, for the ordaining of rites, which are but extrinsecall circumstances about the worship of God: He may answer for himself, he hath protested against all mere Ecclesiastical Rites, which are ordained by men, & not left so much as one, to their determination.  
Thus, as he, that by turning of his picture of an horse, made it running, or a tumbling horse, which you would: So hath Mr. jacob provided for himself, there to square some circumstances, by 4. rules, or to put of all by another, as the market shall require.  
This is the substance (Christian Reader) of a whole page almost: Touching which I would propound these Quaeres to thy consideration.  
Whether it was not easy to make up a massy volume with such talk as this?  
2. If a man should set down such like passages word for word, & add an answer suitable, filled with such wound, would it not rather be accounted, & that justly, a blotting of paper, & abusing the reader, then rendering an answer of any worth & satisfaction?  
And by the survey of these particulars, collected out of the three first chapters, & comparing theReply therewith, I am confident, it will soon appear, to any not forestalled with prejudice, whether the reply, or answer, m●y most justly challenge & bear the name of scurrilous? And it will be as evident thatthe Rej. had no cause to accuse the Repl. of scurrility, unless he would condemn himself not only, of the same crime; but ofsomwhat beside far more sinful. For, though it be easily incident, I confess, to our corrupt natures, out of a pang of pride & passion, to cast unbrotherly contempt upon such, who seem to cross us in our opinions, & practices, when it comes to point of opposition, betwixt some particular men & ourselves; yet to vent such a mass of venom, in heavy censures, harsh Revile, slighting scorns, & that not against one particular, which may appear in competition, & opposition against us, but even against the generation of those, which refuse humane Ceremonies in Divine worship, many whereof, our penns, & consciences acknowledge worthy & Godly; Nay not only to vent these expressions, but to keep them souring, & leavening by us, in our hearts, & writings, many years, wherein we have been persuaded by friends, & after persuasions resolved, rather to have than burned by others, or to burn them ourselves; And yet after all this in cold blood, in saddest consideration, upon review, so far to approve of them, as to print & publish them to the world; How such a man's spirit is principled? & whether it was a root of bitterness, or Godliness, whence such things issue: I leave it to the Almighty to judge, & to the wise hearted to discern.  
These be the witnesses, which I have to produce out of the Rej. his own writings. All that I desire is, that their depositions may be impartially weighed, & in this desire, & endeavour, there is no wrong done to any rule of piety or charity.  
We have also the Rej. his open practice, as an apparent evidence, to contradict what himself professeth in his preface, touching the constancy of his opinion, about the inconveniency only of these Cerem: however he bears the world in hand to the contrary, & that with great confidence: To which purpose, we entreat the following Allegations may be indifferently heard, from those, who as witnesses can testify his walking by their experience.  
That faithful servant of Christ, Mr. Arthur Hildersham, now at rest with God, upon his sick bed, with great regrate & grief, thus expressed himself to a fellow Brother; Doctor Burgess his conscience knows, that I know he speaks untruly. And that it may appear, these words were neither spoken passionately by him, nor forged by me; he hath left the proof of them, under his own hand upon record, which I now have by me, & shall be bold, for fuller satisfaction, to set down his own mind in his own words.  
In the 19 pag. of the preface: The Rej. expresseth himself on this manner, I do ingeniously confess two errors in that my Apology; one that I trusted too much to the quotations of the Abridgement, which then I had in writing:  
To which Mr. Hildersham thus replies in his notes: How false the quotations are in the Abridgement, will be seen hereafter. But this is manifestly false that he was (before the writing of his apology) deceived thereby, or that he had a Copy of it in writing before that tyme. For the Abrigdement was not made till after he was deprived: & therefore no man could have any copy of it, either in print or writing. Nay the large book (where of it is an Abridgement,) was not delivered to his Majesty before that day he was deprived; & the Abridgement was made sundry months after. He proceeds Ibid: 19 p. It's true that the Ministers were resolved to have chosen him for one of those three, that should have disputed for them, (such profession he had made unto them of his full consent with them in judgement,) & he had been one of the disputants, if that (not the Dean of the Chapel; but) the King himself, had not expressly (in his message) excepted against him: which also argues, that his Majesty did hold him to be fully of the mind, that the rest (who had sent him the foresaid book) were of.  
In his notes of the 20. pag. he hath these words. That there is no colour of truth in this that he saith here: i. e. (That when he was chosen to be one of those, that should maintain their cause by disputation, he professed to his Brethren, that he could not speak against the things as unlawful; but only as inconvenient) may appear evidently to any reasonable man. For seeing they had in their book delivered to his Majesty our King's Father, stated the quaestion not against the inconveniency, but the unlawfulness of these things. Who will imagine, they Would ever have chosen him to be one of the 3 to dispute for them, if he had professed to them at that time, that he had nothing to say against the unlawfulness of them? These be the dying words of that dear servant of God, as I have them to show in black & white.  
If yet the witness of the dead deserve no credit: The Rej. may with some small consideration, recall to mind, how after the Revolt, or change of his former opinion, in an occasional concurrence & meeting of many fellow Brethren; when they out of humane Civility desired him to take his place according to his years & gifts; I say, he may (if he will bethink himself) easily recall, what words he then openly uttered to this, or like effect: He told them he was unworthy to sit with them; to have respect from them, since he had betrayed them, & their cause. Now the cause which they maintained was not inconveniency: but unlawfulness in these things. If the Rej. his memory serve him not about this particular, let him repair to Bambury side to his ancient friends there, & they can testify so much to his face. If then the construction that the King, & state, made of his course, the apprehension his fellow Brethren had of his practice: nay his own profession may be trusted: Let all the world, & Dr. Burgess his own heart judge, whether he hath changed his opinion yea, or no?  
In his preface, there is not much that expects answer. For to omit his biting language, & devouring words, where with we have cloyed the Reader in the foregoing Catalogue, and unto which rank many Gibes here may be referred: as That pag. 5. These do commonly call any small company of their party: The Church & the Christians of such a town. As if Christ were (I say not divided amongst us) but wholly taken away from us, to them, & what wants this of Schism in the heart, And that: pa. 9 The glory of suffering for (as they call it) the good cause: And that pa. 12. Others aim at Schism & anabaptistical delusions: to let pass these pangs of spleen, & other distempered carriages, which he himself cast upon some passionate people & Strongly conceited. All which being justly blamed, it neither hurts the cause against which he writes, nor helps that which he defends, since the most glorious Gospel of Christ hath such blotts cast upon it, by reason of the sinful weaknesses of some, who take up the profession thereof; Leaving (I say) all these, as not worthy the consideration, we shall entreat the Rej. at his return to give some satisfaction to these quaeres.  
1. Why Atheists, Papists, profane varlets, brutish drunkards hellish blasphemers, together with the accursed crew of the most riotous wretches; yea the Generation of Newtralists, moral formalists, ignorant sots of all sorts, are so zealous for these Cerem. Are so violent to urge, so careful to practise them, who never had care of piety in all their lives?  
2. After the Lord, hath cast in some saving illumination into the mind, convicted the conscience, & converted the hearts of scandalous sinners; after such have gained sweet peace of conscience, & assured evidence of God's love, sealed unto their souls; why do the hearts of such, rise in some strong indignation against these Popish relics; when they have never been persuaded thereunto by teachers, nor had time from their own inward troubles, to consider of them? That this is the disposition of many, I can speak by proof, I would have the Rej. speak to the reason of it.  
3. When it is notorious to all the English world, that the most of the people (who live in the bosom of the Church, & profess the faith) be wholly taken up with conformity, both approving & practising of it, countenancing those that do it: Why is the Doctor so troubled, that a few silly despicable people, void of wisdom (nay if his former charges be true) void of grace, should distaste the Ceremonies; when I know no judicious Non-conformer, is disquieted that the crowd of the formal Gospelers should embrace them? while the Rej. is searching the reason of these things, it may chance, he may either search or see his own heart somewhat more clearly. Leaving then these to his consideration. Proceed we a little to survey the preface, & the substance of it may be referred to three heads. 1. He chargeth Nonconformity to be cause of many mischiefs. 2. He debates the cure, & administereth that, which he conceived most meet for redress. 3. He makes a defence for himself, & writing: Against all which we eycept thus.  

1. That his charge is not just.  
2. His dealing in the cure not plain & through.  
3. His defence in that where the stress lies, either not equal, or not sufficient.   
Come we to scan the particulars: The mischiefs, which he conceives to issue from Nonconformity are no less than Separation & profaneness. A heavy charge, I confess, but the best is, his reasons have not the wait of a rush.  
1. That of separation, p. 5. is supported upon so slender a ground, that he betrays only his desire to have surpassed his power: therefore Rhetoricates in stead of reasoning. If these (saith he) be Idolatrous will whorships; how can you? how dare you join with us, in those acts of Religion wherein these are used?  
Wherein he neither concludeth the quaestion, because a man may refuse to join in such acts, without sepera 〈…〉 or utter condemning & renouncing allChurch-●ommunion: Neither doth he prove that, which he concludeth about joining in such acts, by any other argument ●ut only by how can you, how dare you? To which ● answer, we so can, & darejoyne in good acts, to which something perticipating of Idolatry is added, as Christ (our ●eacher) & his Apost: did join in the jewesworship, unto which were added many superstitions, as unlawful, as ●ve had our Cerem: Nay I will add one thing further, ●hat, if D.B. be resolute in this point, i.e. that he must separate from all Churches, & Church actions, in which any superstition is exercised; then he must be one of the greatest Separatists in the world. For ●e holding error of judgement to be superstition, & those superstitious Brethrens, that abstain for conscience sake from things lawful, though only upon error in judgement: must upon the former ground separate from all those Churches in whose Religious acts, any thing in his judgement lawful, is so abstained from; & much more if ●ny thing in his opinion unlawful, be put in practice: from one of which faults, few or no Churches will be ●ound wholly free. Yet I would have another opinion ●f D. B. & think, that though he hold bowing to ●he altar, to be superstitious or Idolatrous, yet would he not therefore separate from the good prayers, that follow that ridiculous Ape of Idolatry.  
That Other charge of profaneness p. 6. pretended to come from praecisenes, is so strange a consequence, that it can hardly with deliberation, be fathered upon Nonconformity, without Non-conscience.  
For strictness in matters of Cerem. hath no more force, to bring forth looseness in matters of substance; then zeal in matters of faith, & charity hath to bring forth carelessness of both, nay then pure Religion hath, to breed Atheism.  
Go we to experience: view the places where Non-conformists live; the people whom they teach▪ the ways of those with whom they walk; who they be that have reference to, & dependence upo● their persons, or ministeryes; & I suppose the walls of the Churches, & the stones of the streets, will give testimony against this accusation. Nay I suppose, I may speak it truly, as I profess, I think it, that someone Non-conformable minister, hath been a means under God, to bring more souls to grace & heaven; then all the Cloisters, or cathedrals in all England in the same time, where all Conformity hath been the daily diet, & livelehood, of the people.  
Go we to reason: the best that either the Rej. or any beside, can make of our Cerem: is, that they are things indifferent. Now that weak ones may doubt & stagger about such, That doubting, they ought not to practise them 14. Rom: last vers: is made a duty. That men's walking according to conscience, should be the cause of others disobedience; That keeping the la, should be an occasion in itself of profaning thee la; that stopping the very appearance of the least evil, should set open a gap to the greatest; I appeal to any reasonable man whether it be not a consequence void of common sense, unless men have a miraculous skill to solder quicksilver, or tysande together, or make heaven & earth meet!  
Last of all, it is remarkable that Doctor Burgess himself pa. 8. doth impute these mischiefs unto civil war about Ceremonies: which if it be well weighed, it will manifest too much prejudice, in his former discourse. For in Civil wars, the mischiefs ensuing on them, are not want to be charged upon one part alone, & that poor, passive, overpowred, obnoxious to the suffering of whatsoever pressures their opposites please to lay upon them, which is the Case of the Non-conformists in these Commotions: Tell us I pray you, if in your conscience, the Praelats Canons, courses, Courts, & proceed, have had no hand in working mischief? nay divers of these mischiefs, which you have affectedly placed on the other side?  
If nonresidents, double triple beneficed men, unable, perverse, scandalous, half-Popish Ministers, have not had a finger in them? If those trumpetours, & drummers, who proclaim the innocency, & justness of our Prelates proceed, have not brought something to the furtherance of these mischiefs? If you speak your conscience, it must needs say, yes; &, so confess, it was your passion, not your judgement, that obtruded all upon Nonconformity.  
The state of this war is this: we (as it becometh Christians) stand upon the sufficiency of Christ's institutions, for all kind of worship: and that exclusively, the word, (say we,) & nothing but the word, in matters of Religious worship. The Praelats rise up on the other side, & will needs have us allow, & use certain humane Ceremonies of Religion in our Christian worship. We desire to be excused, as holding them unlawful. Christ we know: & all that cometh from him, we are ready to embrace. But these human Cerem: in divine worship we know not, nor can have any thing to do with them; upon this they make fierce war upon us, & yet by the pen of D. B. lay all the fault of this war, & the mischiefs of it, upon our backs. Now all ye that pass by, consider, & judge, what equity is used, in such dealing? They will say, all things are to be done decently & in order. To which we willingly consent, but allege again, that we cannot apprehend these Cerem: to be necessary for order, & decency. They (as our Lords) tell us, it is enough for our Consciences, that They esteem them so. Our Consciences tell us, this is to usurp the place of God, what can we say less, then that we will follow our Consciences, rather than their wills?  
To conclude, the Rej. p. 285. maketh Circumcision lawful to be imposed, upon the same grounds, that our English Cerem: stand on. Now if it should please our Prelates in a Convocation to appoint, that all English men should consent to the cutting of their foreskins, & denounce war upon those that should refuse this goodly Canon; was it not a grave Accusation, to lay all the mischiefs of such a war, upon those which would not conform to such a Ceremony? But the weakest must always go to the brickwall, & the Lamb must dye for troubling the water, if it please the Lion so to determine it.  
We have done with the disease, & mischief together with the cause of it. We are now come to consider the Remedy the Dr. administers: & we except against his dealing herein as not plain; nay not profitable, even by his own rules.  
1. He deals not plainly. For making the Abolishing of the Cerem: by authority, to be one, & the chief course for cure, as despairing to obtain that, he refuseth to persuade thereunto: Because forsooth: to judge what is most convenient, & to determine thereof, belongeth only to those, who together with power of doing what they shall well like, have judgement to make choice of the best way. Which is a weak and a very unworthy conceit. For. 1. D. B. cannot deny, that those, who impose, urge, and with capital punishments enforce these Cerem: upon Christ's, Ministers and people, do therein abuse that authority, which they received for the procuring of the quietness, peace, & safety of those, that desire to serve God according to his word, & not for the troubling, vexing, & scandalising of them, by opposing ●heir mere wills, in Religious affairs, to men's Consciences: depending wholly and only upon God's Word; He cannot (I say) deny this to be a grievous sin of those in place, & yet refuseth seriously to admonish them of the same, being called to give counsel, & advice about this very cause:  
2. It is to be supposed that worthy Ministers of the Gospel, are not destitute of wisdom, and judgement concerning Religious affairs. By this reason therefore D. B. might as well have forborn to judge, what they should choose, as to determine so peremptorily thereof. Lastly, I would gladly know of D. B. whether the Scriptures be not able as well to make Magistrates, and Governoures, perfect to every good work, as they can do Ministers? whether; either Minister, or Magistrate should do, or aught to do any thing, which God hath not commanded them? Whether a faithful Minister, in his office, ought not to understand, what that word reveals: ought not to teach all Magistrates what out of the word, he so understands? If all which particulars be plain & undeniable, it will appear that it belonged to D. B. being called to give counsel, declaratively to judge & determine, what was convenient to be done: which if he durst not declare, he durst not do his duty. And that I may fasten this nail yet more fully, I thus force the conclusion.  
What ever duty of any calling, the word teacheth; that the Minister by the word ought to judge, determine, & deliver. Else how can he teach the whole counsel of God? how can he give every one his portion?  
But the duties, and doings (if good) of all Magistrates the word teacheth.  
Ergo the Minister ought to judge, & determine of those, by the word, & so deliver them. Ergo it doth not belong to those only, who have power, & are in place, to judge & determine; which was the Doctor's assertion.  
Again: what ever God commands, that, and all that, the Minister should teach: & so judge, & determine, else the trumpet should give an uncertain sound.  
But what ever men, or Magistrates ought to do, that Christ hath commanded. Both the parts of the argument are in 28. Math: last v. therefore the conclusion follows: what ever men, or Magistrates ought to do, Ministers should teach, and consequently judge, and determine.  
And as thus the Rej. dealt not plainly in his cure, ●o whether hath be dealt profitablely, in that his ●eceit, is against his own rule; as it shall appear in ●he scanning of his defence: Which we except against ●s insufficient in those particulars, wherein the stress ●nd weight of the plea lies: And those appear in ●hree special objections he makes: the dint of none of which, he is able to decline.  
The objections are pag. 12.13. & the sum of them ●n short is, this writing stirs strife: ob. 2. exasperat●eh authority: Obj. 3. hinders the removeall of the Cerem: ob: 4.  
Hear we now his defence to each of these, in order: To the first, he answers in truth by denial, that this course of his is so far from stirring the fire of contention, that its casting on water to quench ●t: & to this also belongs that, p. 11. there is a necessity that some should speak for the cause, unless we shall suffer ourselves, not only to be rooted ●ut of our live, but which is worse, out of the hearts of our people, whom we serve in the Lord.  
Ans: bare denial without reason, yields small relief to a cause, but when it is contrary to the wor● & itself, it betrays a cause, doth not defend it: & such is this.  
1. It is contrary to the word, & that staple 〈◊〉 delivered by the Apostle, which he sets down, as station, & shelter for the weak in the faith to be take themselves unto. 14. Rom. 1. where the 〈◊〉 toleration of those, who are weak in the practise● things indifferent, is ever the ground of contention & disturbance in the Church. And therefore this cour●● of forbearance, he infers, 19 v. as the way to follow peace: sense teacheth it also: when a company of passengers are confined to one way to pass, or one door to enter, it causeth them to crowd & jussle.  
2. This Denial is contrary to the Doctors ow● doctrine delivered in 3. pag. where it's granted by him, and proved by the experience of thresco● years: that opposition begets opposition, & th●● which was given to stir the humour, did only sharpen it. Put we now the case to the College of Physicians; nay let D.B. himself be judge. Is it rational course? Or like to work a cure? that wh●● the body hath been distempered many month's wit● physic, we should still continue the same receipts And its marvellous to see, how conviction wrists truth from a man, even against his own passion, & purpose. weigh these two passages, & see if they will accord?  
The Doctor must write, that he may not be wrought out of the hearts of his people. pag. 11. And yet he confesseth by writing, he hath wrought himself out of the hearts of the godly.  
His defence to the 2. obj: is yet more feeble, though more ingenious: For his answer is nothing but yielding the cause, in some compass and circumlocution of words.  
For (1) when he grants: that he forbore some years this course of writing, that he might not exasperate authority: he privily, yea plainly yields, the objection had such rational face in it, that it did not only press him, but prevail with him also: where as 2. lie. he adds: that by this means he hath some hope to persuade some to conform, & so to avoid the lash of authority. By this he doth not only yield the objection, but confirm & establish it. For if only those, who are persuaded by his answer, shall avoid the lash, therefore they who will not be persuaded, must expect the blow, and shall be sure to feel it.  
3. He adds for his own intention: Sure I am that I desire not the vexation of any sober man: But his own bond will not be taken, because he hath so often broke his word; he must seek for other sureties: (Quid verba audiam, cum facta videam?) Little power have words to persuade any of common understanding, when the practice goes the contrary way. Nor yet can I discern, how to judge of any man's desire, but only by his endeavour. Those heavy accusations, uncharitable censures, whereby he chargeth & that with much bitterness, the generation of Non-conformists, from what root they come, & what desire they imply, let any rational man determine: For it cannot be to ingratiate them, or procure favour for them, in the affections of the Governors, when he makes them appear such as deserve none; nay such as ought to receyve none, but the contrary at their hands.  
Lastly when it is objected: That this course hinders the removeall of these things, which authority otherwise might possibly remove; His defence is; That he will never believe, that authority will remove them, with dishonour of it self, as yielding the things to be unlawful, which it hath so long maintained.  
In which answer: these two particulars offer themselves to consideration.  

1. To remove Cerem: as unlawful, being long maintained is a dishonour to Authority.  
2. D.B. believes, authority will not thus dishonour itself.   
Answ: The first of which is a most dangerous assertion; & is made a chief bar to stay Papists, & others from reforming of any thing, that others have opposed, & they defended: And its usual in the mouth of false flatterers, & back friends to all reformation: & I would hope that D.B. did utter more in this, by his pen, than he meant in his heart. Beside the consequences are not so dangerous, but the ground is as weak For the long continuance, or maintenance of a thing, if evil & unlawful, is so far from bringing dishonour upon any, for the removeall of it, that retaining thereof, increaseth both his sin, & shame: & it argues a greater measure of humility & power of grace to abandon it.  
Nay, were the thing lawful, if yet by circumstances it did appear, that God's Honour, the common good, the aedification of our brethren, might more be promoted by the removeall of it, though it were hoary headed with antiquity & continuance, it argued greatest love to God & man to alter it, rather than to keep it in use: & that would bring greatest honour to him that should so do; since by the verdict of God's Spirit, he is most honourable, that most honoureth God.  
2. From these grounds, how rotten & unsavoury the second particular of the Rej. his defence is, will easily be granted. For if in such a removeall, the duty of Authority doth consist, the power of grace doth appear, the glory of God, & good of the Church & common wealth, will be advanced; To be of that belief with D. B. that Magistrates will never be brought to do what they ought, how uncharitable is it thus to lay their honour in the dust? And not to press them hereunto, when we may, & by our calling, ought, how unconscionable is it? And how contrary to that love we own to the Almighty, & our Governors?  
The crowd of objections, which he makes concerning himself, I conceyve, as so many Struggle of Spirit, which stood in the way, to withstand him in his course. His conscience, as it should seem, gave the ●nsett, & let in some such intimations as these to him.  
Why is not Popery coming in fast enough; but you must make a preparation thereunto: yea become a purveyor, & harbinger to make Room, & lay in provision for it? Is it not sufficient, that the wicket is set open, that the Popish pack may be drawn in; but you must set open the great gate, that a Sumpter horse may amble in with a load of relics & Cerem? For if the patent of the Church be so enlarged, to appoint Cerem: at their pleasure, to admonish and teach, and it is in their power to appoint what, & how many, as seems good to them; why then let images be erected, let crosses & Crucifixes be set up in every corner. These are lawful admonitors, & instructers, & we cannot have too many good Companions, to put us in mind of our duties.  
Consider beside, how many poor Ministers are under pressure, some fled, some imprisoned, many suspended, themselves & families undone. Why will you not suffer them to lie in the dust, but will you trample upon them, even unto death? Is it not enough, they make brick, but must they be beaten also? Oh consider, as before the Lord, to whom you must give an account. Do you well to blow the fire in the Chymny, while the flame is in the thach? Is not the fury of the BB. yet fierce enough, their rage sharp enough, but you must set them on, and strengthen their hands, to strike harder? lastly, is not Cringing at Altars, bowing at the name of jesus, like to be brought in, & practised with great forwardness, & will you, dare you encourage, in such courses, yea give an approbation and commendation to them? For they will say, they are but significant Cerem: they place no merit, put no efficacy in them, only they are admonitors of our duties. Thus is the foundation of superstition laid, the Gospel Stopped, and an open way made for Popery, and you are the persuader, the encourager, yea defender of all these: how vill you answer this at the great day?  
Yet do I not speak this, as though I were troubled, with the weight of any thing he hath writ. For I profess unfeignedly the way of his traverse fynds welcome with me; wherein the nakedness, & indefensiblenes of his cause I hope will be discovered. Only one thing I would most earnestly entreat, that he would show us but fair play in these proceed: to wit, that he would not break our heads, while others have bound our hands: Let him but grant us indifferent terms, even the common courtesy of the court, an impartial pleading: we desire no more favour than the cause by its own credit will procure: Let the larv be open, as the rigour of justice allows: To which purpose shall he so far prevail with his Lord BB. that we may enjoy, the use of our books, the liberty of the press, & if not the benefit of our charges, yet freedom of breathing in our native soil, & with our poor desolate families; And I dare promise him he shall not want those, that will join issue with him, in this traverse, either by writing, or printing, & that without any gaudy expressions, (whereof he accuseth Mr. Parker) but by play dint of Syllogism: & we will take our oaths, as he in desireth, that each man of us shall write his conscience. which I wonder why the Dr. put in, since it's openly known to all that will not shut their eyes, that all conscience doth not live & dye alone with conformable men. But if we neither have, nor he will procure us leave, or liberty, either to preach, or write, or print, yea scarce to live; then he must know, we are denied the benefit of the la, & the Courtesy of the Court & in vain he brags of his traverse.  
To pursue all the particulars objected, & answered in his own beshalf, is not worth the while, since no weight of the cause lies there upon: Only one ●ravado here vented by the Rej. is not to be borne: which is observably set down in the 14. ob: D. Burges. hath parted with more profit, by taking up conformity, and a benefice, than any now in England hath done by his unconformity, and loss of a benefice. Surely he mindeth not so affectionately as he should, the affliction of his brethren. What did D. B. part with? Nothing but future, contingent, uncertain profit: which made him liable to be envied, and opposed by the college of physicians; Profitt, which was not necessary to his life & being, depending upon extraordinary pains: such as in all probability, he could not have long endured, or at least with contentment of mind. His Pshisick practise made that change, which Tully commendeth in Merchandise: Satiata quaestu, vel contenta potius, ut saepe ex alto, in portum, sic ex ipso portu, se in agros possessionesque contulit. After sufficient get, it forsook both sea & sea-haven, and betook itself to quietness and plenty in the country.  
On the other side, what have not? what do not men lose by unconformity? Even all their means of living; all their liberty, not only of providing for themselves, & their families; but even of breathing in any air, saving only that, which may be drawn out of stinking prisons. Nay sometime all the Commodity of their Country, or Nationall habitation; being forced to fly even unto the indian's for safety, to say nothing of their loss of life itself, by cruel imprisonments Now let our Saviour judge betwixt us, & D.B. The poor widow (saith he) that parted but with two mites, parted with more than they did, who out of their plenty, parted with many sheckells, because those two mites were all that she had.  
If this be true, than many & many a one hath parted with more profit for Nonconformity, then D. B. did for Conformity, for so much as they have parted with, all they had, & he only with part of that which he had, or might have hoped to get, superfluous in comparison of that, which others have lost. To conclude all, I suppose if we were willing to suffer, we should be more willing, both to search, & see the truth, & I doubt not, but the Lord would settle the hearts of such, & bless their endeavours in that behalf. All that I would crave at thy hands (Christian reader) is this, that thou wouldst read without prejudice, and judge without partiality; judge not the person, or cause of the distressed the worse, because of their pressure or paucity.  
Welcome Christ with his cross, any truth though with trouble. Be willing the truth should fall on any side as worthy to be prised & loved for itself. That is all I desire for my money: & Religion, conscience, reason will not deny this.   

Rules for to direct the weak reader how to read the book with profit.  
Where these abbreviations occur, D.B. signifies Dr. Burges. Rej. signifies Dr. Burges. Repl. notes the Replier. Def. signifieth D. Morton.  
2. Because the Replyer is forced to follow Dr. Burges in his far fetched, & new coined definition, & the maze of the multitude of his distinctions, the weaker understanding will be at a loss, as not able to comprehend, or catch his meaning suddenly, & therefore, if I were worthy to advice, I would entreat such, to crave the help of some judicious Minister, who is faithful, not to betray him for having the book, but willing and able to inform him how to conceive of it aright.  
The Replyer his manner of writing being press & punctual, & therefore sets down so much of the Rejoinders words, as he conceived needful, if any difficulty arise therefrom, the Reader is to be entreated to consult with the answer at large.   

The faults escaped correct thus:  
pag. 17. in the margin line 3. for sixth read sort. pag. 20. lin: 22. for accuratnes read accurate. pag. 24. lin: 5. for captivale read captivate. Ibidem lin: 18, for es read ends. pag. 25. lin: 1. for they read to. pag. 26. lin: 20. for oter read over. pag. 27. lin: 7. for dowur read down. Ibidem in the margin lin: 17. for ito read to. pag. 37. lin: 14. for there read either. pag. 42. in mark: lin: 2. for Graecos, read Graccoes. pag. 50. collum: 2. lin: 9 for these read those. pag. 71. lin: 9 for had read hold. pag. 75. lin: 2. put out by,   

An Alphabetical TABLE Of the Principal Occurrents in this FRESH SVIT. Where note that 1. p. and 2. p. at the end, sometimes of the number, directing to the page, stands for 1. part, and 2. part.  


A.  AVgustin what he thought, but durst not speak. 
p. 33.2. p. 
His judgement of signs. 
p. 223.  His Condemning the very nature of such Ceremonies, where some choice things are noted. 
p. 228.    Adjuncts called Parts by Ramus, 
p. 156.2. p.  Anabaptists occasioned reformation of Cermon. 
p. 19.1. p. and 457.2. p.    


B.  Bezas' clear judgement of Episcopal authority. 
p. 91.1. p.  Beza expresseth the Commune sentence of our Divines, of the ancient Bishops, viz▪ that they were ever too busy about Ceremonies. 
p. 228  Bucers wish about Holidays, viz. that there were not so much as one left, besides the Lordsday. 
p. 360.  Baines▪ his Syllogism against our Ceremonies: confirmed 
p. 258.  Brightmen answer to jewel. 
p. 503.  Babingtons' Comment. on Levit. 10.1. observable against our Ceremonies. 
p. 24.2. p.  bradshaw's opinion of indifferent things opened. 
p. 161.  Beauties' answer to the Law of the O. Test. prescribing all things to the jews. 
p. 13.2. p. 
His Proof ●or the Church's liberty to institute Ceremonies from Purim and the Feast of Dedicat. 
p. 246.  He saith as much for their, as we for our Cer. 
p. 488.    Blumfeild a Persecutor threatened a good man for the Surplice. 
p. 18.1. p.  Bernard's answer to the Virgin Maries Image, bidding him Good morrow. 
p. 364.    


C.  CAsuits admit nothing beside their order. 
p. 65.1. p.  Chokim the Hebrew name of Ceremon. finely laid open. 
p. 35.1. p.  Conformers miserable Apology. 
p. 13.1. p.  Ceremonies their dispute how ancient; opposed by Waldenses, Martyrs, removed in Helveria. 
p. 8.15.1. p. 
Other things ridiculous yet as tolerable, if they had but institution from the Convocation-howse as a May pole i'th' Church, or a straw in a Child's hand at Bapt. 
p. 17.    Ceremonies such as ours, why naught. 
p. 18.  Ceremonies how defined, examined. 
p. 21.  Ceremonies laid out in 4. things 
p. 23.  Ceremonies holy. 
p. 129.2. p. and 178.186.  Their Worship. 
p. 132.2. p. and 298.  Ceremonies must have a rule for number. 
p. 144.2. p.  Ceremonies Popish may yet be jewish. 
p. 218. 
See also. 
p. 273.    Ceremonies by Institution to what Commandment they belong. 
p. 301.  Ceremonies condemned for speaking out of place. 
p. 364.  Ceremonies, Clouts that have lain on the plague foares of Idolatry. 
p. 367.  Ceremonies cannot be deduced from the kinds named by the Rej. 
p. 482.  Ceremonies used by us never objects of Idol: answered. 
p. 401.  Ceremonies consequently imposed as belonging to giving honour to God, yet Superstitious. 
p. 103.1. p.  Ceremonies single, double, treble. 
p. 91.2. p.  Ceremonies the Garments of Religion whereof the Scots man's jest. 
p. 94.  Church repraesentative, to the life repraesented. 
p. 88.1. p.  Church English and primative compared. 
p. 403.  Calvin's account of additions. 
p. 121.2. p. 376. 
What he saith to Cassander, and to our Masters of Cerem. 
p. 122.2. p.  His admirable speech to the Lord Protector of England. 
p. 389.  His moderation toward Popish Ceremonies, what See. 
p. 400.    His inference, that, if the 3. Children in Dan. had followed the Counsel, and wit of our times; they needed never to have stood out against the King's Commandment. 
p. 127.2. p. 
His judgement of Ceremonies cleared. 
p. 240.  His opinion missinterpreted by the Rej. answered. 
p. 16.1. p.    Chamiers answer to that of no new Cerem. brought in these days. 
p. 295. 
His famous Censure of Ceremonies Analogical and Sacramental, as idly doing that over again, for which the Sacraments were by Christ appointed. 
p. 84. 1. p.    Covels Sentence slighted by the rejoined. 
p. 208.  Christ the only authentic teacher. 
p. 210.211.  Chemnitius his famous testimony about additions. 
p 249.  Cajetan a Cardinal of Rome would not be buried i'th' Church: 
p. 469.  Conformity disuaded from, by one that Conformed himself. 
p. 474.  Circumcision Defended to be now lawful by Def. & Rej. 
p. 274.  Convocation house not Cleared by all that the Rej. can say. 
p. 113.  Found Guilty of much evil: of perverting the Articles of religion, and s●tting them out far worse, than they were in good K. Edward's time, decreeing less good, than the Council of Trent. 
p. 115.123.  Comeliness. 
p. 77. 2.  1. Corinth's. c. 14. which how interpreted by Father's and Schoolmen, and more honestly than now adays by Hierar hichs. 
p. 53. 2. p.  Contrariety, of Decency and edification displeasing, yet Contrariety of rites serving thereunto, not so. 
p. 117.2. p.    


D.  Dr. Humphreys letter to the Bishops. 
p. 269.  Dr. Davenats' doctrine at Cambridg 
p. 79.1. p.  Dr. Morton calls for abolition of Superstition without delay. 
p. 378.  Dr. Andrews speech to the Convocation. 
p. 419. & 421.  Dr. Fulck forsook the College for the Surplice 
p. 473.  Distinctions of popish writers brought together by Rive●us. 
p. 299.  Distinction into Command and allowance, Symbolising with papists. 
p. 142.  Distinctions of Against & beside. 
p. 28.2. p.  Distinction of traditions into Divine, and Apostolical rejected by junius 
p. 335.  For denying of which distinction the Repl: was charged with unlearnednes, yet all the Rej. learning, and more put to it cannot make it good. 
p. 336.  Dipping 3. times 
p. 242.    


E  EAsterday solemnised with a pascal lamb, by a late great Bp. of England. 
p. 40.2. p.  Easter the first apple of strife, from the Bp. of Rome. 
p. 85.448. and 440.  Evil of our doings ●o be put away, finely explained 
p. 131.    


F.  FAsting in what sense, worship. 
p. 145.  Freewill offerings, no will worship. 
p. 153.  Nor do warrant appointing of Cer. 
p. 152.1. p. and 151.2.  Feasts of love, their original uncertain. 
p. 334.    


G.  GVnpowder stopped into an image. 
p. 513.    


H.  Hooker's strange speech 
p. 2.2. p  Hooper a Bp. refused the Surplice. 
p. 135. 
What he speaks of Bps. state. 
p. 408.    Holy, either by infusion or inhesion, the Def. absurd distinction 
p. 179.  Human, with Bellarm. and the Rej. in one sense. 
p. 302.  Hezekiah, whether he le●t the images stand, set up by Col. 
p 369.    


I.  INtended observation. 
p. 26.1. p.  Infant's Communicants, 
p. 37.2. p.  junius his remarkable speech about additions. 
p. 89. 2. p. and 252. 
His sentence of images. 
p. 286. and 290.    Images for use religious maintained and condemned by the Rej. 
p. 237 283.  Images in Churches, not indifferent by the Homilies against Idol. 
p. 289.  juels prophesy about the cross 
p. 290    


K.  KNeeling etc. proper worship by the Rej. grant 
p. 138    


L:  LVthers advise about yielding 
p. 97.2. p.  How he placed the Images to make them ridiculous 
p. 285.  Latimers' speech to the convocation, for which he was committed to the tower 
p. 123.1. p 
His comparison of Cer. and in a Sermon before K. Edw. 
p. 148.2. p.      


M:  MElancht free speech against man's inventions 
p. 152.1: p 
His meaning opened 
p: 141.2. p:  He disalloweth the Collection of some from Act: 
15: Ibid.    Mat. 15. and Marc: 7: of pharisees washing 
p. 186 etc. and zz1  Ministers how they enter upon their Parishes in Engl: 
p. 412:    


N.  NOnresidents a careful sort of them 
p: 417  Negative argument usual with the best writers 
p: 43.2. p.    


O.  Opinion whether it were worship 
p. 125.2. p.  Organs disliked by Schoolmen 
p. 40● 
Not used i'th' Pope's chapel 
p: 430    ●fficials commanding style when they enjoin excom. 
p. 410    


P.  ●Ope Paul 4. offered to confirm our Service book witnessed by Dr, Morton 
p. 203  ●ope received the Host ●itting 
p. 429  papists opinion of their Cer. in regard of worship ●nd necessity to salvation, ●nd the holiness they put ●n them, together with ●heir operation, and efficacy, no more than is professed of ours. 
See. p. ●. 70. and 73.75.1. p. and ●03. 315.  ●●pists give liberty to the ●ulgar man to judge of ●●e Churches precepts 
●. 79.1. p.  ●heir judgement of idle ●er: 
p. 74.2. p.  ●hey & our men agree in their answers to the place alleged, against adding to God's worship. 
p. 115 
They deny operative virtue to holy water 
p. 294    Popish idolatry compared with Heathenish 
p. 518  Policy of old Bps. to win the Heathen by observing their holydaiss, condemned. 
p. 432. see also p. 500  P. M. refused the Surplice in Oxford 
p. 463 
A remarkable speech of his about men's devises to stir up etc. 
p. z11    Praelats power if they pleas to command all Englishmen to be circumcised 
p. 107.1. p.  Praela●s in a praemunire 
p. 111.  Praelats grief when forced to deprive answ. 
p. 108  Praelats office to make canons saith the Rejoin. 
p. 107  Parliament against silencing for such nonconformity 
p. 108. r. p:  Parl 1610. checked the prelates 
p. 106.1. p.  Polanus cleared. 
p. 148. 1. p  Praying toward the East as ancient as any Ceremony. 
p. 82.2. p.    


R.  Rejoinders bulls frequently observed. 
See p. 44. 83.92-1 p. again p. 6.9.25.32.36.44.92.108 217.2. p.  Rej. noted for palpable error concerning inward worship 
p. 1z7. 1. p. 
For Error again in 

art 
p. 138.  divinity 
p. 138.    His dangerous speech that Christ had laid snares if etc. 
p. 68.2. p.      


S.  SAcred proper and reductive, examined 
p. 63.1. p.  Sacramentals what 
p. 226. 
Denied by pap. to work etc. 
p. 227.  Condemned by Beza 
p. 244.    Sacrament and Sacramentals a foolish distinction 
p. z33.  Saducees not so praecise. 
p. zz0.  Sopping i'th' Sacrament 
p. 36.2. p.  Subscription how required by parliament, and refused by none 
p. 100L. 1. p.  Superstition rightly defined. 
p. 98.1. p. z15. 236. by Polanus.  Superstition 

negative. 
p. 101.1. p:  Cast by prevention on non Conformists 
p. 34.  and finely taken off 
p. 95. etc. and 312.    Superstition, how first occasioned by yielding too much to the infirmity of others, 
p. 83.2. p.  Sadcels testimony maintained 
p. 234.  Surplice refused by a minister in Q. Eliz. days, and why 
p. 435.  Swearing on a book ho● 
p. 357.  Souldjers new pressed by the Rej. 
p: 43●.  Scotland's judge. to the ministers of Engl. 
p. 453.    


T.  TExts alleged (viz. jos. 6. and judg. 6.) for human Cer. 
p. 491.  Truth may be merry, noted in a fine speech of Tertulian to that effect 
p. 437.    


V  Vrsins testimony about human Cer. 
p. 152.2. p    


W.  WAldenses opposed Cerem. with such answers as now be used against them. 
p. 8.1. p. 
They used not the Cross 
p. 39.2. p.    Wittenburgh Confession 
p. 231.  Whipping out of the temple twice done 
p. 320.  Worship ridiculously defined, examined. 
p. 125.1. p.  Worship in what properly Consisting. 
p. 132.2. p 163.168.  Worship is that which is above order and decency in worship. 
p. 7z. z. p  Worship must be essential, if worship. 
p. 113. z. p.  Worship figurative what 
p. 147.1. p. ult:  Worship applied to the Cer. by the Rej. 
p. 154. z. p.  Worship proper, essential, necessary, how understood by the Rej. 
p. 158.2. p.  Worship Circumstantial, or accessory not permitted only, proved by a Sillogism from the Rej: ●elfe contradictions 
p. 139.1. p  Worship true and good, if according to the will of God, not hindering it, the Papists Plea, as well as our men's. 
ibid.  Worship, the parts of it, wha● 
p. 113.2. p  Worship indifferent none 
p. 171.  Worship whatsoever, necessary. 
p. 138. 2. p  Yet will-worship may be without that opinion 
ibid.  Worship Popish and Sacrilegious maintained under the same Colours of reverend manner, order, decency among Papists 
p. 143.1. p.  Worship in Cer: 
p. 38.1. p.  Will worship distinguished into lawful and unlawful. 
p. 136. 2. p:  Will worship not defended by papists. 
p. 150.2. p.    


Z.  ZAnchies judgement of our Cer. p 97. z. p. also of annexions' and essentials. 
p. 155. etc. z. p:  Zeppers noble testimony of human traditions. 
p. z16.     

GEntle reader take no●ice that through some oversight or casualty, there are the seco●d and third answers wanting in the 16. page of the first part, near t●e beginning of the 3. chap. which the author finding after the impression, he said he would supply after, but death now preventing speech with him, I cannot as yet find it in his papers.   

BEcause many orthodox writers have been abused and others in them, by spurious books which have been obtruded upon the world under their names, ●t was thought meet to represent to the reader in this ensuing Catalogue, the names of all such books as were undoubtedly known to be made by this Author.  

Catechismus.  
Puritanismus Anglicanus.  
Amesij. Bellarm. Enervatus 12. printed Ao 1630.  
Amesij. Casus Conscientiae 12. 1632.  
Amesij. Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem 12. 1628.  
Amesij. Medulla Theologiae 12. 1628.  
Amesij. Antisinodalia 12. 1633.  
Amesij. Contra Grevinchovium 12. 1633.  
Amesij. Demonstratio Logica. 12. 1633.  
A Reply to Bishop Morton,  
This fresh suit against Ceremonies.  
A first and second Manuduction.   
In Psalmos commentaria, yet to be printed:  
FINIS:   

A FRESH SVIT Against HUMAN CEREMONIES IN GOD'S WORSHIP. OR A Triplication about Ceremonies, Opposed unto D. BURGESS HIS. Rejoinder for D. MORTONS' Defence of 3. Nocent Ceremonies.  
With a Catalogue. 

1. Of the chief heads here handled.  
2. Of the Rejoinder his unworthy personal speeches.  
3. Of diverse errors which crept into the press.    
The First Part.  
Printed in the year of our Saviour, 1633.   

A direction to the Reader.  
THe author being constrained to be absent from the press, by reason of urgent occasions and being altogether destitute of any help from ot●er, who were willing and able to correct the Impression (as it is the common Lott to poor men under pressures to be forsaken of friends and means) there be many faults escaped, in the printing, & some such, which pervert the sense, and will prejudice the truth, and Reader: and therefore he is to be entreated, before he read the book to mend the grosser mistakes with his pen: or else so attend and consider of them, that he may have recourse to them as occasion shall serve: the other faults which are of less consequence, common courtesy will easily pardon and pass by.   

Faults escaped: thus to be corrected:  
Pag▪ 3. lin: 21. read tartness p 4 l. 14. for acquired r. aimed p ●. in the margin: for ut. r. ne p. 13. l. 18 r. polluted p. 16. l. 16. for the●. your. p 19 l. l●st. for n●udd r. mad. p. 20. l. 2. for fopling r. stifling▪ p 29 l. 15. r. noveltyes p. 29. l 22. for if r. of those: p. 31. l. 8 for thrusts. cross p 32. l. 8. for conserving r. conferring p. 32. l. 23. for is an action, r. are actions: p. 33. l. 3. for acts r. arts p. 35. l. 10. for are all, are able, p. 36. l. 22. for outward r. onward p. 39 l. 13. for joined r. coined p. 42. l. 28. add. a living creature p. 45. l. 15. for n●ther r. whether p. 48. l. 12 for the means of the use. r. means of the same use p. 49. l. 17. in the mark for qui, r. quia p. 49. l. 20. for it is, r. it is not p. 52. l. 8 for lawfully r. awfully p, 53. l. 11. for there r. three. p. 55. l. 8. for waketh r. worketh. p. 56. l. 6. for are supposed r are not supposed. p. 63. l. 9 for needed to r. needed not to p 66. l. 1. for if r. of. p. 67. l. 19 for mainy r. main p 71. l. 20. for an r. from ●n p, 75. l. 24. del and p. 7●. l. 29. del● and p. 85. l. 14. for this r. thus p. 94, l. 11 for his r. he p 98 l. 14. for ad, r. and p, 128 l. 26. for nididuall r. individual p. 129. l. 7. for word r. work ●, 131. l. 30 for being r. bring p. 133 l. 7 for lase r. base p. 136. l. 17. for principa. r. principal ●. 140. l. 7. for conduct r. conduce p. 144 l: 9, for man ever, r. man did ever p. 145 l. 18.20. for fasting. r. feasting p. 146. l. 14. for defend thaud r. defends and p. 14 8. l, 5. for words r. woods.   

A General table showing the contents of every chapter.  
Chap. 1. 
Touching the title of D. Burgess his rejoinder. p: 1:  Chap. 2. 
Of the rise and proceeding of Ceremonial contentions with variety of tenants about them: p: 7:  Chap. 3. 
Concerning the just and proper style of our Ceremonies p. 16.  Chap. 4. 
The Nature and definition of a Ceremony. p. 21:  Chap. 5. 
Of the sorts and differences of Ceremonies p. 53.  Chap. 6. 
Concerning the difference betwixt popish Ceremomonyes and ours in regard of necessity, holiness, and efficacy, wherein how far we join wi●h the Papists, is fully discussed by the confession of Papists themselves. p: 76.  Chap. 7. 
Touching other partitions of Ceremonies p. 77.  Chap. 8. 
Concerning the nature of a National church. p. ●●  Chap. 9 
Concerning superstition p. 94.  Chap. 10. 
Of Parliaments, and Convocations p. 105.  Chap. 11. 
Touching the good and evil that Convocations have done. p: 115.  Chap. 12. 

Sect. 1. 
Of the nature of worship. p: 124.  Sect. 2. 
Examination of authorities, alleged for the several● distinctions of worship. p: 144.      

A table showing the particulars of special consideration in every chapter.  

Chap. 1.  
It's lawful for an author upon just occasion, not to set his name to his work. 
p: 2.  The term of scurrility cast upon the Replyer by contempt, is wiped away. 
p: 2.3.4.  The difference of Lord pastor, and ministerial pastor is unlawful. 
p: 6.    

Chap. 2.  
Thefirst rise of Ceremonies 
p: 8.  Ceremonies refused by the waldenses upon the same ground we refuse them 
p: 8.  The Bishop and the Rejoy: join with the Lutherans in maintaining of images 
p: 9  The protestants most received opinion touching Cerem: 
p: 10.  T: C: his judgement of significant Ceremonies was ever, that they were unlawful. 
p: 11.  That Tenet of inconveniency without unlawfulness, is unsound, and uncomfortable 
p: 12.13    

Chap. 3.  
Our Cerem: are mere fopperyes by the judgement of our best Divines 
p: 16.17.  Ceremonies are nocent and hurtful as now used: 
pag. 18.  Opposition against Ceremonies is no cause of the mischief they bring. 
p: 19    

Chap. 4.  
The vanity of the definition of a Cerem: discovered in the General: 
p: 22.  Four things to be considered to make us conceive aright of a Cerem: 
p: 23.  Things may be Ceremonies when they are not actually used, as a Surplice when it is not worn: 
p: 25▪  The contradiction of the Rej. in making a Cerem: an external action, and requiring a purposed observation notwithstanding in the use thereof. 
p: 26.  Institution and purposed observation are not all one. 
pag. 26.27.  An observation of an outward action, with a special aim or reference intended by the doer, is not required, to make up the nature of a Ceremony 
p: 27.28.  The proper form of a Cerem: expressed in the definition, is fully discussed and found false: 
p: 29.  How many w●yes reference may be taken 
p: 30.31.  That reference to another, not as a cause or part of it to which it doth refer, cannot be the proper nature of a Cerem: 
p: 32.33.  The true difference between substantial and Cerem: worship, 
p: 35.36.  A thing may be a Cerem: being referred to that whereof it is a cause. 
p. 37.  The 7. Consectary of the Rej: examined by the way: 
pag. 37.  The second consectary examined, and found false: 
pag. 40.  The 4. Consectary confuted 
pag. 42.  The 6. consectary is examined, and found faulty. 
p. 42.  The 8. consectary discussed and found false 
p. 43.  In what sense it is true, that the same use and end makes a Cerem: part of worship 
p: 45.  Reasons why the same use and end makes a Cerem: part of worship really 
p. 46.47.48.  The 9 consectary opened: 
p. 50.  Confuted & the contradictions in it discovered. 
p. 51.52.53.    

Chap. 5.  
The 2. partition confuted as imperfect and false: 
pag. 54.55.  The definition of a sacred Cerem: opened 
p. 57.58.  Confuted 
p: 59.60.61.  The third partition of properly and reductively sacred is examined, and the vanity thereof declared 
p. 63.64.  The 4. partition handled: 
p. 65.66.    

Chap. 6.  
How we join with Papists in giving propriety of worship to Cerem: 
p. 67.68.  How we make them necessary as they laying aside merit: 
p. 68.69.  The Papists do not hold it sin, to omit Ceremonies: without scandal and contempt. 
69.70.  The sum of our Agreement 
p. 73.  That our Prelates, make our Cerem: morally efficacious in the way of worship. 
 Reasons of that 
4 p: 75.76.    

Chap. 7.  
Vnprofitablenes is enough to Cashier a Cerem: of man's making 
p. 77.78.  Seven reasons given thereof: 
Ibid.  Inferiors may judge of the commands of superiors. 
p. 79.  The judgement of the Governor, is not the rule of retaining cerem. 
80.  Whether our judgement and practice are equally bound 
p. 81.  Things indifferent ought not to be restrained 
p. 82,  The sixth partition handled and examined 
p. 82.  The Rejoy: his contradictions in his divisions 
p. 83.  Cross signifies the covenant of grace. 
p. 86.    

Chap. 8.  
The nature of a representative church discovered 
p. 88.89.  The association of churches doth not require the orders nor officers of the Hierarchy. 
p. 91.    

Chap. 9  
Answer to Collossians 
2.23. p. 96.  When Cessation of an evil, comes to be worship 
p. 91.  No definition of superstition will evince that the forbearing of Cerem: is superstition 
p. 99.100.  ●he not doing of things forbidden in the first table (though upon conscience to God, is not always worship, 
p. 100.101.  The examples alleged by the Rej. for to make nonconformitants superstitions, are showed to be vain 
p. 103.    

Chap. 10.  
Parliaments allow not superstition as now it is urged. 
p. 105.  The Prelates proceedings are against Parliaments. 
p. 106.  The grief which is pretended in Prelates for depriving and silencing, is feigned 
p. 109.  The Prelates are subject to a Praemunire. 
p. 111.  A minister cannot be deprived by law for not using Cerem. 
112.    

Chap. 11.  
The canons of the convocation 1571. are worse than those which were enacted to their hands 1552. 
p. 115  This is showed in several● particulars. 
p. 117.118.  That our convocation cometh behind the counsel of Trent in making provisions for good canons for preaching 
p. 12●. etc.  That they made ill canons and executed them, they made some good, and so left them. 
pag. 121.    

Chap. 12.  
The definition of worship: in the general is examined 
p. 125.  A mistake about veneration and adoration. 
pag ●26.  Inward worship, may be aswell performed falsely, as so pretended, 
128.129.  The definition of subordinate worship examined, and found faulty, 
129.  The holiness of the person, and the present intention of the worshipper, is not essential to external worship. 
pag, 130.  4 reasons of that, 
131.132.133.  The distinction of mediate and immediate worship explicated, 
135.  The definition of mediate worship is found faulty 
135.  The distinction of immediate worship into proper and improper is discussed and confuted 
136.  Several contradictions are discovered in the Rej. his distributions 
136.137.  That allowance is not enough to legitimate an●● worship immediate 
138. 139.140.   

Chap. 12. Sect. 2.  
All examples and authorities alleged in favour, of the former false distinctions are explicated, and proved nothing at all to favour the Rej. 
145.146.      

● Taste of the Rej. his intemperate expressions, unworthy, as well of him f●om whom they come, as of them against whom they are directed.  
1. Egregious wrangler 
p. 6.  2. Dancing without a fiddle. 
14  3. He compares the Replyer to a cur, saying he runs away from the cause, looks back at the Def: and shows his teeth somewhat angrily. 
19  4. A false Reporter. 
22  5. The man is troubled. 
35  6. They that say the church may not ordain one or other Ceremony merely Ecclesiastical do manifest a spirit that lusteth after contradiction: 
37  7. Mock Dighton. 
Ibid.  8. nameless libelers as this Repl: 
Ibid.  9 This poor distressed man knows not what to do. 
35  10. Not very apt to blush for any thing. 
47  11. God hath smitten his contentious spirit with giddiness. 
62  12. A man forsaken of wisdom. 
Ibid  13. Some men in Q: Eliz: days were not contented that these Ceremonies should be removed, unless all went out with them. 
52  14. This libeler like to come to some shame for his factions. 
61  It is a malicious surmise, scurrilous and of no use, unless it be to engraft himself into the affections (which he calleth consciences) and applause of his own party. 
63  15. You that make a faction. 
73  16. Sooner fit the moon with a new coat, than these men with pleasing Ceremonies. 
67  17. Your superstition esteemeth this your abstinence to be a singular point of piety, and true sincerity. 
68  18. I see no cause of this outleap but either to ease his stomach, or to please these of his side 
37  19 Most of their writers are nameless libelers. 
38  20. The Replyer may hang down his head, he is a silly man 
61  21. This fantasy is the very top and root of separation, and Anabaptistry. 
67  22. The Replyer worse than a friar 
ibid.  23. The Repl: gulls and deceives. 
83  24. He hath not learned the substance of common honesty 
Ibid  25. A spirit of contradiction hath carried him to shifting. 
100  26. Out liar. 
103  27. You seek honour one of another. 
Ibid  28. And presume of your own traditions as if the spirit of truth had come to you, or from you alone 
Ibid  29. The Repl: censures the universal militant church. 
104  30. Now well far a good stomach. 
113  31. Boggling and scurrility. 
Ibid  32. The Repl: wrung on the withers, 
120  33. He need hear some lecture of logic 
121  34. A Beetle brought out of the Repl: head 
130  35. A spirit full of rancour. 
131  36, The Repl: lifting up his hart to God, is much crying and little wool, as he said that sheerd his hogs. 
180  37. Contradictious spirit. 
183  38. These men say to all other men stand back I am holier than thou. 
203  39 Salt Scurrility, 
204  40. These men if it were safe would spit their gall in the face of the magistracy. 
205  41. Full of Froth and venom 
213  42. A spirit of separation hunted after in the chase of inconformity. 
216  43. Inconformitants of a high strain beyond other men. 
27  44. Doth this Repl: and such as he who without law, without calling, without Reason, without conscience, smite with their tongues, and condemn to the pit of darkness the Bishops, the conformed ministers, and in a manner all that are not of their party. 
219 See also 220.221.222.226  45. The Repl: for Faction and opposition would have that thought of others, which he doth not believe himself. 
243  46. A wrangling spirit and ill conscience 
Ibid  47. The Inconformists are of all men that ever I knew the most impatient, which is a sign of much partiality if not pharisaical pride. 
277  48. Counting their opposing Cerem: a high point of devotion, and their stiffness therein constancy in that faith. 
218  49. Tinker's luck. 
424  50. It is your trims to fly upon the faces of our Bishops. 
456  51. This Repl: is the child of strife not of judgement. 
500  52. You are Godly men, all others are carnal: time-servers, formalists that have no conscience, no sincerity, no zeal, you are the only men. 
50●   
Many other flowers, of this sent, might have been gathered out of the Rej: his Garden. But I will not trouble the Reader with them: Because I perceive the Author of this Fresh Suit doth not much regard them. Nyether would I have noted these, but for the Rejoinders Bishoplike objecting of Scurrility to the Replyer.   

A manuduction to the following dispute.  
ALthough it be but dead work, void of whetting pleasure or hope of great fruit, to spend much time, about humane formalities, when as the divine substance of religion is in present danger, yet seeing the leaders of that course, which tendeth to this mischief, being themselves marched with a great part of their main body, through the fens and quagmyers of non residence, pluralities and ambition, towards the quicksands of Arminianism, popery and profaneness, have left these, as their pass and baggage to be kept and defended by men of good note, and worthy of better employment (such as Dr. B. is) to the amazing of many good fowls: It seemeth necessary to take into some consideration (though short, as such an unpleasant business doth require) what strength there is in these their new works: To proceed therefore in order.  

CAP. I.  
FIrst touching the title of D. B. his rejoinder.  
In which two things are observable: First; that he styleth the reply a Pamphlet of a nameless author: in disgrace, as clearly appeareth in his second part, pag. 38. where he styleth not only the replyer, but many others, for this very cause, Libelers: But it cannot be esteemed any disgrace, 
It's lawful for an author in case, not to set his name to his work.  for any writing upon just occasion, to want the name of the author, without involving, many excellent Divines, and diverse pennmen also of holy Scripture, in the same blame. As for the term Pamphlet, I understand it, as noting a little contemptible writing: But the worth of a writing doth not consist, in bulk and belly, but in sinews, veins, and arteries, which with good blood and spirits, may be couched into a little body: If he mean by Pamphlet the same which after, he expresseth in the term of scurrilous, that is as I take it, full of jesting, without respect of the persons: he hath to deal with. My answ: is: That if the Rep: had written to the convocation house, an Epistle with this Inscription, To the superstitious fathers of the Church of England: as the Def: entitleth his epistle to us, to his superstitions Brethren, (and yet this Rej: is not ashamed to adopt, this scurrility, and make it his own child, by maintaining of it, even against the very nature of D. Burgess) there had been more occasion of such a censure, than now is found, in all the Reply, as after shall appear.  
The Repl: doth not any where to my remembrance, vilify the person of his adversary, but only his arguments, and answers, together with the vile courses of our Hierarchy, in which kind of jesting the Rej: his scurrility is far greater, than the Repl: saving the difference, which ariseth out of the outward greatness of Prelates, and the poor condition of them, which are oppressed by them. Now the Repl: is no admirer of Bs. persons, neither are disputations acquainted, with such court language, as they are used unto: If it please your Lordship etc. but such is the condition of those, that have to do with Prelates, that they are usually censured either for scurrility, or flattery, and there is no doubt, but some will accuse the Rej: as much of flattery in blazing his Diocesans Admirable wisdom, as he doth the Repl: of scurrility, though I will not: Those who writ against Prelates, are wont to expect such a censure from them & theirs. 
Sic Zwingl●us de seditionum authoribus in Epist. non dubito fore, complures, qui lectis vel auditis his omnibus: tandem ecquid hi● scurra vult, dicturi sunt.  So Zwinglius in his Epistle touching the authors of sedition I doubt not, saith he, but there will be many, who having heard or read all these things, at length will be ready to say, what meant this scoffer? Calvin among others, was often accused of the same fault, not only by those, whom he calls usually, cornutos Episcopos, horned Bishops, but even by their diminutive aemulators among the Lutherans, his answer therefore unto Westphalus about this imputation may serve the Replyer. It is easy for joachymus to object against me, the odious tarturs of unseemly scurrility, 
Facile est Ioachim●, nigrum insalsae scurrilitatis, & sycophanticae mordaci ●is falem, m●hi objicere sed aeque mihi próptum est, uno verbo diluere ej●s calumnians, si aspiara, reperui ●egé, quid tam odiose traducit etc. Q●●d enim facerem, quia vel silentio, prodenda fuisset alioqui veritas, vel placida mollique actione, dando●● timiditatis ac diffidentiae signum ult. admo. ad Westph. in princip.  and slanderous bitterness of language, but it is as easy for me, to wipe away that calumny of his with one word etc. For what course should I take, since either the truth should have been betrayed in silence, or otherwise by an easy and toothless expression, the suspicion of fearfulness and distrust would have been discovered.  
And in very deed, let any indifferent man judge, of this imputation by any place of the Reply, where the Rej. noteth scurrility, and he shall find the Rej. him ●elf, far more guilty: As for example pag. 63. in few lines he may found these five terms packed together: It is a manifest untruth and calumny: It is a ridiculous supposition: It is a malicious surmise: It is a scurrilous bundle: It is to engraft himself into affections which he calls consciences: These are base terms, then are to be found in any one place, or (I think) in all the course of the Rep: And what is the occasion of them? forsooth, the Repl. said, the Prelates have power, to suspend, deprive, excommunicate nonconformists, at their pleasure: that the Defend: called for further help from Buckingham: that the Defend: may be acquired at a better Bishopric: In the former whereof, there is nothing said, which the Rej. could with colour deny, before he himself had added for matter of accusation, interpretations of his own imagining: And in the last, there is nothing so much suspected of the defendant, D. B. himself knoweth, that it is scandalously true, almost of all Bishops, viz, that they aim at greater Bishoprics: But on the other side, what honesty is there, in adding unto the replyers words. Further than the Law of the State and Church require: And yet that also is true, de facto, though not de jure, that the Prelates take power to themselves, more than the laws require: What charity or religion is there in slighting the consciences of all that hold with the Repl? as if they pretended conscience upon perverse affections: What wisdom is there? in talking of the Repl. ambition, ●o engraft himself, into the affection of a few poor people, from whom he cannot expect either gain or worldly credit? This I am sure of, that the Repl. being twice put out of all means of living, for that cause, never in those extremities gained from that party, the Rej. speaketh of, so much as the Emoluments of a ten pound Prebendary, which the Rej. so much slighteth Pag. 15. As for his credit, until he either put his name to his book, or seek by other means to have ●it known, it cannot without injury be objected, that he sought it.  
The other thing to be noted in Rej. title, is, that in opposition to a nameless Author, he nameth himself with such a name or title, as neither by our Prelate's rules, nor by the Scriptures doth admit a good construction. Pastor of Sutton Coldfeild in Warwickshire, Our book of ordination acknowledgeth no such pastors, from whencealso it is, that in our convocation-church-language, we never hear of a Pastor of one Parish alone, None of our divines in the Synod of Dort, would take to themselves that tittle, though most others did in their subscription. D. Andrew's an Archbishop in esteem, censureth this title for a Novelty. The names of Pastor and (in this sense also) of calling, 
N●vitia sun● & Pastor●, (hoc quidem, sensu) & vocation●s nomina, veteres niquam leg. 59 indigitas●e voce hac, quicurabant parochias distinctas, Resp. ad. Epist. 1. Mo●●.  are mere noveltyes, nor shall you read, that the Ancients ever styled in these terms, any, who take the charge of distinct parishes: The Scripture indeed doth warrant this title, even to D. Burgess, (and I do not detract it from him,) but not in such a manner as he taketh it: For where he writeth in defence of a Lord Bishop over that Diocese, where Sutton Coldfeild is contained, as a part: and every Ecclesiastical Bishop is a Pastor, he seemeth in one breath, to take and resign his pastoral office: If he say, that this variety is by humane institution. D. Andrew's resp. ad Ep. 3. 
Ergo in regiminis forma, divinum jus non est, ac tum Amstelodamo be●e sit.  Moll. will take him up: It seems then, there is no divine right, in ordering the frame of the government of the Church, and then welfare Amsterdam: which our Hierachicall men do so much traduce and despise. If he shall say, that one is a Lord Pastor, and the other a ministerial Pastor, inferior, and subordinate to him, especially in jurisdiction, than I would have him consider, what D. Fulke saith against Allen, of the Pope's pardons Pag. 381. God hath made all Pastor's stewards of his household, and dispensers of his mysteries: And if every Pastor over his charge, be a steward of God's mysteries, why hath he not the Key of jurisdiction over his parish, in as large and ample manner, as the Bishop hath over his Diocese, or the Pope? seeing the Keys are not given to one, but to unitye, as the fathers teach: why should the Bishops and the Pope have two Keys, and they but one: resolve these things (saith he to Allen, and I to D. B.) out of the Holy Scripture. It might be here also required how a faithful Pastor can defend a Bishop or Bishops, in obtruding humane ceremonies upon that church, whereof he is pastor, and so partake in the obtruding of them. Certainly this is not agreeable, to the commission of Pastors, 
Quae mandavi ego, non quae mandabitis non adinvenictis vos. Cajetan in loc.  who are to teach only that, which Christ hath commanded to observe: Which I have commanded, Matth. 28. not what ye shall command or invent. Caietan upon the place. Neither is it to preserve the Church, from the dominion of usurpers.   

CAP. II. Of the rise and proceeding of Ceremonial contentions, with variety of tenants about them.  
THe first records the Rej. bringeth for contentions about Cerem: are from Rom. 14. but he might, (and would also if it had served his turn) have fetched it further, from Math. 15. where the Pharisyes contend against Christ, and his Disciples about their ceremonial observations: Or from the first authors of that Sect, Sammay and Hills, profane dissipators of God's Law, by their traditions, as out of their very names, Cardinal Baronius himself noteth. Neither is that contention Rom. 14. agreeable to our Quaestion, because the Ceremonies there quaestioned, were not of humane institution, nor urged by authority of any Church or Prelates.  
The second instance which the Rej. bringeth, is about the feast of Easter, whereabout he saith, the world was set on fire. And this indeed is worth the observing, that so soon as Victor-Bishops began to urge humane cerem: upon the Church of God, all was presently in a fire, but were not these presumptuous Victors, the kyndlers of that fire? The next step which the Rej. taketh (over a thousand year wide) is to Illiricus, about permitting the use of a surplice, where it is to be noted, that before Illyricus, there had been effectual pleading against Ceremonies, 
The first rise of the controversy of Ceremonies.  even Cross and Surplice, in Helvetia, at Tigure, whereupon they were removed, as Zwinglius relateth de baptismo: And a long time before that, the Waldenses (of whose blood were made torches to light us in the right way) did contend against all humane traditions as unlawful. 

Omnes consuctudines Ecclesiae, quas in Evangelio non legunt contemnunt, Refut. erro●um Waldens anonimas in Biblioth. Pa●um Cap. 13. error 7.  
Dicunt, quod ea quae constitaunt ab E●iscopis & Praelate, non sunt servand●▪ eòque sum traditiones ●oma●m● non Dei.   So Reinerus cap. 5. All customs of the church, which in the Gospel they do not read, they do contemn. They affirm that those things which are appointed by the Bishops and Prelates, are not to be observed: because they are the traditions of men and not of God. Where also the answer given by that refuter unto your walden's. is very observable, for by that, it will appear, that humane Ceremonies in Divine worship, were then impugned and defended after the same manner, they are to this day. Our allegations being the same with those, which the Waldenses used, and our adversaries answers the same, which the Papists opposed to the Waldenses. 

Resp Ecclesia non es● contenta his, quae Chri●tu doc●it & ideo potuit compe e●tes constitutiones facere: ut ecclesia judaica, Est. 9.1. Mac. cabae. 2 & 4.  
Author●tates haetetic●rum Deu. 10 & 13. non ad●etis. Resp. judaei non debeb●nt addere legi aliqui●, ut insufficiens lex eo tempore videtur.  
Ad Isay 29.13. Math. 15. Resp. Quod constitutiones Ecclesiae, non sunt tantum hominum sed Dei. Ad Gall. 1.9. Resp. praeter id▪ est contra id.   Answ: the Church is not content with those things which Christ taught, and therefore might make competent constitutions, as the Church of the jews: in the 9 Est. 1. Maccabae 2. and 4. Touching the authorities alleged by the Haeretikes, Deut. 10. and 13. you shall not add. etc. Answ: is: The jews might not add any thing to the law, lest it might have seemed insufficient at that tyme. To that place Isay 29. Matth. 15. Answ: is: That the constitutions of the church come not only from men but God also: To that of Gall. 1. Answ: is: beside the word, that is against it.  
2. That Illiricus in this part stood against that, which Calvin writ against, and many excellent Divines ●ere silenced and deprived for. 3. That this contention of Illiricus was not properly about the Surplice: ●o Calvin Ep. 117. 

Quod dicis Magdeburgenses de linea veste rixas movere, quo● sum pertineat non video: Linea enim vestis usum (cum multis ineptiis) tam apud vos quam apud illos hactenus retentum esse arbitror.  
Non agi●u● profecto de parvis rebus, nec est necesse, quosdam semper albam ves●em pro exemplo istarium actionum, sophistice imperitis proponere, multae gravissimae plagae Eccles●●ae Christi, per istas conciliationes infliguntur.  
The Bishops and Rej. join w●th Lutherans about images.   That you affirm the Magdeburgenses to ●ove contentions concerning the linen garment, I perceive ●ot what your purpose is in so speaking: Since I suppose the use ●f the linen garment (with many such fopperyes) to be yet ●etayned amongst you and them. So Illiricus himself pro●esteth: Asuredly we contend not about trifles, nor is in needful, that some men should always cunningly propose a linen ●arment for instance of these proceed, to such, as are unacquainted with them, many & those most dangerous wounds ●re given to the Church of Christ, by these reconciliations.  
4. That the ceremonies then controverted were imposed by Papists, with Popish intention, which kind of Ceremonies the Rej. doth seem, in all his book to disclaim. 5. That in this Quaestion, the Rej. (under the ●ame of certain reverend Divines, doth seem to join ●im self with the Adiaphorists and the interim, against which Calvin, and Illiricus did contend. 6. It may ●urther also be observed, that the Rej. doth on the other ●art, join with Illiricus, in defence of images for religious use even in temples, for about these images did ●lliricus write, against the reformed churches, as is to be ●eene in Vrsine, Par. 2. Pag. 45. where he is confuted by name, and accused to have too large a conscience, in esteeming such images indifferent; yet both D. Morton, ●nd D. Burgess are now come to the same largeness, that they may find room for significant Ceremonies in God's worship as appeareth in this Rej. cap. 3. sect. 7. For the Protestants most received opinion of humane Ceremonies, Cassander (whose steps the Def. and Rej. follow in this cause) is a good witness. They have not only omitted these Ceremonies as less profitable, 

Non modo illas ut minus utiles & supervacaneas omiserunt, sed ut ineptas ludicras, ridiculas, imo noxias & perniciosas, plerique damnandas & profligandas ducunt.  
Pag. 8532.   & superfluous, but the most have esteemed them, as foppish, babish and ridiculous, yea that they were to be condemned, and abandoned as noxious & pernicious. And our Martyr book doth give sufficient testimony, how divers of the Godly Martyrs, did absolutely condemn all humane Ceremonies in God's worship. To name one for all: This was the first occasion of Mr. Tho. Hawkes, his persecution, and this he defended unto the death, against Bonner: Harpsfeild, Fecknam and Chadsye: No ceremonies (saith he) but those which Christ hath appointed: In which story, it is to be marked, 
What opinion the martyrs had of our Ceremonies.  that Bonners chaplain, and kinsman Darbyshyre, granted as our Def. and Rej, do, that their humane Ceremonies were not necessary to salvation, but only to instruction: In this cause of Cerem. saith: Dr. Willet, Richard Gibson gave up his life pa. 111. Synop. In the beginning of Queen Elizabeth Reign, there was a company of honest men, that for the Ceremonies, refused to join with the Parish assemblies at London, as appeareth in the examination of john Smyth, W. Nyxson etc. exstant in the book called part of a Register, will any man think, that they esteemed those Cere: for which they made a kind of separation to be lawful?  
The first example then of humane Ceremonies, by any orthodox church imposed upon God's people, which the Rej. brings, is in the Church of Engl. And here he begins, with famous Queen Elizabeth's days, ●hough he fetch that very story, out of the History of frankford troubles, which were in Queen mary's ●ayes: about the same Cerem: and before that in King Edward's: To say nothing of the manifold testimonies, of Martyrs against such corruptions, before King Edward: ●s this any illustration of your Quaestion to be debated?  
Now for the Tenets, which have been and are about ●hese Cerem. the Rej. noted out of T. C. that the old ●enet of those, who opposed our Cerem., was to hold ●hem inconvenient only, not unlawful, But 1. he showeth no such thing about the Cross: 2. Nay the contrary appeareth in D.B. himself, who pag. 16. confesseth, that 39 years ago, he did at the least doubt, that the Cross was unlawful, and for that cause (not for scandal, as he did the Surplice) he refused it even to Deprivation: He would not have us think, I am sure, that he had then a singular new Tenet by himself, but inclined to the old. 3. Mr. Hooker P. 246. observeth, that the first plead of T. C. against other Cerem: either inferred unlawfulness, or nothing. 4. The last rules, 
T. C. his judgement of Cerem: significant.  and resolutions of T. C. do evidently speak, of unlawfulness, of all significant Ceremonies: Although the Cerem: of Crossing were indifferent and convenient, yet to raise a doctrine of it, is unlawful, for as much as it is not enough, to teach the truth, unless it be truly taught, and that is only out of the word of God. 2. Reply: P. 227. This was his judgement in these, and we have no other Tenet of significant Ceremonies until this day: Now if in the Hypothesis of one or two signif. Cerem. he swarved a little there from, out of extrinsecall considerations, yet that doth not make his tenet such, as the Rej. would have it, but rather it is to be held, as an occasional declination from his Tenet, which also (he is said) by faithful witnesses to have confessed, as an error before his death: 4. That tenet of inconveniency, or inexpediency was never yet sufficiently explained, and therefore had been fit work for it.  
The common Protestant tenet was always, as Mr. Fox, Mart. P. 4. expresseth it, that it is reprovable to add unto Christ's intention, new found rites, and Phantasyes' of men: And Mr. Burgess in an Epistle to King james, in the beginning of his Reign, witnesseth, that in those days, many hundred worthy ministers thought our cer. unlawful, and would surely dye, rather than use them: which worthy men, surely were not the first authors, of that Tenet: If they were, why did he call them worthy, who now judgeth otherwise of us, for maintaining the same sentence. 5. That tenet of inconveniency or inexpediency, without unlawfulness in such Cer. was never yet sufficiently explained. And therefore had been fit work for the Rej. Civil inconvenience, or incommodity may stand with lawfulness: But how a thing morally inconvenient, or inexpedient, while it remaineth such, may be lawful, is not so clear: Nothing is thus inexpedient to moral or spiritual good, but it is impedient, or an impediment to it, and all such impediments of good, while they are such, ●eeme to be opposite to good, & in that regard evil. I remember, I heard it once defended, in Cambridge, 
Quicquid non expedit, quatenus non expedit non licet.  in these terms: What ever is morally inexpedient, so far as it is such, is unlawful. 6. This Tenet of the Cere: to be inexpedient, but yet lawful, hath confounded the thoughts of many, & made them to do that with grief, which they were ashamed of Mr. Hooker P. 246. maketh a speech in their persons, which I will here write out, because I remember myself, at the first reading, to have been much affected, & as it were baffled out of that countenance, which stood somewhat that way. Conformers of that sort, are feigned thus to declare their minds, & excuse their practice: Brethren, our heart's desire is, that we might enjoy the full liberty of the Gospel, as in other reformed churches they do else where, upon whom, the heavy hand of authority hath imposed no great burden: But such is the misery of these our days, that so great happiness; we cannot look to attain unto: were it so that the equity of the law of Moses, could prevail, or the zeal of Ezekias could be found in the hearts of those guid● & governor's, under whom we live, or the voice of Gods own prophets could only be heard, or the example of the Apostles be followed, yea or their precepts be answered with full & perfect obedience, the●e abominable rags, palluted garments, marks & sacraments of Idolatry, which power as you see constraineth us to wear, & conscience to abhor, had long ●ere this day, been removed both out of sight, & out of memory. But as now things stand, behold to what narrow streits we are driven, on the one side we fear the words of our Saviour Christ, woe to them by whom scandals and offences come, on the other side, at the Apostles speech we can not but quake and tremble, if I preach not the Gospel's woe unto me, Being thus hardly beset, we see not any other remedy, but to hazard our souls the one way, that we may the other way endeavour to save them. Touching the offence of the weak therefore, we must adventure it: If they perish they perish: Our Pastoral charge is God's absolute commandment, Rather than that shall be taken from us, we are resolved to take this filth, and to put it on, although we judge it to be so unfit, and inconvenient, that as oft as ever we pray or preach, so arrayed before you, we do as much as in us lies, to cast away your souls, that are weak minded, and to bring you unto endless perdition: But we beseech you brethren have care of your own safety, take heed to your steps, that you be not taken in these snares, which we lay before you, and our prayer in your behalf is, that the poison which we offer you, may never have power to do you harm. This is the miserable Apology of a man, putting on the Surplice, which he thinketh inconvenient, upon such grounds as the Rej. did hold, and doth not yet condemn; This all such do speak either in deeds or words, that put on a Surplice in that manner: The state of the quaestion is now changed saith the Rej. and the Cerem. held unlawful, whereupon many mischiefs follow: It may be the compass of our Prelates intention, to which the former tenet had reference, is varied by some degrees, towards the Autartique, as Dr. B. speaketh in his apology, if there be no other change, but that after more mischief done by these ceremonies, than was before, they are now more strictly urged then ever (which the Rej. confesseth) they are now at the least more hateful, if not more unlawful than before, This is also considerable, beside the change is little or none, the same mischeives which the Rej. imputeth to the new tenet, Mr. Hooker in his preface chargeth that Tenet with, which this Rej, calleth the old: Yet neither accusations have any force or colour, but upon the supposal, that the ceremonies are innocent and lawful in their imposition and use. The plain truth is, that in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's days, and before, in King Edward's time, the Cerem: were accounted weeds of popery, as that zealous and famous preacher, Mr. Anthony Gilbye doth entitle them, in his letter to Mr. Coverdall, Mr. Turner, etc. Mr. Whittingham, D. Vmphryey, and others, who then laboured the rooting of them out. They were not curious of distinguishing of unlawfulness and inexpediency, but contented themselves to reject and oppose them: Some as Mr. Greenham refused to give their reasons fully, until they should be constrained: In the mean time they utterly refused them, as unlawful for them to use: This appeareth out of a book called a part of a Register etc. Since that time, we have been forced to show more distinctly, what grounds we stand on, and so pronounce them unlawful. In the following pages spent principally about answering of objections, made or feared, or at least imagined, against the Author of this Rej. few things are found capable of any great dispute: Neither can many passages be touched, without odious grating upon D. Burges personal credit, which I tender so much, that I would wish more added to it, by other works, then is detracted from it by this: I will therefore leave these things to stand or fall, without any pains or peril of mine, or the cause, and pass forth unto the style of our Cerem: in giving and maintaining whereof the Def. and Rej. are so tender, as to proclaim them innocent.   

CHAP. III. Concerning the just and proper style of our Cerem. Answ: to the preface, Pag. 54.55.56.57.  
IN answ: to the Reply. his preface, after certain words spent concerning the number, and such like circumstances of Mr. Sprynts arguments, not worth the repeating etc. The Rej. cometh to Dr. Morton his title, which he gave to our Cerem: that they are innocent: whereunto was opposed, 1. That Calvin accounted them in the most favourable sense ineptias, fopperyes, and in proper speech noxious, pernicious. To this the Rej. answ: that Calvin meant not these titles to our Cerem: but to some other things which were in King Edward's, book of common prayer, as lights, and crosses at the supper. Concerning which answ: 1. not only D. B. was wont otherwise to understand Calvin as we do, but the Prelates themselves, for so we read in D. B. his apology pag. 44. according to D. Covells disposition of it. The ordinary speeches of the Lordship and other Bishops were, that the Cerem: are trifles, rags, beggarly rudiments, that in the books were multae tolerabiles ineptiae, which if it pleased the King to remove they would be glad.  
4. The Rej. cannot give us any probable reason, why lights should be more foppish, than the Surplice or cross in the supper: Nay he undertaketh to justifye both lights and cross in the supper, and a hundred other Cerem: upon the same terms, that he defendeth these.  
●. Calvin did ordinarily call such Ceremon: 

Calvin's opinion of our ceremonies.  
Adventitiae nugae: mera ludibria: Epist. 505. Ludicrae & insipidae mixturae. Epist. 260. Adventitiae nugae: mera ludibria De vitand. supest. Pa. 4. Ceremoniae aliae aperte Idolatricae aliae stultae & ineptae: Epist. 177. Lineae vestis ufus, cum multis ineptijs tam apud Magdeburg: quam apud Wittenburgenses retinentur.  
Non m●do illas ut minus utiles & supervacuas omiserunt, fed ut ineptas ridiculas, ludicras noxias & perniciosas plaerique damnandas & profligandas putant Visyne. Tom. 2. P. 45.  
Romanae superstitionis crepundia. Beza disp. 66.  
Additias illas nugas.   as ours by no her name then these: Epist. 25.9. Adventitions trifles, ●ere mockeries: Epist. 505. babish and sapless mixtures: again Epist. 260. strange trifles mere fopperyes: again: Some ●erem. are openly Idolatrous others are foolish, and unmeet: And Epist. 117. the use of the linen garment with many ●●pperyes is retained both with them of Magdenburgh, and ●●hem of Wittemberge. Neither was Calvin alone in these ●●rmes. Cassander pag. 852. complaineth that most of ●●ur writers consent in them. Not only they have omitted ●hose as less profitable and superfluous, but the most (meaning ●●ur Protestant Divines) have judged them, foppish, ridiculous, and babish, yea to be condemned, and abandoned, as hurtful, and pernicious. The puppy good of popish superstition. Those superfluous trifles. Mr. Fox in Mr. Hoopers' Story, trifles tending more to superstition then otherwise, like ●nto stage players attire. 6. All humane religious mystical Cer. are the births of folly, because every man ●s foolish in finding out of religious worship, according to his own imagination. 7. These Cer. are of the same ●ynd with confessed fopperyes, as the placing of mysteries in every weather cock, upon church steeples, as some do: the Ludi Sacri among the papists in frequent use like unto stage plays: The rocking of a babe in a cradle all night, at the Nativity time, the Harrowing of hell at Easter; The representation of fight horse and foot, according to the Custom of Mozarabo: Hist. Concil. Trident. P. 642. If a May pole should be brought into the church, for children to dance about and climb upon, in sign of their desire to seek things above: If a stiff straw were put into the child's hand, for a sign of fight against spiritual enemies, as with a spear: there would be no more folly in these than is in the cross. 8. All experience telleth us, that such humane inventions are not aptae to any spiritual use, as they are appointed unto, and therefore may justly be called according to the notation of the word ineptae.  
Again it was opposed, that these Cere: were found by woeful experience to be very nocent and hurtful in that use, which hath been and is still made of them. To this the Rej. answ: that these mischiefs (which he cannot deny to follow upon our Ceremon: as they have been and are urged, are accidental events or sequels, not proper effects of them,) and that the extreme opposing of them as unlawful, hath been the cause or occasion of these evils. But 1. these mischiefs have followed upon these Cerem: by more continual or contiguall succession (than the Pope can plead for his chair) even from the time of the first urging of them, until this day. Mr. Fox speaking of a wicked persecutor, one Blumfeild, who threatened a good man, one Simon Harelson, to present him, for not wearing the Surplies: Addeth it is pity, such baits of Popery are left to the enemies to take the Christians in, God take them away from us, or us from them. For God knoweth they be the cause of much blindness and strife among men: 
Ceremonies are nocent.  In his judgm: the Cer. were then nocent, and infamous for these sequels, and yet the Rej. fayd, they were not until of late so extremely opposed as unlawful. 2. Our opposition of them is no more guilty of these mischiefs, than the message of Moses and Aaron, were of the cruelty which Pharoahs' task mas●ers used, towards the poor Israelites, Exod. 5. though ●ome people now may think so, as many Israelites did ●hen. 2. When the Anabaptists in Helvetia opposed humane Ceremonies as unlawful, they were by public authority, and with common consent abolished: And the very Anabaptists were thanked for that opposition. So Zwinglius (their arch-adversary) Tom. 1. P. 70.  
And here truly I shall grant to the Catabaptists, and will freely confess, that some commodity hath accrued, from that contention, which they have stirred about Baptism: For hence it hath come to pass, that those things which the foolish superstition of humane conceits had added: (as namely the use of Exorcism spittle and salt, and many other of the like kind, which were brought to light) are accounted of all for vain and frivolous. 
Atqui hie l●bens equidena Catabaptistis concedam, & fatebor, aliquid ●ultatis ex contentione illa, quam ipsi de Baptis: instituerunt, evetum e●se, Hinoenim factum est, ut ea quae humanae rationis stulta superstitio addiderat (qualia sunt Exorcismi sputi salisque usus, & alia hujus gene●is complura, in lucem protracta) ab omnibus pro vanis & futilibus habita sunt.  Who or what is in the way, that the contention of so many worthy (I dare say) of no less respect than Anabaptists, against the same kind of Ceremonies should be accounted a just cause, or occasion of so different a resolution, as the severest urging of them, is from the utter cashyering of them: Certain it is: the proper cause is to be sought in some other box, then extreme opposition, and esteeming of them unlawful. 3. Suppose these Cerem. in regard of some places, times, and persons not unlawful, and the mischiefs accidental, yet that maketh not the general urging of them innocent, no more then fierce galloping of horses through London streets, where many men, women, and children, are endangered, want of intending mischief, would make that mud hurry innocent. 4. The mischiefs being so great as fearful horror of conscience in some: Rej. P. 9 hardening, fopling, and distempering the conscience in other, silencing of so many hundred good ministers, and keeping off more from the ministry, troubling, unsettling, and vexing of thousands among the people, encoraging of Popish and profane men: with discoraging, and martyring the minds of many good: the mischiefs I say being so unaestimable that they can in no proportion be recompensed, by all humane ceremonies that are in the world, the ceremonies which have such sequels, year after year, are much more hurtful, than the Cart and horse, that are driven over children in the street, and their urgers of them more guilty, than such Carters or Coach men, as drive them: The Def. therefore & Rej. which pronounce both innocent, and do not rather find the Cerem. forfeited, and call the drivers of them to the bar, are neither good Crowner's, nor fit to be of that jury: Luther Annot. in Math. 15. giveth a better verdict Viz. all humane traditions or ceremonies (even those which in his judgement may in some cases be observed) have two properties of the Devil, as being liars, and murderers, when they continue and are not contemned. Such innocents God deliver his people from. 
Ceremonies as they be urged are more than causes by accident of evil.  5. It is the very nature of such humane ceremonies as ours, where they are urged and used (as with us) to do hurt: 1. because they are vain toys (as formerly was showed) and therefore prejudicial to so grave a business as God's worship: They train up the people of God in subjecting themselves, and their worshipping of God, unto the pleasure of men. 3. They make way for open imagery, and other gross superstitions, 4. they challenge that to themselves which is proper to God's ordinances etc. ●. It is the very nature of our Ceremonies, as they are imposed upon all our ministers, and congregations, in such dispositions and relations as they are known to have, to scandalise many in and out of the church, to disgrace the ministry, to force the consciences, or undo the outward state of many good Christians, to encourage Papists, to arm the profane, and to quench zeal against both.   

CHAP. FOUR Concerning the nature and definition of a Ceremony: Pag. 29.30.  
HEre we have the chief hingings, whereupon the doors and windows of the Rej. do always both open and shut, brought as it were into one box, by the examining of these therefore, we shall perceive what strength is in all the building.  
The beginning of this doctrine is orderly taken from the definition of a Cerem: 
Pag. 29.30.  A Ceremony is an outward action designed and purposely observed and done, in reference to some other thing, to the substance whereof it is neither a cause nor a part. I will no● here use Scalligers saying: Nothing more unhappy than a Grammarian adventuring to define. For this is not the fault of this Definition, 
Nihil inf●●licius Grammatico definiente.  that it is too Grammatical, because no Hebrew, Greek, or Latyn Grammar, no nor Dictionary neither, hath any such word, as beareth the sense of the thing here defined: Let any man make trial, and he shall found this true, that there is no word Hebrew, Greek, or Latyn, that hath any such meaning. But I may well apply, that rule of Lawyers: A definition is a dangerous thing in law: i.e. in those humane laws, which have no ground, but man's will, such as those are whereby our Ceremonies have their being: The unhappiness of this Definition is, that as it is recorded of Doria the Admiral of Genua in a great Sea-fight against the Turks, he fetched his course so far about to gain the wind, that he could never come to strike one stroke, before the fight was ended: So this Rej. seeking to get some advantage of windy words, doth in this definition, go so far about, that by this course, he is not likely to come orderly unto the grapple.  

The vanity of the definition discovered in the general.  An outward action may be designed or referred to another thing very many ways: now the Rej. taking in to his definition, reference to another thing in general, and excepting nothing but causes, and parts, he maketh all other references as they are found in outward actions Cerem: D. B. wrote this his Rej. in Reference to the Church of England, his Diocesan, and other ministers, and people, as also in reference to the Replyer, neither is his book any proper cause, or part of these, shall we say therefore that his book is a Cerem. of all these? In reference to Dr. B. many tailors, shoemakers, bookbynders, Apothecaryes', Chirurgeons, Sextons, Paritors, Churchwardens (and who not?) have performed many actions, which yet were never esteemed his Cerem. The Bishop's corrupt and cruel dealing in troubling of many congregations, and depriving many better than themselves, have reference to the Ceremonies, but are no proper cause nor part of them? are they therefore the Cerem: of Ceremonies? To prosecute the wildness of the definition, was too tedious a chase: but yet we must consider how he explaineth the terms of it: remembering always, that this explication is a Cerem: to that definition, and is no proper cause nor part of it.  
Concerning the general, that a Ceremon: is an action and external: Zwarez a great Master of the Ceremonies, telleth us, that a Ceremony is not only a transient action, but also a permanent thing: De Resig. vol. 1. ar. ●. lib. 4. cap. 14. and that Ceremonies may be distinguished according to the number of the ten predicaments, of which, action maketh but one, and an external action but half a one: But let us hear the Rej. express himself: The Cross and Surplice, are not Cerem: but ●he wearing of the Surplice etc. P. 30. Touching which we must understand, 
Things are to be considered to make us conceive a right of a Ceremony.  such outward things have a fourfold consideration: 1. According to their nature, as they arise ●ut of their principles, as the linen cloth of a Surplice, ●he wood of a crucifix. 2. That artificial frame or ●ashion that appeareth in these. 3. The impression or ordination, which is put upon these to this or that end. ●. The using of these, or stirring up the heart by these ●n practise: So in the brazen Serpent, we may attend, ●. the brass or metal out of which it was made: 2. the ●ashion of it: 3. the impression of God in or by this so fashioned to such a purpose: 4. the using of this, erecting of it up by Moses, the seeing and beholding of it by ●he people: whence it is easy, to see the deceit of the Rej. his assertion: Things in the second, & third senses, formerly mentioned, are by all writers truly called cerem: either not attending, yea excluding in our consideration, the fourth respect which is the use: Namely that habitude or impression which was imprinted upon a crucifix, or brazen Serpent, by which they had a moral fitness, either lawfully, or unlawfully put upon them, for their several ends, are Cerem. lawful or unlawful. Thus the current of writers Papistical confess: the church hath power, to make and appoint Ceremonies and enjoin the using of them, so that they are ceremonies, before they be used, their high Altar is a ceremony, yea holy all the time, before it be used, in bearing the unbloody sacrifice: Thus all Interpreters, term the types of the old law cerem:, for that spiritual disposition they have, and typicalnes which the Lord set upon them, as well when no man used them, as when they were used: The Brazen Serpent being once set up: had been a Ceremony in the wilderness though the people would never look upon it, yea I ask, whether the massing vestments of Papists, such which carry a consecrating virtue with them, are not ceremonies, when they are kept, as well, as when they are worn, All men so speak, so writ, so judge: and the like may be said of our Surplice etc. In a word: These which were properly types, were properly Ceremonies, but Legal institutions & rites amongst the jews were properly rites, as well before and after they were used, as in the using. And therefore they were properly ceremonies, 
●ome ●h●●gs are Ce●emo●▪ t●●●gh they be ●ot actually used.  as well when they were not used, as when they were in use, in the night as in the day, when men are in sleep and cannot use them, as when they were awake, and did employ them in worship.  
2. If we be truly and properly said to use Cerem. then Cerem. are properly such beside their use. 
Some things are Ceremon▪ though they be not actually used.  True it is some Cere. consist in actions, and all actions being in motion, when the actions cease the Ceremonies grounded upon them must needs cease: but it is not, because they are Cerem., but because they be such Cerem., whose foundations are in actions: In sum than it appears, that the being or existence of the fashionablenes of the brazen serpent, and the moral impression or appointment to its end, this being, or existence, I say is a ceremony, when it is not used by any: and therefore some being or existence is a ceremony point blank to the Rej. determination. He adds:  It is an external action, 
Pag. 30.  because internal actions of the mind, being matters of substance cannot duly be called ceremonies. 
Peradventure these words, may have some true sense in some specialties, but they serve not his turn in this place, because though he only mentions outward actions: yet he requires a purposed observation of them, which caries the work both of mind and will and therefore includes an internal action of the man, for no man can purposely observe, but he must both judge what he should do, and affect what he judgeth, so that the Rej. here speaks daggers, nor can I see, how he can excuse a contradiction or two.  
He that requires a purposed observation in a Cer. he 
Rej. contradiction ●.  requires an act of mind & will, & so an internal act.  
But D. Burg. requires a purposed observation in a ceremony.  
Therefore he requires an act of mind and will, and so an internal act, whence defining a Ceremony to be an action external, and yet making it internal also, he crosseth shynns with himself.  
Or thus: 
He that duly and of right judgement requires a purposed observation, he requires an internal, and so a substantial act or a matter of substance.  
But Dr. Burg. requires duly and in right judgement (I mean in his apprehension) a purposed observation:   
Therefore he requires a substantial matter in a Ceremony, which he denies should be done: and that is a contradiction.  
The second term, is designed or purposely observed and done, and as he explicates himself: Institution or that which is all one, intended observation, is essential to a Cerem: P. 30. Which words are confused, and draw with them dangerous inconveniences, when Institution and intended observation, are made simply all one: For neither is all institution, an observation, because many things are instituted, which are not observed. 2. Neither is an intended free observation for one time used: an institution, 3. an institution with authority implieth much more in it, than intended observation. Dr. jackson in his original of unbeleif, 
Institution and purposed observation are not all one.  pag. 334.335. very aptly to this purpose noteth, that some expressions may sometime be used, and observed well, which to use ordinarily, (much more to institute) ●ould be ridiculous or impious. As jacob did unblameablely ●ish his son josephs' coat, yet to have hanged it about his ●edd, or table, that it might receive such salutations, evening and morning, or at every meal time, might have countenanced many branches of superstition: once and use it not, may be discretion, of those things whose continual use degenerates into abuse. All observers of Ceremonies are not instituters of them, I think D. B. would be loath, to institute the Cross, and Surplice, with other Cerem: which yet he doth observe: In his interpretations of subscription he refuseth to defend, how well these be imposed (that is as I take it instituted) and yet acknowledgeth, the intended observation of them, to be very well: Beside all this, it is to be marked, that the Rej. by confounding institution and purposed observance, doth exclude or forget all natural ceremonies, such as bowing of the body before superiors, embracing of those, who are dear unto us, lifting up the hands and eyes to heaven in ordinary worship, which nature itself doth teach all nations to observe, without any institution, though not without some government of council, nor without such variety, as nature itself is subject unto: Again if by this phrase he mean that a purposed observation of an outward act, with an aim and reference to such a thing, is of necessity required to make up a Cerem: or a Ceremonious action, in worship or otherwise, it is a miserable mistake: Instance thus: A carnal Protestant presents himself amongst such, as are at Mass, he professeth to his companions, before he goes in, and doth in the purpose of his heart seriously loathe the pix and Idol there, yet when it's lifted up, he bows as others do: Let any man in reason tell me, did he not use or abuse rather a Divine Ceremo. in that bowing or no? If the Rej. say yes, as he must, unless he will speak against all reason & truth: I then reply upon his own grounds: That outward action which is not purposely referred, that is not a Cerem. but this action is not purposely observed with any aim to that end for the party intended no such thing, purposed no such matter, but did it as a thing of-course, as a man should bow his knee for exercise when he is alone. 2. Peter withdrawing himself from the Gentiles at the coming of the jews, he did not purposely this, with reference to any judaical separation, as judging any legal pollution in joining with the Gentiles, or holiness in parting from them, and therefore he did not practice any jewish Cere. according to the Rej. conceit, but directly contrary to the text: there is no end of these absurdities.  The differencing term is placed in reference to some other matter, of the substance whereof it is neither necessary cause nor part, Pag. 30. 
Where he seemeth to expound that, which before he called a proper cause by a far differing term of a necessary cause: what should be the intention of this variation I cannot guess: It may be the Rej. forgot, that he was in giving of accurate rules, and so fell into a lose varying of phrases: So likewise in illustrating of this difference, in stead of part he nameth a substantial part, as distinguishing parts into substantial and accidental, of which addition I cannot tell what to make: How ever this is no form or essential difference of a Cerem. from other actions. D. B. hath preached a thousand good sermons, in reference to his flock or people, yet I do not think, he esteemed them Cerem. of his hearers: This Paradox he enlargeth with many similitudes, and examples, I looked he should have alleged some scripture, from whence this might have been gathered or concluded: at the least adjoined some convicting argument, which might have cleared this so main point of his definition, or if none of those, that yet he would have showed some authority or author, who had so writ and spoke, but here is deep silence, and we must take all upon the D rs bare word, but by the D rs leave we are purposed to try his novellies and not to take them upon trust.  
Here (1) it is justly to be faulted, 
The second part of the definition examined and found faulty against all rules of art.  that he goes against all rules of art and reason, making up the chief part of his definition, of a negative, and so in issue tells us, what the thing is not, not what it is: For having said, that a cerem. must be in reference, the demand might be, what reference is that, he adds it is not a cause, or a part, And any may in reason still inquire, if it be not either if those two, what is it then, or what intent you by it, here he leaves himself not a muse or a hole to escape, but even a broad field to walk at liberty in, either to affirm, or deny what he will: For press him thus: If it be not the reference of a cause or part, is it then referred by way of comparison? No: Is it by way of opposition? No: And thus where shall we hold him, or make him stay, Nay where will he himself find footehold to stand: Just for all the world, as if he should define a man to be a living creature, which is not a bird, nor a fish, nor a lamb, nor an ox, how senseless and sapplesse would such descriptions be, and yet this of the Rej. in this place is the like. And hence it is, that in stead of a clearer knowledge, and apprehension of the thing, which should be gained by a definition, I dare be bold to make it good (for I speak but what by experience I have found) that the most ordinary, yea judicious readers, when they thought they knew some thing of a Cerem. before: after they had read this definition, they knew, just nothing at all: Thus his defining is like flinging dust in the eyes of a man's understanding, to delude and deceive, at the least to dazzle and trouble his reason: I hope by the next return, the Rej. will be content to acknowledge this fault, and will tell us in plain English, what he means by this reference▪ which if he do, I am verily persuaded he will be forced to see, how far wide he was, when he mynted and vented these feeble conceits. How ever we will see, what we can make of it, and in this our enquiry, it must not seem strange to the D rs learning, that being simple men, our dull capacities compass several ways that we may find out the foundation, upon which this assertion is built, In which we profess in a word of truth, our desire is not to pervert his meaning, but to understand it.  

It 〈◊〉 m●ny waye● 〈…〉 can be taken.  This reference then in the general wherein it is propounded can carry but two significations we may consider both, that we may guess at the mind of the author.  
1. It's taken for relation, in open phrase, 
Coral. 6.33  and so also he declares it, and in a fair construction seems to intent it, for so he writes. It is not divine nor humane institution that makes a C●remon: 
Reference in no sense can be the form of a Cerem.  for that it is the relation as hath been said which constituteth. If this be his meaning, than the two relats, betwixt whom this relation is, must be their action referring, and the matter or thing unto which it is referred: but in this sense it doth thrust itself & caries a contradiction with it: All relates are mutual causes one of another, And do consist of mutual affection between each other: 
Constant ex mutua alterius affectione.  As there cannot be buying without selling, giving without taking: assume we now in this sense, but the action outward to the thing whereunto it is referred, are relats: Therefore they are mutual causes one of another, therefore how can they be in this reference, and yet be not a cause one of another, which the Rej. expresseth and requireth: this sense not holding, let us see how the other will serve his turn. 
Re●erence taken in the largest sense can not, be the form of a Cerem.   
2. This reference in a large sense implies any kind of notional respect, which can be considered and conceived, beside that of a cause or part, and this draws many absurdities with it.  
1. That which belongs to substantial worship, as well as ceremonial, that cannot be the difference, or proper nature of a Ceremony, for than they should not be distinct one from another: but to be referred to some thing not as a cause or part, belongs even to substantial worship as well as Ceremonial: For each worship of God hath proper and particular causes of which it is made, and unto which it is referred, as an effect, not as a cause or part. 2. The Induction of particulars will make it undeniable, profession of the true God, and the truth of the Gospel is referred to both, not as a cause or part of either: ergo, sound profession is a ceremony: Prayer in all the kinds of it, confession to God, petitioning from God, are referred to him, not as causes or parts; ergo, they are ceremonies.  
Hearing attending conserving, examining things heard, are referred thereunto, not as causes or parts of the things; ergo, they are ceremonies.  
Nay to believe and hope in God, to love and fear him are referred to God not as causes or parts: ergo, these are Ceremon. If it be here said, yea but these are inward actions, whereas our Cerem. are said to be outward by the Rej. I answ: be it granted, yet this kind of reference being the proper form of a Ceremon: the reason still holds good (though we have no need of this example having so many before mentioned) for wheresoever the form or proper nature of a thing is, there the thing form will be, as its a sound kind of reasoning, where there is a reasonable soul as a form, there is a man: Lastly to deride contemn, rail, revyle Christ, his truth and servants is an outward action purposely observed with reference to these, by persecutors, not as causes and parts of them; ergo, these are but Ceremon: sins, and is not here wild work, thinks thou Christian reader.  
3. That which is common to all actions, and all things, can not be a form and difference of a Cerem. to make it differ from all other: but thus to be referred to another, not as a cause or part is common to all outward actions, natural, civil, religious, yea to all natural artificial things: Thus all acts may be referred one to another, and all other to Divinity, not as causes or parts of Divinity: are they therefore all Cer? Nay all precepts of art are referred the former to the latter, not as causes or parts; ergo are they in this Rej. conceit, and by the verdict of this definition Ceremo? Amongst the examples of this difference, the last is to be attended unto because it hath a remarkable note added unto it? Convening in one set place at an honore appointed unto worship saith the Rej. is in that relation a ceremony of worship: and yet as it is an observance of order it is no Ceremo. Of this there can be no doubt, but the observation of time and place, in reference to another thing, is according to the definition of the Rej. a ceremony: But how an observation of this time and place, can be considered as an order, without reference to some thing to be ordered in that time and place, that so it may be differenced from the same order, as it is a ceremony, this is a metaphysical abstraction, as I cannot conceive of, let others therefore judge: When the Apost. chargeth the Corinth, to do all things in order: could he be so understood, that he spoke of order, and of the ceremony of order, and that by doing of things in order, he meant a Cerem: because there is a relation of order to things: but by doing orderly he meant no ceremony, because there is no relation to things: Order without relation to things ordered, is like the accidents in the Popish Sacrament, without any subject after transubstantion: If the doctrine of humane Cerem. cannot stand, or be understood, without such miraculous subtleties let it go seek for those that will receive it. The note added to the former example is: that they who oppose matters of order to matters of ceremony, as if the same thing could not be done in double relations, do confound several notions of things, and oppose things coincident. Here first may be marked, how he crosseth that in this conclusion, which he laid for the ground of it: before he said reference or relation to some other matter doth distinguish a cerem. from order, because a Cerem. hath such a relation, and order as order hath not: but now he telleth us of double relations one in order, and another in ceremo. Secondly he fighteth here without an adversary, except he understand by matters of order, mere order, and by matters of Ceremo. such observations, as are significant by institution, for no man doubteth but Cerem. lawful and unlawful also may be done in order.  
In the example of this rule, the Rej. is so subtle in his subliming and refining of notions, that he hath these words: The observance of the order appointed for reading, singing, praying, etc. is in respect of that order of the substance thereof, but referred to divine service is a cerem. In this (I say) no more good sense appears then needs must, for put those words together: The observance of order, in respect of that order is of the substance thereof: without all quaestion: as a man in respect of the same man is of his substance: So also the observance of a cerem. in respect of that ceremony is of the substance thereof: Here is no difference, neither indeed can any difference be intelligiblely feigned betwixt order of divine service, and order in relation to divine service, but humane Cerem. must thus be handled.  
For a conclusion of this, that we may not altogether send the Reader away with these uncertainties, withdrawing ourselves from the Rej. his by paths, we will in a word or two, a little inquire, what the word of truth, gives us to consider, touching Ceremonies, and see if we can hit the old and the good way, the King's road of righteousness.  
If then we look into the scriptures, 
What the Scripture teacheth touching the nature of a Ceremony.  which are all to inform us, in all things we should do, we shall find no other names of such Cere. which the Lord hath either required, or the church used, but those: TO RAH CHOKIM MISPAT: but the Cere. part of God's service, was made known most usually by the last word CHO KIM, coming of a root, which signify, to grave, frame, carve, fashion in manner of a statue or picture, and is applied as the Hebrews observe, to appoint or make the first rude draught of a thing, and so it fitly imports those services which were enjoined the Israelites, by means of outward sensible, carnal things, all which were but like the horne-book or prymmer, for the church to be schooled by, when it was in its infancy and nonage, and therefore are called, elements of the world, carnal rites, beggarly rudiments, to wit, because these were only supplementa to those spiritual ordinances, which are called moral or substantial: for whereas there be some ordinances of God, which carry a constant and perpetual equity and necessity of our honouring of the Lord: As that there should be a rule made known, to counsel and advise us, how he will be worshipped: requisite it is, we should hear, read, meditate, confer, suffer ourselves to be squared by this rule and word: Equity, necessity requires we should pray, 
The difference between substan●i●ll and Ceremomon worship.  that we should have seals of the covenant to confirm us in regard of our infirmity, how ever there needed none in regard of God's immutability, but to let out his love to us, in the full source of it: Again equal and necessary it is, we should in the name of Christ, cast out what is contrary, and will destroy his kingdom, his prophetical and priestly office, and so his honour: But to have outward elements carnal, and sensible rites, to t●ach our minds, to carry up our hearts to God, laying aside the minority of the church, there is not a perpetual necessity of ●hese, nor add they to the substance of the service, but only help me, because I am weak, and dim sighted, like so many spectacles, to secure my dazzling eye: and therefore are Cerem. the first draught of outward ordinances: Now all the outward types appointed ●hus by God, which foretold Christ to come, and those other rites which by way of signification taught our minds, and so helped and stirred our hearts outward to grace or duty, all these are ceremonies: And consider them, and practise them, as they are in the word appointed, whether it be with any reference, to any other worship, or without reference had to any other worship, they are then and ever were at all these times in themselves, and in their use ceremonious worship: Instance thus: To put on frontletts before the eyes, etc. commanded 15. Numb. and by them to be admonished and stirred to the obedience of the law: take this Ceremo. in the work, and in its own nature, as a mean signifying, teaching, and so working, this is a Ceremony, and so to do is Ceremonions worship: refer it; refer it I say to no other thing, but only to this, unto which it is appointed of God, 
A thing may be a ceremony referred to●hat whereof it is a cause.  as a mean to work & as a cause doth work this, I say look at it, as a cause to work, (which the Rej. excepted in his definition) in this sense it is a ceremony and ceremonious worship: the like of the rest. At a word: It is the verdict and voice of the scripture, and consent of all men, to divyde worship into moral, ceremonial. Whence I gather thus: If there be a ceremonial worship, a distinct species from moral or substantial worship, then is a ceremony in it own proper nature, as such a worship without reference or consideration had of moral or substantial, as a man in his own nature is a living creature, without any consideration of a beast. Again hence its clear, that as well as moral worship hath a complete nature of it own, without ceremonial: So ceremonial hath its complete nature without moral, because they are contradistinct species.  
Again hence it follows, divine ceremonies as such, are parts of worship: every species as it is a species, is part of his genus: but divine ceremonies as such, are species of religious worship: whence that is false which the Rej. affirms in the seventh consectary: 

Pag. 34.  
The seventh consectary examined.   That actions in some consideration may be real acts of Divine worship, and as so, be no ceremonies. For its evident, he doth and must needs speak of acts Ceremoniously religious, and then beside the former argument, I would reason thus: If a man, as he doth refer a religious action to another, doth worship God, then is it a species of worship even in that reference: but as he doth refer a religious action to another, he doth worship God: ergo, that action in that reference is a species of worship: And thus much his own words in the same consectary seem to me to evince: The outward elements and acts in respect of the inward things they do represent and exhibit are cerem. So the Rej. Consect. 7. P. 34. But I assume, God is worshipped by them, or they be parts of worship, in that very use, and therefore as ceremonies they are parts of worship: Hence lastly the vanity of the fift consectary, is plainly discovered, as containing empty words without any worth of matter. For when it's said: To acknowledge any thing, 

Pag. 33.  
The 5. Consectary examined by the way.   to be ordained a Cerem. by man, to be used in the worship of God, and yet to affirm the same to be a part of that worship to which it referreth, implies a contradiction: The answer is easy: It is confessed by all men, that Ceremo. are not part of that substantial worship, I say that particular worship, which they do accompany, and unto which they refer as none of the types in the old law, were either hearing, praying, believing, etc. and yet were real and proper ceremonious worship, in themselves considered, as being a contradistinct species thereof: So also the Sacraments, are no part of that particular inward worship whereunto they refer: namely, faith in God and his promises, and yet by signifying, sealing, according to God's institution, they are true divine cere. and real true parts of worship in the General: So also our humane Cere. as the cross, it is not, nor we affirm it to be, part of our faith in God, or our constant obedience to him, and yet we say as it's made a token to import these, and so made a teacher of these, it's a ceremonious, yet a real species of worship in the general, though false: So that either the Consect. is to no purpose, carrying only an empty sound of words, or if it be taken in a fair sense, it will not free our ceremonies, from the charge of false worship: Thus far we have made a little digression from the Rej. but not from the matter (Christian Reader) nay nor yet wholly from the Rej. because all this, adds still, to the manifestation and confutation of the desperate feebleness of his definition, joined merely out of his own conceit, ●nd vented to the world, without either proof or authority.  
From these premises certain consectaries are deduced, the quality whereof may easily be guessed at, by ●hat which hath been found in the praemises viz. that ●hey are either to little purpose, or false: For the conclusion being false, all the collections which hence he gathers, must needs be as untrue, so that either they are not sound, or else they take no force or foundation of ●oundnes and truth from hence, if there be any in them, ●nd therefore I need add no further examination, for the ●ree itself falling, the boughs must needs follow: For ●ny collection he makes must in this, or the like form ●e concluded: If a Ceremo. be an action external, etc. ●hen this and that and the other will follow. Let me ●eason, and on the contrary side assume: but a cerem. ●s not an outward action instituted, etc. nor is that definition true, as hath been declared by the reply: ergo, none of all those consectaries, may be concluded, can be collected therfrom.  
Yet for more satisfaction sake, let us take a view of the several; but very shortly: The first is, that therefore the same actions one at the same times may in several respects be cere. & no c●re: But if the nature of a cere. doth not consist in reference or relation, as hath been evicted before sufficiently, than the change of the respect or relation, doth not bring-in the change of a ceremony.  
Second Consectary is: 
The second consectary false.  That institution and observation, makes a ceremony not a natural habitude or aptness of any action to express this or that: Now if no natural aptness or habitude make a Ceremo. what will the Rej. say, to things of Decency, comeliness, and order which are ceremonies in his sense. 42. pag. and in a large sense of the word may truly be so called, do none of these arise out of the natural aptness and habitude of the action? The whiteness and cleanness of the communion cloth, doth not the decency thereof issue from the habitude of the thing, which if it was foul and nasty, would not be decent, let all institution do what it could: That a minister should turn his face to his people in the pulpit when he preacheth, and not his back, is not this comeliness in the natural aptness of the action: That people should stand or sit in hearing the word, and not lie along upon their faces, doth not this issue from the natural aptness of the action, without institution, is there not decency in th●se, or can institution make the contrary decent? If therefore decency and comeliness of some actions, to this or that, issue from the natural habitude, than some cerem. do issue out of this aptness, because these are such, and so this consect. is false.  
The thyrd is: that mystical signification is not necessary to make a ceremony (as some would have it) but relation only as appeareth in divers observances of the law: though mystical signification added, may make a double and perhaps a triple ceremony. If this be granted no inconvenience followeth to the Repl. because the quaestion still remaineth, about double and triple Ceremon. such as the cross is, whether it be lawful for men, to institute such in God's worship. And to argue, from a single Cerem. to a double, and triple, this is not from the head of parity. And as for the observances in the law, I deny all of them to have been properly Ceremon. although they be some time so called improperly, and that with judicious junius on Exod. 25. Some Ceremo. are taken up to figure the truth of the thing, 
Aliae Ceremoniae sunt assumptae ad veritatem terum figurandarum, &c quae propriem ad figurationem pertinerent, instituto Dei, aliae verè consumptae, adjected que, non propter figuram rerum, sed propter naturam figutarun. Quemadmodan in his Ceremo. nijs, multa sunt, quae propriè nihil ad naturam Ceremon. faciunt, qua Ceremonia: sed tantum ad naturam rei, quae materiae aspectabilis modo, ad Ceremoniana & figuram Ceremo. nialem usurpatur.  and those appertain properly to the nature of types by God's appointment, others are taken in, not so much, for the resemblance of the things, but for the nature of the figures: As in these Cerem. there be many things, that make nothing to the nature of a Cerem. as such, but only to the nature of the thing, which thing after the manner of some matter liable to sense, is applied about the Ceremony and the Ceremonial figure.  
The fourth is: That the difference which some make betwixt circumstances and Ceremonies is a mere nycetye, or fiction: This is a strange nycety as ever I knew. The turning or jogging of h hour glass in relation to the measure of time for a sermon, the sweeping of the church before the church me●ting, the carrying of some notes for remembrance upon occ●sion, the quoting of scripture without, or by the book, and a 100 such, w●re never esteemed ceremonies properly so called, before men began to b●ing a mist upon religious observances, that humane presumptions might not be discerned.  
The fift hath his answer before.  

Pag. 33. The 6. Consectary examined and found false.  The sixth is: That divine or humane institution doth not make an action to be a ceremony or no ceremony. These consectaries follow marvellous strangely from the premises, when the seem to contradict both the premises, and themselves in some particulars: I would therefore entreat the Rej. to end the quarrel at his next rejoining, and make a reconciliation between these.  

1. To a ceremony Institution is essential, pag. 30.  
2. It is not aptness of an action, that maketh it a ceremony, but Institution. Cons. 2. Pag. 32.  
3. Now here we are told that Divine, or humane institution, do not make an action a ceremony, whence I reason thus:   

A negotione omnium specterum ad negationem generis, valet consequentia.  If neither Divine nor humane institution make a Ceremony, than no institution doth: for all institutions are either Divine or humane, and from the denial of all the species to the denial of the Genus, the consequence is good: as it is neither a beast, nor a man, therefore it is not.  
But this sixth corollary saith, it's neither divine nor humane institution make a ceremony: ergo, I conclude, no institution doth make a ceremony; which is a direct contradiction to the second: which affirms, that institution doth make a Ceremony.  
The seventh hath been discussed and confuted before in the substance of it: 
Pag. 33.  Pag. 34. only that strange kind of expression may here be observed as we pass by: It is not essential to a ceremony simply, that it be no proper part of Divine worship: where let it be observed, that to be no proper part of worship, is a bare negation, or not being of worship: now plain it is, and manifest to all that have but common sense, that a bare negation, cannot be essential to any thing, that hath being, neither simply nor comparatively. And by the same proportion, and upon the same ground, he might as well say, to be no part of worship, is not essential to any thing, and therefore not to a Ceremony: now to what profit, or purpose are such expressions, which serve nothing to the cause in hand, but to darken the truth with words, and to dazzle the minds of the ignorant.  
The eight is; That it is not the use or end, 
The eight consectary largely discussed, & found false.  which maketh a ceremony to be part of divine worship, or not, but institution: Divine institution maketh any circumstance a part; but humane institution, though to the same end and use, maketh only an adjunct of divine worship, because the observance thereof cannot incur the act of any proper worship of God. How this is a consectary following upon the premises it doth not appear. The contrary seemeth to follow from the sixth consectary, where divine and humane institution is denied to make a Ceremony, or no Ceremony, but rather to difference arbitrary, and necessary Cerem. For by the very like reason; Divine and humane institution doth not make worship, or no worship, but rather maketh a difference of necessary or arbitrary will worship. The reason of that is rendered, because relation doth constitute a Ceremo. And the same reason holdeth here, because relation doth constitute worship: The Institution Divine or humane doth only difference the efficient cause, not the matter, form, and end, wherein the essence of worship doth consist. If God's institution did make any circumstance of worship to become worship, than the ceasing from worship should be worship, because there were circumstances of time appointed, when men should cease from solemn worship: The reason which supporteth the other part of this assertion viz: That humane institution cannot make an action part of worship, because the observance thereof, cannot incur the act of worship, is just as much, as if it had been so set down: humane institution cannot make worship; because that which it maketh, cannot be worship. If men appoint even places, and times, in the same manner, to the same ends, that God did, they are worship as well (though not so good) as the other: If this were not so, then wherefore doth the Scripture tell us, of will worship, taken up at the pleasure of men, or according to the institutions, doctrines, and traditions of men? For by the Rej. his rule, there can be no such thing, and therefore it is vain to forbid it. This may suffice for this consectary, yet because the reflection of it doth often occur in the dispute. I further undertake to prove, that it is neither true in itself: nor 2. is it truly inferred from the definition, and both these charges we will endeavour to make good.  
For our right proceeding to discover the falsehood of the collection, when he saith: The same use and end maketh not a ceremony to be part of Divine worship, 
The meaning explicated in what sense it is true, that the same use and end makes a cere. part of worship:  we must not understand true worship, for that all the world of orthodox divines, especially his opposites, against whom he raiseth this consectary, do confess, that only the Lords institution makes divine worship true, but there is religious worship which is false: So that the meaning is, whether the same use and end of a Ceremony, make it not to be in the kind of religious worship, as well without the institution of God, as it's made true religious worship by it. Or whether: when the same use and end of a ceremony which was religious, when God's institution came, the institution being taken away (neither I say) the same use, and end, is not now religious properly: we affirm against the Rej. that Divine Institution being ●aken away, continue the same use, and the same end, ●here is still religious worship properly though false.  
Again this also is especially to be minded, that we ●re than said to keep the same use and end, not when we employ the same thing or action: but when we use ●hem as under the act of the same rule, as in the same way, as in the like virtual respect unto the same end: I often mention that particle of similitude as, because ●hough the ordinances of man, cannot have the same virtue as Gods have, nor can attain the same end of honouring of God as his do, yet if we take them, and use them as such, they are false worship to us, so abusing of inventions, as the use of Gods own ordinances, are true worship: So that where both these are, the same means in a proper religious use, to attain the end properly religious, there is Divine worship. And this thus opened, now comes to be confirmed.  
Where the essential causes are of Divine worship, there is Divine worship.  
Where there is the same use and end, properly religious; there be the essential causes of Divine worship.  
Ergo, there is Divine worship.  


First reason.  
That the ●ame use and end make Cerem. a part of worship reasons.   The first part is beyond all exception, nor cannot suffer a denial of a man, that hath not forsaken and denied reason: The second part or the minor proposition, is thus made good:  Where there is the same operari, i. e. working or act of essential causes of worship; there is the same esse or being of the same causes. 
It being an old received rule, amongst not only Logicians, but even reasonable men, idem operari, ide●esse, the same working, and the same being, go bot● together.  But where the same use and the same end is properly religious, there is same operari or acting of the essential causes of worship: Ergo, there must need be the same essential causes: For when God hath appointed such means to be used to such an end, the appointment being past, the worship is not yet, before those means and end come, and they carry the essence of the action. 
2. We may borrow the ground of another argument from ●he Rej. own grant elsewhere, for pag. 38. speaking of superstitious Ceremonies he hath these words: Ceremonies are superstitious, when men worshipping only the true God, yet place and ●utt upon their own Ceremonies, the title of Divine, as in effect, when the proper service of God is placed in them, or merit, ●r necessity, holiness and efficacy, though by virtue of the church's institution: For what can be said more of God's ordinances then this, nay not all this truly, I mean, for merit etc. ●hence I reason diversely.  
If the superstitious encroaching in God's service, by appointing means of the same use efficacy and end with the Lords, be a breach of worship properly divine. ●hen also is it really and properly though falsely divine worship: 
Opposita sunt in codem predicaments.  for a sin directly contrary to the duty of a command, is even of the same kind with the duty: but ●he appointment and use of such means, in such a virtue ●o such an end, is a breach of true worship really divine, ●rgo it is really divine, false worship.  
3. Again: That which makes a Ceremony properly species of divine false worship; that adds more than an adjunct to divine worship, for an adjunct, doth not vary ●he kind, or make a new species, but only altars the ●ame species.  But institution thus superstitious, makes an action, a species of divine false worship: by the Rej. consent, nay by the confession of all Divines orthodox, that knew what they writ or spoke: Ergo, it adds more than an adjunct to Divine worship, for it makes it a species, which is professedly contrary to that which the Rej. hath in this consectary: namely; that humane institution makes an action an adjunct to divine worship not a part: whereas here its plain it makes it a species, and so a part of Divine false worship. 
4. Again its lawful to add an adjunct, which is properly Divine to God's worship, by the Rej. learning▪ Pag. 36.37. but it is not lawful, to add the means of the use, to the same end, which God hath appointed: As i● was not lawful to the jews to use other bracelets, about there necks, frontletts upon their foreheads, wherein they should write the law, answerable to the Frontletts, and fringes, which God appointed.  
That which the Rej. adds, touching the appointment of the place of meeting, 
Rej. his strange mistake.  is a most miserable mistake: Hi● words are; The Lord's appointment of one place for sacrifices, and of some set days for the solemn worship of God a● the Sabbath, and their feasts to Israel, made the observance of that very place and these times, to be part of worship: But the church's appointment of a set place, 
Pag. 3●.  or time, unto the celebration of the acts of religious worship, because it incurreth not the worship itself, leaves the observance thereof as a mere ceremony.  
Herein (I say) the Rej. miss the mark miserablely: For the Temple was a type of Christ's body: Pull down this temple, and I will raise it up within three days: but he spoke of the temple of his body, john 2.19.21. and the very frame of it by God's institution and ordination, was holy, had an efficiency, and virtue through God appointment, to carry up the heart to God, by that virtual respect, and efficacy which it had, as his means to that end. Now let the Church institute, and appoint a place, and put this virtue, & efficacy in it, by their institution to the same end, to which the temple was appointed, and I suppose the Rej. himself will say, its superstition and false worship: But our temples have no such thing, put upon them, to no such end, & therefore are not in the same end and use: unless the Rej. will ●hould, that prayers better ascend in Paulls' church, when he rounds a pillar in the ear, then when he prays abroad: and that he is of opinion, with Bishop Andrew's, that we are heard, 
Non qui praecatur, sed quia ibi.  not because of the prayer that is made, but because of the place in which it is made: but I hope the Rej. is far of from such delusions.  
The second thing we charge upon this consectary, is; that it is collected by any force of reason, from the foregoing definition: for cast it into a form, and the very expression will be confutation enough: for the frame must stand thus:  If a Ceremony be an outward action instituted, and purposely observed, in relation to some thing, whereof it is neither cause nor part: than it follows, that the same use and end, maketh not a Ceremony part of Divine worship. 
These things have so ill connexion, and cement of reason, that when they are set in a form, they fall all in pieces, as though the consequent was afraid of the antecedent, so far it is from following from the definition naturally, that all the cords of reason, cannot draw them together, as it will appear, if any man will put it to trial, by all the topic places of invention: we will therefore rest, until we hear what Balsam the Dr. brings to heal this wound:  
The nynth and last Consectary is: 
The nynth Consectary gross contradictions.  That Ceremonies may in regard of their general kind and end be worship, so far as they are in their kind parts of order and decency, and yet in their particulars, not be of the substance of order, comeliness, worship. We are at last therefore come to a strange reckoning. 
Pag. 38.  Cer. are in their kind, parts of order, & yet (as we were told pag. 31.) that order so far as it is order, is in that respect no ceremony. 2. A Ceremo. in respect of the genus and end is worship, and yet in the consectary immediately going before, it was peremptorily pronounced, that use and end maketh not a Ceremony part of Divine worship: I take the cause of this cross Doctrine to be, that humane ceremonies in divine worship, are such a cross knot, that he who seeks to open the conveyances of it, must needs run cross in his thoughts and words. To make this crossing more plain, let us first debate (a little more fully) the truth of this corallarie, 
The Consect. opened.  and then see what followeth therefrom. We here have three conclusions.  

1. Ceremonies in their kind, as they are parts of order, and decency, may be acts of religion.  
2. Yet the particulars may not be of the substance of order.  
3. That the particulars are not Divine; which propositions are plainly expressed in the corollary, if they be not contradictious one to another, I must confess, I must bid all reason and logic farewell, or else the Rej. hath a new logic, which yet never saw light: And therefore I reason thus.   
If every particular have the whole nature of the Genus in it, than the general being divine, 
1. Contradiction.  the particulars must be divine; but every particular of order and decency are species to general nature of order etc. therefore they have the whole nature of order in the general; & ergo are divine: & to affirm the contrary which here is done, is to say a living creature hath sense, but the species man and beast hath none: Or; the nature of man is reasonable, but the particulars: Thom. or John are not reasonable; and thus the 3. conclusion implies a contradiction to the first conclusion.  
2. Again the second also is more gross, if more may be added, If the general, give his whole substance & nature to the particulars, then if there be any substance of order, the particulars have it, but the general nature of order gives all the substance to the particulars; ergo, they have it: the maintaining of the contrary conceit, is to bid battle to all reason, and to deny a confessed common, and received principle of art. 
Genus est totum partibus essentiale.  General is that kind of whole, which gives his essence to the particulars. For now far should a man be forsaken of common sense, who should affirm, that manhood, or the nature of man in general, should have the substance of reason: but considered in his species and particulars. Tho. and John, they should be wholly destitute of the substance of reason: And assuredly (good reader) when I considered, the wonderful confidence of the disputer, arrogating so much subtlety and learning, and yet to fall so foul and offend so heavily, against the very rudiments of logic, and principles of reason, I could not but look up to heaven, and lawfully as I could, and tremblingly remember, 
Isay. 29.14.  that of the Prophet: That the Lord is said to put out the understanding of the Prudent.  
Thus we have discussed the falsehood of the Corollary, we will now reason from it, for our own advantage, taking the false grant of the Rej. in this place.  

Genus & species ad idem spectant predicamentum.  Every species under a command, stands by virtue of the same command the Genus doth, as that is a common rule in reason, the general and special appertain to the same place, and it is a rule in Divinity received without gainsaying: the general command by the same stroke and compass comprehends all the particulars under it: and when that, by way of precept is enjoined, all the rest by the same rule, & by virtue of the same command, are also required. We must preserve the life of our Brother, that is the general of the 6. Command, by the same precept, all the particulars of ways and means which are the specials of preservation, are required: but the particulars of order and decency are under the general of order and decency; ergo, these particulars stand by virtue of the same command they do. And by the Rej. grant, these standing by a command of divine worship, and being proper acts thereof: ergo, it must needs follow that the particulars stand by virtue of the command of Divine worship, and are proper acts thereof: we see by this time whither the D rs. Divinity hath brought him.  
Again, if they be so commanded, and be such proper acts of worship: of such acts the Rej. confesseth the Negative arg. from Scripture concludeth well. Such acts of proper worship cannot be imposed by man or the Church, significant ceremonies, which carry such acts of worship, are unlawful, and thus by one grant, he hath yielded there of the arguments, which he strives after to answer and to overthrow.   

CHAP. V Of the sorts and differences of Ceremonies.  
THe first partition of Ceremo. into private or public, close or open, may pass for the evidence of it, but yet it may be quaestioned, seeing institution is essential to a Ceremony, as before we have been taught, to whom the institution of private Ceremonies do belong? whether the convocation house may appoint men, when they eat and drink, go to bed and rise up, to sign themselves with the sign of the Cross?  
The second partition into Ceremon. civil, sacred or mixed: Civil, when their immediate object and end is civil; Sacred, 
The distribution is imperfect and excludes natural Cerem out of the world.  when the immediate object and end is matter pertaining to religion, requireth more attention. And 1. it is to be noted, that by this division, all natural Ceremo. are abrogated or excluded, for else the first distribution should have been; Ceremo. are either natural or instituted: Now Bellarmine himself more considerately maketh some ceremon. natural. 
De effect. Saeram. lib. ● cap. 29. Q●aedam Ceremoniae sunt ab ipsa natura ●uodammodo institutae, quae naturales dici possunt: quale est. respicere in ●●●lum, tollere, manus, ●●ectere genua, cum De●●m oramus.  Certain Cerem. receive institution, as it were from nature itself, which may be called natural Cerem. as to look up to heaven, to lift up our hands, and to bow our knees, when we pray unto God. Note also the varying of the phrase: In civil cerem. he requireth an immediate civil object & end, but in sacred he will have it enough, that the immediate object and end, be matter pertaining to religion. There may be some purpose in this, to exclu●e all civil Cerem. and so civility out of matters pertaining to religion, that all things being counted religious, humane mystical Ceremo. in religion, may not be discerned from common observations, which are equally and often used to the same immediate end both in civil, and in religious matters. These things reserved, the substance of this partition may pass, together with the illustrations of it: Only one illustration I would have remembered for future use. An action (saith the Rej.) imperated of religion, or springing out of the fear of God, may be civil, and belong to the second table. This is that which some of our Divines mean, when they speak of mediate worship, that is, there be duties belonging to the second table, imperated or governed by religion, but not immediately flowing from it. This the Rej. taketh hold of in many places, and maketh thus actions religious, which here he calleth civil. The conclusion drawn out of this partition is, that they have the spirit of contradiction, which say that the church may not ordain Cer. merely ecclesiastical, but only common, because all Cer. in religious affairs, are m●erely ecclesiastical: And beside the cross & surplice have there civil use, as a cross for a shop sign, etc.  
But if one spirit cross another, 
Contradiction.  those spirits must be tried (saith the Apost.) and where there is want of reason and good ground, there is that spirit, which the Rej. blameth, and objecteth to others. Now upon a short trial, it may appear, where it waketh: The Rej. told us before, that some ceremonies are mixed, partly civil, and ●artly sacred; now he telleth us with the same breath, that any ceremony in religious affairs is merely sacred and ecclesiastical: And by proportion any Cerem. in civil affairs must needs be merely civil, what then is become of the mixed or common sort: here sure is a contradiction from what spirit soever it come. 2. What ●n assertion is this, any ceremony used in religious affairs, is merely sacred? If men and women come purposely in their best apparel to church, if they compose themselves to a grave posture, give the upper place to ●he chiefest persons, and take such to themselves, as they may hear the preacher in, and yet have no exception taken against them for it, if all the places and seats be made cleanly and fit for a meeting, to be held in a comely fashion, all these are ceremo. according to the Rej. his definition, yet no man but out of contention ●ill affirm they are merely religious, or ecclesiastical: For all these in the same manner & to the same immediate end, the same persons would do, if the meeting were to hear the magistrate propound unto them a grave civil business, concerning the common wealth affairs. And surely that which remaining the same may be civil, 
Many Ceremonies are of common use, in things civil & ecclesiastic.  is not merely and properly ecclesiastical, but common to both uses, and rather merely civil, then merely ecclesiastical, because civility is supposed and included in ecclesiastical affairs, but ecclesiastical proceed are supposed and included in civil. Dr. jackson in his original of unbeleef, pag. 337. doth well observe: That decent behaviour doth change the subject only, not alter its own nature and form, whilst it's used in matters sacred: Nor is the habit of civil compliment, or good manners, such an unhallowed weed, as must be laid aside, when we come into the sanctuary. And indeed there is no more reason, to shut civility out of the church, or sacred business, then to shut religion out of the town-house or civil affairs. 3. That which is added of a civil use of the Ceremon. in quaestion doth nothing agree. If a porter or baker wear a linen garment in the Church, upon occasion, as at other times, no man will except against it, or account it a ceremony, ecclesiastical, or religious.  
A cross that is used for a shop sign, hath no ecclesiastical or civil use in religion, except there be so many temples in one place, that they must be distinguished by signs, as shops are: As for the examples mentioned before, of the Bishops in their formalities, and the Clerks in their surplices, at a funeral for civil use: I answer, the immediate end of such formalities is religious, even in that, they are characters of ecclesiastical persons, and their religious office: Are not Rochetts and such like formalities ecclesiastical ceremonies, being signs of chief ecclesiastical officers as such? The furnerall, at which they are present, doth no more make them civil, then among the Papists it maketh all their superstition to become a civil order: Nay by this it appeareth that both civil ceremonies may be used in ecclesiastical affairs, and ecclesiastical cerem. in civil affairs, because both may be used in the same affairs. To traverse these notions more full, I add these considerations: These words, matter pertaining to religion added in the explication of sacred cerem. may carry a double sense. 

Pag. 35.  
The definition of sacred ceremon. discussed.   1. That it is enough to make ceremonies sacred, if this be their end to be serviciceable to some thing, which is an ordinance, or to some person, in a holy function, or performance of an ordinance, and this seems to be the Rej. meaning for his examples carry this meaning, when wearing of blacks, rending of garments, in days of humiliation are made by him sacred cer. as also by those words, wherein he is so peremptory, and expresseth his lordly censuring, even of men's hearts, in lusting after contradiction, if they deny ceremonies used in religious affairs to be merely ecclesiastical, but this we conceive to be false, & hope it hath in part, and shall appear to be more plainly in the following discourse.  
Secondly it may carry this sense: that is truly sacred, when the object is God, and his honour aimed at immediately, as when we kneel to God in prayer, we do not kneel to the scripture, or man praying but God directly: or when the next object is a holy thing, but so attended as by that, or in the use of that, we tender up honour to God and attain that end. As the minister preacheth the word to the people, and they hear it preached, but by both and in the virtue of both, according to God's appointment, the heart is carried in holy affections, and apprehensions to him, and so both hold out God's honour: So Sacraments given and received, excommunication dispensed, they hold out the spiritual government of God and his honour unto us, & bring our hearts under his hand to give that honour which is due to his power, sovereignty, and holiness, appearing therein unto us: This only makes a thing properly sacred, but if things of any nature, only so far attend a religious, either person, thing, or performance, as that they help not in carrying out the act to God, and so tendering honour to him, but stand only in a distance, and subordination as things of necessity, or in some conveniency presupposed to go before a religious work, in a common way to that, as to other things, in the like proportion, and have the self same work in that sacred as in civil affairs, this is not sacred at all: So place and time, a font, will do as much to any civil action, as to a sacred: So that only religion applieth, and takes to itself, that civil circumstance, that it might put forth his own act, as upon a stage, makes such things do as much for him, as for any politic and natural work, Religion serve its turn upon these occasions. In a word the ground lies here: The latter art, ever useth the work of the former, 

A●s posteriot 〈…〉 titus' ope●●  
How a th●ng may ●●rve a sacred action, or be used ecclesiastically, & yet not be sacred.   sometimes for necessity, sometimes for conveniency, and adjoining himself to it, doth of itself, do its own work: So that the thing, is either a subject unto which the act of religion or policy is applied, or else, that fitness which such things have in subordination, to have other things to be annexed to them, is that common end, which such things hold out indifferently, by the ●ame rule, to civil and sacred actions, and ergo are common to them both, but are neither properly: Instance ●hus: A magistrate of the common wealth; A General in the field; A minister of a congregation, they may successively stand upon the same hill: the magistrate to deliver the law, and judgement, to the subject: The General to give his charge to the soldiers: The Minister ●o preach unto a congregation. Is any man such a wiseacre, as to say, this hill is a civil, or politic hill, a warlike hill, a sacred hill, because it serves all these actions of policy, war, and religion: so that to make the point plain, because we are forced to show forth the feebleness of the Rej. dispute, we will now from these grounds (Reader) reason, and exemplifye, that the meanest may understand.  
If to be applied to a religious affair, make a thing sacred, than all things almost and all arts may be sacred, because they may be applied to a matter, thing, or person religious, as the next object and end. If the pulpit be a sacred thing, because it is applied to support the minister preaching: then is the air sacred, it's applied to his speech in speaking: then is the light sacred, it's applied to his eye in reading, then are his spectacles sacred, for they are used by him, reading his text, than the two pottle pots, which hold the wine consecrated, should be sacred pots, Nay the ministers doublet, that covers him, yea if he was hoarse, and took some oil to help his voice, they should now become sacred doubletts, and sacred oil. The paper book which the preacher looked on, when he is out in his sermon, should be a sacred paper book, and to follow the Rej. if putting on of ashes upon the head, be sacred in the day of humiliation, then by like proportion, when God enjoines people in a fast, to put on their poorest and meanest attire, those ragged bands, and old Caps, and Quoifes were sacred bands, and Quoifes and Caps: But do you laugh at these things masters? when the Rej. is so violent in this cause, that he breaks the bridle, and flies out against all, that will not yield to him in this: And I would wish the reader to consider how righteous it is, with God, to suffer men to fall foully when they will follow their own imaginations: Erewhile the Rej. made all things Cerem. by the looseness of his definition, and now to help the Ceremo. he would make all things sacred by the large compass he gives to religious Cere. The vanity of which expression, I hope appears sufficiently, by that, which hath been said, but yet that the meanest may feel with his finger, the grossness of this mistake, 
A pregnant example confuting the falsne● of the for●e● ground.  I shall add one more instance. The height of the sun, or the sound of a clock one & the same, may at the same time, in the same city, be a direction for Protestants, Papists, jews, Anabaptists, & all sects to assemble for religious service: It may at the same time by the same sound be a direction, for magistrates to meet for judicature, for drunkards to meet to riot, for gamesters to meet to play, for travellers to meet to set upon their journey: so that it hath relation to all these religious politic, profane practices at once, I would fain have the Rej. tell me, what a kind of Ceremony this is? If he say religious, I then demand, is it anabaptistical, Papistical, judaical, Lutheran, Protestant, Arminian, superstitious, or truly religious cerem. is it any one of these, or all of these, for to them all it serves in their intentions, and purposed observation, and by the institution of him that set it up happily. Nay it hath relation to many other affairs, and so it shall be a politic, civil cerem. it serves to that end, it may be called, a riding, a playing, a drunken ceremo. for it serves at once to all these purposes, and in all their intentions and purposed observations hath equal relations unto all: Again those things whose end is immediately God's honour, they must be able to cause that honour, for each thing can reach his own and immediate end, in the course of nature, or rational institution, one time or other: But all things which only attend upon religious affairs, can never attain this end, or cause the worship of God in lifting up his honour: of this kind are time and place, being bare circumstances: the like may be said of the font, which is no more sacred, than the mud & banks were that contained the water of jordan where baptism was celebrated.  
Thus of the definition in the general, some other specials be, in the explication whereof, I shall desire the Rej. judgement, and help a little, that I may understand his meaning, at his next return. When he saith, pag. 36. 
Pag. 36.   
If the next immediate use belong to religion, as jeroboams setting up of his calves, that the people might worship there, the action shall be construed religious whether true or falsely so called.  
join to this the words of the eight corollary which go thus:  
It is not the same end, and use, which maketh a ceremony part of divine worship, I desire a reconciliation of these two: For: 
That which makes actions, such species of religious worship as jeroboams bowing to the Calves, that makes them parts of divine worship, though false.  
But the use and end here make actions such true and real species of false worship religious, as jeroboams bowing to the calves was: ergo, the use and end makes Cerem. parts of divine worship.  
Again he saith: it is not so much the term from which, that shall denominate the action, as the term to which, Pag. 36. 
Pag. 36.    
If he mean by not so much, that is never a whitt, as I conceive he doth or must, I desire he would inform us, by his next answ: of this case: Conceive a man (coming to do homage according to custom to the King) shall by reason of an erronrous conceit, bow out of a sacred opinion and affection, though the object be civil, and the act terminated in the person of the King, whether is this action sacred or no?  
Again I inquire what those words mean: The same Ceremony which is in present use sacred, may be forth with by the change of the object become civil: 

Pag. 36.  
The change of the object doth 〈◊〉 ●●ke the ●eremony 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉.   The people bowing down worshipped God and the King, the Ceremony was materially the same, but objectively different. These expressions need a comment: If by materially the same, he mean the natural action is the same, its true, but that is nothing to this purpose. Let him tell us, whether there is a peculiar specification of those actions in themselves, before they come at the object: Since the object supposeth the being of the thing in its kind, before it can be an adjunct to it: If there be the same specifical and formal nature of the action, then that bowing being civil when it is performed to a man, why might not John have tendered the like to an Angel, and the angel received it, in that he might have done it, as to a fellow servant of higher honour and account, and the angel needed to have feared religious worship, for he being known once to be a creature, the change of the object would have altered the worship: But the angel it seems was of another opinion, than the Rej. and conceived that it was religious worship before it came to him, and would not have been civil worship if the object had been changed.  
The third partition (of sacred Ceremo. into properly sacred, is those of divine institution, which are simply necessary, 
The third partition.  necessitate praecepti, & reductively so called, as those which in their particular have no divine institution, but are applied to things divine, and these are arbitrary and ambulatory cerem. This partition is something obscure and therefore should not have been set down in bare words, but had some sufficient warrant and explication: For 1. if these be true members they must have the true nature of things sacred agreeing to them both equally and essentially: but things which are applied to Divine actions, have not the nature or definition of things sacred, because they be applied as adjuncts to the subjects in a separable manner. It's all one as if a man should divyde, a living creature, either that which is so properly, as a man, or that which is so reductively, 
The vanity of these ter●es reductively sacred.  as a garment, because it is applied to a man. 2. Proper is usually opposed either to tropical, or to common, or to alien, or else to unfit, unto none of these senses can it be referred in this place where it is opposed to reductive. 3. Sacred arbitrary cerem. are in truth arbitrary worship, and arbitrary worship is will worship. 4. I would know to whom our Cere. are arbitrary? Surely to the imposers only, and so all instituted Cerem. are arbitrary, though to others, they be made never so necessary, they are not (it will be said) made necessary to salvation. No more say I are all popish Cerem. nor all Divine, absolutely necessary to salvation, nor so made or esteemed: Ours are made, as necessary to salvation, as man can make them, when the ordinary means of salvation, are absolutely denied to all those that refuse them.  
The fourth partition is, 
The fourth partition.  of reductive sacred ceremo. into rightly so called, and abusively: which is indeed an explication of the former division, for sacred Cerem. of Divine institution, are rightly called and the other abusively: But the Rej. findeth both these under the head of reductively sacred (Rightly reductively sacred strange amazing terms) are they whose object and end is good, and the things not unapt, etc. where I cannot but admire, that no place is given, to a good efficient or institutor, with fit authority in matters of institution: we cannot understand by this description, but a Ceremo. is as sacred and religious, when it is appointed by a Vestrye of Layicks, as when the convocation imposeth it. 2. The papists have as good ends, and objects, and also as much aptness in most of their Cerem. as we have in ours, and yet they are taxed by our divines, as not rightly sacred, and they themselves are ashamed to defend sacred ceremonies, merely humane, or without special authority of the institutors, how good soever they esteem them for object and end: So the Rhem. on Math. 15.9. Cerem. are made by the H. Ghost, joining with our Pastors, in the Regiment of our Church. So also Bristol against Dr. Fulk in his Rejoi. to Bristol, pag. 104. Nay there is no order of Friars that will admit of new Ceremon. to be rightly reduced upon them, what ever their object, end, and aptness be, except they come from the institutor of the order: All Casuists do hold it for a wrong unto them, if their Priors, Abbatts Generals, should impose upon them the observance of any thing, beside the vow which they have made, to observe the rites instituted by their founder: And are not we Christians, as much tied by our vow unto Christ, as they are to Dominicus, Fransciscus, etc. Or are we more subject to our Prelates, than they are to their superiors, by vow of obedience? Luther also hath given us a good item in Gen. 22. 
In religion's nihil tentandum vel audendum: Querendum in talibus, quis, qualis, quantus sit qui jusserit; Diabolus mutat haec, in Quid, quale, quantum.  In religion nothing is to be attempted or rashly adventured upon, but in things belonging thereunto, we must always inquire, who, how good, and great the person is who commands: But the Devil changeth these things, in to what, of what quality, and how great the thing is. Is it not strange then, that from an ancient reverend minister of the Gospel, a hundred years after, there should come a doctrine, of right instituted reductive sacred Ceremon. without any respect of the authority, which is in the institutor? And yet even if these conditions made necessary by the Rej. a quaestion may be made concerning the cross, whether two cross motions of a finger and a thumb, be things apt to put Christians in mind of Christ's passion for us, and our passion and profession for him?  
Abusively reductive sacred Cerem. saith the Rej. are Idolatrous, superstitious: Idolatrous, respecting a wrong object: Superstitious made divine in terms or in effect: Impious, casting-off Gods Cerem. or obscuring the Gospel, by representing the History and mystery thereof by dumb shows, as in the Pageants of the Mass. Here again the same fault is committed, that opposite members of a distribution, are made subordinate one to another, and may be predicated or affirmed, as Genus and Species, which is an infinite feebleness, in a judicious disputer: for are not idolatrous, impious: are not superstitious impious Ceremo. as those which professedly cross the first and second command, wherein piety is most properly placed, and thus divisions fill up places and breed confusion.   

CHAP. VI Concerning the difference betwixt popish Ceremon. and ours, in regard of necessity, holiness and efficacy, wherein how far we join with the Papists, is fully discussed by the confession of papists themselves.  
TO let pass the first abuse of Idolatry: Superstition is confessed to be present, where the proper service of God or merit, necessity, holiness, and efficacy, by the church's institution or the doers merit, or when omission of them is ●ounted a sin without contempt or scandal, as it is amongst ●he Papists, saith the Rej.  
We are now come by this distinction, to discern the differences betwixt the popish Cerem. and ours, theirs being condemned and abominated, and that justly for ●hese evils which are found in them: but ours are whol●y acquitted, as though they shared not in the same guilt: Let us therefore inquire into this business, with that received caution, hear the other side. 
Audi alteram Partem.   
First as touching merit, which is attributed to the doing of Ceremo. by Papists: the difference here, lies not firstly in Cerem. in particular, but about good works in general, the Papists making all good works of believers to be meritorious, and we denying that presumption. But set that controversye aside, our Prelates professed, the observation of our Cerem. to be good works of the same kind, that many of the learned Papists do many of theirs. The mainy enquiry lies about, propriety of worship, necessity, holiness, efficacy: And (merit being excluded) if these be found in ours, as well as in those of the papists, they will prove guilty as there's, and with there's to be condemned. 

How we join with Papists in giving propriety of worship to Cere.  
Balthasar Chavasius jesuita de notis verae religionis lib. ●. cap. 2. sic dicit: Minores Ceremoniae de respectu ma●orum, quod cum hae praecipui sunt momenti, ac divinum cultum per se & direct respiciunt, illae catenus tantum ad colendum Deum conferant, quatenus ad ornatum significationemque ejusmodi cultus, vel praecipuarum ejus praetium conferant.    
Inquire we then, of the severals: 1. In the doctrine of worship I see not how, or wherein the jesuites do differ from the Def. and Rej. about such Ceremonies as ours. Balthasar Chavasius the jesuite, in his notes of true religion saith thus: Ceremonies are called lesser, in respect of those which are termed greater, because these are held of greatest consequence, and to appertain to divine worship, of themselves, and directly: but those to wit such are cerem. of lesser note, they so far conduce to the worshipping of God, as they serve for the ornament & signification of such worship, or the special parts thereof: which is so pat the Rej. & Def. doctrine, that they may seem to have translated his words.  
For necessity to salvation, no learned Papist ever writ or taught any such thing of all their Cerem. Darbyshyre Bonner's Chapplyne, and kinsman, professed to Mr. Thomas Hawks Martyr, that no Ceremon. (beside those which Christ himself instituted) are necessary to salvation, but only for instruction: whereupon Mr. Hawks answered; God send me the salvation, and take you the instruction. If necessity of observance be respected (which the Def. ca 6. sect. 3. calleth obediential,) that is not only as great in our Cere. as in any of the Papists, and more also, but advanced by Dr. Covell to equipage with the Decalogue, and Dr. B. by his silence yielding unto him, and imitating of him, doth seem to subscribe to his sentence, and certain it is, that he writ with Achyepis. allowance. Ecclesiastical constitution, saith he, doth change the nature of indifferent things, & by virtue of the commandment they become necessary, men's Laws while they are in force, commanding or forbidding, bind the conscience as the Decalogut doth, in his preface to the confutation of Dr. B. his apology: The Rej. comes not far short of this plea, pag. 42. where he saith: They are ordained to be used necessarily, in respect of order and peace, though in respect of judgement, and immediate conscience to God freely: 
How the Rej. and Papists agree touching the necessity of Ceremonies.  The former part of these words, layeth more necessity upon our Cerem. than the learned Papists do upon all theirs: The latter doth take away no more, than the like words of theirs do, as by and by shall appear. In the mean time let him that can unriddle me this: They are ordained to be used necessarily in respect of order and peace, though in respect of judgement, and immediate conscience to God freely: Is there one conscience mediate, and another immediate? Is necessity of order and peace free in judgement and immediate Conscience? Can any creature, or is any so foolish as to say, they can lay a bond upon conscience immediate to God? Is it not a contradiction, for men by their authority, to bind immediately to God's authority? The truth is our convocation doth make our Ceremonies, as necessary as they can, either by ecclesiastical, Civil, or Divine authority, whereas the Papists say, they can make many of theirs more necessary, than they do, if they would: And yet in all, their highest pitch is, they call them necessary: 

Non ex necessitate sal●tis, sed ex institutione Ecclesiae.  
Non ex necessitate sacramenti, sed praecepti. Bell. do effect. Sacra. cap. 21. propo●. 2. ●   Not out of any necessity to salvation, but out of the church's institution: and enjoined the Sacramentalia, not by any necessity of a sacrament, but of a commandment of the church, and we do no less.  
For making it sin to omit these cere. even without the case of scandal & contempt. 1. This no learned papist doth say of all their cer. as you shall hear straight. 2. Our practice doth say so much in that, bare ommission where none are scandalised or contemned, is made a fault punishable, nay more than that, when by the practice of them, many are scandalised, and great contempt doth follow to some users of them, yet is it, a capital fault for them to omit them so long, until they may use them without scandal, and contempt: And what hath been said of worship, necessity, and sin as that we concur with papists cerem. pressing our Ceremon. upon the same conditions, as they in the former considerations, the like is true also touching holiness.  
Now because some of these things, which I have affirmed, concerning the doctrine of the Papists about Cerem. may seem strange to those, that take the measure of their opinion, not from them, but from the occasional and imperfect sayings of their adversary parties: It shall be necessary, to hear themselves speak: First let us hear Cassander with his allegations, who so much consenteth with D. Burges, that his Rej. might better have been called, and entitled Cassander Anglicanus, then M. Sprints book was, save only, that there is more passion showed in it, than Cassander's temper, and professed moderation could be brought unto. 
Cassand. in consult art. 7. Illud falsum e●le existimo, aliquos docuisse, externos lilos ritus & cerem. e●le cultus necessarios ad promerendam justificationem coram Deo, nec aliud i●us nubus 〈◊〉 quam quod corum externa observatio, de vero & interno cultu nos admoneat, & ad eum manu ducat, & 〈◊〉 ex vera in Christum fide & obedientiae Ecclesiae Christi fiant, cui Christus obtempe●ari praecepit, ead apud Deum laudem habent, quam caetera pieratis opera: Id autem ingenue omnes confitentur, in ijs fiduciam saluvis non esse collocandam. Idem pag. 869. Opinionem falsam cultus, meriti, necessitatis. Pontisicij ipsi (quibus illam assignat Mell.) non agnoscunt, sed fals● sibi attribu● dicunt: Sic Thomas & B●el apud cundem pag 871.872. Idem pa. 875. St. huiusmodi praerepterum positivorun explicatione consideretur haud multum ● consilio, sous exhortatione differre comperientur, etc. Si quorundam sentent a rigidior hie videtur, nemo c●edo ●rohibebit mitiorem sentennam sequi, quae a Gersone, ut a multis optimisque viris Gersonem imitantibus ●xplicatur, qui in hujusmodi praeceptorum transgre. Tone, in sole scandals & contemptu peccatum mortale ●●ll●c●nt: Idem ibid. Alphonsus Verbesius sic: Nostrae traditiones nihil capitalis periculi adferunt transgressoribus, nisi adsit animus impius & contemnens. Perionius (ex Sorbona● opinor sua sententia) sic: 〈◊〉 sunt in ecclesia Ceremoniae, quae sub consiltum cadunt, quae autem sub praeceptum cadunt ut ca●●●●●●dem violatores, omnes nostri peccati reos esse volunt nifis sort contemnant.  Cassander in his consult. article 7. I conceive that to be false, that any of ours should have taught, those external rites and Ceremo. to be worships necessary to procure justification before God: Neither is any other thing attributed to those rites, but that their external observation may admonish us of the true and internal worship, and might by the hand lead us thereunto: And if they be done out of true faith in Christ and obedience unto the Church of Christ, to which Christ hath commanded as to be subject, they receive that acceptance from God, which other works of piety do: But that all ingeniously confess, our hope of happiness is not to be placed in them: Again, the same Cassander pag. 869. The false opinion of worship, merit, necessity, the Pontificans themselves (upon whom that conceit is fathered) do not acknowledge, but affirm that it is falsely attributed unto them. Of this judgement Thomas Aquinas, and Byell are said to be by the same Author pag. 870.871. And in p. 875. If the explication of those positive precepts be considered, they will be found, not to differr much for an advice or exhortation, etc. If the sentence of some may appear more rigid: I believe, that no man is forbid to follow ●he more moderate opinion, which is explained by Gerson, and followed by many worthy men, who in the transgression of such kind of precepts, place the mortal sin only in scandal, and contempt. The same author in the same places. Alphonsus Verbesius thus: Our traditions bring no deadly ●anger unto the transgressors thereof, unless the heart be impious and contemning. Perionius (out of the sentence of the ●orbone School as I suppose) writes thus: there be many Cere. ●n the church, which fall under the nature of a counsel, but ●hose which come under the nature of a precept, the violators ●o not of them, all ours would make guilty of sin, unless peradventure they shall be found contemners.  
This which Cassander saith is fair, yet to make it more full, I will add some other testimonies, and those of note. 
Gregor. de Valent. Tom. 4 Disp 3. qu. 1. pa●t. 4 Clarum cit ●endacium quod his ritibus tantum tribuan●ns. quantum ipus Sacramentis, item quod eo loco habeatur, quasi nequeat sine illis confici verum Sacramentum: Si aliqui vulgares in ea parte errant, & sie sentiunt, id certe neque ecclesia docer neque Theologi: Si caetera scadalum & contemptumomittantur, & res sit exigua, vel etiam de●t voluntas & deliberatio plena, peccatum erit tantum veruale. Cajetan. sum voce precept. Vniversalis est regula, quod in ijs quae sunt positivi juris fi absque contemptu & ref●atione 〈◊〉, ex apparente sibi excusatione transgressio fiat, ab eo qui animum habet multo pacto conse●i●● d●●r, contra praeceptum obligans ad mortale, non incurritur mortale peccatum, quoniam non e●t intetio, 〈◊〉 & jultae matris, ecclesiae, bonas hujusmodi animas illaqueare tam hostili vinculo.  Gregorius de Valentia a jesuite, Tom. 4. disput. 3. quaestion. 1. part. 4. It is a notorious lie, that we attribute so much to these rites as we do to the Sacraments, and that we have them in the same account, as though a true Sacrament could not be instituted without them: If any of the vulgar sor● err in that behalf and so conceive, assuredly; neither the church nor divines so teach: If they be omitted without scandal and contempt, and the matter be small and that a serious will and full deliberation be wanting, it will be only a venial sin. So Cajetan a Cardinal: The rule is universal, that in those things which stand by a positive law, if the transgression be made without contempt, and crossing the end of th● law, from some excuse appearing to the party, if it proceed from him, who hath a mind no ways siding against the command which bynds to a mortal sin, a mortal sin is no● by that breach committed, because it is not the intention of th● holy and just mother the church, to ensnare such good souls▪ with so dangerous a bond.  

Bellarm. de effect. Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 29. Quaedam Cere. sunt immediate cultu●, quaedam disponunt ad eni●um, quadam sunt instrumeta cultus Id. ibid. ●ap 31 Calvinus indi●ar crimenesse si per contemptum vel crassam negligentiam omittantur Cerem. at nihil aliud ecclesia de sum Ceremonijs d●cet. Idem de Rom. Pontif. lib 4. cap. 18. Catera non sunt l●ges, fed adm●nitiones, vel pia institutiones sine obligatione ad culpam, qualet s●nt plurimi ritus Christianorum: Necenim peccat, qui citra contemptum non aspergit se aqua luftrali, cum ingreditur templum, etc.  Bellarmine also thus: Certain Cerem. are immediate worship, some dispose unto worship, some are instruments of worship: The same author in the s●me place, cap. 31. Calvyn saith he judgeth it a fault, if Cerem. be omitted out of contempt o● gross negligence, and our Church teacheth no other thing touching her Ceremonies. The same author again: Other Ceremonies are not laws, but admonitions, and wholesome institutions, which bind not a man over to any blame, such as many of the rites of Christians be, for he doth not offend, that without contempt, doth not sprinkcle himself with holy water, when he enters into the temple.  
It was but a poor proof therefore of the Rej. to allege, that which Bell▪ saith of some Ceremonies, as if it did agree to all popish Cerem. and that in the common judgement of Papists. Calvin speaking in the person of sorbonical D rs, declareth their opinion to be; That Ceremonies bind consciences by accident, to wit, 
Quod Cereligant conscientias per accidens propter ratificationem, quia ecclesia hoc intendit, & populus consentit▪ Antid. ad art. Paris. ar●. 25.  because of their ratification, in that the church intent this, and the people consent. Lastly the judgement of Papists is clear, that they put no holiness in the Cerem. instituted, you must place no holiness in images, Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. By this which hath been said, it is (as I think sufficiently manifested, that the differences betwixt all popish Cere. and ours, of worship, necessity, holiness, and sinful omission, are vainly and without ground alleged by the Rej.  

1. Do the Defend. and Rej. affirm, that our Cere. are not properly worship, 
The sum of agreement betwixt the Rej. and Papists.  but only to admonish us thereof: The Papists say the same.  
2. Do the Defen. and Rej. affirm, that the omission of them without scandal and contempt, is not a sin: The Papists say the same.  
3. Do the Def. and Rej. affirm, ours are not necessary to salvation, but necessary by the command of the Church to be practised: The Papists say the same, nay of some of theirs, they say less, for they say, that many of theirs, are only appointed by way of counsel, not of command.   
There is one other difference, which is added to the former, that Sacramental operation and efficacy is enfeoffed upon Popish Cerem. as he mentioneth pag 40. out of Bellar. I add concerning this: 1. That Bell. doth not affirm this of all Cere. 2. that he doth not ascribe this virtue to the cross as a humane Ceremo. but as an imagined institution of God: 

What kind of operative virtue the Papists place in their rites.  
Potissimum ●x instituto Dei De effect. Sac●amen, lib. 2. cap. 3.  
Sacramentalia non operantur remisitonē peccatorum venalium, neque instituta sunt ad eam significandam, sed ad excitandum animum in d●testationem illorum, Vasque● on 3. dispie●. 28. cap. 5. art. 4.  
Balthasar Chavasius de notu verae religioni●, lib. 1 ca, 21. Tantam rev●ra differentiam po●●mus, inter Cerem. & ●a quibus accedunt, Sacra. quantum corticem inter & truncum, corpus & animam, foli●. & arborem, unde concedimus illar omitti posse in gravi necessitate. Verba quadam visibilia.  
That our Prelati give a moral operation to their rites and Cerem. and the Papists do no more: Arg.   especially from the institution of God: The chief jesuits' do disclaim this operative virtue of many Cerem. sacramentals do not work remission of venial sins, neither are they appointed to signify that, but to stir up their mind to detestation of them: So the jesuite Vasquez. Balthasar Chavasius another jesuite: It is without quaestion, that we put so much difference between Cerem. and the Sacraments, to which they are applied, as between the bark, and the wood, the body and the soul, the leaves and the tree, whence it is we grant that they may be omitted in any weighty necessity. Cassander also Consult. art. 9 well observeth, that the best Papists do make the Cere. of Bapt. only, certain visible words: from whence it followeth, that they give no other operation to them then to words, which all favourers of sig. ceremo. must needs give: And our prelates do give in all their proceed, and expressions: as by the following arg. shall appear.  
1. What ever is a mean any manner of way ordained, to bring in divine worship, and to carry the mind and heart to God in that: is so morally efficacious, as the Papists require, and so as our Divines condemn it. Nay if it be by teaching, & stirring towards these supernatural works, as Gods spiritual worship: It's that which the Lord condemns in images, which tell lies, it's that which the Lord threatens Isay. 29.13. that his fear is taught, according to men's commands. And this kind of efficacy our Cerem. have by their institution as they are appointed, and enjoined to be used. The preface to the book of common Prayer, discovering the intendment of the imposers, hath these words: Such are retained, which are apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, by some notable and special signification, whereby he might aedifyed.  
2. These Ceremo. which are of the same kind, and homogeneal with the significative part of the actions in the Sacrament, they may be said, to have a real and true efficacy of teaching, and so be a work of proper worship: because that part of the Sacrament, which is placed in signification, is so: but these ceremonies are homogeneal, & of like nature, with that part of the Sacrament, doth baptism consecrate the child to God? and so doth the cross: doth baptism signify the covenant, between Christ & the child? so doth the cross: it's openly said, to betoken the engagement, that is betwixt Christ and the child, that he shall be Christ's servant, and soldier to follow his colours, and to fight under his banner unto his dying day: though this image have no tongue of it own, yet its speaks by the mouth of the Prelates appointing, and their substitutes the ministers acting this image.  
3. Consider that which is made end of our Cerem. that our Cerem. are able, or at least are conceived to be able to attain, for every rational means can reach the end, now this is the end of the cross his institution, the white at which it shoots, and the minister makes it spell this lesson, even our dedication unto Christ▪ and our continual perseverance in his service, so that as the end is, so the means are, the end is properly holy, and religious, ergo, the means appointed thereunto (such this is) must be holy religious and efficacious thereunto, in the intendment of the institutor.  
4. Those which are of the same rank, and set in the same room, with Gods own Cere. they must be conceived to have holiness, and efficacy in them, for so God's ordinances have. But these significant Cere. thus instituted, are of the like nature with some of Gods own spiritual rites, As the Phylacteries Nub. 15.39. were appointed by God, for this end, to be remembrances, and admonishers of the law to those that used them: the same place our Cerem. supply, and are ordained for the same purpose.  
If it be here said, that God himself appointed his, and therefore they are holy and religious, but ours being instituted by man have no more than man can give them, I answ: God appoints his, and therefore they are truly holy, and religious, and aught to be embraced: men's inventions being set in the same rank, are holy, ●nd religious, but falsely and superstitiously such, and ●herfore are to be abandoned.   

CHAP. VII. Touching other partitions of Ceremonies, Pag.  
A Fift partition is, that of sacred Cerem. some are perpetual, as divine, some temporary, movable, alterable, ambulatory as humane, and of ambulatory some ●re free, and some are fixed.  
Of the perpetuity of Divine Ceremon. there is no quaestion, of the alterablenes of humane, 1. That is a corrupt rule which the Rej. addeth viz. that they are alterable, when in the judgement and consciences of those to whom it belongs to discern thereof (that is with us to the convocation house) they become not unprofitable alone, but dangerous and hurtful. For not to repeat here, that all ●umaine Ceremoniesare unprofitable, dangerous, hurtful, 1. unprofitableness alone is sufficient to cashyre a Ceremony of man's making: consider well of these ●easons.  

1. If Gods own Ceremonies were therefore to be removed because unprofitable, 
Vnprof●tablenes is enough to cashy●e a Ceremony of man's making.  then much more ours, Heb. 7.18.  
2. If we must answer for idle words, then much more for idle ceremonies.  
3. That wherein neither the governor, attains his end in commanding, nor the governed his in obeying, to command that is unlawful: but he that commands unprofitable Ceremo. he attains not his end in commanding, nor the governed his end in obeying: Ergo.  
4. 2. Coll. 18. Those things which perish in the using, with those we must not be burdened: but unprofitable Ceremo. perish in the using: ergo, with those we must not be burdened.  
5. Things indifferent, when they are used not in subordination to help forward moral duties, than their use is unlawful, but when they are unprofitable, than they are not in subordination to help forward the moral. Ergo.  
6. That which crosseth the place and office of the governor, that he must not do or maintain: but to enjoin a thing unprofitable is against his office and place: for his office is to rule for our good, Rom. 13.4. but unprofitable things are not so. Ergo.  
7. That which the magistrate can command or maintain in the Church, he must do by virtue of some precept: That which is done by virtue of a precept, will be available to bring about that end, whereof there is a precept, but unprofitable things cannot attain that end: Ergo cannot be done by virtue of a precept: ergo, are not under the command of a magistrate.   
Again when it's here referred by the Rej. to the judgements and consciences of governors to discern of the dangerousness of Cerem. and I would fain know, whether the consciences of all the Christians in England, ●e so subjected, and tied, to the fleiche of the convocations ●onscience, that without it they may not judge, no nor discern of the unprofitableness, danger, and hurt of the Ceremo. which they are to practise, surely this is more servile, blind obedience, 
Blind obedience brought in by the Rej.  than the wiser sort of papists ●ill admit of. The Inquisitor Silvester, in the word ●rupulus, saith that: To interpret discretly, humane precepts 〈◊〉 the court of conscience, belongs to every one, 
Interpretare discrete praecepta humana in soro conscientiae pertinet ad quemlibet pro facto suo.  as touching his ●●ne practise. This was one ground that Paulus Venetus ●●lgentius, and the other Venetian divines stood upon, ●hat every man whom it did concern, might and ought ● discern of any superiors precept, even the pope's, 
Inferiors should judge of the commands of the superiors.  ●hether it were lawful and convenient or no: But ●erein the Rej. had consented (as it seemeth with D. ●ovell pag. 19 that in such things as these are, the precept of the superior doth bind, more than the conscience of the inferior can: And that the subject having ●he command of King, or Bishop, for his warrant, ought ●ot to examine, but only to perform what he seethe commanded, A very good stirrup if it be well held, for ● help men up by, that they may ride upon men's consciences, at their pleasure. Dr. Davenant taught us other doctrine at Cambridge: when upon Coloss. 2.13. In ●pposition to jesuitical blind obedience, he shown ●ven out of Thomas Aquinas, 
Subditt possunt & debe●t de superio●um decre●is, quatenus ad se spectant indicare, iudicio discretionis.  that subjects may and ought ● judge with the judgement of discretion the decr●ees of their superiors, so far as it concerns their particular: and against ●he Rej. his contrary doctrine let these reasons be weighed.  
If the judgement of the governor be not the rule of imposing, then is it not the rule of removing Ceremo● but the first is denied by all, 
The judgement of the Governor is not the rule of retaining or removing Ceremo.  even the Rej. and therefore the second part cannot be granted. 2. If Cerem. mus● not be removed before they be discerned dangerous by the consciences of the Governors, than Governors do not sin, if they retain Cerem. never so bad, provided that in their judgements and consciences they seem no● dangerous, that being by the former grant the rule o● their removeall, but this is absurd: ergo. 3. If Governors have authority to keep any Ceremonies imposed, until they seem dangerous & hurtful unto them then all other are bound to obey in the practice, of suc● Ceremo. though in their consciences they ought to b● removed, because the judgement of the governor, is th● rule of maintaining, or removing: and thus they shoul● be brought into a snare and a necessity of sinning, either to go against their consciences rightly informed, and s● sin: Rom. 14. last: or to go against the judgement o● the governor, and so against the rule (that being th● rule of retaining by the new doctrine of the Rej.) an● so also sin: Again of ambulatory free Cerem. th● Rej. gives only an example out of ancient times, bu● we could wish some examples in England. It seemeth▪ we are more fettered and less free in all the Ceremo. we have, than any approved course doth warrant: Th● explication of ambulatory fixed Ceremo. is as uncouth, as their title: Their observation, must ever be free in respect of th● judgement, to be had of them, but the practice only is required▪ For if all judgement, to be had of them, be free, than ti● free to account them unlawful, hurtful or unprofitable. 2. Ought the practise to be required either against ●he judgement or without it? 
How fat the judgement and practice are fixed together.  A bruit practice is not required, neither is there properly any good practice, but willing out of judgement, Those therefore that so require ●nd fix our practice, must needs as much as in them lies, ●equire and fix our judgement in some manner: But in ●ery deed no man or convocation of men (either the ju●e, or de facto) can fix another's judgement, concerning lawful or unlawful, They may arrogate so much to themselves, & command men to captivate their wills ●nto them, & by their wills so far as they can their judgements, yet the judgement they cannot fix, but only the outward practice: Neither is it any thing to me, what authority others do arrogate to themselves, concerning my practice, but what they require me to practise: I should accounted him as good a master or Lord, that should say, do this upon judgement, that thou shouldest do it, because I command it, as him, that saith, thou shalt do this, judge what thou wilt judge: The Rej. it may be will say, that he meaneth a freedom of judgement, in not accounting of them necessary to salvation: But no learned Papist shouldst their Ceremonias minores necessary to salvation, if he speak of necessity of synning upon omission without scandal or contempt, that hath been handled before. Zanchius in his Ep. to Q. Elizabeth dealeth plainly, & patt to the point in hand. If these Cer. be propounded to Christians they must be propounded, either as indifferent or necessary: If this, we do impiously, to make those things necessary, which God hath left indifferent: If that, they are then to be left free, unto the church, but by commanding & constraining we make them necessary: So Calvin de vera Ecclesiae refo●matione Opus. pag. 337. The● will except, 
Excipient res essemedias, quarum indifferens sit usus Christianis, cur ergo quicquam omitti verant?  that they b● things of a middle nature, the use whereof is indifferent to Christians, why therefore do they forbid any thing to be omitted?  
A sixth partition is of simple and double Cerem. double are described to be such, as beside their use, for order and decency, serve also to aedification, by some profitable signification which either of themselves they have some aptness unto, or receive by appointment, as it were by common agreement. Where 1. the Rej. seemeth to double with us, when he maketh simple Ceremon. to serve only for order and decency, without signification, when as before and after he telleth us, that no Cere. may be dumb, but all must have their signification, 2. Order and decency seem to be separated from aedification in some sacred Ceremon. which he knew not of that willed all things to be done unto aedification. 3. All significant Cerem. are supposed first to be in order and decency, and yet after so long a time, we are to learn what use our cross hath for order, more than a circle would have. 4. By the distinction or distribution here made, aptness of things for signification, either is in them of themselves or not, yet in the fourth partition our necessary rule was, that the things be not unapt unto their ends. 5. A strange power is here given unto the convocation, to make things apt for signification and aedification, by their appointment, which before were not apt to any such thing. This was wont to be the peculiar of God, to call things that are not as if they were, and so make them this or that,  
7. In the next place we are told of significant Cer. improperly sacramental, & those are so called either reductively, such 〈◊〉 are affixed to the use of the Sacrament, whether they bear no ●ignification, or bear some significancy, either of their virtues, ●r of our duties, unto which we are obliged by the Sacrament: Or ●●se they be analogically so called, if they be instituted to work supernatural effects, the former are lawful, but not the latter. The delineation of these confused distinctions is this:  
Significative Ceremonies are 

Sacramental 

Properly,  
Improperly. 

reductive which are 

not significative.  
or significative.    
analogical.      
Moral,    
To all which members, I could have seriously wished the Rej. would have added accurate definitions or descriptions, and then he would either have been hindered, from the confused setting of them down, or else he would have discovered, his infinite mistaking, and manifested to the world, how he had bewildered himself, while he mudds the water, and so would misled the simple. But we will follow his foorstepps, only let us observe some conclusions out of the frame in general.  
First is this: 
Rej. contradiction in a gross manner  That some non significative Cerem. are significative: or which is all one, significative Ceremo. are either 

non significative,  
or significative Sacramental.    
This desperate absurdity lies open to the eye of any, that have their eyes anointed with the eye salve of Logic, and judicious discourse, for let but a fresh man, run up the special to his highest, and he shall perceive some non significative to be the special to the Genus of a significative cere. 2. Cer. reductively sacramental & not significative, do properly appertain to sacred Cer. reductively, & by right so called, & have been handled before, & are here wholly heterogeneal. 3. It's well to be noted that humane Cer. affixed to the Sacram. & bearing significancy of the Sacram. virtue, & obligations, are such as the Rej. fighteth for: But these are analogically sacramental, 
Ceremonies sacredly him ficant are analogical.  for analogy, similitude, or proportion, cannot be denied to be betwixt two signs, which signify the same virtues, the same duties, & the same obligation to these duties, And though the Rej. say again & again, they were never held unlawful: Ye● learned Chamier in the name of our Divines & reformed churches hath these words: We observe come●y circumstances in the celebration of the Sacrament, 
Honestas celebrati●ns circumstantias obse●vamus, sed incetio d●mnamus qui ea addid●ru●, qu●bus m●steria aff●xer●nt propr●a●que si●n●f●cation●s & quid ●●co●ū effe●c●●●um qui 〈…〉. Quasi ●is ●erve tundem re● agi oportuerit, & out 〈…〉 non satis a●●um esset instituto d●v●no nisi ●um●●a timetita 〈◊〉. De 〈◊〉 l●b ●. cap. 6. ●. 27.  but we justly condemn those, who have added such things, unto which they have phansyed mysteries, & proper significations, & that of those effects which appertain unto the water of baptism: As though the work should be twice or thrice do●e, and that either nothing, or that was not sufficient which was done by divine appointment, unless humane rashness should have added supply. And the Waldenses who first reform their churches, & purged out all their popish leven, renounced all such humane Cer. or Traditious as unlawful as manifestly appeareth by all Papists and Protestants, that have set down their confession & practice. 4. If Analogically Sacramental Cere. be impious aemulators of Gods holy Sacraments, as the Rej. confesseth, what can be said, why humane significant Cer. analogical to divine significant should not by parity of reason, be esteemed impious aemulators of Gods holy signs, Is it forbidden to emulate God's Sacra. only, & not all his holy ordinances?  
After all these come in moral significant Cer. which are only to express some benefit, whi●h God giveth us, or to notify, profess, or express some duty, which we own to him, or one to another. But I do not see wherein these differ, from reductive Sacra. Cer. except it be in this, that it may so fall out, that these sometimes are not affixed to Sacraments, This head therefore seemeth to be added, only because D. Morton had used it before, and for his sake let us a little further weigh it, when therefore the Rej▪ affirms, that morally significant are ordained to express some benefit on God's part, some duty on ours. By some benefit or duty he must mean any spiritual benefit, or duty, beside the covenant, which he professedly mentioneth & excepteth, 
How the Rej. divisions interfere and cro●●e one the other▪  for if one benefit may be signified, why not any one, & this morally significant, are religious or sacred significant in the general, the Species as large as the Genus: Hence again morally significant, will be a genus to sacramental reductively significant, for that is but a particular signification of some benefits, & duties in the Sacrament, which are included under this General, & so one species of the distribution shall become a Genus to the opposite member, & contradistinct species. If it be here replied that reductive significative sacramental is annexed to the Sacrament: I answer, that is nothing to the nature of the significancy, for take & use a cross out of baptism, in the same manner & to the same end, as in it, & it will be the same in the specifical nature of significancy, only so much the worse, because it is set cheek by jowl with baptism. 2. I ask what he means by those words, express, profess: is it barely to declare? if so, then let him show who is his adversary, unless he will fall out with his shadow, for do not all his opposites grant, that sign● indicantia, or showing signs are lawful, but not symbolica.  
Lastly, when he affirms, that these Cerem. morally significant are not to signify the covenant of grace: 
The cross s●gnifyes the covenant of grace.  I reply, if they may signify any other spiritual duty or benefit, if they may signify the several essential duties of the covenant of each side, why may they not signify the whole covenant? 2. If the cross signifieth the consecration of the child to God, and so entrance into the covenant, the relation of a soldier, to a Commander, a servant to a master, and so is continuance and faithful perseverance in that profession to Christ, and his respect and regard of us according to those relations, then doth it signify the covenant? By this which hath been said, it appears, that the quaestion is falsely stated: for these Ceremo. are more than holy by application in his sense formerly opened, they are pressed as necessary, and are used as analogically sacramental, as well as properly moral, 
●he state of ●●e quaestion.  and in signification, do partake something of the proper nature of Sacraments, as also in the significative teaching, and stirring up the heart: when it's said, they are used in worship, they are external acts of God's worship falsely appointed by man, and serve not for order, nor decency, nor aedification.   

CHAP. VIII. Concerning a national Church answ. to the 60.61.62. of the Preface.  
OF the faithful congregations, wherein we were borne, baptised, and nourished up in faith, there is no quaestion made, but they are our loving and beloved mothers: Yet much quaestion ariseth concerning that which the Rej. teacheth viz. 
Pag. ●0 6●.  That all those churches together, have one mother, and so we have a grandmother, that is the Church of England, considered as one church: and that by way of representation, as the convocation house, 2. by way of association and combination into one profession, worship, and discipline, which includeth the orders and officers, that is, the Hierarchye, pertaining thereunto, but not by any other collective consideration.  
1. I never read either in Scripture, or in any orthodox writer, of a visible particular Church, either grandmother of Christians, or mother of other Churches, if the Rej. hath, he should do well to inform us, where we may find this doctrine explained. 2. I would willingly know, whether Christians & Christian churches also, were not in England, before this great grandmother? I think, the Rej. will not deny it, nor yet fly for succour to his physicians, who have found out an herb, which is called of them, Son before the Father, 
Filius ant● Patrem.  to justifye his intention of Daughter before the Mother: 
Filia ant● Matrem.  He must confess, that this Grandmother, is only a mother in law, 
The nature of a representative church.  and that law also to be man's, not Gods. 3. All the churches of England, may as well be considered as one in unity of profession, without any new motherhood, as all the Latin Schools of England one, in the unity of the same Grammar, or all Gallenicall, or Platonical Schools, one in their kind. 4. A Representative mother is the image of a mother, and an image, with commanding authority in religion, without God's command, 
Quod ecclesia si●is repraesentativa libenter cred●mus, vera enim non estu: Sed ●sten a●te q●aso ●●de ●or●●ec nomen? Qui▪ hoc nomint●● 〈◊〉? Quis ●acund● & ce●spirandi ●obis potestatem dedit? Q●is cōde●di Canon's & decreta verbo Des dis●●●mi●i●. vobi●tus fecit? Qui● ut ista hume●is hominum impe●eretiu, permis●t? Q●is consitentia▪ ut si● gravareit● vebis persw. sit? Vt dic●●etis b●num malum, malum benumb qu●● iussit 〈…〉 ecclesia 〈◊〉, q●a nihil 〈◊〉 all et, sed picta & ce●i●la ●mnia, Scan●n est● ecclesia ri●a s●●sa Christo ●r●ua, qua se●a ve●it. 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 Dei 〈◊〉.  is an Idol: It was well therefore, to this purpose, said of Zwinglius Explan. arti. 8. That you be a representative church, we willingly believe, for you are not the true church: But show I beseech you, whence you had this name: who styled you with this title? who gave you power of meeting, and combyning together? who granted you authority of coining decrees and Canons, differing from the word of God? who suffered you to impose these upon men? who persuaded you thus to burden Consciences? who enjoined you to call evil good, and good evil? You are therefore an hypocritical church, which hath nothing sound in it, and substantial, but all things feigned and painted, But you are not that true church, that bride beseeming our Saviour, who stays herself, upon the truth alone, and the Spirit of God. He speaketh these things of th●se, which under the name of Representative churches, imposed their inventions, upon true churches, without Scripture, which is a true representation of our representative convocation. 5. The Rej. confesseth, that this hierarchical convocation is humane and not divine, and he will not deny, but Christians, and Christian congr●gations are Divine. Now what a monstrous, and preposterous generation, then doth he make (as it were in a Chymaericall dream) of Divine Children, proceeding from humane mothers and grandmothers: Our Saviour was of another mind; when he made these two opposite, from earth, and from heaven: The Rej. hath found out so great consent between these two, that earth may be the mother, and grandmother of heaven: Beside the humane mother of Divine children, is not of their heavenly father's choice, nor by him appointed, to bear the person of their true mother: But she was first put into this office, by the presumption of men, and afterward authorised, by the Archmother of Rome, continuing her profession, by sleight & might, to represent those, from whom she can show no other letters of credence, for the power she usurpeth, than she maketh herself, or hath gotten by stealth from civil power.  
6. This representative mother, is very seldom exstant viz, when there is a Parliament, which now we have not had these divers years: And when she appeareth, she can give no milk to her children, further than she hath commission from man: None of her children can have access unto her, only she appointed many years since, certain servants of hers, with restraint of their father's allowance, to diet them, with dry ceremonies, and scourge them, with silencing, deprivation, excommunication, if they find fault with that provision, which is very pap, with a hatchet; Is not such a mother worthy grand titles and honour?  
7. The examples of such motherhood, which the Rej. fetcheth, from the assemblies of Israel, Scotland, and our Parliament, have no agreement. For 1. we read of no assemblies of Elders (by office in Israel) from whence all other were excluded, styled either Mothers of Israel, or all Israel: Neither was there in any such assemblies, this motherly authority exercised, of appointing humane sacred Ceremo. unto Israel. 2. The assemblies of Scotland, before Perth, had no such state, as our convocation, nor power of commanding, but only advized of, and directed those things which God had appointed, and the churches were known to desire, yet might their judgement be well called, the judgement of the church of Scotland, because they pronounced nothing, but that which all the churches of Scotland, did publicly profess, even in their solemn confession. 3. Our Parliament is not styled, the Mother common wealth of England, yet in civil affairs, more liberty is left for style, and power, unto public assemblies, then in religious: But if the lower house of Parliament, were not more freely chosen, and of greater power, than the poor lower house of Convocation, a quaere might be made, whether the state or common wealth of England were there or no.  
Now for the second way of one church, by association, and combination of all particular churches into one profession, worship, and discipline: This is good, thus far, and the very same with that collective consideration, which the Repl. mentioned, and the Rej. termed a new misty inexplicable nothing, except combination doth mistyly cover under it, the swallowing up of particular congregations, by Nationall, Provincial, Diocesan churches. But ●s for that clause, that this must needs include, such orders and offices as our Hyerarchye: this is either a begging, or a stealing of the main quaestion: For 1. this Hierarchye consisteth of officers and orders (by the Rej. own confession) humane, not divine: now association of profession, worship and discipline, may certainly be had by officers and orders divine. 2. The reformed churches of France, have their association, and combination, without any Hierarchye. 3. The Hierarchye doth not associate churches, under it, but subdue all to itself, so that, as the Pope, is sometime esteemed the Church of Rome, and sometime, he with his assistants, so is our Hierarchye in England. 
Beza de ecclesia notis paulo ante finom. Ego Pontifieijs lib●nter relinquo, totum istum Episcopatu● gradum, cuius (aperté dic●) Spiritum Sanctum, non suiss● authorem, sed humanam prudentiam, cui nisi animadvertimus Deum maledixiss●, corte nihil n● nunc quidem videmus, & viperam insinu fovemus, quae tursus matrem ne●abit.  Beza in his notes of the church not far from the end, giveth warning of this: I most willingly leave the whole frame of Episcopal authority to the Papists: of which (I openly profess) the Holy Spirit of God, was never the author, but humane policy, which if we do not observe, to be accursed by God, we certainly as yet see nothing at all: and nourish we do a viper in our bosoms which will kill the mother. This prophecy is too true of the Hierarchye, as in other respects, so in this, that it seemeth to devour, our mother churches title, liberty, right and power, and in a great part hath prevailed.  
9 It was added by the Replyer, that the Hyerarchye, is a creature of man's making, and may more lawfully be removed, when it pleaseth man, than ever she was by him erected. To this the Rej. answereth, confessing, that sundry offices and orders in our church are humane, and not divine: adding, that accidental forms of discipline, are not determined in the word of God, but left in the church's liberty, to devise, as all but Anabaptists, and such as edge too near upon them consent.  
Which words are worthy of a note or two: For he 1. acknowledgeth our Hierarchye of Archbishops, B● Deans, Archdeacon's, &c. to be creatures of man's making, not divine: Now of these principally consist, our convocated mother church, as it's well known, a few ministers being added to her, for fashion sake, so that this church is a church of man, not of God, by his own confession, and this church is said to be devised by the church, now it soundeth strangely, A church of the churches devising: Nor know I well, what the devising church of England can be. The Rej. telleth us, that there be, but two ways of considering, the Church of England, as one, either in the convocation house, or in that combination, which must needs (saith he) include the orders and officers, pertaining thereunto: Now in both of these ways hierarchical orders and officers are supposed and included, so that the Church of England, neither of these ways could possibly devise these orders and officers. 3. The distinction used betwixt the essentials of discipline, and the accidental forms thereof, is obscure: And if these terms, may be interpreted, by that sense, which is given by the Rej. of Doctrinal and Ritual, substantial, circumstantial worship, that must be essential, which is commanded in the word, that is accidental, which is not commanded, but permitted. Then the Rej. in affirming essentials to be determined, and accidentals not, saith nothing else, but that which is determined, is determined, and that which is not determined, is not determined. 4. If he mean by accidental forms, circumstances of ●yme, number, place and occasional course of proceeding, than he accuseth unjustly, not only us, but the Anabaptists themselves of opposing so manifest a truth, by all men confessed. 5. It would be worth a little pains of his to declare, how, and in what sense our Hierarchye is accidental, to the church, and discipline of England? The Bishops are efficient causes, even in a high rank, of our Discipline, they are principal members, of our Diocesan churches, they have an Ecclesiastical rule, and command over the particular congregations within their Dominion, by them and in their name, the essentials of ordination, institution, introduction, suspension, deprivation, excommunication, etc. are dispensed and disposed of: who will say, that these things, can agree to accidental forms. 6. Concerning edging upon Anabaptists, in this point it may with better reason be objected, to those that maintain Diocesan Bishops, then to those that oppose them, for it is well known, that the Anabaptists, in Holland, Zealand, and Friesland, have their Bishops, which have care of many congregations, within a certain circuit, & in all of them (though there be others that teach) they only, at their visitations, perform some main things belonging to the pastoral office. 7. The position (that our Bishops are humane creatures of man's making) is not only to us, but to many of themselves, sufficient to condemn their office, some of them having publicly protested, that if it were so, they would not keep their places one day.   

CHAP. IX. Concerning Superstition: answer to 64.65.66.67.68. of the Preface.  

Novum crimen (judicis) ●nte hunc diem ●andit●m.  BEhold a new crime (O ye judges!) and unheard of before this day: These who hold the relics of Popish confessed superstition, unlawful, are (in that very name) indicted of superstition. Nay they must be content to have it for their solemn style, in public writings, for so Dr. Morton hath dubbed them (To his superstitious brethren the non-conformists) and Dr. Burges will maintain it. If any man take it ill, and say, that such a title doth rather beseem those, which allow of religious holy water, images, circumcision etc. beside crosses and surplices (as these two D rs do,) he is strait way scurlous: But let us inquire into the Indictment.  
1. It was noted by the Replyer as a ridiculous piece of Rhetoric, 
Pag. 64.  and a trick of prevention, usual with crafty men. The Rej. answereth these two titles suit not well, and the charge is weighty: which is very true, they suit not well, neither, to them they were intended unto, nor yet, betwixt themselves, and the charge of superstition, if it be in good earnest and upon ground, is weighty: But not well suiting, do meet often times in affected accusations, and so do here ridiculous Rhetoric, and craftiness: She that hasted, to call her party whore, in the beginning of their scolding fray, for fear she should be prevented, with that salutation, as more deserving it, was therein crafty, and yet if she called her whorish Sister, it was ridiculous: Ridiculous I account, a new unexpected toy, which bringeth some admiration with it, Now this accusation is such, for until now, it hath scarce been heard of. The jesuites want neither invention, nor good will, in accusing such, as reject their ceremonies with all kind of reproaches, and yet they could never yet, hit upon this imputation, to charge them with superstition for that cause: Nay Balthasar Chavasius (a jesuite) lib. 2. cap. 7. s. 54. though he would fain have ●astened some such thing upon us, yet seeing it would not ●ake, but be accounted ridiculous, even by his own friends, he doth so much as say, he durst not do it for ●hame: We must not expect saith he, 
Non est, quoae a Pseudoevangelicis (reformatos puta) superstitiones multas indebit● cultus expectemus▪ ut pote quae observationes quaedam inanes, ac superflua esse solent, illi ant● ceremonias poenè omnes insectantur.  many superstitious ex●ressions of undue worship, from those who are falsely called, Evangelicall professors, considering th●se superstitions are ●ont to be certain, vain and superfluous observations: but ●hey (meaning the reformed churches) do bitterly inveigh almost against all Ceremonies. So our Rhemists on Acts ●7. Sect. 4. discharge us of superstition: whereupon Dr. Fulk saith: we accept of your restimbnie as the witness of our adversaries: And is it not admirable then? that our Def. and Rej. should go beyond the jesuites in their own element, and teach them how, and in what sense, they may here after better accuse Calvin, and those that agree with him of superstition, then of rash irreligious, or profane innovation, for rejecting so many Ceremonies of theirs: which not only they, but also our Divines (if we may believe the Def. and Rej.) esteem easily reformable to good use, & not simply unlawful: And by the same reason, Nonresidents, Pluralists, Tot Quots, common swearers of diminutive oaths, & dicers, standing upon the lawfulness of their practice, may upon that supposition, call those, that gainsay them superstitious brethren.  
2. For the exploiding rather then answering or confuting of the foresaid ridiculous accusation it was alleged: That superstition is a kind of excess of religious worship, and that an excess, or error in a negation, was never called by any author superstition, when he meant to speak properly, except that very negation, be held as a special worship. That we do not abstain from these Ceremo. but as from other unlawful corruptions (even out of the compass of worship: That every erroneous denial of things lawful is not superstition, and that all sorts of definitions which are given of superstition, do touch upon our Cerem. rather than on the denial or condemning of them. All this could not stay the Rej. but he must maintain, and renew this weighty charge, as he calleth it, and pronounce, that if we can avoid it, it is our wit, (as if he would say) our book hath saved us: Let us therefore consider, what the accuser can say, to bring us to this extreme pass.  
3. There can be no plainer reason of this accusation (saith the Rej. then that out of Coll. 2.23. where will worship is instanced in negative observances, 

Pag. 65. answer to the praface.  
Answer to Coll. 2 23.   touch not, taste not, handle not, etc. But 1. we teach no negative observances so called, for observances are ceremonial: Tho. 1.2. q. 101. art. 4. we make no ceremonies of our negations, but make them moral duties: The Prelates on the other side, appointing positive observances, do seem to include the negations of them, as of the same kind: Baptise not without crossing, do not divine service without surplice, communicate not without kneeling, so that ●y this means they are made guilty of double superstition.  
2. The practice of superstitious persons in those days, condemned here by the verdict of this place, caries no proportion or resemblance, with our cessation, or negative abstaining from cerem. because there touch not, ●ast not, etc. were taken up by virtue of man's imposition, and for the more special worship of God, 
When ba●e cessations of evil come to be worship.  in a more peculiar manner, but we cease from ours, by virtue of another rule, with no such intent, as to present any peculiar kind of honour to God thereby: And thus abstaining from our Ceremon. as unlawful, upon conscience (though they were lawful,) cannot be superstition, except first it be an elicited act of religion, or worship: Such worship it cannot be, except either in the intention of the absteiner, or in the nature of the forbearance, it be used as a means, to give unto God special honour, that is, other and more immediate honour, than we do, by acts of obedience, common to the second table, with the first: But this is neither in our intention, nor doth the nature of such forbearance as we use, imply it: For that common charge which usually occurrs in scripture, cease to do evil, Isay. 1. Abstain from all appearance of evil, 1. Thess. 5. is a duty of obedience in general common to both tables: Now, if it be only materially determined, upon a work of the second table, not formally elicited, from love or justice to our brother, it is no act of love or ●ustice. As if a man hating his neighbour, should yet for fear of God's judgement, abstain from killing of him, this was no act of love, or justice, toward him; Even so, abstaining from our Cerem. as evil for fear of offending God, though it may materially be referred to the first table, yet cannot it be an elicited act of worship, except it floweth from religion, or a desire to do special honour to God thereby.  
3. These negative prohibitions, were so plainly the Commandments of men, ver. 22. that from hence our divines do commonly argue against such popish Cerem. as ours are: And therefore Papists in their commentaries, as Estius ad Corn. de lapide etc. upon that place, do strive to putt-off that blow from their Cerem. but yet are constrained to confess, unprofitable and superfluous Ceremo. or instituted by a mere humane spirit, (such as ours are) to be in those words condemned; If therefore this place, be the plainest reason, which the Def. and Rej. have, of charging us with superstition, it is plain enough, there was more affection and affectation, than reason in this weighty charge.  
4. Whether any definition of superstition will bear up this weighty charge, forced upon those, that reject humane Cerem. the Rej. will not try by the Schoolmen, because he loveth them not so well, but only by a Definition which is found in D. Ames his Medulla: but passing by the Schoolmen, he might have found in our Divines, Definitions, very fit for this trial, as that of Vrsyne Tom. 1. in precept 2. Superstition is that which ●dds humane inventions to divine precepts: That of Dr. Fulk in Act. 17. Sect. 4. A will worship is, more than ● appointed by the law of God: That of Mr. Perkyns on ●he second command, Superstition is worship of God, without his commandment etc. For there is not one ●f our writers, who treateth of superstition, and doth ●ot give such descriptions of it, as from them it may ●e concluded, that the rejecting of such Ceremon. as ●●urs are, is so far from superstition, that it is the opposing of superstition: Yet let him choose by what Defini●ions, the cause shall be tried.  
5. The Definition which he maketh choice of is: Superstition is that whereby undue worship is exhibited to God: from hence the Rej. collecteth, and assumeth 1. that superstition properly is in the opinion and mind of the worshipper: ●. That a man may imagine himself to honour God in the use ●f such things, as God hath not forbidden or condemned, and ●hereupon forbear, even for conscience to God, things lawful: ●. That the very not doing of things prohibited in the first ●able (if it be for conscience to God,) is worship. Now the first of these, is to fetch quidlibet ex quolibet, any thing out of every thing: For there is nothing in the Definition alleged, from whence (by any logic) it can be concluded, that superstition is properly in opinion and mind: 2. The assertion is as false, as untowardly collected, for though inward superstition, be in the mind or soul, and springeth from an erroneous opinion, yet neither it, nor any moral vice or virtue, doth properly consist in opinion, but rather in affection, and disposition of the heart and will, as all that consider of the matter, will easily perceive and confess: And as for outward superstition, that consisteth in outward observances. 3. The second collection serveth nothing to the purpose: Neither yet the conclusion drawn from it, that there may be a negative superstition: yet is it so intricately set down, that it containeth a kind of contradiction, for the forbearing of things lawful, is termed the use of such things, in what sense I cannot conjecture: The last would prove something, if it were generally true as it is not: The avoiding of sin or things forbidden by God, is an act of common obedience, belonging as well to things forbidden, in the second table, as to those, that are forbidden in the first: And the terminanation of this act, upon matters of the first table, doth no more make it properly worship toward God, than the like termination of it, upon the matters of the second table, doth make the same act, properly justice, o● charity towards men: It may, in this or that particular, be imperated or commanded by religion to God, and in others by charity to men, but it is not, in that particular elicited, or naturally flowing from either, as worship doth from religion and bounty from charity.  
The Def. and Rej. abstain every day upon conscience from innumerable things forbidden concerning Gods worship, as from Popish Idolatries, mahometical impostures, & all the rabble of those divillish divises, which are among the Heathen. Yet I do not think, that they themselves conceive, their acts of daily worship to arise in account, unto such a number, as is there to be found, of such things forbidden. The plain truth is, that an abstaining from this or that instituted, or chosen to be observed, in the worship of God, & for the honouring of God ●herby, is a kind of Cere. worship: But the mere abstaining from this or that unlawful action upon conscience of God's command is no special worship, nor was ever ●o esteemed. 6. But out of D.A. who saith; That Religion is an observance whereby we perform those things which directly belong to the giving of honour to God, so much may be wrung ●s the Rej. meaneth, viz. that if any observance be made of ●et doing any thing, which God hath not forbidden, of purpose & directly to give honour to God in the not doing thereof, this must needs be an excess of religion a negative superstition. Just so as not observing, is observance; not doing a thing, is performance of it, as the purposed abstaining from that which appears a dishonouring of God is a direct giving of honour ●nto him. 7. Neither is the other allegation out of D. A. to any better purpose than the former: There is a superstition sometimes in abstaining from certain lawful things, viz. when some singular service, & honour is by that abstinence intended. Did the Rep. ever deny this? Nay, doth he not expressly confess as much in these words; The superstitions excess of religion, do●th sometimes seem to consist in a ●egation, viz. when t●at very negation, abstinence, or forbearing is held for a special worship? The Rej. indeed, seemeth to find a difference in that term of singular: But that is to find a knot in a rush; For by singul●r Dr. A. meant the same thing which the Replyer meant by special, according as these terms are often promiscuously used. The descant therefore which the Rej. maketh upon this occasion, that we fancy our non-comformity so singular a piece of service, a singular point of piety, and of true sincerity, this, I say, is but a declamatory venting of bitter, but ungrounded, surmizes. We account our abstinence from these Cerem. no special or particular worship, much less singular for degree of excellency; nor do we esteem it a point of piety, more singular, than to abstain from swearing by the Mass. Some point of sincerity there is, in refusing these mixtures, but not worship, or so singular in our opinion, as the Rej. would persuade his readers to our singular prejudice, & wrong. Many things are singular faults, if they be admitted, the leaving of which is no singular commendation. What if some had rather never preach the Gospel, or receive the supper than tell a lie for those ends? Will the Rej. thence conclude that they make the abstaining from a lie a more singular piece of worship, and piety, than either Word, or Sacraments? I would be loath to undertake the proving of such a wild consequence. Divine, and blessed Bradford refused to be admitted unto the Ministry by B. Ridley, except he might be excused from the abusive formalities, then and now, in use: yet Gardiner, nor Boner, neither did, nor being asked would therefore (as is probable) have accused him of Superstition, as esteeming the abstaining from those abuses more singular service of God, or piety, than all he might do, and did afterward in the ministry.  
8. The examples brought by the Rej. are like unto his Reasons: 1. The Pharisees did superstitiously restrain● labour on the Sabbath, beyond that which God imposed; this was a negative superstition. True; it was an humane instituted Ceremony something like unto Popish holy ●ayes: But the Pharisees abstaining from the feasts of Bacchus, Venus, etc. was no special worship. 2. The ●hilas●ims not treading on Dagons' threshold was negative superstition: True, as the former, It was an observation instituted to honour Dagon by: But their not-admit●ing of Circumcision was no superstition. When therefore upon such wretched examples, and reasons as these ●re, the Rej is so confident in laying his weighty charge ●f Superstition upon us, as that he pronounceth all the ●ater of Nilus not to be sufficient to wash us from gross superstition, the understanding reader hath no cause to ●hinke otherwise but that even the Rej. may have a confident full persuasion such as that he buildeth much ●n, and yet but hollow empty supporters for the upholding of it.  
9 Such also are his distinctions, whereby (as with a wet finger) he dischargeth the Convocation of all superstition, because they impose the Ceremonies, not as ●hings directly, properly, immediately, but only consequently, ●nd mediately, belonging to the giving of honour to God. For 1. If they be consequently directed to God in ●eaching of men Gods will, as the word doth, they are direct worship unless preaching be no worship. 2. If ●hey be worship proper to this office, they are proper worship. 3. If they be worship belonging to the first ●able, than they are immediately worship: But all the former are true, as was before showed, yet one thing more would be known, what reason the Rej. hath to place the observance of our Cerem. for the kind of it, in one degree of distance, and latitude: and the rejecting of them, in another? It seemeth to be as if the English day, and night should be so disjoined that our night should be in England, and our day in China. When he further expounds himself we shall be more able to discern his meaning.  
10. Last of all, For ending of this quaestion about superstition, I require a resolution of this not-unlike Quaere, which with change of persons containeth the same case. Seeing there be different opinions concerning our Diocesan Bishops places, and functions, eve● among them that make benefit of them, some holding them to be of divine institution, or else not lawful, so that (as they say) without this persuasion they would give over their Bishoprics, to day before to morrow▪ Others holding them only of humane Institution, and yet lawful; Let him, I say, tell us plainly, whether the Prelates of this later opinion may call the other Prelat● superstitious brethren or fathers, for holding Ecclesiastical Bishops of Man's institution unlawful? If not, let no● the Rej. nor his Diocesan be so liberal of this title to others that descent from them about humane Ceremonies as unlawful, except they either think Bishops cannot be superstitious, or that we cannot be wronged with any odious imputation.   

CHAP. X.  
Sect. I. Concerning Parliaments, and Convocations: answer to 70.71.72.73. of the preface.  
BEcause the Def. objected the authority of Parliaments, and Convocations for establishing of these Rites, it was opposed by the Rep. 1. that Prelates ●n these matters have no respect unto the authority of parliaments, as appeareth by the testimony of the Parliament itself An. 1610. in the Records thereof. 2. That ●o Parliament doth allow subscription, and Conformity to be urged as now it is by the Prelates. Which also ●as showed out of the same Parliament records. 3. That ●he Prelates proceed are so agt. Parliament Laws, ●hat by them they are subject to a Praemunire. Now see ●hat is rejoined.  
1. The first fillip is that though the Prelates regard ●ot the authority of Parliaments, yet that is no answer to ●his Objection, these Ceremonies are established by sundry acts ●f Parliaments. Where the Rej. forgetteth that some arguments, and answers are ad hominem, that is, they respect the thing in quaestion, not simply, but as it comes from such a man. Now this was the meaning of ●he Repl. that objecting of Parliaments by a Prelate, in defence of Prelates who regard not the authority of Parliaments, is a ridiculous plea.  
2. In the second place, it is denied that the Prelates ●espect not the authority of Parliaments, because, forsooth, they have the king's commission, and Broad seal 〈◊〉 they are by Parliament confined. That is; they neglect no● Parliamentary Statutes in all things. For so far as the● can turn any Statute Law to serve their turn, and i● those circumstances which they dare not, for thei● heads, omit, they follow that which Parliaments pr●scribe.  
13. To that first Evidence which was alleged out of th● Records of the worthy Parliament An 1610. it is rejoyne● that it doth only prove that the Prelates mistake (if th●y di● mistake) in one point, their own authority given them b● Parliament. Now if by mistaking, he meaneth b●d, and unlawful taking, this which he saith may be granted But if he meaneth an error of ignorance, surely he mistaketh the matter one way or other. For 1. Ignoranc● of the Law doth not excuse any violaters of the same mu●h less Scribes, and Doctors, Prelates, which use to be among Lawmakers, and in Commission for to se● to the execution of Laws. 2. Those that err of ignorance, correct their fault upon information, and knowledge: But our Prelates being divers times warned, eve● by the Parliament, have not mended, but more violently than before, persisted in, and pursued this mistaking▪ 3. Mistaking in matters of such weight, as are so many good men's livings, and free-holds, is a broad fault, of the same nature (in all Law) with ill (crafty) meaning. 
Culpa lata viol●● mal●s.  If the Prelates should take upon them to take away the life of some non-conformists, directly, and by sentence (as they have, in effect, done by long imprisonment, and should be called in quaestion therefore, it would not ●elpe them to say, they mistook their authority.  
4. It is added here by the Rej. that the making of Ec●●esiasticall Canon's do properly belong to the Prelates. But 1. ●●cept there be some mysterial distinction understood betwixt Canons, and Laws, this is to rob both Parliament, and King also of their just authority, that Pre●●●es may usurp it. 2. Say it be so, that it belongeth properly to Prelates, for to make Ecclesiastical Canons, 〈◊〉 it therefore belong to them to make such Canons? suppose the Ceremonies to be lawful, have the Prelate's proper power to appoint any lawful Ceremonies? ●hen they may institute, and appoint, in the Def. and ●ej. his judgement, not only holy-water and Images, throughout all England, but also command that all the parliament, with the rest of English men, shall be circumcised; for the Def. Pag. 285. being asked, whether he foldeth Circumcision as it is used under Prester john, lawful? ●he Rej. answereth for, and with him, He doth so, and you ●●y nothing to disproove it; Insinuating that if any thing ●e said to disproove it, he is ready to maintain it. Now 〈◊〉 appeal to the first Parliament that shall hereafter be ●alled, and in the mean time, to any English man (betide those that are resolved to say what Defendants, and Rejoyners will have them) if they believe that the Prelate's have power, and that from the Parliament, or with ●he consent of Parliament, to appoint the people of England, even those of the Parliament itself, to be circumcised? Have the innocent Ceremonies brought us, and the Parliament into such bondage, that at the Prelate's pleasure, we must all be circumcised? It seemeth than they are bloody innocents.  
5. The second instance out of the same Parliament Records (saith the Rej.) blameth this in the Convocation, that it hath made the refusal of Subscription poenall, with deprivation of men's free-holde. Which is very true, and due: but not that only; For the Parliament condemneth expressly all urging of Subscription above that appointed by the Statute of 13th. Eliz. which only concerneth confession o● the true Christian faith, and doctrine of the Sacraments▪ Neither is their mentioning of freehold so to be taken▪ as if they allowed the men should for refusal of other Subscription, be deprived of their Copy holds; bu● only as an exaggeration of the Prelate's presumption▪ who do not fear, nor spare to vihlate the fundamental Laws, and Liberties of England, such as that is, fo● no man to be deprived of freehold, without the Law of Parliament, and a jury of 12. legal men.  
6. The Parliament addeth, that silencing and depriving of Ministers for nonconformity, and non-subscription (without, and against Law) hath been the great grief of sundry well affected subjects. To this the Rej. saith, that so it hath been the grief of those which deprive● them; who yet deprived them because they were commanded, leas● their error should be still maintained, and the Ministry of Conformists contemned. This profession of grief in depriving. Prelates, may be likened unto that of Queen Mary's Prelates, who when they condemned the Martyrs, said they did it with grief. So Gardener in his sentence of condemnation upon Mr. Rogers, the first that suffered under Queen Mary. We therefore, said the B ps. aforesaid, wit● ●orrow of mind, and bitterness of heart, do condemn thee ●he said 10. Rogers, etc. Unto which may be added M. Fox ●his Marginal note. These murderers pretend a sorrow of ●eart, and they will not cease from murdering. But to follow only the Rej. his so grieved. It is very goodly so. The well affected subjects were, and are grieved, in that ●ense that scandalising is called grieving: This scandal was at the Prelates proceed: The Prelates are grieved for their own fact, but not to repentance, at least such, as they do not repent of. The grief of those well affected subjects stirred up in them, and in the Parliament a serious petition, and endeavour to stay the Prelate's violence, and remove the scandal: but the Prelates, though they challenge the power, and care of Ecclesiastical affairs as properly belonging to them, could never be moved, either by others, or their own pretended grief, so much as to petition unto his Majesty, for the removing of the grievance, but were and are as ready as their Paratours, & Pursuivants to do that which belongs to them about this that grieveth the Parliament, and sundry other well affected subjects. The Parliament grieving with those that grieved, made a good Law to make void the Prelate's Canons, as the cause of unsufferable grief: The Prelates, first makers of the Canons, and since urgers of their execution, in which also they often go beyond their own rules (as passionate executioners use to do) and many of them applaud themselves, glory, and triumph in their imagined victory. But it may be those are here meant, who, as D. B. in D. Covel pag. 44. urging subscription, and conformity, stick not to say the Authority sinneth in not remeoving some of these things. Now if they grieve for sinning against their consciences, God give it may be to repentance not to be repended of: but yet this not so as the well-affected (of whom the Parliament speaketh) are grieved, by other men's unconscionable dealing. They are commanded, forsooth; But who procured that command? who should procure the ceasing of that same? And is it sufficient for Fathers in God to say they are commanded by man to undo the ministers, and vex the people of God? Bishop Grindal was commanded to suppress the exerrise which was called Prophesying: yet he constantly refused to execute such a command. Tempora mutantur, & nos mutamur in illis. But the Prelates, (saith the Rej▪) proceeded not against them, because they were painful, and fruitful ministers. As if the Parliament were to be so interpreted, or rather derided! or any but the Devil of Hell would profess such a cause of such proceeding? Wherefore then? Lest their error should be still suffered, and the ministry of others contemned. It seemeth then that in the Rej: his opinion the Parliament in condemning these proceed, went about to maintain dangerous error, and to bring conforming Ministers into contempt. But not to speak of his taking the question for granted, viz: which the Ministers held a dangerous error) the Parliamentary way of making void the Canons might have freed the pretended error from all danger, and left no ministers in contemptible conformity, unless some would contemn Christian liberty as having by custom their ears nailed to the door of servitude.  
7 Concerning the Praemunire answer is given, that ●f the Prelates be subject unto it, that is more than the Rej: knoweth; that they might incur that peril upon ignorance; and that by Statute Law the Ceremonies are established, with ●he penalty of refusing them, as all men know, and some have ●elt at Assizes, and Westminster Hall. But for the first of ●heis shifts, D: B: knows full well (whatsoever the Rej: will know) that Prelates cannot take from any English man his freehold, with out Parliament Authority, and yet be free from the Statute of Praemunire: Now that they do so, the Rej: himself even now confessed. Moreover; who knoweth not that the Prelates do keep their Cour●s, silence, deprive &c, in their own names? which doth evidently entrench upon the Prerogative Royal of the Crown, and so fall into the penalty of Praemunire by the Statute of Henr. 8.25. except they can show some special warrant by Statute for so doing; which that they cannot do is evident; because in King Edward's days they were enjoined to keep their Courts in the King's name; and since that time, have no special warrant, by any Statute, for any such Courts in one or others name. Ignorance is here again vainly pretended, as before was declared. Are the Prelates only ignorant of that which they have so often been warned, and convinced of in many Parliaments? Now for the establishing of these Ceremonies, with the penalty of refusing them by Statute, the Rej: should have done well, if he had named that, or those Statutes where we may find this done. As for the penalty of deprivation for refusing these Ceremonies, the Rej: confessed before, that the Parliament Anno 1610. pronounced against it, as contrary to Law. If the Ceremonies themselves stand established by any Statute, it must be that of Eliz: 1. But that concerneth the book of king Edward in which this Rej: pag. 54.55. confesseth some vain Ceremones, now removed, to have been prescribed. 
Tolerabiles inaptiae.  Now either those tolerable fooleries were established by Statute of Eliz: 1. or not these; For no difference is found in the Statute; If those, why do our Opposites refuse them, and yet urge these upon that Law which no more established these than them? The truth is, though the book for substance was in some sort confirmed, yet every rubric, and ceremony which was therein contained, though it was for a time tolerated, was not established. Why else was subscription, by that Statute, restrained only to doctrine of Faith, and Sacraments? If any therefore have been deprived, either at Assizes, or other Civil Courts, for mere refusal of these Ceremonies, (which I much doubt of) that, (without quaestion) hath been by the Praelates procuring, not by such evidence of Law as just judges require in such wreghty causes. It would also be known what kind of judges those were which are said to have been so Ceremonious. Sometime it falleth out, that a Hales is put out of Commission by a Gardener, and another, a friend of Gardiner being put in his place, strange sentences follow thereon. At the least, it behooveth the Rej: who allegeth, and alloweth those judge's facts, to show us upon what grounds they proceeded?  
8. Against the Convocation-house (as reasons for which the authority thereof is little, or none in men's consciences) some known things were briefly mentioned ●y the Replier, to which how the Rej. answereth, it is ●ot unworthy consideration. 1. Convocations consist of a ●action. No (saith the Rej.) but of men which submit themselves to the Laws of the Land, and Constitutions of ●he Church. As for the Constitutions of the Church, ●hey are the Constitutions of the Convocation; so that ●he answer in that part is, they submit themselves to their twne constitutions: To the Laws of the Land that they do not duly submit themselves, it appeareth out of ●hat which the Parliament, before alleged, saith; divers painful, and learned Pastors ready to perform the legal subscription, have been deprived for refusing ●aonicall subscription: which could not be, if Canons were legal, and their makers obedient to Law. They charge also the bodies, lands, and goods of subjects further than is lawful, saith the same Parliament. So that it is by this plain how the Convocations may be said to make a faction even against Parliaments. Yet if they were obedient to Laws, they may (by conspiring for their private ends against the common good) be esteemed a Faction, as those that bore the greatest sway in the Council of Trent, were, and are of indifferent understanding men esteemed. So in Queen Mary's days, the persecuting Prelates, though they submitted themselves to Law, and cried out of others that did not so, yet they were a pernicious faction. And so (it seemeth) was the meaning of the Repl. in this charge, because he addeth for a reason thereof, that they never conclude any thing for the common good of the Church. 2. They are servile to those on whom they depend, and tyrannical over the po●re th●t are subject to them. This the Rej. doth not deny, but saith; It may be an error of their persons, not of their Constitution. But what doth this help us? If we must be subject to servile, and tyrannical Canons, which come from the error of their persons, their Constitution will no way relieve us. Their Constitution is for substance the same now that was in Queen Mary's days and yet we know what they did, and thereby may conceive what they may do again. 3. They are gross Violators of most ancient Canons, being nonresidents, Pluralists etc. Neither is this denied by the Rej. so manifest is the truth of it. Only, that he may not be altogether silent, he allegeth that this being true, yet the Def. his speech standeth unshaken, viz. These Ceremonies are established by Canons. But I think if the Convocations be such as have been showed, the credit, and authority both of them, and their Canons is so shaken, that they can afford little establishment to the Ceremonies i● any free judgement.   

CHAP. XI.  
Sect. 2. Concerning the good and evil, which our Convocations have done.  
AMong the Objections mentioned against our Convocations, one appendix was, that in memory of man they never concluded any thing for the common good of the Church, more than by others was better done 〈◊〉 their hands: but much evil hath come from them, and more ●ould, if their commission had served thereto. Now because ●his is a weighty charge, and enough to slight all their authority, if it be true, 'tis worthy to be severally, and diligently considered, what their Advocate can allege to the contrary. If in this point he be brought to a nihil di●it, then let him for ever hold his peace about such Convocations.  
1. The first answer is, that the accusation is not true, un●esse the Agreement of the Articles of Faith, and Religion were not good. But 1. this being granted to be good, yet the accusation may be true, because this Act of An. 1571. can hardly be said to have been concluded within the memory of man. 2. It may well be quaestioned whether in this, our Convocation hath done that which was not better done to their hands. To which purpose it shall not be extravagant, nor unprofitable, to compare a little the Articles as they were set forth in King Edward's days, Anno 1552. with the edition which the Convocation of Anno 1571. hath left us. In the former we find this Article De Gratia. 
Gratia Christi, seu Spiritus Sanctus qui per eundem datur, cor lapideum ausert, & dat cor carneum: ex nolentibus qua recta sunt, volentes facit, & ex volentibus prava, nolentes reddit.  The Grace of Christ, or the Holy Spirit which is given by him, takes away the heart of stone, and gives an heart of flesh; such as were unwilling to things lawful, he makes willing; and such as willed things unlawful, he makes unwilling. Which Article is, I know not wherefore, left out in the later edition. This I am sure of, that if the said Article had been renewed in the same manner as it was first set down, it had been one bar more than now is found against those among us which follow Arminius, and his Remonstrants, & one warrant for public preaching against them, Secondly, in the Ar●i●le of justification, it was before said, that the doctrine by sole faith in that sense in which it is explained in the Homily of justification, 
E● sensu quo in Homilia de Iustif●catione explicatur.  is most certain; Now in the later edition this most certain is left out, and for co sensu is put in an ambiguous term ut. Whatsoever was the occasion or meaning of this change, the former words were more full against those that broach new doctrines about justification, such as Dr. jackson doth in his book of justifying Faith. Thirdly, in the Article o● Sacraments, the former edition had, that the efficacy of them is not from the work done, 
Ex opere operato, qu● vox ut per●●ira est, & 〈◊〉 light is 〈…〉 minime ●●um, 〈◊〉 adn●d●m superstitusum.  which expression (in their Latin) as it is strange, and not known in holy writ, so it carrieth w●th it a sense savouring little of piety, but much of superstition. Which words, if they had been still retained, (as they are not) some superstitious conceits about the Sacraments might by them have been suppressed. Fourthly, In the Article De Coena Domini, the old edition had these words: Seing it is required to the true being of humane nature, 
Q●●m naturae hu●anae veri●as requirat, ut umus etusdem, a● homi●is corpus in multis locis simul esse non possit, sed in uno aliquo, & definite loco esse operteat, ideirco Christi corpus in multis, & diversis locis, eodem tempore praesens esse non potest. Et quontam (ut tradunt sacrae literae) Christus in coelum fuit sublatus, & ibi usque ad finem seculi est permansurus, non debet quisguam fidelium carnis eius, & sanguinis realem, & corporalem (ut l●quuntur) praesentiam in Eucharistiâ vel credere, vel profiteri.  that the body of one, and the same man cannot be in many places at ●●ce, but must be in some one definite place, therefore the body 〈◊〉 Christ cannot be present in many, and divers places at the ●●me time. And because (as holy Scriptures deliver to us) ●hrist was taken up into heaven, and is there to remain unto ●he end of the world, none of the faithful aught to believe, or profess any real, and (as they speak) corporal presence of his ●●esh and blood in the Sacrament. In the new edition all ●his is blotted out: which yet had good use against the lutheran error of Consubstantiation. Fiftly, In the Ar●●cle of Traditions, these words (not found in the former ●dition) are conveyed into the later. Every particular, or ●ational church hath authority of instituting, changing, or abrogating Cere. or Ecclesiastical rites instituted only by humane authority, so that all be done to aedification. This addition ●emeth to be added for the better advancing of human Ceremonies. Sixtly; The Article about the books ●f form, is very much transformed to the wronging of subscibers. 
Quaelibet Ecclesia particularis, sive nationalis, authoritatem habet instituendi, mutandi, aut abrogandi Ceremonias, aut ●itus Ecclesiasticos, humanâ tantùm authoritate institutes; modo omnia ad aedificationem fiant.  For formerly it affirmed only that the ●ooke of service, and that of Ordination of Minister's 〈◊〉 far as concerned truth of doctrine are good etc. but ●●ow in the later, this limitation (quoad doctrinae verita●●m) is left out, and in stead thereof is added, 
Quoad doctrina veritatem.  that the ●ooke of Consecration, and Ordination containeth ●●l things necessary thereunto, and that it hath nothing in it of itself either superstitious or impious, and ●hat all that be consecrated, and ordained according ●o it, are orderly, and lawfully consecrated, and ordained.  
These changes well considered, I think D. B. himself will confess that there was no great good done in the second edition of the Articles concerning Faith, and Religion: Yet be it so, that this was a good work of our Convocation, what a poor commendation is one good work, of a Mother-Church in a whole generation or age of her children? 
Pauperis est tumerare peous.  'tis for the poor to tell their store. But for a shepherd, in numbering of his flock to see them brought to one head, what should he say but bemoan himself with Alas! and we'll a day?  
2. The second answer is, that Convocations do good sometimes, in confirming what was decreed before. Which is sometime true, viz. If the things decreed before, were of themselves good, and had need of the Convocations confirmation. But sometime such confirmations are only for fashion-sake; As when the Council of Trent confirmed the Holy Scripture, the Apostolical Creed etc. and then there is very little, or no good done, more than was formerly done to their hands. Any other confirmation of good, I do not know our Convocations to be guilty of, nor can I understand, when, whence, and how the Convocation had Commission to confirm any thing, without making of new Canons. A Law of Confirmation is necessary to Canons: but Canons of confirmation are not necessary to Laws established. Neither can it be showed that so much hath been given or committed to the Convocation. Nor if it were, could that be done without Canons (in some respect) new. And so much (it seemeth) Dr. B. knew, from whence it is that he addeth; Or if they have done nothing, because they have had no commission, to which they are limited ●y Act of Parliament, where lieth the blame? If they have ●one nothing! What a miserable supposition is this? To ●oe nothing in so long a time, is to be no Synod, no Mother-Church, nor good Milk-nurse, but a dead Car●asse, bearing an empty name of both. If they had no commission to do good, they had no commission to be ● Mother-Church. If the Parliament hath limited them ●o a commission, it was because they durst not trust ●hem without. Yet the blame of not doing good cannot ●ye upon the Parliament, because they never sought to ●t, or by it, for a commission of doing any good; Nor yet of the King's Majesty, (where the Rej. seemeth to leave ●t) except they have declared what necessity there was ●hey should do some good, and to that intent made petition for a commission; Let it lie therefore upon the convocation itself, which repraesenteth, as an Image, or maketh show of some good but doth none at all.  
3. The third answer is; That in the book of Canons were many good provisions for more plentiful preaching, and redressing the abuses of Ecclesiastical Courts, which would have done much good, if they had been as carefully executed as they were made. But 1. so there was also in the Council of Trent, many Canons of Reformation, at most of their sessions, nay such, as (without any straining) go fare beyond those that are found in our Canons. As for example, in the fift Session, under Paulus 3. it was decreed that expounding of the Scripture should be diligently observed in all Cathedral Churches, and also in other places where any stipend was, or may be had, and that Praebends, for that cause absent from their Chapter, should enjoy their dividents, as if they were present. And that all Parish Priests should be compelled to teach their people, at the least on the Lords day, and in solemn feasts. In the sixth session, the Ancient Canons are revived which were made against Bishops that buisy themselves in Princes Courts, or other where with secular affairs, and so are either non residents, or non-praedicants. In the seventh, it is ordered that all collations of benefices be upon able men, and such as will be resident upon the same, under great penalties. Pluralities also are abolished, or made nullities. In the fift session under Pius 4. all taking of money for Orders, for letters testimonial, for seals by Bishops, is condemned as simony: Nay, the Notaries, or Secretaries are forbidden to take any thing except they have no wages▪ (& then also, not above the tenth part of one Crown) under great penalties. It is also under like penalties decreed, that none be ordained (except upon necessity, and then with patrimony, or pension sufficient to live on) which have not an Ecclesiastical Benefice, or speciale charge. Moreover, it is decreed, that honest unlearned Parish-Priests should have learned Coadjutors adjoined to them upon their charges, and that scandalous Priest's should be either reform, or removed. In the seventh Session, nonresidency both of Bishops, and Curates, is again condemned, as a mortal sin. And (which D. Bancroft would have called English Scotizing, or Scottish Genevating, if it had been but mentioned in his Convocation) it was appointed, that the names of those which desired to be ordained, should be the month before, publicly proclaimed in the Church, and diligent inquisition made concerning their life, and manners. It ●●so confirmed that none should be ordained, that is ●ot designed to a certain place of ministry. In the ●ight Session it is enjoined to Bishops as their principal office, to preach diligently in their Churches, and that ●n all Parishes at least thrice a week, there should be preaching. And that one man should have but one Benefice requiring residence etc. With what sincerity these, and ●uch Canons of Reformation were propounded, is to ●e seen in the History of that Council. But in verbal provisions it is evident that that Conventicle was not behind our Convocation, but rather led her the way, & taught her how to dissemble as if she had set down among other Canons, Who knows not how to feign, 
Qui nosci● simulare, noscit regnare.  he knows not how to reign.  
Secondly: That provision which is here added (if those Canons had been carefully executed) is as bald as any of the Canons. For 1. the quaestion being of doing good, we are told they proceeded so fare that they had done some good, if they had come to execution, that is, to doing of good, and not pretending it only. 2. To whom did it belong to see good Canons executed, but to Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-deacons, which were the makers of them? Had they commission both to make bad Canons, and execute them; but to make only good, and so leave them without execution? 3. This whole Plea is, as if for the cursed figtree, which brought forth no fruit, one should have alleged that it brought forth leaves, and so made good provision for fruit, if fruit had followed answerable to the leaves. 4. What provision was made for preaching if it were fully executed, D. B. in his Apology, in the 67. page of D. Covel, showeth thus. By the Canons, no piece of the service must give way to a Sermon, or any other respect, which computed with the accessary occasions of Christen, Burials, Marriages, and Communions, which fall out all at some times, some at all times in many Congregations, doth necessarily pretend, if not a purpose, yet a consequence of devouring of preaching, and so not widows houses, but God's house, under pretence of long prayers, while neither the time, nor the ministers strength, nor people's patience can bear that task of reading and preaching too. Of which intention if we be afraid, who can marvel, that either shall observe my L●rd of London's motion, for a praying ministry as more needful in a Church planted, than preaching, as his speeches since also have professed: or that shall mark how some Canons are planted against Lectures in Market-towns, whereby the light hath spread to many dark places, and withal how skilfully all his Majesty's godly purposes against the ignorant, negligent, and scandalous Ministers, have been not so much delayed, as deluded, and the offenders covered etc. 5. If some little good had come from the Convocation about their Courts, yet that being covered, and overwhelmed with so great evil which came from thence, as the removing, or excluding of a thousand good preachers, the vexing, and disturbing of ten thousand good Christians, (I speak within compass of truth) should ●e no more doing of good, than the leaving or sticking ●owne of a feather was by him that stole the goose.  
All these things being will considered, he that should ●reach to the Convocation, may well take up, and repeat Mr. Latimers' words uttered before the same Assembly in the 28. year of Henry 8. The fruit of your consultation shall show what generation ye be of. What have ye done hitherto, I pray you? What one thing that the people of England hath been better for of an hair? or you yourselves, either more accepted before God, or better discharged toward the people committed unto your cure? For, that the people is better learned, and taught now than they were in time past, to whether of these aught we to attribute it, to your industry, or to the providence of God, and the foreseeing of the King's Grace? What did ye, so great Fathers, so many, so long a season, so oft assembled together, whereby Christ is more glorified, or his people made more holy? I appeal to your own consciences. Mr. Latimer in this charge, excepteth two exploits of that Convocation; One that they burned a dead man, who had withstood their profit; the other, that they went about to rake another in the coals, because he would not subscribe to certain of their Articles. Such like exceptions may be made for our convocation, and those multiplied to a great number. But he that should make them must look for no other fee, or thanks, for such allegations, than Latimer was rewarded with, who (not long after this Sermon preached) was driven not only to cease from preaching, but also to take up his lodging in the Tower.   

CHAP. XII.  
Sect. 2. Concerning worship answer, to the Rej. premonition, Pag. 123.124.125.126.127.  
WE here have the Rej. again entrenching himself, and raising up many distinctions and definitions, as so many blinds, as it were, that the ignorant sort, and such as are more weak in judgement, might not perceive, how the evidence, and strength of the arguments, which are leveled directly against the Cerem. come in upon them, and prevail against them: As also, that in the tumult, and lumber of these distinctions, being thus hurried, and hurled together, those answers which are lame and wounded, may creep away, and escape in the crowd, unseen and unsuspected by the most, who either have not skill, or will and care, to examine things, before they pass, but are content, rather to take these conceits (which are accompanied with ease and quiet) upon trust, then to put them to the trial, or themselves to trouble & vexation, if they prove not true. And because this head is of weight, & worthy the scanning, we shall therefore take into further trial, and examination, what ever principles or authorities the Rej. hath set down, either in the premonition to the second argument, or in the beginning of his treatise, touching kneeling at the Sacrament. That we may thereby discern, what secure the Rej. his cause is like to find, when he thinks to shelter under these outworks, which he hath reared up on purpose to be his sense.  
Worship generally taken, is thus by him defined, Pag. 123.124.  
Worship is the performance of respect, unto any thing or person, according to the estimation and dignity thereof.  
The terms of which description, are so lose and side, and so far from laying out the bounds, of the ●●ing described, that like a shipman's hose, you may apply ●●em to what you will, rather than to the purpose in ●nd: A man hath estimation, of his life, his goods, his ●ood name, answerable to the worth & dignity of them, ●nd doth accordingly perform, that respect, that is fit 〈◊〉 caring for them: doth he therefore worship his house, ●is goods, his lands? Nay any Christian heart, esteems ●nd performs respect to the worship of God: doth he ●●erfore give worship unto worship: The Rej. therefore 〈◊〉 to be desired, to make accurate descriptions, if he de●●re to give satisfaction to a judicious reader. Lastly we ●ave here things & persons made the object of worship, ●nd yet in the division immediately following, we are ●aught, that worship distinguished according to the object, ●nd that truly: is either of our fellow Citizens, and so civil, 〈◊〉 of our God, and so divine: In the definition things and person's are the object: And now in the division only person's are the object, and things not mentioned: how this quicksilver will be sodered together, I see not.  Worship according to the degrees, is divided into veneration which is a due respect of God's ordinances or app●rtenances to his service or adoration which is due to God alone. 
It's a received rule, that degrees vary not the kind of any thing, but the quantity of it: As the divers degrees of heat, or cold, in several things, degrees of whiteness in several walls, none of these degrees declare divers qualities for kind, but divers quantities and measures of the same kind of quality: as one thing is more o● less hit, but both have the like heat, for kind of it whence it follows from the Rej. his ground, that veneration and adoration differing only as degrees of worship, they are both of the same kind, and then veneration being due to the ordinances, and appurtenances thereof, the essence or kind of true divine worship, is due to some creature beside God, which not only religion & reason, but all the world of Orthodox Divines deny, and the Rej. I presume also in cold blood will do the same.  3. Third division is: Divine worship is either principals or subordinate: Principal is that holy reverence and respect of the Divine Majesty, which is inwardly performed for his honour: either by the understanding, or will and affections: And this may falsely be pretended, but cannot be falsely performed. 
I will not here be curious to pursue all the open weaknesses of these expressions: Only let the Reader take notice, that the Rej. makes those members of a distinction, & so, such as should be opposite one unto another, which are yet in subordination, and that by his own ●ermes: for he makes one part principal, and the other subordinate to it, and so in agreement with it, which ●o reason will allow: As though one should divide a ●iving creature into that which is principally so, as a ●an, or that which is subordinate, as the faculty of ●●ughing, which is a token of a man: And that which pierceth him to these inconveniences, is the fear, lest 〈◊〉 should make external worship, true worship, in its twne nature, as conceaving, a back blow is coming to is cause by that means.  
2. I will not here ask, by what rule he makes reverence the Genus to principal worship, when the verdict ●f all writers, and text, casts religious reverence, as a ●roper duty in the third command, whereas principal ●orship, is made general to all the first table, and so the ●ore particular is made a Genus to that which is more ●enerall than itself: I suppose this is the Rej. phrasio●●gie, fit for a declamer, and one that should descant ●hen define: 3. let it here be remembered, that the in●ard acting of understanding, will, and affections towards God, is made the proper form, and that which ●ives specifical being to principal worship, because we all have use of this hereafter.  
Only that which is most remarkable, and exceeding doubtful (& therefore desired proof and confirmation) that which is added, in the following words, viz. In●●●nall worship cannot be performed falsely: 
Inward worship may be as well performed falsely, as so intended.  which is a conceit beyond my shallow apprehension, & therefore, at his next ●joyning I desire to be satisfied in some particulars.  
1. He that acknowledgeth one God, Eternal, Almighty, etc. and two persons: but conceives the Holy-Ghost, not to be a distinct person beside them, but a work proceeding from them both, and so also depends upon the Godhead thus apprehended: whether dot● such a man, falsely conceive of God, and falsely worship him: making no expression of this his conceaving o● dependence.  
2. If there be the same ground and reason, to make false internal, as external worship, than the one may be as falsely performed as the other: but that there is the same ground for both, let any man compare them together, and it will appear at the first view: For the heart, can, and doth go aside as many ways from the rule, as the outward man doth, or can do: A man may fear God, upon a false ground, after a false manner to a wrong end: as well as preach, or pray upon a false ground, after a false manner, to a false end: So that I see no colour, nor can conceive, how those words can be excused: Internal worship is true, or not at all: Imagnary internal worship is no worship. For there is nothing, that can be called true, being ordered a right, according to rule, but there is a falsehood, which will arise by the wrong ordering, and ill disposing of the same thing: At a word, as every proper axioms admits of a contradiction, and so of a falsehood necessarily: so likewise every indiduall action, which can admit of alteration, must needs admit of a wrong, as well, as of a right disposition, and by consequent of a falseness which may besal it in that kind.  
3. All lifting up the honour of another, to whom, ●n way of homage we present our services, that is, worshipping of such a party in our intent, and according to the nature of the action: but false conceaving of the ●rue God, and fearing of him, upon false grounds is the ●ifting up of the honour of God, in the intention of the person, and nature of the word: and therefore it must needs be worship of God, for of no other, it can be, as being tendered to him, but it's not true internal worship, and therefore it must be false.  
Lastly, if this be not at all false worship, then at all, it is no sin, and so must never be answered for, because unto any other head beside that of false worship, it cannot be referred.  Subordinate worship is that which is done in token, and testimony of the sovereignty, we acknowledge in God, and of our dependence upon him. 
Here again, we have the like phraseology, words without weight of reason, in describing or defining the thing intended: For token and testimony are too large and lose expressions to lay out the nature of this worship: Because 1. a man may several ways give a token, or testimony of his acknowledgement, and dependence, and yet in none of those ways be truly said to worship i. e. as by some pledge, by his hand writing, and seal annexed testify, that he doth thus acknowledge and depend, and yet none of these ways he worships: 2. Take actions in this reference only, as they look to our inward dispositions by way of testification, or signification, they are not worship, (I say go no further than that reference) but as they are presented as some services to God immediately, and as by him instituted and required.  True external worship is said to be made up of 4. things: A person holy, 2. action and manner warranted: 3. end right, 4. the present intention of the worshipper bestowed, and employed upon the service. 
Where let it be considered, how he broils things of all kinds together, contrary even to their nature, and right reason: In that he requires the inward holiness of the person, and his gracious acceptation with God: and secondly the present and religious intention of mind, as necessary to make up external true worship, which mixture and constitution, even the names of the things gainsay, and their natures will not endure.  
For 1. that which was the form, and made up the proper nature of internal worship before, that cannot constitute external worship, as common sense teacheth▪ but the inward performing of reverence, (and consequently present religious intention, which is of that kind) was made the proper form of internal worship, by the Rej. his grant.  
2. All outward actions, in the frame and constitution are liable to censure of the church, either for approbation or reprehension, but the sincerity of heart, and intention of mind, the church cannot take notice ●f nor pass a censure upon, provided the outward ex●ressions do not fail or be a wanting.  
3. A man may be bonus ethicus, and yet not bonus Theologus, i. e. a well cariaged man outwardly, expressing both the sense and practise of religion in his outward demeanour: And yet not be a a sincere hearted Christian: So a man may be a member of a congregation, and behave himself outwardly beyond exception, ●nd yet want, both an upright mind, and intention sincere: So that though they be rejected of God without ●hose, yet the fault lies not in the outward action, but in the inward & spiritual work, which God approves, and takes his complacency in, yet he looks upon these, and loves them so far as they be suitable to their rule, as he did in the young man, Mark 10.21.  
At a word: an action may be done by the rule of Ethics, or the rule of outward ecclesiastical policy and church discipline appointed by Christ: Or lastly by an inward spiritual principle of grace: The two former, may be true without the last, though a man's sins in separating the last from the first, because though the first be good in their kind, yet they are not sufficient: the former therefore are to be continued, and the sin in the last to be reform: Hence the Prophet Isaiah 1.16. Put away the evil of your doings, the Lord enjoins them not to take away their works, but the evil of them: as though he should have said; sacrifice still according to rule prescribed; choose a sacrifice without blemish etc. for the matter; offer it according to rites appointed, for the manner, as before, but being also a heart humbled, a life reform, wherein you have hitherto failed, keep that which is good, and add that which is wanting.  
4. Lastly, when an unregenerate minister (gifted sufficiently for outward expressions, and called by the church) shall preach, administer the sacraments, beyond all exception to the eye of man, and to the approbation of the church: I ask: whether the true matter and form of right administration, may not undoubtedly be concluded to be there, so far as those services are external.  
I presume the Rej. will distaste the contrary conceit, and scorn to entertain so silly an imagination, as to affirm, that a wicked man, cannot be a true minister, or his actions performed unreproveablely in that kind, by what man can see, to be true ministerial actions.  
If this he grant, which cannot be denied with any colour, (and if it be, I shall be ready to make it good) I then reason.  
Where the true matter and form is of external worship, there is the true complete nature of external worship.  
But in the administration of the Sacrament, etc. by an unregenerate minister, there is the true matter and form of true worship.  
Therefore in the administration of these by an unregenerate minister, there is the true complete nature of external worship.  
To this place appertaineth that expression in his premonition to the receiving of the Lords Supper, cap. 3. pag. 3.  Externall worship of God is some outward action, 
Internal worship gives not subsistence to the external.  done in relation to the internal worship: which (viz. the internal worship) gives subsistence to it. 
Concerning which passage, I desire one case may seriously be considered, and it is this: Whether is it not possible, that a man (either out of ignorance as not ●nowing, or out of lase fear dissembling) may kneel ●owne before an Idol, as Idolaters do, perform and express according to their manner all outward actions of reverence, and yet keep his heart, mind, & affections, ●nwardly acknowledging and loving of God.  
That this practice is possible, nay too ordinary, that the heart may be carried one way, and the action another way in appearances, needs no proof, since each man's woeful experience gives undeniable evidence thereof: Hence than I reason.  
If an action may have the real subsistence of superstition, without the intention of the mind, the work of heart and affection: then without these hath it the subsistence of external worship.  
But without internal worship: to wit without, nay against the intention of mind, the work of my heart & affection, the action formerly mentioned hath the subsistence of real superstition.  
Therefore without the internal worship, the external hath subsistence.  The fourth division: Externall worship is either mediate, or immediate: mediate, when any duty of the second table is performe● immediately to man, but out of conscience, and in obedience to God, to his honour. 
In this division of mediate, and immediate worship used by some Divines: The name worship, must need● be taken (by a synecd. the part put for the whole) fo● obedience in general, and so they are to be understood and not in propriety of speech: For that which comprehends both the tables of the Decalogue in it (as in this division worship doth) cannot properly be referred, either to any one command, or any one table: And in this construction, it serves nothing to the Rej. his purpose, but only to fill up place, & make up the number of Divisions, which is the ready way to confound the reader: And that the Rej. cast lots almost what to say, it may appear, in that, he who makes external worship the Genus to mediate and immediate here: Elsewhere in his premonition to the receiving of the Lords supper, he makes immediate the Genus to external and internal, so curious is he in his distributions, that in his sense, you may make the whole the part, the part the whole: And if in such Divisions there be like to be true sense and solidity, let the judicious reader determine.  
But let us come more near his particular explication, which is this: That's mediate worship by the Rej. his definition when any duty is done to our brother, 
The definition of medint● worship examined.  but in conscience to God.  
Where I desire to be informed at his next rejoy●ing, whether he make this worship to consist, in the ●uty discharged to our brother or in the conscience to God, used in the discharge thereof: The former (I suppose) he neither will, nor can say, (though he can say ●●range things, for then worship should first be tendered 〈◊〉 man, and to the Lord at the second hand.  
I conceive than he must affirm the second, and ●ace the worship, in the act of conscience, carried by virtue of a command: but then let him tell us how ●his can be called external worship, or can possibly ●ccord with the words of his definition going before: external worship is, the performance of an outward action, 〈◊〉 he defines, but I assume, the inward work of con●cieoce, is not the performance of any outward action, ●●erfore external worship cannot consist in that.  
And yet if this was granted, which sense gaynsayes, ●ee how unhappy he is in his expression, for neither in ●his would any worship properly appear. That which appertains to the right doing of every act of obedience as such, that cannot make up the proper nature of ●orship: but to be done in virtue, and so in conscience of God's command, belongs to every action of the Decalogue: what ever is not done of faith is sin Rom. 14. last.  
The fifth Division. Immediate worship, is either properly so called or else reductively.  
Proper immediate worship, is any action done to the honouring of God immediately, and in that act itself, 〈◊〉 are all such ordinances, which God hath appointed.  
Improper worship is any act done, to the honouring of God by the orderly, and comely usage of his own ordinances which because they point at God's honour in their remote end, as they determine their first end, and use upo● men, as tending to order, decency, and aedification, an● therefore but improperly acts of worship.  
It is the nature of error, ever to be unlike itself, and he that goes out of the rigth way, will cross himself commonly in his going, and this is the reason; the Rej▪ doth so often interfere in his discourse, and which is his exceeding ill hap, though no occasion require it, he cannot conceal these crazy, and ill jointed expressions we shall therefore again, lay open the whole frame, tha● the description may be half a confutation:  
Divine worship proper to God pa. 124. sect. 5. mark those words (proper to God) is 

principa  
subordinate & external, and tha● 

mediate, done to man immediately but in conscience to God, and 〈◊〉 honour,  
immediate 

proper  
improper determi●●●● their use & end 〈◊〉 mediately upon ma●.        
Where some things in the general are very observable.  
1. That improper immediate external worship, is divine worship proper to God: 
The Rei, hi● contradictions.  this conclusion will appear, to any, that will but wisely apply the special and general together, according as they be ranked in the foregoing delineation.  
2. That improper immediate worship, is mediate worship; for thus I reason: That worship which is immediately done to man, but in conscience to God, that is mediate worship, so the Rej. description teacheth: but improper immediate worship, is first done to man, so the very express words of the Rej. declare evidently: ●he acts of improper worship determine, in their end, and use upon men.  
Therefore immediate improper worship, is mediate by the D rs dispute.  
If it be here replied, that the actions which make up mediate worship, must be actions of the second table, not of the first, as these be: I answer; It is the verdict of the word, and the common consent of all Divines, that all the actions and duties, which concern our brother as the next object and end, and so determine upon him are required, and regulated by the second table: since therefore these things of comeliness and order, are of this nature, by the Rej. his grant, I do not see, how it can be avoided with any colour of reason, but they must be commanded in the second table, and so come under the definition of mediate worship, directly contradictory to the Rej. his determination.  
I might also put the reader in mind, of these twicesod-coleworts, that are set again before us: viz. this misty distinction of properly, & reductively, which like a vagrant wanders up and down in every coast, and therefore should be whipped home to his own place: For it is propounded & applied upon the like mistake, that formerly it was pag. 37. in the division of Cerem. And is here, as it was there, void of all art and truth.  
1. Void of Art: For what reason, or rule, doth allow, any reasonable disputer, to make a distribution and so an opposition of parts, that are in consent, and agreement one with another, such is this here propounded. Worship is either proper; as God's ordinances, or improper, as the adjuncts to these ordinances, which appertain thereunto: As if a man should say: There be two kind of birds, either an eagle, or her feathers.  
2. It's void of truth: For who ever accounted all the civil circumstances, and attendants of decency in the discharge of God's worship to be worship. The band the preacher useth, the doublet he wears are decent attendants unto him, in preaching & praying, and it would be exceeding unseemly, to see him naked in those parts, rudely presenting himself amiddst the congregation, in the work of the Lord, yet did ever any, before D. Burges say, that the band and doublet of the minister, were improper immediate worship.  
A midst these many mistakes, we have a ground of grant from the Rej. his own words: That kneeling in the act of receiving, cannot be improper, but proper worship: For we kneel not either, to man or to the bread, but to God directly, and it is to lift up his honour immediately in the use and end of that action, and ●herfore it cannot be improper, but proper worship.  
Anna her example of serving God with fasting, and prayer, comes after to be scanned in the next section, only before we end, let us consider in a word of that passage which the Rej. hath pag. 126. To the proper, circumstantial or accessary worship: the permission of God, and a right intention, and use, sufficeth to legitimate them. join we unto these words, the definition of immediate worship, under which all these improper circumstantial worships are ranged: viz. Immediate worship is, when any act of obedience to the first table, is performed to honour God: out of which I thus reason:  
Every act of obedience to the first table, is not only permitted, but required in the first table.  
But the acts of improper immediate worship are acts of obedience to the first table: therefore they are not only permitted but required.  To this place belongs the considering and discussing of the variation of that phrase used in the premonition, touching kneeling at the Sacrament, cap. 3. p. 3. False worship, is said to be of the will of man merely, True, is said to be according to the will of God wholly. 
The mystery is, that no worship is false, which hath any thing in it of the will of God, And there is some worship true and good, which is not of the will of God as a cause, but only according to it, as not hindering or forbidding: This is the Papists plea just against our Doctrines for their traditions. Gregor. de Valent. Tom. 4. Disp. 6. Q. 11. P. 1. 
Christus non vetat quo minus cultum addamus, qui divinae ligi non repugnet, sed congruat rationi, adecque voluntati Dei.  Christ doth not forbid that we make such addition of worship, which doth not repugn to the law, but consents to right reason, and so to the will of God.  
So Estius in Tit. 1.14. The Scripture so far as it speaks in the worst sense, touching the precepts and traditions of men, 
Scriptura quoties de mandatu & traditionibus hominum loquitur in malam pa●temea semper intelligit, qua sic ab hominibus instituta sunt, aut praecepta ut aut omnino nihil ad pietatem conducant, aut etiam pietati & legi Dei repugnarent: Qua ab human● sensu & spiritu profecta sunt, quatenus selicet homo a scipso movetur, & non a Deo.  it always understands such, which are so appointed and commanded by men, as that they nothing at all conduct unto piety, or plainly oppose both it and the law of God, such which proceed from a humane spirit or appetite, to wit so far as a man is acted of himself, and not of God. So the Rhemists on Math. 15.9.  
The contrary assertion is the received doctrine of our Divines for, and out of the word of God against the Papists, and one fundamental principle of reformation.  

Hec caput est doctrinae inost●ae (contra electitios cultus papistarum) ne quod opus suscipimus in ijs quae pertinent ad cultum, de quo non habemus expressum mandatum Dei: Neno cultum iactare potest, n●si verbo quasi pauniculu involutus ac circumclusus sit.  So Luther Gen. 21. This is one main principle of the doctrine we profess (against the forged superstitions of the Papists) that we undertake no work in the things which appertain unto worship, concerning which we have not an express command of God: No man can boast of the performance of any worship, unless he be wholly as it were clothed, and confined within the compass of the word.  
Hitherto also, is to be added, that distinction which is last mentioned by the Rej. in the forenamed place in his premonition for kneeling at the Sacram. Chap. 3. Pag. 3.4.  
Immediate true external worship, is so called in respect, 〈◊〉 of the means, or manner of worship, and that which ●●ecteth means, is said to be grounded either on special command, which is properly, in and of itself worship, or upon 〈◊〉 allowance only, as touching the particular, which is ●●rship per aliud, by virtue of some thing else.  
1. But first, ther is internal means, and manner as ●ell as external, 2. the manner and means do de●●nd on God's command and allowance in that also: Immediate worship in regard of the means of wor●●●p, is just as much, as immediate mediate worship: And is suiteth well with that distribution, which we met 〈◊〉, in the former section of significant Ceremonies, to significant and none significant: 4. When as the Rej. 〈◊〉 much to this distinction of general and particular command, he should have told us, whether he means by the general, the Genus or the kind immediate, and next, or any other how remote soever: ●he former sense will not help our Ceremonies, the 〈◊〉 will serve at a lift, for many popish Ceremonies as ●●ll as ours, since God's command doth not make any 〈◊〉 immediate worship, in, and of itself, for then the 〈◊〉 of a murderer should be worship, in, and of it 〈◊〉: 5. What reason or sense is there, that God's com●●und should make a thing worship of itself, and God's ●●●owance should make it worship by virtue of something else, when as the commandment, doth no more ●●●pect itself or other thing, than the allowance. 6. Allowance of this or that in general without allowance 〈◊〉 it, to be worship, maketh nothing at all to be worship.  

All worship, must have a command, not allowance only.  7. It may justly be quaestioned, whether the Rej. 〈◊〉 this distinction of command and allowance, do no● symbolise with the Papists in their distinction of commands and counsels.  
For seeing this Popish distinction, cannot be avoided, but by another betwixt a common precept, and particular, according to the circumstances, jun. Cont. lib. 2. To. 9 and no worship or good work can be without one of these precepts, certainly this worship upo● allowance, without any particular precept, can neither be worship nor good work. 8. I ask whether that institution of worship which is grounded on allowance be a work of obedience to God or not? If it be, the● surely it hath a command and not an allowance only If not, than either let works of supererogation be admitted, or this institution cashyred.  
The immediate external true worship in regard of ma●ner, is said to consist in a reverend usage of prescribed worship, according to order and decency. Where observe● that worship being formerly defined by an action, 〈◊〉 here specified by a manner, whereas the manner of 〈◊〉 action, is not an action, at least every manner is not 〈◊〉 2. That in the manner here specified (reverend usage) the usage of an action differeth not from the action b● only in reverence, which is a common adjunct of a worship, and therefore maketh not a distinct worship 3. That civility, order and decency is required, in th● usage of prescribed worship, and so worship in regard 〈◊〉 the manner though it be religious, may be called c●vill: yet let the Reader be admonished, that under the●● ●●●re words of reverend manner, order, decency of wor●●●p, much sacrilegious worship is maintained by the ●●pists: As our Rhemists on John 6.58. have discovered, 〈◊〉 nature therefore of the things themselves, should be considered, and we should not suffer ourselves to be ●used by words. That which is quoted here out of D. 〈◊〉, will occasion the reader to look upon the place, ●●edull. lib. 2. c. 14. th'. 25. the words of that position 〈◊〉 these: Although these circumstances of time, place and ●er like, are wont by some to be called rites or religious ec●●esiasticall ceremo., yet in their nature they have nothing, 〈◊〉 is proper to religion, and therefore religious worship doth 〈◊〉 properly consist in them, however by neglect, and contempt 〈◊〉 such circumstances, the sanctity of such religious worship, is 〈◊〉 some sort violated, because the common respect of order 〈◊〉 decency, which do equally agree to religious and civil ●●tions cannot be severed, from religious worship, without diminishing of the sanctity and dignity of it. What can the ●ej. gather from hence, but that these circumstances ●re not worship, being only so required to religious ●ctions as they are to civil: If his argument be this: they ●re not properly worship, therefore worship, it is ridiculous: If it be thus framed; they are commanded in general, therefore in their general nature, & in respect of ●heir utmost end, they must be vouchsafed, the title of divine worship: He may as well conclude, that the office ●nd act of a justice of peace, or Constable, nay a Hangman, must be vouchsafed the same title of divine worship, for these are commanded in general, and their utmost ●nd ought to be the honouring of God, and sometime they may have reference to some thing done in the worship of God: In the last place there is a memorandum added, that the same humane Cere. which is a worship in regard of manner, may also be worship in respect o● a mean, but not of, and by itself. This is as much to say That the last distinction betwixt means and manne● is not distinct, and that a humane Ceremony canno● be grounded on God's special command, the late● whereof no man ever doubt of, and the former, I do● easily assent unto.  

SECT. 2. Concerning the ex●mplyfying of the former distinction of worship by instances, and confirming of it by witnesses in the same treat: Cap. 4.  
HAnna served God in fasting and prayer, Luc. 2. 3● Fasting here was worship, saith Dr. B. in som● sense, or else S. Luke was deceived. Whatsoever becometh of this consequence, the example fitteth not our Ceremo. for though D. B. hath often exhorted his Auditors to worship God in fasting & praying, in the same phrase, yet (I dare say) he never exhorted them, or any ministers to whom he hath preached amongst others, to serve God in Surplice and Prayer in crossing and baptising, how much soever he favoureth these Ceremonies: The strange bleating such a phrase carrieth with it, would have amazed his people, and affrighted the ministers, and discredited his ministry: by this alone it appeareth, that the example of fasting is abused, when it is paraleled, with cross and surplice: 2. The consequence is all too peremptorily followed, or else St. Luke was deceived: I should rather think, that D.B. may be deceived in his interpretation of St, Luke: The phrase which St. Luke useth, doth no more urge us, to make fasting worship in any sense, than St. Paul his phrase Eph 6. Watching unto all supplication with perseverance, doth constrain us to make perseverance, or watching a worship, distinct from supplication: Or then, the same Paul's phrase Acts 20.19. serving the Lord with many tears and temptations, do make temptations a special kind of worship. 3. Fasting may be called worship by a trope, as being a special adjunct of some extraordinary worship, and yet not be a special kind of immediate reductive worship, or any other kind. 4. The truth is that fasting, is such a help to extraordinary humiliation, as moderate fasting, is to extraordinary thanksgiving, and therefore is no more worship, than Christian fasting: And to this purpose do our divines answer, concerning this place, which is ordinarily objected by every Papist, as here by the Rej. See Chemnitius upon these words: See Polanus, Syntag. lib. 9 cap. 8. Fasting is a help to prayer, 
jeiunium est adminiculum procationu, & signum humilitatis ac resipiscentia, non autem cultus Dei.  a sign of humility and repentance, but is not a worship of God. 5. Fasting such as Annas was, is not a humane institution, as our ceremonies are, but partly natural, when the whole man is taken up with greater, and more instant employment, exclusive of all ordinary refreshments: and partly of Divine application, in extraordinary humiliation, so that it hath ground and example both in the O. & N.T. which our Ceremonies are destitute of.  
2. Mr. Cartwright (many degrees and ages distant from S. Luke) is brought in next, acknowledging circumstantial worship, only allowed in the particular, though commanded in his kind in the second command: Now I have at hand, only that edition of Mr. C. his Catechism, which was printed Anno 1611. and therein I find no such thing, upon occasion I will seek for the other edition: In the mean time I find there, that all will worship, how great a show soever it makes, is condemned and images (in special in God's service even as laymen's books) which the defendant defend, thand the Rej. rejoineth for. 2. Suppose he grant a circumstantial worship, what is that to worship invented by man: There is no doubt, but some parts of God's worship, by himself instituted are comparatively circumstantial, but what is that to man's invention. 3. There is a mighty distance, betwixt the general of kneeling at prayer, & such like gestures, intended by Mr. C. (if he name circumstantial worship,) and the general of Cross and Surplice, as there is betwixt the general of this and that father, and the general of all entia and things, that have being: This testimony therefore maketh nothing to the purpose.  
The third witness is, Chamyer, Tom. 5. l. 20.4.5 affirming that arbitrary vows are worship of God not per se, of themselves, but by accident, and for some other thing, where to omit the translation of per se, of themselves, which should have been by themselves betwixt which there is a great difference, (as betwixt a body living of the soul, and by itself.) Chamyer in that very place, if his whole sentence be expressed (which neglect, if it had been the Replyers, we should have heard outcries, proclamations and invective accusations enough) I say ●his whole sentence is contrary to the Rej.: His words in sum are these: To vow, 
Vovere, & reddere, sunt actus religionis eliciti, quia per se, & propriè sunt religionis, at actus▪ qui voventur, non nisi imperati, pertinentes ad cultum, non proprie sed p●r accident, illi formaliter, high materialiter.  and to perform are elicited acts of religion, because by themselves and properly they appertain to religion, but the actions that are vowed, are imperated by religion, and belong unto worship, not properly, but by accident, those formally, these materially. He doth not speak of vows, in that part which the Rej. quoteth, but of things vowed, nor doth he acknowledge these worship, otherwise then the matter of an action, is an action: It were not far from his meaning, if one should say, this bakers bread, and that vynters wine, is a Sacrament materialiter and per accidens. Lastly he doth not speak of any worship elicitus per accidens, such as immediate Ceremonial worship is, but only imperatus ordered and directed, such as service to ones father or friend may be, and is not this then a worshipful testimony for Ceremonies, invented by man and made formal, immediate reductive worship.  
junius in the fourth place is brought in, testifying, that the humane feasts of the Nativity, and Easter, are not worship properly, but it may be figuratively: And what is that, I wonder, to immediate reductive worship of humane invention: Worship figuratively so called, is any matter, instrument, subject, adjunct, effect or even similitude of worship: Are all such things immediate reductive worship? Just as bread, pottage, wine, oil, or meat, having touched the skirt of a holy garment are holy, Hag. 2.12. Thus the words and wildernesses where Christians meet, may be called worship figuratively or by a figure, the place being put for the thing done in the place: thus the ringing of the Bell, before the Sermon, may be called worship figuratively, because it is a sign civil to give notice that such a service will be: And hence it is that junius doth in the same place affirm, that such observations are only contingent accidents, or adjuncts to worship. The same junius doth explain his own meaning controv. 5. lib. 2. c. 16. n. 18. warning us to distinguish betwixt actions of worship, 

Actiones cultus & ordinat●● ad cultum.  
Actiones cultus, quaecunque non sunt a Deo praeceptae, sunt vetitae, nam de illis nihil detrah●, addi, aut mutari potest.  
Nulla iusta, disponend● Dei servos, ad cultú Dei, ratio, ab hominibus investigari pot●st, nisi, quam Deus prascripserit.   and such which are done in order unto worship, adding moreover this: Actions of worship, what ever are not commanded of God are forbidden, for as touching such, nothing can be detracted, added, altered: and in Levit. 9 No right way of disposing Gods servants to his worship, can be invented by man, but that, which God himself hath prescribed.  
Polanus is next, who (saith the Rej.) in his syntagme defineth true worship of God to be the performance of what he hath commanded in obedience to him, to his honour, yet in his partitions pag. 128. he saith, that an ecclesiastical rite or Cerem. is outward worship of God, not forgetting or crossing himself, but taking the name of worship in one place properly, and in the other improperly, or reductively. Where it is to be noted, that Polanus saith nothing of improper, reductive worship, but those terms are put into his ●outh, or thrust into he speech by the Rejoyner. 2. Po●●nus writ his partitions, when he was a young man, 〈◊〉 divine, but his Syntagme was his last work: If ●●erfore any crossing was found in these two writings, his Syntagme was to be taken, as his more mature ●●dgment, and preferred as his last will and testament. 〈◊〉. In this his Syntagme lib. 8. c. 1. he hath not only 〈◊〉 definition of worship, contrary to the Rej. his tenet, 〈◊〉 many other Items: 
Pertinet ad boni operis substantia, ut opu● illud sit a Deo mandatum, perinde & cultum Dei, & quicquid ad cultum Dei pertinet, mandatum esse oportet: Actiones adiaphora non sunt cultu● Dei, etc.  It belongs to the substance of a good ●ork, that it be commanded of God, and therefore its requi●e, that the worship of God, and every thing appertaining ●●erunto be commanded: Actions indifferent, are not the ●orship of God etc. 4. In the place quoted out of his par●ons: That an ecclesiastical rite is outward worship, he ●oth not cross himself, for what he there meaneth by 〈◊〉 ecclesiastical rite, he showeth in the specials, which 〈◊〉 after setteth down, as sacrifices etc. though he mingeth some humane feasts, with the ordinances of God ●or his method sake, never intending to make such ce●emon. as ours lawful worship, and therefore opposeth ●is ecclesiastical rites to those duties, that are performed only by speech: as Invocation, confession, thanksgiving.  
6. Fenner (saith the Rej.) maketh bowing the knee or ●ead, lifting up the hands, or eyes, to the parts of external ●orship: But what consequence is there from natural gestures, to cerem. instituted by man? From actions particularly commended unto us in God's word, as outward worship, to such as their patrons can find no allowance for, but in a remote transcendent racked Genus?  
Tylenus (a man, that Dr. B. should rather have written against, for his errors, than alleged against other● for his authority) is in the seventh place brought in saying; that a vow of a thing not commanded, is worship only by accident, Syntag. par. 1. dis. 42. th'. 17. Yet 1. 〈◊〉 doth not say, 

Cultus, nisi per accidens Dei cultus vocari potest.  
Quatenus ad cultura illum ●lique modo refertur, ut medium arbitrarium, contingent, ●diaphorum.   it is worship, but that it cannot be called worship but by accident. 2. He giveth this limitation, so far as 〈◊〉 may, some way be referred to worship, as an arbitrary, contingent, indifferent means. Such as in prayer the choosing of the word, forgiveness, rather than pardon, is in th● petition of remission of sins. 3. The worship 〈◊〉 speaketh of, is not immediate in his opinion, as appears disp. 40. th'. 16. as it is in the Rej. his divisions: Na● Tylenus is so wise, as to say, that the most proper an● immediate acts of religion, do not respect God per se, 〈◊〉 and of themselves, Ibid. th'. 18. is it any wonder then, 〈◊〉 granteth a worship, not in, and of itself, but by accident only.  
Bucanus is the eight witness, and yet nothing out of hi● is brought, but that ecclesiastical rites, are not worship 〈◊〉 themselves, and as a work done. Did any of us ever affirme● they were such worship? May be the Rej. would gather from thence, that there is a worship, which is not of itself, and as a work done such, which (though it canno● be gathered from that phrase, with better reason, the● if from this, that faith (doth not justifye of itself, an● as a work done, he should conclude, that some grac● there is, which justifyeth of itself, and as a work done yet we may well grant of false worship: But see how unhappy the Rej. is in his wrested allegations. Bucan●● 〈◊〉 the place quoted Loc. 43. q. 20. gives 1. this caveat: 〈◊〉 laws appointed for order, and comeliness sake only, 

Ne leget deceris & ordims tantum causa latae, sint divini cultus parts: 2. Ne pro gravi honesty, utilique ordine, inutilla, inepta, ridicula, histrionica instituantur: qualia sunt quae Pontificij praecipiunt, d● dierum & vestium des●rimine.  
Ad solum verbum Dei, quod ad cultum attinet, non ad humanas traditiones attendendum. Nullam obedientiam deberi ritibus, quarum alij sunt inepti, inanes & ludicri, alij vel per so, vel ob aliud superstitiosi crucis fabricationem, aquam lustralem, consecrationes altarium, & magistrales determinationes  
Non per se, sed lege charitatis.  
Ceremoniae non humanae, sed filij Dei authoritate institute & mandata adhibeantur.   are 〈◊〉 of divine w●rship: 2. It should be provided, that in 〈◊〉 of a grave, seemly, and profitable order, those things be 〈◊〉 instituted, which are unprofitable, foolish, ridiculous stage●y like: And of this sort are those, which the Papists com●●und, concerning the difference of days, and garments: 〈◊〉 the same Bucanus Loc. 33. q. 15. In things appertaining to worship, we must attend for direction only unto the 〈◊〉 of God, and not to humane traditions: No observance 〈◊〉 to rites, whereof some are foppish, vain, and light, 〈◊〉 either in regard of themselves or some other thing superstitious, amongst which he reckoneth, the ma●ing of the 〈◊〉, holy-water, the consecration of altars, and magistral ●●●erminations. And that lawful rites of order, are to be ●●served, not in regard of themselves, but by the law of cha●●●y: where he plainly showeth, that per se is not always 〈◊〉 to relation ad aliud, as the Rej. understands 〈◊〉. The same Buc. also, Lo. 47. qu. 65. giveth this rule: 〈◊〉 humane ceremonies ought to be used, but those which are ●●●ointed, and commanded by the authority of the son of 〈◊〉.  
The last witness is Melanchton, who faith in one place: 〈◊〉 man may not institute any worship of God, i.e. works ●●ich God so alloweth, that he holdeth himself to be honoured them of themselves, or whose immediate end is, that God 〈◊〉 be honoured by them: As if we did hold the contrary, 〈◊〉 is not this testimony wisely alleged, that all men 〈◊〉 his opposites may grant, and the grant of it, nei●●er hurts them, or helps him: Nay take away that clause, God's allowance and holding himself honoured, which no humane institution can infer) we say that our Cerem. are such, for it is as an immediate end, of all mystical teaching rites, to honour God, by them and in them as of the word, so far as it preacheth the same virtues that Ceremon. do teach: And so much is taught by th● Rej. in these very dictates, when he reduceth these reductive ceremonies, under the head of immediate worship, for nothing can be immediate worship, whose immediate end is not, that God may be honoured by th● performance of it. The same appeareth out of th●● which the Rej. pag. 313. affirmeth, viz. that the prope● end of preaching is aedification of men, if that be joined, which he every where teacheth, that the prope● end of significant Cerem. is aedification: Of such Cere●▪ therefore may well understand. Melanchton, not only i● this place alleged, 

Mundus non intelligit quantum sit peccatum singere cultus fine mandato Dei.  
Cultus idolatricisunt omnes qutcunque sine mandato Dei instituti sunt.   but also Tom. 2. p. 142. The wor● understands not, how great a sin it is to forge worship wit● out God's command: And P. 107. Idolatrous worship's o● all they, which are appointed without the command of G●● Here is no distinction betwixt worship of itself, or b● itself and by accident reductively etc. The Rej. his testimonies being such as have been declared, there canno● be much force in his examples, if they be agreeable t● his rules, whereof he hath brought such cross witness The first example is, of free will offerings, 
Free will offerings are no allowance of our ceremonies.  when a man 〈◊〉 left at liberty to offer a bullock, a goat, or sheep at his pleasure where the particular was not commanded, but only allowe● though the manner was prescribed: Concerning which answer 1. that there were no oblations left wholly 〈◊〉 the pleasure of men, for though the particulars were not, nor could not be determined by a distinct rule in general, yet they were determined by the circumstances, as our Divines are wont to answer the Papists, about their vows, counsels, superarrogations, 
Non lego generali, sed ratione circumstanti●um etc.  Not by a general law, but by concurrence of circumstances. So Deut. 16.10. Moses showeth that the freest offerings were to be according as God had blessed them, from whence it followeth, it had been sin for any Israelite, whom God had plentifully blessed, to offer a pair of pigeons in stead of a bullock, or two, upon his own mere pleasure: 2. where that proportion was observed the choice of a goat, before a sheep, or a sheep before a goat, was no formal worship: 3. That it had been unlawful for the Priests out of their pleasure, to institute any such determinate free offering, either ordinarily to be observed, or upon occasion of a man's forwardness to such a duty, i.e. that every free offering should be a goat, or at the least, that a goat should be one part of it, which is the presumption of our Prelates, about the reductive worship of the cross. 4. It was not left to any man's pleasure, for to appoint an offering not appointed of God, in the special or least kind, but only to choose among those, which God had instituted, that which did best agree, with his condition and occasion, as it is also now of psalms, prayers, doctrines, interpretations, exhortations, let every man offer, according as God hath furnished him: But from hence to infer the free choice of offering now to God, a cross, surplice, holy water, images, this is, as if one should then have concluded from that freedom, the free offering of certain butterflies, or such like pretty, odd, cumin not prescribed in the law, nor by name forbidden.  
The second example is taken from salomon's worship, at the dedication of the temple, 1. Kings 8.2. 2. Chron. 6. and 7. which he thus conformeth to his notions: The number of Bullocks and Sheep, were worship in respect of the end and allowance only, the Cere. of prayer, kneeling upon a Scaffold, & stretching out of hands, were worship reductive ad modum in genere suo, having respect to the manner in the general kind thereof: The burning of Sacrifices in the floor of the Court, was only lawful before the brazen altar was consecrated, and upon the present necessity: But 1. in the number of Bullocks and Sheep, there was not a different worship, but a different degree of the same worship, as a longer prayer or sermon is not another worship then a shorter, but another degree of extension in the same worship, Surely to pray and praise God twice, thrice or seven times in a day, are no different worships, one from another, but only more or less exercise of the same worship. 2. Kneeling & stretching out the hands, were not worship in respect to a general manner, but special external worship, as being natural, immediate expressions of the inward: As for the scaffold that Solomon kneeled on, that was no more worship, than the ass was upon which our Saviour did ride. Lastly, seeing none of these things carrying the nature of worship, were instituted ordinary observances, neither might the Priests in any convocation, have made such, these examples are nothing like ours in quaestion.  
The other examples of joshuas monitory stone, jos. 24 26. ●sas oath, 2. Chron. 15.14. Nehemiahs' subscription, Neh. 9 ●●lomons 14. days solemnity, 1. Kings 8. Ezekias' designing 7. days, 2. Cron. 30. Mordicayes Purim, Hest. 9 have little ●●ment in them, as the Rej. hath afforded illustration or de●●ration by bare naming of them: It may be sufficient to ●ny that which is barely affirmed: yet in few words: ●●ese for the most of them were actions managed by ●ods Spirit, suggested by secret instinct, extracted by extraordinary and special occasions: and therefore (as Mr. jackson Orig. of unbeleef, p. 332. warneth) are then 〈◊〉 lawful in others, when they are begotten by like occasions, or brought forth by like impulsions. 2. jonas stone was, as Dr. jackson Ibid. pag. 329. judgeth, but solemn attestation, though something extraordinary, ●●d indeed was no more worship, than the heavens and ●●●rth which Moses & Isayah did call to witness. 3. Asas ●●●th, & Nehemiahs' subscription, were no more distinct ●orship from the covenant, than the words of a simple promise's are a distinct promise from the meaning of 〈◊〉, subscription and swearing of Canonical obedience in England, were never (that I hear of) excepted against as Ceremonies of worship, by those which condemn them in the substance of them. 4. The prolonging of worship by Solomon and Ezekias was ●●ch a distinct worship, as Paul's continuing his exercise ●f religion to midnight, Acts 20. Mordecah his Purim ●ave their proper place in the dispute: Out of all these ●ules, testimonies, examples, nothing followeth in favour fof our Ceremon. because no sound rule, just testimony, or allowed example, is brought for any Cerem▪ of Mystical signification by man instituted, and brought into the solemn ordinary worship of God, for the 〈◊〉 of teaching: which maketh the Rej. his full perswasio● which he protesteth, suspected, and his triumphing ridiculous to those that well attend to these his grounds.  
Yet the Rej. hath a double conclusion looking th● way, 1. That this will show in what sense we may 〈◊〉 our Ceremonies worship, and yet deny them to 〈◊〉 worship, that is in such a nonsense as is usually foun● in contradicting shifts: The 2. to show the difference betwixt us and the Papists, which is here showed very briefly, but hath been handled, and answered at large before, and thither therefore we refer the Reader.    
FINIS.   



A TABLE OF THE FIRST CHAPTER, OF THE NEGATIVE Argument from Scripture.  Section 1. and 2. 
COncerning some accusations charged upon the Replier, about this argument. Pag. 1.  Section 3.4.5. 
Concerning the faithfulness of Christ and Moses. Heb. 3.2. P. 4.  Section 6. and 7. 
Of David's purpose to build a Temple. 2. Sam. 7. 1. Chron. 17. P. 19  Section 12. 
Concerning that phrase. jere. 7.31. You do that which I commanded not. P. 23.  Section 13.14. 
Concerning the Ancient Fathers arguing negatively from Scripture. P. 29.  Section 15. 


Concerning Protestant's arguing negatively from Scripture. P. 34.  
Concerning Rules for Ceremonies. P. 47.    Section 16. 


Concerning Order and Decentie. P. 51.  
Concerning an argument against our Ceremonies, out of 1. Cor. 14. P. 56.    Section 17. 
Concerning the Ancient Fathers allowing Human Ceremonies. P. 81.  Section 18.19. 
Concerning Protestant's witnessing against the negative argument from Scripture. P. 87.  Section 20.21. 
Concerning Reasons against the Negative Argument from Scripture. P. 99  Section 22. 
Concerning the Assumption of the main Argument handled in this Chapter. P. 107.   

A TABLE OF THE SECOND CHAPTER, Concerning Worship.  Section 1. 
OF Worship distinguished into proper or Essential, and unproper or Accidental. P. 110.  Section 2. 
Concerning adding to God's Worship. P. 115.  Section 6. 
Concerning our Divines judgement about Ceremonious Worship invented by man. P. 125.  Section 7. 
Concerning Vrsines and Zanchies judgement, about Will-worship. P. 149.  Section 8.9. 
Concerning Mr. bradshaw's Argument to prove our Ceremonies imposed as parts of God's worship. P. 158.  Section 10.11.12.13.14. 
Concerning some relics of Arguments fathered upon Mr. Hy. and others. P. 178.   

A TABLE OF THE THIRD CHAPTER, About the significant nature of our Ceremonies.  Section 1. and 2▪ 
COncerning certain Miscelaneal notions and testimonies against human religious significant Ceremonies. P. 209  Section 3. 
Concerning Augustin. P. 222.  Section 4. 
The judgement of Protestant Divines concerning significant Ceremonies. P. 230.  Section 5. 
Concerning the wrong done to God's Sacraments by human significant Ceremonies. P. 253.  Section 6. 

Concerning jewish Ceremonies. 
P. 266.  A Letter of D. Humphrey to the Bishops. 
P. 269.  Concerning Circumcision. 
P. 274.    Section 7. 

Concerning Images. 
P. 283.  Concerning Oil, Light, Spittle, Cream, and H. Water. 
P. 291.  Concerning the 2. Commandment. 
P. 296.    Section 8. 
Concerning the Oath-gesture of Abraham's Servant. P. 304.  Section 10. 
Concerning Suarez the jesuit his stating the Controversy betwixt Protestants and Papists. P. 309.  Section 11. 
Concerning the Feast of Purim. P. 315.  Section 12. 
Concerning the Feast of Dedication. joh. 10.22.23. P. 318.  Section 15.16. 
Concerning the Altar of jordan. P. 322.  Section 17.18.19.20.21. 
Concerning the Brazen Altar built by Solomon. 1. King. 8.64. P. 328.  Section 22. 
Concerning Synagogues. P. 332.  Section 27. 
Concerning the Kiss of Charity. P. 340.  Section 28. 
Concerning women's veils. P. 345.  Section 29. 
Concerning the Ancient Custom of Significant Ceremonies among Christians. P. 350.  Section 31. 
Concerning swearing upon a book. P. 357.  Section 32. 
Concerning the Lords-daye, Temples, and Ceremonial Festivals. P. 358.   

A TABLE OF THE FOURTH CHAPTER, Concerning Idolatrous Ceremonies.  Section 1. 
ABout the forming of this Argument, and the general Answer given thereto. P. 366.  Section 2. 
Concerning the second Commandment, and Scriptures belonging to it; as Leu. 18.3. etc. P. 369.  Section 3. 
Concerning Pillars, Leu. 26.1. and the name Baal, Host 2.16.17. P. 379.  Section 4. 
Concerning the equity of the Commandments formerly mentioned; and calvin's judgement about it. P. 384.  Section 5. 
Concerning daniel's abstinence, Dan. 1.8. P. 393.  Section 6. 

Concerning Hezekias his breaking down the Brazen Serpent. 
P. 394.  A piece of a comparison, betwixt the Primitive, and the present English Church. 
P. 402.  In Organical Music. 
P. 404.  Chancelours, Commissaries, etc. 
P. 406.  Pompous Bishops. 
P. 408.  Calling of Ministers. 
P. 411.  Ministers going to Law for their places. 
P. 415.  Pluralists, Nonresidents, and Dumb Ministers. 
P. 416.  Simony. 
P. 418.  Profane Contemners of Religion, members of the Church. 
P. 420.  Spiritual Courts. 
P. 420.  Taking of money, for Ordination, Citations, Absolutions, and change of Paenance. 
P. 422.    Section 7.8. etc. and 20. 

Concerning Counsels, and Ancient Writers. 
P. 423.  With a Digression, about the difference of our differing from the Papists, in 

Surplice, 
P. 426.  Crossing. 
P. 427.  Kneeling. 
P. 428.    Concerning Protestant Divines. 
P. 453.    Section 21. 
Concerning the Assumption; namely, that our Ceremonies are human, unnecessary and Idolatrous. P. 475.  Section 22. 
Concerning the Cross, Popish, and English. P. 489.  Section 23. 
Concerning Scripture proof for the lawfulness of human Ceremonies Idolatrously abused. P. 491.  Section 24. 

Proofs of the same, out of Ancient Fathers. 
P. 499.  Where answer is given to B. juels Allegations for the antiquity of distinct Ministerial garments. 
P. 503.    Section 25.26.27.28. 
Concerning D. morton's reasons for human Ceremonies Idolatrously abused. Where comparison is made, betwixt Popish and Pagan Idolatry: And something is said of D. Burges his intemperate accusations. P. 511.  Section 29.30. 

Concerning our Confessions and Practices, making for such Ceremonies. 
P. 524.  A Postscript. 
P. ●29.     
FINIS.   

Faults escaped: thus to be corrected:  
Pag. 11. l. 5. for answer that, r. answer, saith that. p. 25. l. 2. for adventious, r. adventitious. p. 55. l. 4. for Esius, r. Estius, p. 58. l. 12. r. wherein it differeth. p. 62. l. 12. r. all that the rejoinder. ibid. l. 30. r. Constitutions. p. 75. l. 23. for unto, r. the. p. 98. l. 7. for but of God's word, r. out of God's word. p. 108. l. 1. r. here is said. p. 112. l. 1. for as black, r as a black. p. 118. l. 4. for pretended, r pretended. p. 126. l. 14. for that is, r. that it is. p. 106. l. 20. for which is not, r. which is not so. p. 129. l. 17. for may, r. way. p. 143. l. 4. for simple, r. simply. p. 143. l. 29. for a, r. u. p. 172. l. 5. for as that. r. but that. p. 186. l. 18. for her, r. the. p. 193. l. 2. for many of godly, r. many godly. p. 210. l. 16. r. how little soever. p. 214. l. 26. r. representations. p. 215. l. 9 r. attention. p. 224. l. 20. r. never heard of. ibid. l. 23. r. are in Augustine's phrase. p. 225. l. 24. r. Idol. p. 227. l. 11. r. Church yards. l. 26. r. Novalists. p. 231. l. 7. for he that with, r. he that weigheth. p 238. l. 28. r. oxen. p. 240. l. 1. for how, r. what. p. 259. l, 27. r. gibbets. p. 268. l. 3. for a more, r. more. l. 4. for of, r. for. p. 269. l. 20 for peached, r. preached. p. 271, l. 12. for devised singularily, r. devised out of singularity. l 22. r. fall together by the ears. p. 272. l. 1. r. Canem twice. p. 285. l. 29. for they are in our, r. they are in this our. p. 325. l. 23. for and, r. had. p. 360 l. 4. for those that, r. not those that. p. 362. l. 20. for Aod, r. And p. 368. l. 24. for significent, r. sufficient, p. 371. l. 2●. for makeng, r. make. p. 374. l. 14. for falimear, r. familiar. p. 417. l. 11. for clouse, r. close. p. 227. l 7. for linen pontifical, r. lin is but a more ponteficall ibid. l. 8. for and many times, r. are many times. p. 452. l. 26. r. imposers. p. 456. l. 20. for hold, r. held. p. 479. l. 13. for cliving, r. cleaving p. 518. l. 22. r. diameterly, for diademiterly. p. 521. l. 1. for cracked, r. crack. l 25. for forbidden▪ r. forbade.   

THE DYSPUTE about HUMAN CEREMONIES.  
CHAP. I. Of the negative argument from Scripture,  

SECT. 2.  
MY purpose is not, to insist upon words, & circumstantial exceptions, as being of little moment, but only to discuss the material points that I meet with, in their order. Yet because the Rej. cometh on in the beginning, with such a heat, if the Repl. had marvellously offended, almost in every word; I will take his first accusations (though not ●uche material) into due consideration.  
1. The Repl. made only mention of the all-suffi●●encie, or perfect fullness of the Scriptures. Heerat the Rej. ●raesently complaineth of abuse, misreporting, and ma●●ng a false show: as if (saith he) we denied the perfect ●●lnesse of the Scripture etc. Now 1. the Repl. said no such thing, but the contrary rather, when he observe that the same was granted by the Def. as it was required by those he writ against. 2. If he had said that th● Def. and Rej. also do deny the perfect fullness of Scripture, in regard of Ceremonial worship, he had sayda more than truth, for they teach, that some such worship is lawful and good, which is not taught 〈◊〉 Scripture, that many teaching Ceremonies, which Go● never instituted, may by man be instituted and brought into worship, images themselves not excepted, that additions to God's word (so they be not contrary) m●● and aught to be made.) The sum of their doctrine in this point, is that which Mr. Hooker setteth down p. 125. Mucke the Church of God shall always: need, which 〈◊〉 Scripture teacheth not.  
Neither doth it help, which the Rej. addeth, 〈◊〉 Scripture is as perfest in giving general rules, as it should b● in setting down of all particular instances. For 1. this 〈◊〉 not generally true, because general rules make only th● proposition tending to particulars, and the assumption 〈◊〉 left undetermined, they therefore do not so fully an● perfectly infer the particulars, as if they were s●● down.  
General rules are given in the new Testament, fo● civil policy or government of Common wealth: ye● no man (I think) will say that civil policy is so fully and perfectly taught in the new Testament as it was 〈◊〉 the old, or as religious worship is now in the new.  
The rule for clean beasts (saith the Rej.) that they be suc● as chew the cud, and divide the hoof, was as perfect, as 〈◊〉 such beasts had been named. True, but here no determination of the assumption was necessary, but such the beasts themselves did make to every man that was ●ot blind, without any institution of man. It was as ●ow it is in bread & wine for the Lords Supper, which ●e appointed in general, without naming of wheat, 〈◊〉, mislen bread, or French, Spanish, Rhenish, Itali●●, Greek wine: but cross and surplice (I hope) are ●ot so in general appointed. The general rules which 〈◊〉 Rej. groundeth our Ceremonies upon, are: let all ●●ings be done to edification, with order, and decency. Now these rules are such (saith Mr. Hooker p. 95.) as stand light of reason, and nature to be observed, though the Scripture had never mentioned them. So that in them there is no ●●che perfection of Scripture, for particulars, as if the particulars had been named. 2. betwixt these generals ●●d such particulars in quaestion, there must come a human institution, such as (to make the example ●gree) if it had been prescribed in the old Test. only ●ith clean beasts should be used in sacrifice, and left to ●●e Priests for to determine, what kind of beasts should 〈◊〉, or holden to be clean.  
2. An untruth is charged upon the Replier, in that 〈◊〉 said, nothing was denied by the Def. in the 2. section.  
Now let any man read, over the section, and he shall ●inde nothing denied. His answers are these: we due accept of your distinction; only the second member must be ex●ended to general rules, permissions, common equity, you must ●nd unto this distinction; which when you do not, you con●ute yourselves. Is here any thing denied. Yea (saith the Rej. the Major is denied: because it is showed that something is warranted which is not prescribed. The major is: Scripture condemneth) that which is done either against, or without warrant of the word of God, especially in matters of God's service. Let any man of common reason and indifferency, judge, whether this be contradicted, by that, something is warranted which is not prescribed.  
3. The Replier is taunted with I know not what fault, for saying here, that, distinction to be granted, which after he denieth to be the non-Conformists. As if in dispute, it were not usual for one party to observe what the adversary doth grant himself, though he himself doth not own it. The Rej. might have spared all these words of this section, but that he affected to say much upon little or no occasion, that his answer might seem abundantly complete.   

SECT. 3.4.5. Concerning the faithfulness of Christ and Moses. Heb. 3.2.  
1. The Repl. once for all noteth, that the Def. his distributing of our confirmations, from Scriptures, fathers, and Protestant Divines, as if they were like in the intended confirmations, whereas the later are only used by occasion of perverse praejudice in our adversaries who require such things, and also in constant styling the father's testimonies, judgements, and others confessions, the Repl. I say noteth only that this is some wrong, except it be only idle Rhetoric. For this, the Rej. flieth in his face, saying he noteth himself an egregious wrangler, his notes are notorious Cavils, and wrangles, and shows what spirit he is of. I will not say this showeth what spirit D. B. is of: for I doubt not but his spirit is better than here is showed. Yet this showeth what spirit he took upon him with the person of a Rejoiner.  
Is it so great a fault to suspect the Def. of some wrong-doeing, or of using Rhetoric, without any moment, in variation of phrases? To do some wrong unto an adversary in propounding his allegations after another manner than he meant, is so ordinary, that the suspicion of it, and that with exception, cannot be accounted so heinous a crime as those toothed terms import. Praejudice is as common fault, and all praejudice is some way perverse. The Rej. after p. 461. accuseth all those of averseness, by distraction, stupidity or praejudice, which do not feel that organiall music work much upon their affections (in and to God's worship) though he knoweth as good men as our adversaries deny it. Yet he would not have us, nor will we, from thence gather, what spirit he is of. Rhetoric is no more an ill word, than Grammar, or Logic. Idle is nothing but without use: and so the Rej. himself confesseth the Def. his variations to be, in making judgements and confessions all one. Neither could he find what to say against the former suspicion, without feigning a new objection, which the Repl. maketh not, of aequalling Divine and humane authority. The only fault was, that such things which might be well spoken to another, were spoken to a Bishop.  
2. Concerning Heb. 3.2. (to omit altercations about what was said or not said by the Def. and take what the Rej. will have said, or saith himself.)  
The Rej. saith that a distinction is made, of Ceremonies whereof some are substantial Divine, and doctrinals, and have particular determination in Scripture, some are not substantial, called, Rituals, and mere Ceremonies: the former have particular determination in Scripture, but not the later. Now (to let pass, that this distinction concerneth not ●he proposition which formerly was said to be denied because there is no mention in it of any term here distinguished) let any man of reason consider the sense of this distinction: Ceremonies are either substantial, Divine, Doctrinal, that is, such as have particular determination in the word, or else not substantial, that is, such as have no particular determination in the word; the former have particular determination in the word; but the later have not. Which is as much as to say; those Ceremonies which have no particular determination in the word, have no particular determination in the word. This explication cannot be excepted against, except Divine and Doctrinal Ceremonies be not all one, with Ceremonies determined by doctrine Divine, which neither the Defen. or rejoinder or any considerate man for them, will deny. The rejoinder himself for instance of substantial, Divine, Doctrinal Cerem: putteth all those of Moses, law, many of which were no way such, but only in that they were particularly appointed of God. And to put the matter out of a●l doubt, the rejoinder p. 60. telleth us plainly: that the Def. useth, and all of his side do use in this quaestion, the term Doctrinal passively, for a thing taught in the word.  
3. For defence yet of this distinction of Ceremonies into dogmatic, and Ritual, or mere Ceremonial (though he confess it is not formal) the rejoinder nameth all our Divines, but citeth only D.A. as distinguishing betwixt Doctrinal and Ceremonial points of religion. Which, if it be so, what makes this for distinction of Ceremonìes, into Dogmatic and Ritual, or merely Ceremonial? But let us view the places cited. The first is in Bel. Ener: tom. 1. pag. 66. Where it is said, that for the most part, the fathers by traditions, mean rites and Ceremonies, received without Scripture, concerning which, we dispute not, and they were too l●berall, though when they judge out of Scripture, they plainly condemn unwitten traditions. What is here, that can help, the Rej.  
The fathers spoke of Ceremonies, which neither Scripture, nor themselves, judging out of Scripture, did allow of: of them the quaestion was not in that place, though in other places it is handled by the same author, in the same book, as De Pontifice, De Sacraementis, De cultu Sanctorum:  
Ergo the distinction of Ceremonies into, Dogmatic and Ritual or mere Ceremonial, is allowed.  
The second place is in the 71. pag. of the same book: the Apostles elsewhere have written nothing in the dogmatical kind, which Paul had not preached to the Galatians. Where Dogmatic is opposed to Prophetical predictions, such as S. John in the Revelation taught, as Bel. there allegeth. And not to any thing, not particularly contained in Scripture, Ergo (saith the Rej.) the distinction of Ceremonies into Dogmatic particularly contained in Scripture, and Ritual, not so contained, is allowed as good. The consequence is a baculo ad angulum.  
4. The Repl. said that Ceremonial is sometime opposed to moral, and sometime to Substantial, but not to Doctrinal. Heerupon the Rej. concludeth, that therefore, the distinction of Doctrinal and Ceremonial Ceremonies may be allowed, because (forsooth) as there be some moral Ceremonies, viz. all those which are appointed of God, and some other, so there be some Ceremonial doctrines, or doctrinal Ceremonies, and some other.  
Where 1. the consequence is such as the former: Sometime Ceremonial is opposed to moral, and substantial: ergo some Ceremonies are doctrinal, and some only Ceremonial. 2. What a miscarrying is there in that assertion, all Ceremonies appointed of God are moral? Was there then no difference betwixt the moral and Ceremonial law of God. 3. There neither bee, nor can be such significant teaching Ceremonies, as ours in q●●estion, and not be Ceremonial teachings, or tea●●ing Ceremonies: which is all one with Ceremonial doctrines, or doctrinal Ceremonies.  
5. The Hierarchy (being quaestioned to which of these heads it belongeth) is referred by the rejoinder to both in several respects. So then, the distinction is not real, but rational only, in respects.  
I see not why all lawful rites ordained by men, may not as well be referred to both. Neither do I think our Hierarchy would take it well if they should be called Ceremonial Prelates: and Doctrinal for the greatest part they are not found to be actively, nor can so be proved passively, so far, as they differ from those ministers many of whom they will not suffer to be Doctrinal, because they cannot be at their pleasure Ceremonial.  
6. Concerning the rest of the third section, all that is rejoined, dependeth only upon the term mereCeremoniall Ceremonies. This term the Replier did not understand (as it seemeth) according to the Author's meaning; neither can the rejoinder interpret it, but with such sense as was formerly declared. Mere Ceremonies are not only such as the rejoinder p. 33. called single Ceremonies, for in the same place, he maketh significant rites, having relation to a further worship, such as ours are, double, or triple Ceremonies. So that this mere Ceremony can be nothing else, but a Ceremony which God hath not instituted for his worship: and so the Def. and rejoinder maintain here only this assertion: those Ceremonies which God hath not instituted, are not instituted by God. Which is so evidently true, that it cannot escape the imputation of idleness, either to dispute for, or against it. Only this I note, that by this distinction, God cannot appoint a mere Ceremony in his worship, though man can: for if God appoint any Ceremony, it is (eo ipso nomine) doctrinal, substantial, moral. No merveyl therefore if God have not appointed mere Ceremonies, seeing he cannot appoint any such, but man only can do that.  
7. Concerning Heb. 3.2. it is further answered sect. 4. that the faithfulness of Christ, and Moses was equal, and alike in real faithfulness, because they both did that which was commanded them of God. But howsoever this be true, yet if it were Gods revealed will, that more immediate means of worship should be instituted in the Christian Church, than Christ hath instituted, who was ordained to institute the means of worship, and Moses (as is here supposed) instituted all such means of worship in the old Testament, as God would have instituted, it followeth, that the faithfulness of Christ, was not so extended to all the necessities of the Church, as Moses his faithfulness was.  
8. Concerning faithfulness in Ritual ordinances, the Def. mentioned the ordaining of two essential and necessary Sacraments. Which allegation the Replier esteemed nothing to the purpose. Yes verily (saith the rejoinder) it is some thing. It is in deed something, but this something is nothing at all pertaining to mere Rituals. For so the Defend. and rejoinder both confess expressly, that these two Sacraments are not mere Rituals.  
9 The Def. addeth, that as Moses appointed Ceremonies, so Christ removed them. Which explication of Scripture being blamed by the Replier, the rejoinder answereth 1. That it is not an interpretation of the text, but an answer to an objection from the text. And yet the same rejoinder in his Sum of the Def. his answer that it is a comparison of the fidelity of Christ and Moses. And all the text, and objection, from the text, consisteth in this comparison. 2. It is a proper answer saith the rejoinder, for if Christ was faithful in removing Ceremonies, before necessary, then be need not prescribe other Ceremonies then simply necessary, and so not all mere Ceremonies. Is not this a proper consequence? ther is no connexion at all betwixt the first and second part, the appointed Ceremonies are therefore only called simply necessary, because they were appointed by Divine authority: and yet of such it is said, that Christ need not appoint other, whereas in deed he could not appoint other; and that he needed not appoint mere Ceremonies, that is Humane, which if he should have done, it had implied a contradiction, mere Ceremonies (in the Def. and Rejoinders opinion being such as are not appointed by authority divine. 3. It is added by the rejoinder that the fidelity of Christ appeared in removing those Ceremonies of Moses, and the thing compared is fidelity. Both which are true, but not to the purpose: because the comparison is not in fidelity abstractly considered, but in fidelity about the building and furnishing all the house of God; of which, the abolishing of Mosaical Ceremonies, is no substantial part.  
10. About the Repl: his answer to a place cited out of Calvin the rejoinder observeth much irreligious way wardness, with falsehood, and three gross untruths, in one short sentence. Which it pleased him to note also in the Table of his principal or most observable Contents: the Replier found guilty of three gross untruths together. p. 15. This peal of terrible words make such a noise in the reader's ears, that he can scarce hear, what may be spoken for the party accused. But if he will hearken a little, it shall be made plain unto him that hasty passion only (in reasons absence) made all this rattling sound.  
The first wayward, false, irreligious, and gross untruth is, that the Def. should have dealt more plainly, if he had cited Bellarmine, and why (trow ye) is it so great a crime, for to say the Def. might have dealt more plainly? because (forsooth) no dealing could be more plain, then to set down the very words of Calvin, with the place, where they are to be found. Now be it so, yet it is not so heinous an offence to say some dealing, might be plainer than that which is most plain, but as the Secretaries and Proctors of our Prelates court's do in imitation of Criminal inditements (wherein always stand felonious etc.) aggravate every trifling accusation, and citation, especially those which concern a Bishop, as ungodly, irreligious, false etc. so must he that writeth, against any thing praejudiciall to Praelats, secundum stylum Curiae, But the truth is that any other man's words set down according to his meaning, is more plain dealing, then to set down Calvins, beside his intention.  
The second way ward, false, irreligious, and gross untruth is, that the same words, which the Def. citeth out Calvin, are found in Bellarmine, de Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. the contrary whereof, the rejoinder doth aver upon his credit. Now here is to be marked, that the Repl. spoke not of every word the same, nor understood individual sameness, but like only, and so did the rejoinder understand him, when he saith upon my credit there be no such words any where in Bellarmin, of such words is the credit pawned.  
This being praemised, let these words of Bellarmin in that very place exstant, be well considered.  
For as muchas the law of the OLD TESTAMENT was given to one people and for a certain time only, as till the coming of Christ, 
Quia lex Testaments veteris dabatur uni tantum populo, & ad certum tempus, nimirum usque ad Christi adventum, votuit facile determinare omn●a in speciali, ut etiam secit. Name in speciali praescribit omnia etc, At lex Euangelica datur toti mundo I. E. diversissimarum nationum populis, & duratura est usque ad finom mundi. E▪ iderco non oterat tam facile determinare emnia in speciali, ut non essent adhue necessariae leges aeliae. Neque enim possunt diversis●imi populi convenire missdem legibus & ritibus. Itaque Deus mil ius esse judicavit si in Evangelio traderet com●unissimas leges, de sacramentis a●●uarticulis fidei & alta magis specialia, pro locorum & temporum diverfitate, relinqueret instituenda, per Apostolos, corumque succ●ss●res.  that law might Easily determine all things in Special, as in deed it aid, for in special it praescribed all things etc. But the law of the gospel was given to all the world i. e, to the peoples of Sundry nations, and was moreover to endure to the end of the world, and therefore this law of the Gospel could not so easily Determine all things in particular as did the other, that no other laws might be supposed necessary then what are found in the new Test. Nor is it possible for divers nations to agree together in the same laws and rites, and therefore God judged it far better if he delivered in the Gospel the most general and common laws, leaving the more special things concerning the Sacraments and articles of faith to be ordered by the Apostles and their Successors according as circumstances of time and place should require.  
Let there also a comparison be made betwixt this, and that translation which the rejoinder maketh of calvin's words.  
Calvin saith, that the Lord hath both faithfully comprised, and perspicuously declared necessaries. Bellarmine saith, that God in the Gospel hath delivered unto us the most common laws, concerning the Sacraments, and Articles of faith. Calvin saith, that Christ would not prescribe singularly and specially concerning external discipline, and Ceremonies, for that he foresaw these things to depend on the occasions and opportunities of times, nor did he think one form to accord with all ages. Bellarminus saith, that all special things could not so easily be determined in the Gospel, so as more laws should not be necessary: because there must be diversity of laws and rituals, according to the diversity of Nations and Peoples, places and times. I doubt not but the rejoinder upon consideration of this collation, will repent him of pawning his credit for no such words in all Bel. but I esteem D.B. his credit better, than I will hold it from his person, let only his Rejoyning credit be hence esteemed.  
The third wayward, false, irreligious, and gross untruth is, that in that place of Calvin, there is nothing at all, which without gross aequivocation, will serve the Def. his purpose. If this were not true, yet I see no wool answerable to so great a cry.  
But let us see what the rejoinder can find in calvin's words, for the Def. his purpose. First (saith the rejoinder) Calvin differenceth matters merely ritual, from matters real, as the Def. doth. Which as the Def. doth, is not true. For the Def. differenceth Ceremonies into substantial and merely Ritual, p: 7. whereas Calvin doth not difference Ceremonies, nor maketh any mention of mere rituals.  
Take away that as the Def. doth, and then the Repl. doth so also.  
Secondly Calvin (saith the Def.) showeth that Christ hath left mere Rituals at the Church's choice under general rules only. Now hear that aequivocation which the ●epl. spoke of, for by Ceremonies, Calvin understandeth no such thing, as the Def. and rejoinder doth by mere rituals. The Def. and Rej. (as Bellarmine doth) comprehend under that name Mystical Ceremonies, which the rejoinder calleth double or triple Ceremonies: but Calvin meaneth only single matter of order and Decency. For this cause it was, that the Repl. said, the Def. should have dealt more plainly in citing of Bellarmin, then of Calvin.  
11. About Calvin's meaning the rejoinder striveth much, but cannot draw it to his purpose. 1. He granteth, that Calvin meant not to teach, that men may prescribe at their discretion mystical signs in the Church which is all that we desire. 2. His meaning is (saith the Rej) that what Ceremonies the necessity and utility of the Church do require, may be ordained by the Church. This is expounded in calvin's own words, translated thus by the rejoinder what soever the necessity of the Church shall require for order and decency; which is the same that the Repl. said. 3. Some toleration of some Ceremonies like unto the jewish, Calvin is said to give, sect. 14. But that which he speaketh there obscurely, he doth in this 36, sect interpret plainly:  

Testor, eas demum Humanar constitutiones me probate, quae Dei authoritate fundatae, & ex Scripturis desumptae, adeoque piorsur divinae sunt. Exemplur● sit in gericulatione, d●m solemnes habentur process.  I witness that I do only approve such Humane constitutions which are founded by the authority of God, and taken out of the Scriptures and so altogether divine, let kneeling in Solemn prayer be an Example. 4. Because Calvin was interpreted out of himself, to speak of things necessary in their kind, the rejoinder opposeth, that abstaining from blood Act. 15. and such like things are not necessary in their kind. I answer yes: because the kind under which they were found, was abstaining from scandal. So Calvin, sect. 22. (which place is alleged also by the rejoinder for the institution of Ceremonies not necessary in their kind, because it is there taught, that weak brethrens first coming from Popery, and not yet seeing their freedom in some in different things, are not rashly to be offended, by public practice of such things) Calvin (I say) answereth in the same place: Who but a calumniator, 
Quis, visi callumniator, sic novam serri ab ess leg●m dicat, quos constat duntaxat, scandalis occurrere, quae sunt a Domino satis disertè prohibita? Nihilo autem magis & de Apostoles dici potest (Act. 15) quibus nihil aliud p●opositumerat off●nsio●u● materiam tollendo quam divinam urgero legem do vitanda offension.  Can say that, So a new law was made by them, who only as appeareth, went about to prevent scandals, expressly enough forbidden of the Lord? Nor can ought more be said of the Apostles Act. 15. who intended nothing else by taking away matter of offence then to urge the Divine law for avoiding offence. But Calvin saith the Def. epist. 379. teacheth that some scandalous things must be borne with, And what is this to the allowing men to institute Ceremonies unnecessary in their kind, which is the quaestion in hand?  
5. The rejoinder objecteth further, that the particulars, and not generals are appointed as necessary. Which is the very same that the Rep. said, the kind is always necessary and the particular do so vary by circumstances that some time they may be necessary, and so appointed, sometime not necessary, and so not to be appointed. 6. When the rejoinder perceyved that this testimony of calvin's maketh nothing for significant Ceremonies, he at last denieth the quaestion here to be of significant Ceremonies, but of Ceremonies. He might as well deny the quaestion to be of sacred Ceremonies, or as he calleth them of double Ceremonies, but only of Ceremonies. And thus is that very ambiguous aequivocation wherewith the Def. was charged, by his rejoinder, confessed. For what is else but to aequivocate, when all men know the quaestion to be of one kind of rites only, to bring an argument which concern rites in deed, but not of that kind?  
12. After some pretty phrases of the Repl. his running away, looking back, showing his teeth angrily, the rejoinder in answer to a sad argument, that Humane Ceremonies properly of religious nature use and signification, such as Cross and Surplice, are not necessary in any Church, nor any ways more necessary for England, then for any other nation; or then holy water and such other Ceremonies would, In answer (I say) to all this, the rejoinder repeateth again his confuse aequivocal term of Ceremony, denying the quaestion to be here of Ceremonies properly religious in their nature, use, and signification. i e. such as Cross and Sirplice are, as if we, disputed here of an indetermined idea. And upon this miserable shift, not knowing what to answer unto the demands propounded, (without speaking directly against his conscience and known profession) he telleth the reader (both in text, and table) that the Repl. hath plainly abandoned Heb. 3.2. and so retireth again to his fort, of phrases, of demolishing his Castle, firing his Trenches, running away, & of his chaff and stubble, carried away before the Def. his windy words, After all which, as a good Cannoneer, he dischargeth (as he calleth it) one piece of ordinance after his flying enemies, which is this Basilisko: You (run aways) teach some Ceremonies to be unlawful, though not forbidden, because they are not commanded. Ergo. But alas this shot hath no mettle of truth or sense in it, and therefore will never hurt us.  
Is any man so void of reason, as to teach any thing to be unlawful, & yet confess it is no way against law, or forbidden? Those that say, the Ceremonies are unlawful, because they are not commanded, though they be not forbidden, do evidently mean, that though they be not specially and by name forbidden, yet they are generally forbidden, by that rule which forbiddeth man to add any thing in God's worship, unto that which God hath commanded, for such a shot there is no need of ordinance: as good may be made out of any bell that hath a clapper in it.   

SECT. 6. & 7. of David's purpose, to build a Temple. 2. Sam. 7.1. Chron. 17.  
THis passage will soon be dispached, if the quaestion may be cleared. The purpose of David, was either conditional only, if God should allow and second the business, or else absolute, without such suspending condition, as supposing that God did allow, and would prosperously assist him, for the accomplishment of it. If it was of the former sort, and so far as it was considerable within those limits, there is no quaestion, but it was godly, and worthy of all honour. But if it was absolute, it cannot be excused from some mixture of praesumtion. For whatsoever a man may absolutely intent to do, that he may do, but for the doing of such a thing, as building of a Temple then unto God, the rejoinder himself confesseth it to have been unlawful, for David, without further warrant: and so confesseth also, that the absolute intention could not be lawful. Hence are these speeches of the Rej. That which may be lawfully purposed, with submission to God's pleasure, might not be done without his pleasure known, and leave given. We grant, that David could not build the House, nor so much as set out the place for it, without leave and direction from God.  
All the quaestion therefore is, whether David had an ●bsolute purpose or no? If he had not, we have no ground from this place, against absolute instituting of religious Ceremonies by man. If he ●ad such a purpose, than the rejoinder doth not gainsay, but our argument is good. Now that David's purpose was absolute, it is more than probable, by that which the rejoinder confesseth, viz. that Nathan was unadvised in saying to David, ●●e do all that is in thine ●eart, the Lord is with thee, before he had consulted with the mouth of the Lord, to whom the designation or place, manner, and Man, did belong. Herein saith the rejoinder Nathan failed. For 1. Nathan so far as appeareth doth answer only to the quaestion of David, allowing his purpose, if therefore nathan's allowance was a failing in being too absolute, David's purpose was of like nature. 2. If David's purpose had not been absolute before, yet upon nathan's counsel, from which no dissent of his is any ways insinuated, it became absolute. 3. If David had dissented from Nathan in that point, he ought to have admonished Nathan of his sailing, and would also no doubt have done so or at the least, it would have beme concluded betwixt them two, that counsel must be sought, and expected of God; but Nathan not being corrected, but rather confirmed by David, as David was by him, they both were (without seeking) better informed by extraordinary revelation. 4. The Def. saith, and the rejoinder maintaineth it, that ●od did interpret David's affection for a deed. But no imperfect velleities of good, are so interpreted. The will which is accepted for a deed, must be absolute, and hindered only by defect of power. Howsoever, out of the rejoinder his grants, we are furnished with this argument:  
It was not lawful fo● David to purpose absolutely the building any religious house for God's Ark, without God's special command, or warrant. Therefore it is not lawful for man to institute and build Ceremonies double and tr●b●e religious (as the rejoinder calleth ours) without God's special command or warrant.  
The grant of the rejoinder is the common sentence of our Divines well expressed, among other, by Mr. W. Attersol, upon Numb. 3.4. David was deceyved, that he went beyond the Commandment ●f G●d. To seek to prevent God was to be reproved. It might have been said to him: who required these things at thy hands?  
Howsoever his purpose (or simple affection) m●y be comm●nded, yet the fact (that is the absolute purpose resolving upon the fact) is reproved, He ought not the have enterprised that, which was not commanded either to any other, or to himself. He did not obey God, but follow his own mind and device. He did run too fast, travailing (as it were) without his guide, and sailing without his compass.  
These things being considered, it were but vain labour to prosecute the rejoinder in particular litigations about this matter, which would be little else then repetition of the same things. I will only therefore consider of the Def. his retorsion, and the rejoinder his shot out of this place: which also should have passed, but for the boasting wherewith they are (with provocation) advanced above their measure.  
The Def. his retortion is thus. This Act of david's without special warrant were commended by God. Ergo, all institutions of Ceremonies by man, belonging to God's service, are not therefore to be condemned, because they want express warrant. This Act. (saith the Def. that is (saith the rejoinder) this conditional affection not lawful to be brought into act. From such a conditional affection, he argueth, to absolute and actual institutions, by what rule of consequence I know not. The rejoinder teacheth us the clean contrary argument, as before was declared.  
The rejoinder his shot is thus in short: David (as Mr. Cartwritconfesseth) had general warrant from the word of God, for building the Temple, and had no word to forbid him to do it (till that by Nathan) therefore for David to purpose to build (till that forbidding by Nathan, was lawful. I answer 1. the conclusion (being understood of a conditional purpose (as the rejoinder expounded it) we willingly grant, as neither making, nor ever having made any quaestion about it. 2. David had no general warrant, for his building of the temple, neither doth Mr. Cartwrite say any such thing, but only that it was revealed there should be such a Temple. Which was no more warrant for David to purpose the building of it, than other Prophecies were warrant for somme (upon supposition) to purpose the destroying of it. 3. Though there was no word of God which particularly or absolutely forbidden David to build the Temple, yet there was word enough in general forbidding him to attempt any such thing, until he should receyve further Commission. So the rejoinder before confessed: the designation of place, manner, man, and time, did belong to God: and was therefore forbidden to David, and so the building forbidden, until that designation should come from God.  
Now add unto this shot of the rejoinder thus repelled but a little altering the charge and turning the pieces mouths. viz. That our questioned Ceremonies have not so much general warrant, as that it is any where in Scripture revealed, there should be a Cross, and Sirplice, and that the places of Scripture which seem to forbid them, could never yet be otherwise cleared; and then see how it maketh for the rejoinder his cause.   

SECT. 12. Concerning that phrase, jer. 7.31. etc. You do that which I commanded not.  
THat which the rejoinder (out of his abundant leisure) would needs enlarge most vainly about sect. 8.9.10. & 11. I pass over with silence: because the Repl: refused to maintain that which is there objected, out of unprinted and uncertain papers.  
1. In the eight section, we are to inquire, whether and how that consequence in God's worship, be good: I have not commanded this: therefore, you may not do it.  
The Def. and rejoinder say it is not good, except by not commanding, be understood, forbidding as Leu. 10.1. Deut. 17.3. Which is thus far true, that except some forbidding be included or (as the rejoinder speaketh) imported in that not commanding, not commanding cannot m●ke a thing unlawful. But that is the very quaestion whether in things proper to religion, not commanding, doth not include some kind of forbidding.  
2. The place mentioned by the rejoinder: out of Leu. 10.1. doth most strongly make against him. For the sons of Aron are there condemned, for bringing strange, or ordinary fire to God's worship, as doing that which God had not commanded, and yet had not otherwise forbidden, then by providing fire proper to his worship, and not apponting any other to be used in the tabernacle, and this is the very plea which we make against Ceremonies of humane institution, in God's worship. The scope of that text we are taught, by an English Bishop, Babington, in his notes upon that place: We may hence learn and settle in our hearts, with what severity the Lord challengeth and defendeth his authority, in laying down the way and manner of his worship, not le●ving it to any creature, to meddle with, but according to praescription and appointment from him. Content he is, that men shall make laws for humane matters etc, But for his Divine worship, he one●y will prescribe it himself, and what h●e appointed, that must be done, and that only, or else Nad●b and Abibu their punishment expected, that is, God's wrath expected, in such manner as he shall please.  
He was taught this by Calvin, who upon the place saith God forbade other fire etc. to be used that he might exclude all adventious rites, and teach that he detested whatsoever was come from elsewhere. Let us therefore learn so to attend to the Commandment of God, that we desile not his worship, with any far fetched devises. 
Alium ignem sacris adh●beri vetuit Deus, ut adventitios omnes ritus excluderet, ac doceret se detesta●i quicquid aliundè profectum erat. Discamnus ergo si● attendere ad Dei mandatum 〈◊〉 ejus cultum ullis extraneis commentis vitiemus.   
Mr. Attersoll also in his learned and grave Commentary upon Numb. 3.4. doth largely declare out of this example, how God disliketh, and disclaimeth men's devises in his service, as trash, trumpery, and mere dotage: instancing (among other devises) in Ceremonies added unto Baptism.  
3. Our reason was propounded in the words of Calvin upon jer. 7.31. Seeing God under this title only condemneth that which the jews did, because he had not commanded it them, therefore no other reason need to be sought for the confutation of superstitions, then that they are not by commandment from God. To which the rejoinder answereth, that Mr. calvin's conceit holdeth true in proper points of religious worship, which are all prescribed of God himself, but not in matter of rites, not prescribed of God. Now if this be not a miserable conceit, that Gods not commanding doth forbid that which he hath prescribed or commanded, but not that which he hath not prescribed, or commanded, let any man of sense judge.  
Other meaning I cannot gather either out of these words, or out of the rejoinder his doctrine of worship, which was before distinctly weighed, in the head of Worship. Mr. Cartwrites conjecture (as the rejoinder calleth it) is the very same with that which he calleth calvin's conceit. The rejoinder his answer also is the same for substance, that it is true in matter● particularly determined by God, but not in matters of order and ceremony, of which God hath not determined particularly. The sense of which is, that we must depend upon God, so far as he hath determined particularly, but in other things, we must depend upon men, and in England, upon the Convocation house. But to depend upon God, and his mouth, being to follow only his determination and what sense then is this, you shall only follow God's determination, in those things which he hath particularly determined, but if you please to do any thing in his worship, which he hath not determined particularly, you may therein depend upon whom you plea●e? For matter of Ceremony, enough hath beme spoken before: and of order, we shall after dispute.  
4. The rest of this 12. section is spent about the Def, his wonderful wondering, at our symbolising with Bellarmine and other Papists, because that as they distinguish sins into mortal and venial, so we (saith he) make a distinction of against, and beside the word. About which, the rejoinder granteth that Chrysostom did well use this distinction, in matters of doctrine, yet he saith it is not to be extended unto matters of Ceremony. But (the question being only about the distinction) it is in the Def. and rejoinder their opinion far more appliable to ceremonies, then to doctrines: because they hold many Ceremonies lawful beside the word, which are not against it, though they hold no such difference of doctrines. Now this distinction was used by us, according to their conceit, more than our own. The like is acknowleged of junius, that he distinguisheth well betwixt beside and against the Word, in the question of traditions devised for divine worship, 1. e. essential worship, particularly determined by God. Which is not so, for in that place, Cont. 3. l. 4. c. 17. an 10. junius hath no question either about essentials, or worship, or traditions, but only about Ecclesiastical laws, binding the conscience. And if he had, yet that clause particularly determined by God, would spoil all: because in such things there can be nothing either against, or beside the Word. But if it were true, what is the difference, betwixt junius and us? The rejoinder saith that we confound rites with worship, and yet confess rites not to be particularly described as the other. Which is neither so, nor so, except he mean those rites, which he calleth double or triple ceremonies: and therein we have junius so for us, that not only in other places, but also in the words next going before this in quaestion, he saith generally, in divine things to coin new laws is nothing but to decline. 
In divinis rebu● novas leges far, nihil ab●ud est quam declinare.  Yet the Rej. will have it, that junius in that place cont. 3. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 10. doth refute this distinction, as used by Bell. Mark therefore what are Bell. words, which junius confuteth) viz. Only a prohibition of addition contrary laws is understood. 
Deut 4 &. 1●. Intelligitur prohibitio solum de addition● legum contrariarum.   
Which are the words also of our Defender and rejoinder. cap. 2. sect. 3.4.5. So that by this interpretation, the distinction is theris, and junius confuteth them all, so well as Bellarmine.  
The persuaders to Subscription, are also confessed to use the same distinction, but in another meaning. Let the distinction therefore pass (for shame) and dispute of the meaning. But the meaning expressed by the rejoinder is the very same with ours, save that they differ in the conclusions deducted from it. The altercation therefore which the rejoinder addeth about some speeches of Mr. Cartwrite, is not worth the answering.  
The plain truth is, that this distinction is ordinarily used by our Divines, against the Papists, even in case of Ceremonies. D. Fulke against the Rhemists, on Mat: 15.9. Of Popish traditions, some be repugnant to t●e laws of God, and some are beside them, as idle and unprofitable Ceremonies. It was therefore but an affected quarrel, which the Def. picked, and the rejoinder maintaineth, about these terms, as if they had any reflection upon the Popish difference, betwixt mortal and venial sins. Nay in this fashion, the Def. and rejoinder may accuse our blessed martyrs of symbolising with the Papists that were the murderers of them. For they were wont to use this distinction in the same manner that we do. So heavenly ●radford, in his epistle to the University of Cambridge: these which a little after he applieth to Romish rags, and in his epistle to Walden (extendeth them by name to Ceremonies) opinions are not only besides God's word, but even directly against it. It is therefore more than time for the Def. and rejoinder to pull in the horns of this dodmons accusation, and confess that they were unseasonablie and rashly put forth upon inconsiderate fantasy, easily uttered, but hardly excused.   

SECT. 13.14. Concerning the ancient fathers arguing negatively from Scripture.  
1. TO divers sentences of ancient Writers, about this matter alleged, the general answer is given. 1. that they speak of things contrary to Scripture: which when the Repl. granteth, complaining of the Def. his wilful mistaking, or misinterpreting our meaning, the rejoinder lest he should seem less wilful, repeateth the same imputation, which yet he acknowledgeth to be contrary to the Repliers own confession.  
What should a man say to such Rejoyners, that know full well our meaning, and yet will never leave threaping another meaning upon us.  
We never said, or thought, that all particular rites pertaining to order and decency, are punctually determined in the Scripture. We never dreamt that all such rites being beside the particular determination of the Scripture, are against it, we speak of double or triple rites as the rejoinder styleth them, which no mere order and decency doth necessarily require, but only the mere will of man enjoin.  
All this the rejoinder knoweth: and yet he ceaseth not to beat the air, with endless repetitions of this imputation, guilded over with some variety of tanting phrases, that it may be the easilier, swallowed by his unwary reader. 2. It is secondly answered by the Def. that the ancient writers speak of doctrines, not of ceremonies. Whereunto the Repl. granting that to be true for the most part yet answereth, that the truth of their sayings may be taken so generally, as to include all religious Ceremonies. Here the rejoinder objecteth that limitation (for the most part) is only to abuse the simple, and that the ambiguous term of religious Ceremony, is a bush to hide I know not what in.  
Now for the former charge Compare here the Abrigment and Def. The later accusation of hiding-bush, etc. cannot otherwise be avoided (as it seemeth) except to avoid the same, we would upon every occasion, when we are to speak of the questioned kind of ceremonies, repeat the rejoinder his beadroul of terms: double or triple significant, sacred by application, mutable, ambalatorie, arbitrary, reductively sacramental, moral Ceremonies, immediate worship, in respect of means by virtue of some thing else, in respect of the manner, and reductively, in respect of the utmost end Divine worship.  
Whersoever we observe not these terms partly of his own forging, since the Reply was written he may as well spy a bush over our head, as in this place. It is thirdly answered, that a general proposition may well be extended beyond one special conclusion to which it is upon occasion applied. To this (after that out of splen (as I take it) he styleth it the man's stomach) the rejoinder answereth that it may only be applied to other of the like kind. This therefore is only the difference, whether those Ceremonies which bear all those titles even now rehearsed, be not of the like kind, or have not one common nature, with some of those things which the rejoinder calleth substantial, and doctrinal, points: of which we have disputed before, andshall after, by God's grace.  
2. To Tertullia's words: Prohibetur quod non ultro est permissum: that is prohibited, which is not permitted, the first answer made by the Def. was, that our Ceremonies are permitted. Hereunto it was replied, that Tertullia's meaning must needs be of other permission than the Def. can challenge to our Ceremonies, otherwise there should be no sense in his words. The reason is, because the Def. doth not say that our Cerem. are otherwise permitted, then that they are not forbidden. Which kind of permission if Tertullian understood, than his saying is: that is prohibited, whi●h is not unprohibited.  
The rejoinder here for resolution of this difficulty saith, that Tertullia's meaning was to account that not to be permitted by the word, against which any reasons out of the word may be given, though there be no particular word against it.  
Now if he had attended unto the question, considering that it was only what Tertullian in this place meant by this phrase not permitted, and that his meaning for the word must be the same, with that immediately before opposed: Quod non prohibetur ultro permissum est, he would not have given that gloss, for then the meaning of this sentence must be: that which hath no particular word against it, can have no reasons out of the word made against it. Such ●ustian is that clause of the rejoinder, our meaning and hìs, are alike, and we hold our Ceremonies to be so permitted, and therefore not prohibited. So permitted is, by his interpretation, not to be prohibited by consequence, prohibited must needs be either the same, or else prohibited by particular word: if the former, than he saith thus: our Ceremonies are not prohibited by consequence: therefore they are not prohibited by consequence, if the later, than this is his saying: our Ceremonies are not forbidden by consequence only, therefore they are not by particular word forbidden. The former is no reason; the later neither is consequence, nor toucheth any quaestion.  
The Def. his second answer was, that we may blush, to speak of Tertullian, because he professeth traditions in the same book. It was answered, that then all may blush, which allege the Fathers for that which they in other places gainsay. The rejoinder granting, that those need not blush, because the Fathers sometime are deaf and hear not themselves speak, and in some particulars left their sound general principles, yet will needs have us blush (if it be not impossible, as his Rejoyning charity suspecteth it is) because they never held that which we allege them for. But how doth this appear, because they allowed of sundry Ceremonies not prescribed in the word. Now except he could prove, they were not as deaf on this the ceremonial ear, or side, as they were on the other, or that they did not leave their sound generals, in the particulars of Ceremonies, as well or ill as in other.  
this occasion, especially with his affected exaggerations if it be not impossible.  
And that the rejoinder cannot prove this, D. Morton showeth in his appeal. pag. 324. They that erred in points of doctrine, could not be altogether free from some sprinklings and spots of Ceremonial corruptions.  
Moreover, how the best of those ancient writers allowed of sundry humane Ceremonies, then in use, Augustine showeth, epist. 119. 
Multa husu●modi, propter nonnullarum, vel sanctarum, vel turbulentarum persona●um scandala d●vitanda, liberius im●●obare non audeo:  Many such things I dare not so freely gainsay to avo●de the offence partly of some holy minds and partly of some turbulent Spirits.  
Which is the very case of the best English Divines that do so sparingly speak against our Ceremonies, and yet sufficiently insinuat, that they would speak more, if they durst for the times. How also our Divines do not blush to allege their testimonies against humane Ceremon. though they know that in other places they speak for them this may be seen in D. Whitaker. tom. 1. pag. 116. 
Augustinu● n●s illis paucissim▪ Ceremonijs content●s esse vul●, quae in Canonicis Scripturis continentur. Si quid usquam scripserit quod cum hac sententia minus conveniat, in conciliandit ejus singulus dictis, non magnam operam insumam.  Augustine will have us be content with those very few Ceremonies which are contained in the Canonical Scriptures. If elsewhere he have written aught that may less agree with this sentence▪ for my pa●t I will not much tro●ble myself to reconcile all his speeches. D. Fulke, rejoinder to Martial, are 1. saith plainly: The gates of hell in idle Ceremonies did assault the Church. The fathers (in them) declined from the simplicity of the Gospel, and art. 3. Every idle Ceremony that praevayled, had the Praelates of the Church, either for authors or for approvers, But Christ committed his Church to them, to be fed with his word, and not with dumb signs, and dead images, which things he hath forbidden.   

SECT. 15. Concerning Protestant's arguing negatively from Scripture.  
1. THe first quotation by the Def. chosen to answer, is out of D. Mortons' Apology: of which it is said by the Replier, that the Def. his answer is, he meant not matters merely Ceremonial, but doctrinal, and so he affirmeth the meaning of our argument to be, if by mere Ceremonies, he mean mere order and decency, as he interpreteth himself in the end of this section, Heerupon the rejoinder asketh, if we call this a Reply? I answer yea: because it showeth, all that is opposed, though it be granted as true, nothing at all to cross or contradict our argument, in the right meaning of it. Now mark what he hath to say, why it should not be called a Reply. 1. The Def. telleth not only what he meant, but where his meaning doth appear, and the Reply showeth not that he hath not meant as he said. As if either the place where a thing is spoken, did add any weight unto the speech! or all, that mean as they say, do speak to the purpose. 2. It is partiality to take up the word mere in this place, and not sect. 3. But this doth rather show, that though the Replier took no knowledge of this me●e shift, when he first met with it, yet afterward, seeing it often repeated, marked some emphasis to be placed in it, and so did not spare it before, upon partiality to one section more than another, which seemeth a strange conceit.  
Howsoever this doth neither prove the reply none, nor yet non-sufficient. 3. He pronounceth it untrue, that the question here is not of mere Ceremonies and rites: which charge he groundeth upon the word specially in the service of God. But that word doth show the speciality of our question to be about the matters of God's service, or worship, such as significant Ceremonies are, and mere order is not. 4. He is styled a deceyved man, that thinketh signification put upon a Ceremony, doth necessarily make it more than a mere Ceremony.  
To which I answer, that if he that thinketh so, is a deceyved man, than the rejoinder doth deceyve, when in his Manuduction, pag. 33. and 39 he teacheth that special instituted signification, doth make a Ceremony double or triple more than mere single rites of order.  
2. The second quotation is out of D. Mortons' Appeal, l. 2. c. 4. sect. 4. where is confessed, he speaketh of Ceremonies, but of Doctrinal only, such as sopping in of bread into the cup, etc.  
Whereupon question was made, why this Ceremony should be accounted more doctrinal, or more unlawful, than the Cross in Baptism.  
To the former part of this quaere, the rejoinder answereth that the Def. he himself & all such, in this question mean by Doctrinal, a thing taught in the word and that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is taught in the word. As if it had been asked, why the Sacrament is more doctrinal than the Cross? and not if Sopping be so? But here it is diligently to be observed, how we are deluded in this whole argument, and other also, with the shadow of a worldly distinction, betwixt Doctrinal, and Ritual Ceremonies. We say, God hath appointed all Ceremonies properly religious, which are to be used. They answer, that this is true of all doctrinal Ceremonies, but not of ritual: that is to say, as here we are taught, God hath appointed all Ceremonies that he hath appointed, but not all that he hath not appointed. We say, it is not lawful for man to add unto God's institutions, in religious worship. They answer, this is true of Doctrinal, but not of Ritual additions: that is, by this interpretation, Man may not add unto God's institutions, any of God's institutions, but man's only. Let this be borne in mind for all answers that hang on the hinges of this distinction.  
To the other part of the question, the rejoinder answers that sopping of bread in wine is worse than the Crosse. 1. because the cross maketh no alteration, of what Christ did ordain saying do this. 2. it is not substituted in the place of Baptism, as sops in wine were by those Haerteikes in place of the Supper. 3. it is not esteemed an instrumental sign of any grace given by the use of it, as they took their sops to be. 4. their sopping destroyed the very Sacrament. And for these differences, the Repl. is bidden to hang down his head, for ask such a quaestion. But 1. Addition is as evil as alteration. For when Christ said, do this, he meant as well, do this only, as do this all. Fac hoc totum: fac hoc tantum: as Zanchie expoundeth it. Addition also is some alteration, if not of the things instituted, yet of the institution, as making it unsufficient, or incomplete, by itself alone.  
2. Sops and wine were not substituted in place of bread and wine, but were bread and wine. Neither were they first or only, or (for any thing appeareth) at all▪ used by Heretics, as the Rejoinder for his advantage, without ground, avoucheth, but by ancient Churches, at least in some cases: as is manifest out of Prosper, de Promissionibus, Dimidium temporis, cap. 6. Puella particulam corporis Domini intinctam percepit, etc. Sopping was so fare from being a matter of Heresy, that as it seemeth, it was received among the Fathers, so long as infants communicating in the Lord's Supper, which was, as D. Morton confesseth, Appeal, lib. 2. cap. 13. sect. 3. for six hundred years.  
3. Sopping of bread in wine, considered abstractly from bread and wine, was no sign instituted as an instrument of grace.  
For so saith Cassander pag. 1027. out of Ivo: this custom of Sopping prevailed only through fear of shedding and not by direct authority. 4. It is too severe a sentence, 
Invaluit hac intingendi consu●tudo, non aut●ritate, sid timore effusionis.  against those ancient Christians, in Prospers time and (which is more) as Cassander and Hospinian judge, in Cyprian's, that they destroyed the very substance of Sacrament. The setting forth of Christ's death was not excluded, though some part of the blood was representatively joined unto the body. A man is dead, that lieth in his blood, though some of it soak again into his body. The Fathers, six hundred years together, did not destroy the substance of the Sacrament. Hitherto therefore appeareth no cause for the Repl. to hang down his head. Let us see if more cause be in the comparisons he maketh betwixt sopping▪ and crossing.  
The first was, the bread and wine (the only things used in sopping) were ordained by Christ: so is not the Crosse. The rejoinder answereth here nothing to the purpose, save only, that they were ordained to be used apart. From whence it followeth only that it is unlawful to use them not apart. And so it followeth, that Baptism must as well be used apart, orseparated from the Cross: because it was ordained so to be used, and the Cross was not ordained for any religious use, either apart, or with other things.  
The second is, that sopping hath some agreement with reason, Crossing hath none. The rejoinder hence maketh two consequences: 1. Ergo Christ in ordaining the Sacrament otherwise, hath done some thing not agreeable to reason, 2. Ergo the Church in Crossing hath been void of all reason, fifteme hundred year. And upon these grounds, he crieth out of madness. But so madness may be found in any assertion, if it be first put out of the right wits or sense, as this is. For the meaning was not, that Sopping is agreeable to right reason in the Sacrament, but in civil use, where the aerial Cross hath none. Yet▪ it may be added, if it were lawful for men to add to God's ordinances in the Sacraments, than there would be found more probability of reason to bring in sopping into the use of bread & wine as a manner of food, then a mystical aereal cross into the use of water which is no manner of washing. As for the Church, it hath not universally used the cross so long, except the Waldenses, and others like unto them, were none of the Church.  
The same Church, that used crossing, used also for diverse hundreds of years, to give the Sacrament of of the Supper unto infants, without reason, and the continuation of the Cross more hundreds of years, addeth no reason unto it, except reason in such things doth increase with their age. Many things have been used in the Church without reason: or else there is reason we should still use all that have been used, caeteris paribus. If there be any good reason in the cross, let that be tried by reason, and not by slippery conjectures taken from the persons using it.  
The third comparison was, that Sopping was used by Christ, at the very table of the Supper, but Crossing was never so much honoured by him or his Apostles, as to use it at any time. The rejoinder answereth, that this argument would prove as well, that the eating of a Paschall lamb before the Sacrament, to be better than Sprinkling of water on the forehead of the Baptised. Because CHRIST did that, and not this. But this is not so well. For that 1. Sprinkling of water is no instituted ceremony distinct from that washing which Christ and his Apostles used. 2. It is very probable that the Apostles going into the colder part of the world, did use sprinkling.  
3. Concerning a Paschall lamb, used before the Sacrament, as a Ceremony morally significant and reductively Sacramental, I see not why it should not be praeferred before the Cross or any such invention, even because Christ did use it, if that Circumcision be now a lawful Christian Ceremony, as the Def. and rejoinder profess and maintain, pag. 285. It is also credibly reported a great Bishop, not long since living, that every Easter day, he used to have a whole lamb, praepared after the paschal manner, brought to his table. D. B. knoweth well who it was, and of whom he hath heard it.  
The fourth comparison was, that sopping was no new sign, but Crossing is. The rejoinder opposeth that it had been an abomination to eat the paschal lamb sodden, but the addition of sitting or leaning on couches (though a new sign added by themselves) was lawful etc. Of which speech, the first part is granted, viz. a sodden lamb had been an abomination: neither isa sopping communion excused. In the second, there is observable partiality, in that he calleth setting an addition to the Passeover, and yet in the same answer, with the same breath, denieth the cross to be any addition unto Baptism. The ground of all is rotten, viz. that sitting was a religious significant Ceremony instituted by men.  
These things considered, let any man judge what cause the rejoinder had to talk in this place, of the Repl: his roome-conscience, contentious spirit, smitten with giddinisse, forsaken of wisdom?  
In that which followeth about sopping, there is no new matter to fasten any dispute on, proper to this place, but only why some ceremonial sopping may not be used, as near to the Communion, as the Cross unto Baptism? The rejoinder answereth. 1. because it is not so safe, to use visible elementary signs in holy actions, as a transient Character. 2. Because such sopping were worse than the use of any other bodily element, as coming so near to the very institution. Where 1. it is to be marked, that a religious Ceremony, of sops and wine, immediately before or after the Communion, is not found unlawful, but only not so safe as the Crosse. By the same proportion, Ceremonious eating of flesh, and fish, in the solemnity of the Communion, is only not so safe, not unlawful. Hath not the Cross brought us to a fair market? 2. If the Cross be not a visible elementary sign, what kind of sign is it? Character noteth a most proper sign: aereal is elementary: crossing is either visible, or else it is no sensible sign: because it cannot be heard, felt, tasted, or smelled.  
If he meaneth a permanent substance, beside that he crosseth his own definition of a Ceremony, an action etc. in other places he defendeth images, in this very section, he leaned even now, upon couches, as upon safe Ceremonies among the jews.  
3. The outward nearness or likeness of a humane Ceremony, to a Divine Sacrament, is allowed on elsewhere by the Def. and rejoinder both: as when cap. 3. sect 7▪ they maintain as Christian, a Ceremonial sprinkling of men with holy water, wherein, both water and sprinkling, have as great an outward nearness unto the outward elements of Baptism, as any thing can have.  
If the outward material show of nearness unto a Divine Sacrament, doth make a Ceremony unallowable, then much more, such a formal significant nearness, as is betwixt Baptism, signifying our putting on of Christ crucified, and the Cross signifying our putting on of courage to fight under, and for Christ crucified.  
See here what further is to be said of jewel, and Whitakers, after the Def. and they are conferred.  
3. The Replier, affecting brevity, and finding no new matter of dispute about the allegations out of B. jewel, and D. Whitaker, passeth them over, with this reason: in excusing of them, nothing is said by the Def. which hath not formerly been confuted.  
Now the rejoinder doth not go about to show that any new thing is brought forth by the Def. about them, which had beme to the purpose, but only catcheth up that word excusing, and repeating the accusation, of impertinent alleging them for the negative argument from Scriptures, in case of Ceremonies, which they do except, he taketh upon him to discover an undoubted close meaning of the word excuse: and thereupon accuseth not only the Repl. but I know not how many (they, them) of being scornful out of pride of spririt. Who would have thought that one word (used according to the ordinary courteous fashion of those which in stead of plain denying, use the phrase, (excuse me) could have stirred up such a passion, or occasioned such an injurious surmise? But to excuse this, which I hope we may do without any offence, I will yield so much unto his importunity and challenge, as briefly to show, that neythe B. jewel, nor D. Whit. did except such Ceremonies as ours, when they speak of the Scriptures fullness. jewel in the first article sect. 29. allegeth for the negative argument, Origen, concluding that in the Lord's supper the bread is to be eaten, and not reserved unto the morrow, because that Christ did not command that reservation to the morrow. Now that this reservation is a ceremony, and a lawful one also in D. Morton his judgement, appeareth plainly ou● of his Appeal, where (lib. 2. cap. 5. sect. 1.) he saith plainly, that we may grant a longer time of reservation than two or three days, with a reference unto the intent of participating of it by eating.  
D. Morton therefore cannot be defended in saying that jewel excepted ceremonies.  
For D. Whitaker his not excepting of significant Ceremonies from the Negative argument, may appear partly by his negative silence, and partly by his express assertion, de Sacramentis, pag. 203. for unto Bellarmine his assertion, that the Church may institute new Ceremonies, for ornament, and for signification, he granteth that of ornament▪ as he doth after of order, but no such consent is given of signification, but rather the contrary: Rudes non sunt Ceremonijs erudiendi: dedit Deas, Scripturas, ut ex ijs rudes institutionem necess●riam haurirent. So in Oper: tom. 1. pag. 116. Augustinus nos illis paucissimis Ceremonijs contentos esse vult, quae in Canonicis Scri●turis cont●nentur.  
The truth is, that our Divines do ordinarily reject the Popish Ceremonies, upon this ground, So Gallasius in Exod. 22.7.  
(* Nihil tale a Christo aut factum, aut institutum. Ergo ne sapientiores nos ipso & Apostolis fore arbitremur.)  
* There is no such thing by Christ, either done or instituted, therefore let us not deem ourselves wiser than he or his Apostles.  
4. Another omission, whereof the Repl is accused, for which he is called a gentle man, is, that the Def. in the end of this Argument, recalleth the state of the question, distinguishing betwixt mere Ceremonies, & mixed, by mere meaning altogether indifferent, and by mixed, some way forbidden, All which (saith the rejoinder) the gentle Replier passeth by. Now sure he might also himself have passed this by, with more credit of the Def.  
For what sense is in such a stated question: whether the Scripture doth condemn such Ceremonies, as it leaveth indifferent, or only those which it some way forbiddeth? All that pass by, may see, that this was not worth the taking up.  
Yet concerning the mixture of ceremonies with opinion of holiness, justice, merit, efficacy, or real necessity, which here the rejoinder maketh the only grounds of forbidding, he is now, in such gentle manner as is requisite, answered, in the head of Difference betwixt popish Ceremonies and ours.  
5. After this, the Repl. is charged with quarrelling, only because he saith the Def. answered nothing to a main point, upon which this first argument, in the Abrigement, doth depend, namely the rules of Ceremonies, that they should be needful, and profitable, for aedification, the more comely and orderly performance of Gods instituted service, which being wanting in our Ceremonies they cannot be innocent, though all were granted which the Def. maintaineth. And why is this a quarrel?  
The Repl. (as it seemeth) can neither by speaking, nor holding his peace, gain so much favour with the rejoinder as that in either he may pass without some shrewd censorious note. If he hold his peace, he is a gentle man, if he speak, he is a quarrel. But what are the reasons of blame in this place?  
1. The Defender (forsooth) was not tied to the Abridgents order 2. It were idle to speak of directive rules, if all humane Ceremonies be unlawful. 3. If God hath left rules for direction of his Church in rites and orders Ecclesiastical, than he hath not determined of them in his word. 4. The Defender hath maintained, that our Ceremonies are agreeable to the rules of God's word: so as no Friar dare deny it, nor the Replier professing his name. In all which there is nothing of any moment. For 1. though it were granted, that the Def. was not tied to the Abridg, order, yet he may be tied to their matter, if he meant to give them a full answer. 2. Though it be needless to speak of directive rules in unlawful Ceremonies as they are simply unlawful, yet seeing rites of order and decency, which are confessed lawful, are by the Def. and others confounded with Cerem. by others esteemed unlawful, it is very necessary, that at least the conditions of lawful Ceremonies should be Demonstrated to agree unto such Ceremonies as are defended to be lawful. 3. Though God hath left rules for rites of order and decency, yet he hath determined of all Ceremonies significant by institution. 4. If the Def. had maintained our Ceremonies to be agreeable unto these rules of God's word, it had been the most compendidious way for the rejoinder to have showed, where, and how?  
For that of the Friar, I easily believe it. For not one friar of a thousend dare say that any allegation for Popish Ceremonies, though it be out of a leaden legend, is not as plain a demonstration as any is in all Mathematics. As for the Repliers concealing his name, that is a poor imputation, For I dare undertake, that the rejoinder may have names enough for that which is said, and upon second thoughts, he may profess his own name among them, except he can show, where and how the Def. hath endeavoured to prove our Ceremonies agreeable to those rules about which this question is moved. If the Def. had performed this before, what need the rejoinder to have made here a solemn digression, touching the rules for Ceremonies. Which digression of his, shall now have a hearing.  

Concerning Rules for Ceremonies.  
1. IN the first place, he taketh great exception against one rule propounded by T. C. Rep. 2. pag. 62. that Ceremonies offend not any, especial●y the Church of God. To this, D. Witgifts main answer was, that it was a rule for private men, & not for the Church. Of this the rejoinder seemeth ashamed: and therefore seeketh after other exceptions. The first is, that the business for which this rule is given. 1. Cor. 10.32. was no matter of Church Ceremony, but of conversatien. Where he should have considered. 1. that some Church Ceremonies had of old their place in ordinary conversation, so these two are not apposite one to the other. 2. that the eating of things offered to idols, was a heathenish Ceremony, and therefore the abstaining from it required in Christian Ceremonies. 3. that howsoever this rule is in this place applied, yet Rom. 14.15.20. it is by the same Apostle applied to some kind of jewish Church Ceremonies.  
The second exception is, that this rule is moral and general, belonging to all our actions not particular, for Ceremonies. But if by particular, he meaneth proper, than he overthroweth by this exception, all those rules by himself acknowledged for good (edification, comelines●e and order:) because none of these are proper unto Ceremonies.  
The third is that a negative (such as not to be scandalous) may well be a caution, but not a rule. About which I will not contend.  
It is sufficient for our purpose, if it be a caution strictly to be observed in Ceremonies, for such a rule as is. Thou shall not murder.  
2. Another rule urged by T. C. (that Ceremonies tend to the glory of God) is also rejected by the rejoinder as the former. But no new reason is brought, but only that it is a common rule, not proper to Ceremonies, which in many words is enlarged. Now for this (being the same with that formerly objected about not scandalising) the same answer which before was given is sufficient. Yet this moreover is to be observed for both these rules: that though they be not proper to Ceremonies, our Divines notwithstanding do usually apply these and such like general rules unto Ceremonies, because the breach of these rules is common to (and as it seemeth inseparable from) humane significant Ceremonies proper to religion, taken from Papists. They tend not in their nature to God's glory, but rather to the glory of them from whom they have received their being. They are scandalous both to Protestants and Papists, as afterward is declared.  
So Vrsine, tom. 1. pag. 365. giveth one rule for Ceremonies, that they be not impious, which is not proper to Cerem: as Bucanus among the received rules of Cer. maketh this one, that they be not opposite to the analogy of faith. Because many of the Popish Ceremonies are impious and opposite to faith. And the same Vrsine addeth among other rules, that they be not scandalous. junius also in his Hidelberg, theses de tradit. th'. 58. requireth in a good Ceremony, that it be to the glory of God. So others many. D. Willet in his Synopsis, pag. 110. giveth 4. rules for Ceremonies: two of which are 1. that all things be done to the glory of God. 3. that all things ought to be done without offence.  
Yet these rules in T. C. are such as may not pass without the rejoinder his censure, laid out in diverse digressing pages.  
Lastly the rejoinder himself when he would give a rule for distinguishing good Ceremonies from bad, useth to make this one, that they be free from opinion of merit etc. And yet he will not say that such opinions are proper to Ceremonies.  
3. H. I. is in the last place brought in, as not holding the rules of T. C. Which (were it true) is little material, or to the purpose. But what is noted out of H. I. repugnant? He injoineth the same rules to be observed in the determining of mere Circumstances either Civil, or occasional, but denieth the Church to have any power of appointing Ceremonies merely Ecclesiastical. And this is in effect to take those rules away, removing the Ceremonies which should be framed by them.  
Nay rather this in effect, and cause both, to acknowledge the rules, and only to point out the true objects to be ruled by them, and to give warning of abusive objects which have crept in under the colours of those true. Whether this discretion of his betwixt Circumstances, and properly religious Ceremonies, be justifiable or no, that question belongeth not to this digression, but to three whole chapters of this dispute. But if the rejoinder would know who doth directly take these rules, and the other also which he acknowledgeth, as they are Scripture Rules, it is one to whom both he and the Defend. are much beholding to Mr. Hooker by name, whoe p. 95. saith plainly of one, as well as of other, they are Rules and Canons of that law, which is written in all men's hea●ts. The Church had for ever, no less than now, stood bound to observe them, whether the Apostle had mentioned them, or no. Neither saith he therein much amiss, except that same no less bound. So that as it seemeth, the Defend, and rejoinder making such courtesy of proving our Ceremonies agreeable to these Rules can very hardly show, that they are agreeable to light & law of nature. After this light skirmish about 2. rules, the rejoinder soundeth a retreat, and saith, he will refer the consideration of the Agreement of our Ceremonies to the true Rules, unto a fit place. But a fit place can scarce be found, for here it was challenged by the Replier, here it was promised by the rejoinder when he craved leave to speak more fully of rules ●o be observed: and this is registered in the table, Rules about Ceremonies showed in a digression. Now after all this, to make only a few pragmatical exceptions against 2. rules which he termeth irregular, and out of square, not once touching upon the rules which the Replier required satisfaction about (v. 13. if our Ceremonies be needful, and profitable for the aedification of the people, by the more comely and orderly performance of that service, whi●h God hath expressly prescribed in his word) and so to put of the business unto another invisible and uncertain place, this is nothing else but to be the Def. his Second, in the fault he was accused for, but not in relieving of him at all. It was not for nothing that he called the challenge a quarrel, as insinuating it was not a thing fit to be meddled in. The truth is the Rej. in his Conscience, holdeth our Cerem. incommodious, or inexpedient, though not simply unlawful: and therefore can find no place to show, that they are needful, and profitable for aedification. I doubt, whether another special Command from the King, would bring him to print a treatise about that question?    

SECT. 16. Concerning Order, and Decency,  1. Cor. 14.40. 
The only place (by the rejoinder his confession, for Ecclesiastical power, in constituting Ecclesiastical Ceremonies.  
THe Defender beginning to confronte and confute our tenant, neither bringeth, nor can bring any Scripture, for the authority of Churches to ordain Ceremonies, but only this one, 1. Cor. 14. He saith, in deed, that he nameth only this place, not to trouble us with any other at this present. But the rejoinder more ingenuously confesseth, that this is the only place in the New Testament, by which all Divine● do conclude, that a power is given to the Church, to constitute Rites etc.  
This place is all the answer they give, or can give, to those that are wont to trouble them with a quo warranto.  
If this place than faileth them, or serveth not their turn, are not our Ceremonies confessed to be appointed without any warrant of the word, at least in the New Testament?  
1. Now that it doth not make to the purpose, it was first showed, from this, that the Defend. himself concludeth no more from thence, then that the Church may by virtue of this permission, ordain any Ceremonies that may be fit for the better serving of God. Which maketh nothing to the purpose, except first it be proved that God is better served with our Ceremonies, then without them. The rejoinder here 1. denieth this to be his Conclusion, and yet they are his own words, & no other conclusion is mentioned by him, as appeareth in the rejoinder itself, pag. 74. But by this (saith the rejoinder) he undertakes to prove another thing. Let it be so, yet he must first prove this, which he immediately draweth out of the text, which he doth not.  
Neither doth he so much as name that other thing which he undertaketh to prove, much less perform his undertaking. This was therefore no fit place for him to vent his phrase, of shooting beside the Butt. 2. He accuseth the Repl. of insulting, because he denied the Consequence, and gave a reason of it: and yet referreth the answer of that reason, to a fit place I know not where. Only he repeateth the often exploded evasion, that the question is whether all lawful things be particularly, or expressly commanded in the word, which none of us ever written, said, or thought. Yet we must be troubled with this groundless, useless repetition, over and over again.  
2. The only back of the Consequence made out of this place, is that all Fathers, and all Divines, (the Rej. addeth, of whatsoever Religion not excepting Socinians, nor yet Anabaptists, whom he useth to acknowledge adversaries to his Conclusion) do use this place for one and the same conclusion.  
Now this is easier to say, then to demonstrate, I do not find this place much used to any such purpose by the Fathers. chrysostom expoundeth it of moral virtuous carriage, opposite unto such perverse walking as if a man go upon his hands, with his feet upward. Ambrose extendeth it no further then to things mentioned, in that Chapter: secundum ordinem suppra dictum Oecumenius also maketh it a recapitulation of things formerly mentioned, of speaking by course, and women's being covered etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He Summarily gathers together all that went before. Basil expoundeth it of time and place, ed. gr pag. 530. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and of proportion to be observed betwixt diverse members. pag. 459. These are some Fathers▪ 
Hen●stè, 〈◊〉, ut uno oquente, alij taccant, & mulieres in Ecclesia non loquantur, &c Secundum ordinem, ● e. ut primo unus & posteà a●rus loquatur & perpartes, etc.  and (as I amperswaded) more than either Def. or rejoinder can bring, so to argue from this place, as he doth▪ Among the ancient Schoolmen, it is hard to find, where any one of them doth conclude Ceremonies proper to religion, out of this place. Thomas in his Comm. upon it, doth so interpret it, that he leaveth no ground for any such conclusion: Honestly] 1. e. while one Speaks that other be silent, 
Quemadmodum praescripsi, cuncta siant cum deco●o & ordine, n. quid ●urpstudinis, aut tum●ltus exoriatur Paraph  and that women speak not in Church. in order] 1. e. that first one and then another speak. etc.  
Erasmus consenteth: Decently and in order that no uns●emelines or tumult arise.  

In locis suis titulo, de tradi●nibus humanis, e●tat verba hac apostles (omnia honesta somnia honest & secum dum ordinem fiant) ut comprehet traditiones Episcoporum quibus etc esse anthenticat & cum conscientia obedientia servandas. Verum non est praescriptum hec Apostoli ad quasvis Episcoporum traditiones referendum, s●d ad ca qua ips● Ecclesijs trad●derat.  Among later writers, these words are often applied to rites, but in a divers manner. The Papists, and some other do prove from hence, their double treble, analogical sacramentals, as the rejoinder calleth them. See Hosius his Conf. de ritib. Bap. c. 37. Bell. de effect Sacram. l 2 cap. 31. Balthasar Chavassius. l. 1. cap. 21. and l. 2. cap. 7. where from hence they dispute against Calvin by name. ●ccius (saith Musculus upon this place) In his Commune places, in the title of humane traditions citeth these words of the Apostle let all things be done etc. To justify the traditions of the Bishop● as authentic & su●h as aught to be kept with a C●nsciencie of obedience, but this prescript of the Apostle is not to be applied to any Episcopal traditions, but the Apostles own, to wit such as he had delivered to the Churches.  
Our Divines (f●w of note excepted) do only from hence conclude rites of mere order and decency. And some of the graver, Papists, 
Ad decentiam pertinet no mulieres in Ecclesia loquantur ad ordinem, ne plure, simul loquantur.  to this day can find no more in it as Esius in his Comm. upon the place: It belongs to decency that women speak not in the Church, to order, that many speak not at once. What is now become of All Fathers, All Divines, for one and the same conclusion? Mr. Hooker, pag. 95. doth directly oppose the Def. his conclusion, contending that the Rules set down in this place, are the Rules of natural reason, and not of the Apostle, or properly of the Scripture, For if this be true, then that is false which the Def. so confidently averreth, that the Apostle doth here grant a general licence and authority to all Churches, to ordain Ceremonies: except the Apostle did give Church's licence, and authority, to do that, which by the law of nature, they might do, and by the light of nature, know they might.  
3. The Def. was requested to show, by what Logic he formeth his consequence from order, decency, and aedification, unto such Ceremonies as ours?  
The Rej. hath no other Logic to show for it then this: Sundry Divines do manifest the Consequence, because the same particular circumstances, wo●ld not be comely and to aedification in all places and times, the Church must have power to institute and alter them. But 1. this is not the consequence, meant by the Repl. expressed by the Def. The Apostle saith. let all things be done orderly, decently, and to aedification. Ergo, he granteth a general licence and authority to all Churches, to ordain any Ceremonies, that may be fit for the better serving of God. 1. e. such as ours are.  
Neither yet is the Consequence, which the Rej. would have implied by the Def. upon supposition of the former: The Apostle hath granted a general licence, and authority, to all Churches, to ordain Ceremonies, that may be fit for the better serving of God. Ergo, all Rites and Ceremonies, which are beside the prescription of the word (such as ours are) are not unlawful. It is in deed, the very same sentence, which the rejoinder did so spurn from him, pag. 72. when it appeared under the name of Mr. jacob: in the distinction, betwixt mere Circumstances, Civil, or Occasional, and Ceremonies merely Ecclesiastical. What a miserable cause is this that our Opposites defend, which deeply concerneth the Consciences of all that urge our Ceremonies, or allow of their urging, and yet cannot be fathered, but on one only place of Scripture, and that with an invisible and inexplicable consequence?  

Concerning an Argument against our Ceremonies, out of 1. Corin. 14. Which is acknowledged to be the only place in all the New Testament, that can be alleged for their imposing.  
1. THe Replier, seeing that all the cause (on the imposers part) dependeth on this place of Scripture, & finding nothing by any Logic could be drawn from it for our Ceremonies, thought good to try, if there may not, from the same place be form a better argument against them. This the Rej. calleth beating up of a new Hare, and losing the way: as if all the Def. his Retortions, and all the rejoinder his paper shot which he maketh after the Repl. when he imagineth him ro fly, or run away, were new Hares, and exorbitations. I know not else what privilege he hath, to use a weight and a weight, one for the Defend. with himself, and another for the Replier.  
2. The Argument is thus put together, by the Rej. pag. 77. All that is left unto the Church's liberty, in things pertaining to God's worship, is to order them in comely manner. But to appoint and use the Ceremonies as we do, is not to order in comely manner any thing pertaining to God's worship. Therefore, to appoint and use the Ceremonies as we do, is not left to the liberty of the Church, I. e. it is unlawful. The rejoinder answereth first to the proposition, and then to the assumption, but so as he mingleth both together, in many words: Yet I will follow his order.  
3. First of all he denieth the proposition to be found, in the Repl. his meaning. But I can see no reason of this denial. 1. He saith, that Order and Ordering is taken sometime largely, for all discipline, or policy, sometime strictly, for rancking of persons and actions handsomely one before, and another after, and so is opposed only to confusion, as in this place, 1. Cor. 14.40. Now this is far● from overthrowing the proposition, in the Repl. his meaning. For the Repl. meant order in the strict sense, which maketh also for his purpose: and this the Rej. granteth to be the meaning of the Apostle in this place 1, Cor. 14.40. Which place the same Rej. pag, 75. confesseth to be the only place (in the N. Test.) by which power is given to the Church to constitute Cerem: Fron both which laid together it necessarily followeth that all which is left unto the Church's power under the title of order, is ordaining in the strict sense, 1. e. rancking of persons and actions handsomely, as the rejoinder expoundeth it. Yet immediately after he accuseth the Repl. for saying order to be the right placing and disposing of things instituted, for time, place, etc. not showing why this disliketh him, or wherein differeth from his own explication. Only he saith that etc. often by the Repl. put to time, and place, is a blind. Which is not so, for by etc. is meant all circumstances of like nature with time and place, as number, measure, vicissitude etc. How many Psalms shall be sung, or chapter read, what, and how much Scripture shall be at this or that assembly expounded, how one part of worship shall succeed another etc. without a blind.  
4. In the next place, the rejoinder findeth a wrong meaning in the Repl. his use of the phrase (in comely manner:) because afterward in the end of the Assumption, he saith, that comeliness is nothing but the seemliness of order. For (saith the Rej.) beside that comeliness of order, there is other comeliness. Now this the Repl. professeth immediately after the words quoted: other where comeliness may contain all natural and civil handsomeness. etc. Neither will I contend about this, but it implieth so much in this very place. So that the rejoinder hath not given any reason, why the Proposition, or first part of the Argument should not be admitted. Yet after that he hath fathered it upon Mr. jacob and made the Repl. his disciple, he cometh to examine the proofs of it, though he himself (as is now showed) hath given sufficient assent unto all contained therein.  
5. The first proof is, that it is manifestly collected out of the place in question, 1. Cor. 14. and the Def. seemeth to grant as much. To which the Rej. answereth. 1. that in that place, three distinct things are propounded, Edification, Decency, Order: and these three cannot be one. But edification being the end, Decency and order the means, they may well be contained in one: decent order, tending to edification, or (which is as much to our purpose) in two: decency, and order, for edification. A holy Sacrament, decently, and orderly administered, for edification, is not fowr distinct things, but one. His 2. is, that these words are the conclusion of the whole Tract. beginning at the eleventh chap. wherein are handled some things only concerning Decency, some more properly pertaining to Edification, and some which belong more peculiarly to Order. Ergo more is commanded in these words, than the comely placing of one thing after another. Let this be granted, yet it followeth not, that more is left unto the Church's liberty, than order, and decency, unto edification. For all things that are commanded, are not left unto the Church's liberty.  
But that speaking in unknown tongues which the Rej. doth refer to edification as distinct from order and decency, is by good Divines accounted to offend against the order and decency, spoken of c. ●4. and 40. So D. Whitaker, de Script. q. 2. c. 18. disputeth against the use of an unknowen tongue in God's service, out of this very place: pugnat hoc vero cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quam maxim. 1. Cor. 14.40. 1. e. this mightly overthrows that good order which he so much stands for. His 3. is, the Defend doth no way seem to grant the proposition: because the Repl. undertaketh by argument to rescue this place out of the Def. his hands.  
But this nothing at all argueth, that the Def. and the Repl. do not agree about the proposition, though they descent about the place, as it is handled in the assumption. The Papists grant us, this proposition: No phrase is used by Christ, in those words: this is my body, but a Sacramental one. Yet because they deny the assumption: transubstantiating words, are not a Sacramental phrase, we undertake by argument to rescue this place out of their hands. So the Def. requiring no more, than order and Decency unto Edification, to be left unto the Church's liberty, for the establishing of our Ceremonies, doth seem at least to grant, that all which is left to the Church's liberty is order and Decency unto edification, though he deny these to contain no more then mere circumstances, which is the assumption. Of Edification there is not mention made in the proposition, because that as an end, is out of question, and always included.  
6. Peter Martyr is cited, out of D. Whitaker, de Pontif. pag. 841.844. as agreeing with that which the Repl. would have. Here the Rej. enlargeth himself much for the sake (as he saith) of those that are unlatined.  
1. He telleth us that P.M. doth distinguish, though not divide, comeliness from order. Which we do also, For take the Repl. his words in the most rigorous sense you can, yet comeliness of order, doth distinguish comliness from order, no less than comeliness of a man, doth distinguish it from a man. 2. He addeth, that P. Mart. doth there instance in the Ceremony of thrice dipping, and in the observation or institution of Feasts. But let the Reader know, that those words, Ceremony, observation, institution of feasts, which the rejoinder hath set down in a differing letter, to be noted as P.M. his words, are not to be found in the place of P.M. but are added by the rejoinder for advantage. P.M. expoundeth the meaning he had in all his instances by what place, what time, what manner. If therefore the Repl. did not look upon that place, 
Quo loco, quo tempo●●, quo mod●.  but took it on trust, from the trusty hand of D. Whitaker (as the rejoinder objected to him) yet it proveth good and fitting. So that the rejoined. forgetteth himself much, when upon this uncertain, and momentlesse conjecture, he compareth the Repl. to a hungry creature (or dog) that runneth away with a bare bone. D. Morton once (at the least) alleged some testimonies on trust: and therefore, being challenged for them, he confessed that he had them from Mr. Stock. Yet the Popish adversary (author of the Sober reckoning) did not compare him to a dog, but only said, that he sent to stocks and stones, for satisfaction about them. Which I do not allege to the disparagement of either D. M. or M r, St. but only to show by comparison how the Rej. doth sometime overflow, in his terms. 3. For D. Whitaker, he telleth us, that he only saith, that Ecclesiastical laws belong only to order, or ordering, but not as it is distinct from comeliness. As if any of us did so. The Repl. his words: ordering in comely manner, do not (I hope) refer all to order, considered a part from all comeliness.  
This is the full sum, of all that rejoinder had to except against the first allegation. And yet here upon this nothing, it pleaseth him to accuse not only the Repl. but these men, of haughty and Magistral fashion, gulling, and deceiving, great and shameful sin, and the poor Repl. at the least, for a man destitute of common honesty. It seemeth he was very angry at something. Let the understanding Reader guess, at what?  
6. For more manifestation of the Repl. his vacuity of common honesty, the Rej. referreth us to the second testimony out of junius, against Bell. cont. 3. l. 4. c. 16. n. 86.87. and cap. 17. n. 9.10.12.13.  
Omitting therefore unnecessary repetition, let us hear the reasons of extraordinary dishonesty, 1. junius ca 16. n. 86.87. saith only first, that those humane laws are only necessary, in the Church, which tend to this, that all things may be done decently, and in order, 1. Cor. 14.40. Secondly, that these are improperly called laws in the Church, being more properly constitions, or Canons.  
Now out of the first saying, the Repl. concluded, that junius did judge the Apostle to leave no more to the Church's liberty, then to order God's ordinances in decent manner: And out of the seconde, he inferred the same conclusion: because any Constitution, above ordering in decent manner that which before was enjoined, is properly a law. What extraordinary dishonesty is here? 2. Iun●u cap. 17. n. 9 saith only that to make new laws in divine things is to decline 1. c. in points of faith or necessary rules of sanctimony. But junius maketh no mention at all, either of faith, or sanctimony, or necessity, Nor Bell. himself in that place. Neither is the question there handled, of points of faith or things absolutely necessary to sanctimony. All double triple Ceremonies reductively Sacramental, and worship, are by the Rej. his own dictates double sacred: and that is it which junius meaneth by divine. 3. Bell saith that the addition forbidden Deut. 4. is of laws contrary to the law of God. Whereunto junius n. 10. answereth, t●at any laws at all, added to God's laws, are contrary to the law of God, speaking of proper laws, without any backing of God's law, binding the Conscience, as he showeth cap. 16. n. 86.8. Here 1. the Rej. left out those words of junius, neither cantrarie nor beside the word: which if he had translated, than the Readers memory might have recalled, how this place cited before for the defence of that phrase, was but shifted by the Rej. p. 46. 2. It is to be marked, that the Def. and Rej. there answer to Deut. 4. is the same with Bel. p. 134.3. That exposition of laws without backing, is of the Rej. his own forging. No such thing is found in the places quoted, nor yet did Bel. profess to defend any such thing.  
Of binding the Conscience, enough hath been said in the head of Difference betwixt our Ceremonies and Popish.  
4. junius n. 12. answering to Bellarmine's his saying, that God (in the N.T.) gave only the common laws of faith and Sacram. leaving the specials to the Church etc. affirmeth God's laws to be perfect re, ratione & modo, and those of the Church to be but Canons and disposings of conveniency, for better observing of divine laws.  
Where note 1. an example of an etc. for a blind, or blindinge, which the rejoinder formerly told of. For in that eat. is contained, pro locorum & temporum diversitate: quia non possunt diversissimi populi convenire in ijsdem legibus & ritibus. 1▪ e. for this cause, special laws of ritual things, are left to the Church's liberty, because of variety, which falleth out now by occasion of times and places: Which is the very thing that the rejoinder pawned his credit, Bell. never said, pag. 15.16. Note also 2. that junius doth not in this place mention Canons, as the Rej. pleaseth to alter his words in reciting of them. But Cautions, and dispositions. Now a Caution about the performance of any thing, is not an institution of a new thing. 3. junius is found to say as much as he was alleged for, and to the contrary we have from the rejoinder a nihil dicit.  
5. junius n. 13. saith only that Christ is the only lawgiver, that is, to give laws, that in themselves and by the very authority of the lawmaker, do bind the conscience. As if junius in confuting of Bell. did only say the very same thing, with him that he goeth about to confute! for Bellarmine in that very place saith: Christ is the chief lawgiver who by his own Authority can judge and make laws. 
Christus solute●● legislator crima●us, qui potest suâ propriâ authoritate judicare & leges far.   
Now out of all these allegations, the rejoinder maketh his interrogatories. 1. Where be these words all that is requisite, as spoken of Rites and Ceremonies? Answer the sense of these words as spoken of all Ceremonies above mere order and decency, is cap. 16.86.2. Where find you in juníus that the Church may constitute no new thing? Ans. cap. 17. n. 9 this in things Divine is to turn aside, 
Hoc in divini● rebut est declinate.  for the rejoinder his interpretation of those words, that they mean points of faith, and necessary rules of sanctimony, is confuted, by conference of Bellarmine's words there opposed, who in that place instanceth in Ceremonial and judicial laws, and speaketh not at all of faith and necessary sanctimony. 3. Where are those words, ordering in seemly manner? Ans. cap. 16. n. 86. those only humane laws are necessary in the Church, which make that all things be done decently and in order. 1. Cor. 14.40, 4. If the Church may appoint no new thing, but only see to decency and order, then saith the Rej. what patent hath she to make particular ordinances for time, and place? unless these be no new things. I Ans. 1. Time and place considered as mere occasional circumstances, are no more new things in God's service, then concreated time and place, were new things in Creation, distinct from the created world. And Calvin inst. l. 4. cap. 10. sect. 22. severely censureth those, that call such kind of determinations new laws: Quis nisi calumniator, sic novam ferri●b ijs legem dicat, quos constant duntaxat scandalis occu●rere, quae sunt a Domino satis diserte prohibita? If procuring that scandals be avoided, be no new thing, than neither is procuring that disorder, and undecency, for time, place, etc. be avoided, any new thing.  
As for a patent to appoint double, triple, sacred Ceremonies, it is a vain thing for them to plead it, that cannot show it under the great Seal. I do not think, that any earthly King would have his subjects submit themselves to that power, which is fetched out of a Patent, invisible, and only avouched by conjectures.  
7. A reason was given of the foresaid proposition, out of jun. de Transl. Imp. l. 1. c. 2. n. 26.27.31. viz. that the Church hath only a Ministry, to observe such things as Christ hath appointed, not authority of appointing new things. Here the rejoinder 1. observeth, that those words, (new things) have no foot steps in junius. As if new things could be appointed lawfully without authority of appointing. Surely, he that denieth all authority of appointing, and leaveth only ministerial performance of things appointed, he denieth appointing of new things. 2. He argueth thus: If the Church have a ministry to appoint and do such things as Christ hath commanded, then must she needs have a Commission legative to appoint and use rites serving to order and decency. Add to this only, and then it is not only that, but all that which we require. 3. He crieth out of miserable perversion, either by gross negligence, or mistaking.  
And why so I pray? Because (forsooth) all that junius saith is good to prove, that no Ecclesiastical person hath any power by his calling over temporal Princes. But this is nothing against their delegated dependant power, by Commission. But 1. these are very strange distinctions: they have not any power by their calling, but some by commission. They have not any power over temporal Princes (though they be members of the Church) but over the Church they have. 2. The rejoinder maketh junius only to deny that which Bellarmine never affirmed, viz. absolute independent power of Ecclesiastical persons, as supreme Lords. Nay Bellarmin answereth to Calvin in the very same manner that the rejoinder doth: The Pope is not the chief lawgiver but the vicar of Christ, 
Pontisex non est legislator primarius ●ed Vicarius Christi, & Christi authoritate leges conduit De Pontif. l. 4. cap. 17.  & by Christ's authority maketh laws. 3. He addeth that junius disp. de trad. distinguisheth betwixt decency, and the seemliness of order alone.  
As if this were the main question? Or any part of the Proposition! or denied by the Repl. at all. The rejoinder having little to say that was to the purpose, cacheth hold of one word in the end of the Assumption used by the Repl. seemliness of order (which yet is immediately there differenced from other decency, as well commanded as this) and that he maketh the main matter of the proposition: whereas the meaning is, that nothing is left unto liberty in God's worship, above decency and order, for which these testimonies are brought, and not for the other.  
8. For more full support of the foresaid Proposition, a reason is added, from the fullness of a perfect law, which leaveth no more unto Ministerial judges, than needs must.  
For answer, the rejoinder 1. observeth, that some cases are ●f necessity variable, and so left. So the occasions of different Rites and Ceremonies a●e so various, that if our Lord had fixed any one certain fashion, he should have made rather snares than l●ws for his Church. As, if he had appointed sitting at a table in t●e Communion: or kneeling in prayer. This is strange stuff. 1. So much is granted, as is desired, viz. that God hath left nothing (about his worship) undertermined in his word. 1. e. uncommanded, and unforbidden particularly, save only that which he could not command or forbid. Now let any man think▪ and judge, whether it had not been possible for God in his word, either to have commanded, or forbidden the signing of those that are Baptised with the sign of the cross all so well, as Baptising of them with water? 2, How can that too too bold and inconsiderate assertion be excused: if our Lord had fixed (or commanded) any one certain fashion of Ceremonies, he had made rather snares, than laws for his Church. If it had pleased God to command or forbid the sign of the Cross in particular, what snare had it been? When God appointed all the Ceremonies of the old Testament, he did not (I hope) make snares for his Church, though he did lay a burden upon it. 3. Whereas the rejoinder maketh sitting at a table, in the Lord's Supper, and kneeling at prayer, to be such things as the Lord could not command, but as snares, because sometime a table may be wanting, or something to sit on, or ability to sit, and so of kneeling, this is as poor a snare to cache any man of understanding in, as one sh●l lightly see made. For 1. Many affirmative commandments of God there are, which in extraordinary cases cannot be fulfiled, and cease to bind: as praying unto and praising of God, with our voice: which is no snare, to him that cannot speak.  
The appointing of wine for the Supper, is no snare, though some Countries have it not, and some men cannot well drink it. See Beza ep. 2. Pareus and Symb. Sacram. l. 1. cap. 9.2. I would know, whether it had beme a snare, if God had appointed sitting at the Table, with exception of such extra ordinary cases? if yea, then m●che more when men appoint kneeling, sirplicing, and crossing, if no, than our Argument may proceed.  
Kneeling in public prayer, might have been appointed without snaring, as appearing before the Lord thrice in the year, was appointed to every Male in Israel. Deut: 16.16. For (without doubt) many men in Israel, were, by accident, more unable to travel up to jerusalem, than any Christian that hath knees, is to kneel.  
After this observation, of which the rejoinder saith it may be as we will, he answereth, that our Lord hath left nothing absolute to the will of his Officers: but hath left even ambulatory Rites, under general rules, which will try them as perfectly, as if every one had been named, and with less cumber. But 1. this is nothing to the purpose: because so the imperfectest law that is in any nation upon the earth, if it be worthy the name of Law, leaveth nothing so absolute to the will of inferior Officers, as that it should be without the general rules of justice, common good, etc. Nay not without the rules of order & decency. 2. Concerning the comparison of perfection, betwixt general and particular rules, though enough hath been said before, upon like occasion, yet this I will add.  
If he meaneth, that a general rule if it be perfectly understood and applied, doth as perfectly try as particulars. I grant it to be a truth. And so was the old Testament as perfect a rule of Christian faith as the New, thou shalt love thy neighbour, as perfect as the six Commandments of the second Table. But if he mean that a general rule is as fit and full for our direction of us imperfect men, as particulars are, than I think no man conscious of humane frailty, will beleiv him.  
Neither do I beleiv, that he himself is so fully persuaded in Crossing the Baptised, by any rule which he hath out of God's word, for that, as he is for Baptising, by the rule of that.  
9 The Repl. having (as he thought sufficiently grounded the general, that a perfect law leaveth nothing more than needs must, unto inferior Officers, goeth on to assume, that in the worship of God, all, but particular Circumstances of order, might easily, be (as indeed they, were) appointed by Christ, and therefore need not be left to the Church's wisdom. Upon this, it pleaseth the rejoinder to say little to the purpose, in many words. 1. He saith, that Circumstances of order were not harder to determine, than those of decency. Now it is plain enough, that the Repl. here, naming Order, did also understand Decency, though he named Order only. 2. He asketh, what School of Divinity hath taught the Repl. to say, that our Lord forbore the determining of such circumstances, because all else was easy. I Answer, no rule of Divinity did either teach the Repl. to say so, nor yet the rejoinder to impute unto him, which he never said.  
But if he meaneth (as it seemeth he doth) because it was not so easy to determine circumstances of time and place as real worship.  
I then answer, that this (as I think) the Replier learned out of that Divinity School, out of which the Def. and rejoinder learned. That which they cite out of Calvin, pag, 15.16. junius is cited to the contrary, out of Cont. 3. l 4. cap. 17. n. 12. (which place the Rej. looked upon, by occasion of the Repl. his former citation of it.) But he in that very place, distinguisheth betwixt laws, properly so called, and cautions, leaving only cautions to the Church's liberty, which is the very same that the Repl. meaneth. The plain truth is, that supposing Gods will to be, we should worship him in any place, and any time fitting, it was necessary, that the particular choice of fitting time and place, should be left undetermined to any particular time or place, exclusively.  
Calvin also is cited, as more comely expressing the cause to be, that Christ would not, then that he could not determine such matters.  
Now though Calvin, being so excellent in his expressions, may easily be granted to have expressed the same meaning in more comely manner then the Repl. yet here was no cause of noting disparity. For the Repl in saying, all things but particular order and decency may be easily appointed, did not say what Christ could do, but what might be easily for us appointed, or with our ease, or with the ease which we do conceyve of in law giving, or of an ordinary law giver, having such authority as Christ had. And who doth not see, that it is not so easy, to appoint every particular place, and time, wherein God shall be worshipped, throughout all the world, then with what worship he shall be served? For that particular description, a thousand books, so great as our one bible, would not have suffized.  
The world (as john saith) would not be capable of the Volumes that must have been written. The Rej. himself pag 89. telleth us of cumber, and much ado, that would have been, in naming every particular, is not this as much as less easy? Yet it pleased him to seek matter or altercation about this phrase, and that (which agreeth not) immediately after he had without reason accused the Repl. of picking quarrels pag. 88  
10. A Second reason, of the Repl. his proposition, was, that whatsoever in worship is above order and decency, is worship. Bec. whatsoever is acted by him that worshippeth, in that act, beside ordinary civility, must either be an act or means of worship, or an orderly decent disposing of those acts, or else at the least idle, and so unlawful. The Rej. answereth 1. that a significant Ceremony for edification, is lawful, yet cometh not under any of those heads. But he himself confesseth a significant Ceremon: instituted of God, to be essential worship, and instituted of man to be worship, though not in itself, of which distinction, enough hath been said, in the head of worship. Yet this by the way: A significant Ceremony for edification, is the same, in itself, by whomesoever it be instituted: because institution is extrinsical to the thing instituted, and altars it not in itself, internally. If therefore it be essential lawful worship, in itself when it is instituted by God, it is also essential (though not lawful) worship, in itself, when it is instituted by man. Beside that Ceremony whose proper sole end is edification, toward God, is properly done to the honour of God, and so properly divine worship.  
His 2, answer is, that comeliness grounded on civil humane considerations, is not mere civility, in sacred actions, and use, but sacred by application. W●ich is very true if civil application be meant by mere civil, but than it is nothing to the purpose. For sacred by application is seemly clothing, put on for to go to Church in, and yet is in itself mere civil. The question is not of application, but of internal nature.  
Sacred things applied to Civil buissinesse, do not therefore become Civil, for who will say, that Prayer, at the beginning of a Parliament, is a Civil act, though it were used in the Upper, and lower house, and applied to that Civil meeting, as it ought to be? And why then shall application of Civil decency unto Sacred business, make it alter the nature or name of it?  
His 3. answer is, that all means of worship are not worship. But he knew well enough, that this was meant of proper means of worship.  
His fourth is, that ordering and manner of disposing, is ill divided from comeliness. Neither did the Repl. intent so to divide, but rather to conjoin them, understanding by that manner of disposing, comeliness. But if the rejoinder had not cached up some show of confounding comeliness with order, which was not intended by the Repl. he had been in this argument wholly at a loss.  
His 5. and last answer is, that by Basils' leave some things, in themselves, may, and sometime must be tolerated. But he should have remembered, that the question here is not of toleratíng, but of appointing and using.  
Now if it be lawful, to appoint and use empty and unprofitable Ceremonies in God's worship, let those Worshippers judge, that tremble at the Majesty of God, and are afraid in any manner to appear empty and unprofitably before him. 
Mandata inutilia prorsus, & vana, inutiles, & frivolae Ceremonia solo spiritu humano adiaventa.  Nay (to pass by our Divines) let the Papists themselves judge. Bellar. de Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. ad 4. confesseth those Ceremonies to be forbidden, which are unprofitable altogether, and vain precepts, unproffitable & frivolons Ceremonies, only by humane Spirit invented. 
Inanes & inutiles. Estius in Tit. 1.14. Supervacanca, etuibil ad piet item condu●evic●.  And de effect. Sacrament l. 2. cap. 32. empty and good for nothing. Morethens needs, and not a jot tending to any Godines, and who not?  
11. Thus fare concerning the Proposition of our Argument: the Assumption followeth, which is this: To appoint and use the Ceremonies as we do, is not to order in comely manner, any thing pertaining to God's worship. The reason is, because order requireth not the institution or usage of any new thing, but only the right placing and disposing of things formerly instituted.  
1. The rejoinder answer 1. that order requireth new time, place, and measure: which is a Sophistry in the Proposition before abused, and confuted.  
2. His second is, that ordering in comely manner, or comeliness requireth the institution of such formalities, as shall be suitable to the dignity and variety of divine actions. Where the term formalities is not so formal, that a man may spy in it the difference it hath from other things, the rejoined. in his manuduction, pag. 36. appropriateth it to Bishops Roshe●s etc. even as they are distinct from Surplices: the Bishops went before the Hearse in ●heir formalities, the Clerks in their Surplices. So that it seemeth to mean some Ceremonies of state, and dignity: of which kind neither Cross, nor Surplice is any. Howsoever, unto ordering of one thing doth not require another new thing, but only disposing of that one. For if it did, than that new thing (because that also must be ordered) would require another new thing, and that also for order sake another, so that no one thing could be ordered, without an infinite heap of new things.  
As for the Dignity of divine actions, that is best suited with man's reverend and humble simplicity, not with outward shows of dignity, invented by man. The woman's ordinary veil was more suitable to the dignity of God's worship, then if she had adorned herself with gold, and precious stones.  
Paul's plain cloak was more suitable than the richest Cope in all Rome. If Order requireth outward shows of dignity, than Rome, which is a confused Babel, may be to all Churches an imitable example of religious order, for the Council of Trent sess. 22. professeth, their mass Ceremonies to be invented. That the Majesty of such a Sacrifice might be set out.  

Quo Majestas tanti Sacrificij commendaretur.  12. To show further that Order requireth not such Ceremony as ours, the notation of the word was brought in, signifying no such thing. Now the rejoinder granteth that originally the word doth not contain within the compass of it, such kind of Ceremonies, though by usage it may. Which is very true: but helpeth not, except the Def. or rejoinder whose principal Argument is taken from this place, and only retorted by us, can prove, that in this place, the word order is extended beyond his original signification. He will not therefore stand with us, about the signification of the word in this place: let order (saith he) in this place signify no more than placing. But he maketh his retreat to the word Comeliness: ask if comeliness be nothing? I answer yes, it is some thing: but the Replier did not insist in that word, because he took the force of the Def. his Argument from this place principally to lie upon order.  
But seeing the rejoinder hath given up Order, I will add a word or too concerning Comeliness.  
I take this for granted, that seeing the rejoinder confesseth Order here to be taken in strict signification, as opposed only to confusion, pag. 78. he will also consent with us, that Decency in the same place and sentence, is to be taken in strict signification, as opposed only to the vice of undecency. Now hence it followeth, that Decency requireth nothing but that which is necessary to the avoiding of undecency.  
I ask therefore, if undecency in God's worship cannot be avoided, without double, triple, sacred significant Ceremonies, of man's inventing? If not, than the Apostles did much forget themselves, in their public worshipping of God, before men had invented such Ceremonies, for that is no answer which the rejoinder after giveth: all Churches are not bound to this or that particular way of Comeliness. All Churches are bound to avoid undecency, and to do that which Decency requireth, or bindeth them unto. If yea, then Decency doth not require such kind of Ceremonies.  
Neither doth it in deed, any more than Order. 
Decentiae est cum cultut Dei, idone●t atque convenientibut temporis loci, personae & gestus cire●● stantijs absolvitur. De ha● Decentia, Apostolus loqui tur. 1. Cor. 14. 4●.  So Mr. Perkins, lat. to. 2. p. 888. Decency is, when the service of God is performed with convenient and fit circumstances of time, place, person, and gesture, and hereof the Apostle speaketh. 1. Cor. 14.40.  
The plain simple truth, without Ceremonial affectation, is, that Decency is (in this place) nothing but good civil fashion, 
Decorum's apponitur vanita●i, sordibut, ●uxni: non est in casuli●, cappl●, aut ceremoniarum largesse, etc.  agreeable not only to worship, but also to any grave assembly. Decency (saith Pareus upon the place) is opposed to vanity, Spots, ryott it stands not in hoods, Caps, or vizardes' of fond Ceremonies. etc.  
I dare appeal to D.B. his conscience, if Baptism be not as decently administered without the Cross, as with it? and public prayers made as decently without a Surplice, as with it? Let Conscience here speak, and the rejoinder harkening unto it, will (without doubt) confess, that Decency in this place doth no more require either Cross or Surplice, than Order, and that both of them together doth no more require those Ceremonies, than a hundred other, which in England (though not at Rome) are denied unto them.  
To this purpose, Mr. Attersoll, in his second book of the Sacram. cap. 5. saith well: If they refer all this trash and trumpery (of humane Ceremonies in Baptism) to order and comeliness, as Hosius doth, do they not thereby blasphemously accuse the Baptism of john, and of the Apostles, of uncomeliness and disorder? whereas the comeliness and dignity of the Sacraments is to be esteemed by the word of God, by the institution of Christ, by the simplicity of the Gospel, and by the practice of the Apostles: Nothing is more comely, decent, and orderly, then that which Christ commandeth and alloweth: nothing is more uncomely and unseemly, then that which man inventeth in the service of God, and in the celebration of the Sacraments, thereby inverting and perverting the holy ordinances of God.  
12. The received definitions of Order are brought in to the same purpose, by the Replier. And the rejoinder yields so much as they import, viz. that order in strict signification doth not imply such Ceremonies as ours.  
He must therefore either prove, that in this place. 1. Cor, 14.40. that word is not taken strictly, which he himself formerly granted, or give up this place which is (by his own confession) the only place of all the New. Testament, for warranting of such Ceremonies, or fly to Decency, upon which he cannot any more fasten then upon order, as hath been showed.  
Nothing material is added in the rest of the rejoined. his answer unto this Argument (where our Divines are observed, to distinguish order and decency from mystical Ceremonies, the context of the chapter. 1. Corinth 14. Is declared to respect no mystical Ceremonies, the phrase of Scripture is showed to consent,) nothing (I say, and the Reader may see) is added: but only the same things are repeated about Order, and Decency which are now sufficiently discussed.  
So that the rejoinder hath nothing to say to the contrary, but that we may safely conclude, Ergo, to appoint and use the Ceremonies as we do, is not left to the liberty of the Church, 1. e. it is unlawful.  
If there were nothing else against them, in all the Scripture, than this place, beside which the Def. and rejoinder can find none in all the New. Testament, for them, any indifferent man would say they are not allowed.  
Those that are devoted to the Ceremonies, may shuffle up and down, first to order, and when they are beaten thence, to Decency, and from Decency, when they can defend that no longer, to Edification, as the rejoinder doth: but all will not help. Let them pitch or insist upon one of these grounds, without starting, I will pawn my head, their anchor will come home to them again as finding no fast ground, either in Order, or Decency, or edification, for double significant Ceremonies (such as ours) to ride at.  
The Def. could frame no Consequence out of any of these words, the rejoinder saith there is one, but he cannot show it. To the contrary consequence nothing is answered of any moment.  
And is not this a miserable cause, which hath no place in all the New Testament, which the best Advocates can allege for it, but only that; out of which it is utterly confounded? To the Defend. and Rejoinders maintaining such a cause, this testimony may be given that they would willingly, so fare as they can, favour things which the times favour, and therefore strive to make something, of that which maketh nothing for them. In the former section, when Order, Decency, and Edification, should have been handled as Rules, according to the title of the digression, the rejoinder suddenly breaketh off, referring them to a fit place. Now here in this place, he was constrained to touch upon them, but so softly and sparingly, that it appeareth he found this no fit place than the former, for those reserved considerations. When shall we come to the fit place?    

SECT. 17. Concerning the ancient Fathers allowing of Humane Ceremonies.  
1. OF these, the Repl. answered, it cannot be proved, nor is probable, that from the first beginning of the Primitive Church they brought in any new inventions. Upon this, the Rej. accusing not him alone, but others also, that they can believe no truth cross to their opinion, because they seek honour one of another, & praesume of their new traditions, as if the spirit of truth had come only to them, or from them alone, answereth that it is a matter of fact, proved by Records of Churches, against which nothing can be said. But if he could keep-in his passion, so long, as to hear this only word, that there are no sufficient Records of any such thing, exstant from the beginning, than he might see that sufficient answer is given, unto the name of all Fathers, always.  
Yet I will add one conjecture, to show, that those observations which seem to have been universal, in the Primitive Church, were not so in deed, without exception. Praying toward the East, hath as ancient testimony, as any other humane Rite. Tertullian Apol. cap. 16. witnesseth, that that was one cause why the Christians were esteemed to worship the Sun. And yet Socrates, lib. 5. cap. 22. doth witness, that at Antioch which was the first Church of Christians by name, they used not to place their Mysteries which directed their posture of prayer, toward the East, but rather toward the West. And why may we not conceyve the like of Easter, as well as of this East observation?  
2. It was secondly answered, that those, Feasts, which the Primitive Church is said to have observed, were not by Canonical imposition, but voluntary accommodation to the infirmity of some, as appeareth by the variety of their observation, and Socrates his testimony. Mark now, what a rejoinder is given? 1. He telleth us of a strange conjecture of his, even from this answer▪ viz. that the Churches held, it not only lawful, but also convenient, to impose upon themselves such Feasts. As if occasional accommodation, were all one with imposition, or voluntary joining in action for the good that is in it, were always a certain argument of holding that opinion which others do affix unto it. But if they had thought them so convenient, yet that Arg. would be of little force. For many Ceremonies were thought then convenient, which long since are universally thought otherwise of, & therefore left off, though no reason of inconvenience can be showed, which did not agree to those times as well as to succeeding times, except further abuse: which cannot be denied of our Ceremonies in question, as religious use of milk, honey, & abstaining from washing once hands for certain days after Baptism etc. 2. That which was mentioned of infirmity occasioning this accommodation, the Rej. (after his manner) crieth down as a fiction, boldly delivered, without proof, or colour, merely for opposition sake: Whereas notwithstanding it is so clear, that the infirmity of men newly converted from judaisme, and Gentilism, did bring into Christian Churches customs like unto those in use among jews and Gentiles, that Cardinal Baronius, from that ground maintaineth many Ceremonies. 
Quid mirum, si imolitat apud Gentiles (add etiam & judaeos) consuetudines, a quibus eos, quamvis Christiani effecti essent, penipus posse divelli, impossibile videretur, easdem in Dei cultum transferri, sanctissimi Episcopi cineessetunt: ad an. 58. p. 606.  What wonder if the grown customs among the Gentiles (and we may add the jews also) were such as from which, though they were converted to Christianisme, they were yet so hardly taken, that it might seem impossible to put them quite off, what wonder I say then if the most holy Bishops have granted them place in the worship of God?  
Doctor jackson, in his Original of Idolatry sect. 4. chap. 23. showeth the first occasion of Superstition in Christians, to have been the infirmities, whereby it came to pass, that heathenish (and jewish) Rites, whereto men had been long accustomed, could not easily be extirpated. Where also about such accommodations, he hath this remarkable observation. To outstrip our adversaries in their own policies, or to use means abused by others to a better end, is a resolution so plausible to worldly wisdom that even Christians have mightily overreached and entangled themselves, by too much seeking to circumvent or go beyond others.  
About the Variety which was of old in the observation of these feasts, the rejoinder answereth, that it notwithstanding, the agreement for the things themselves was universal. Which if he would take with a grain of salt, viz. that after some space of time, it was (for aught we know) universal, but not upon any Ecclesiastical imposition, nor upon any known grounds out of God's word, it is the same that the Repl. affirmeth, and Socrates lib. 5. cap. 22. laboureth to confirm.  
3. Mention was further made of the mischief that came in by those humane observations. To which the rejoinder answereth, that the anniversary solemnities have not obscured, but praeserved that simplicity of the Gospel. And if they had so done, by accident Satan's malice, and man's frailty, that is nothing but what may be affirmed of Divine ordinances, But 1. the Def. his position was in general of universal Ceremonies by humane institution, and not Feasts alone? Now those first Ceremonial observations are guilty of opening that gate, for all the humane praesumtions to enter into God's house, which pressed in after them: which gate could never be shut from that day to this. 2. Those very Feasts made a composition or mixture of humane institutions with divine, and therefore did not praeserve simplicity. They also were from their first rise not only aequalled unto, but also extolled above the Lord's day. Easter brought in a superstitions Lent to attend upon it, made Baptism wait for her Moon: and conformed our Lord's Supper unto the jewish Passeover in unleavened bread, etc. It was the first apple of contention among Christians, the first weapon, wherewith the Bishop of Rome played his prizes against other Churches, & after slew so many Britons with, by Austin the monk. Holie-days in honour of Christ invited unto them Saints holy Days etc. 4. It is praesumtion, to make men's inventions as guiltless of evil consequences, as Gods holy ordinances. They are active efficacious occasions given of evil: these are only passive occasions taken.  
Neither is there any corruption of God's ordinances, whose original occasion may not be found in men's (nay fathers) Ceremonious praesumtions.  
4. It was finally answered by the Repl. that the always of these Feasts, cannot include the Apostolical times, and for other always, Bellarmine Cont. 1. l. 4. c. 9 hath the same plea, and the answer given unto him by our Divines, may serve here. The rejoinder here 1. insinuateth that it is very likely, these Feasts, or some of them, were on foot while some Apostles lived: because Polycarpe pretended john to have taught Easter.  
On foot indeed was the mystery of Antichristian corruption in the Apostles times. But that which Polycarpe is said to have pretended, was for the fourteen day of the month, and is confuted by a contrary praetense of the latin Churches, from Peter and Paul. Socrat. l. 5. cap. 22. He 2. addeth, under Augustine's name that it is insolent madness, to think that not to be well done, which hath been done by all the Church, though it began after the Apostles times. Now though I find no such saying of Augustine's, in the epistle quoted for it, but to the Contrary, I find this rule, that it is lawful or not lawful to believe or not to believe other witnesses or testimonies besides that of the Scriptures) so far as you see they bear or do not bear weight to make us give more credit to a thing. 
Alijs testibut, vel testimonijs (preterquam Divinarum Scripturarum) c●edere, vel non credere, liceat, quantum ea moments ad faciendam sulem, vel habere, vel non habere perpenderis.  Which being granted, the fact of the Church cannot so confirm, this or that to be right and well, as that it should be madness to deny it. Yet let it be his saying, I answer, if this be true than it must needs follow, that giving of the Communion (and that as is most likely sopped) upon opinion of necessity, cannot be denied well and good, for that (as is well known) was done generally in Augustine's time, and long before. It must follow also, that they were special insolent mad men, that first began to disallow either that, or any other ancient thing of general observation: 
Ecclesia Dei, intermultam pal●am, multaque, Zizanta, constituta, multa toleravit.  which Augustine would never have said, who professed of his time, that the Church of God set in the heap of chaff and tares, did only suffer many things, only ep. 119.  
He 3. distinguisheth betwixt Bellarmine's, and the Defendants alleging of traditions, because Bell. spoke of doctrines necessary to salvation. Which is not true for Bell. in that chapter maketh no mention of doctrines necessary to salvation: and in the next chapter but one cap. 11. he confesseth, that all things absolutely necessary to salvation, are written in the Scriptures, and (which is much more) all things that are either necessary, or profitable for all men to know.   

SECT. 18.19. Concerning Protestant's witnessing against the Negative argument from Scripture.  
1. BEllarmine was brought in by the Def. as an indifferent Adversary, confessing that Protestants hold the Apostles to have instituted some things, pertaining to rites and order, which are not written. Which was also granted unto him, as making nothing against us. Only the vanity of that allegation was in some particulars declared, which how they are cleared (it being a matter of no moment) I refer to the Readers judgement.  
2. Chemnitius was alleged, saying, there be some Ecclesiastical Rites, which have neither command, nor testimony, in Scripture, which yet are not to be rejected. Answer was made, that this in a right sense is granted by us. The rejoinder taxeth this as an idle shift: because 1 Chemnitius did not intend such a restrictive sense. 2. Circumstances of Order have command and testimony in Scripture. But 1. It is no idle shift so to interpret an allegation objected, as that the interpretation cannot be confuted, but barely denied. 2. As Circumstances of order and decency have their general command or testimony in Scripture, so have those Rites which Chemnitius understandeth, or else his sentence is without any ground out of Scripture.  
3. The same answer is given, and no other rejoinder made, about Calvin, Danaeus, Whitakers and Zanchie, saving that of Zanchie, it is observed & urged by the rejoined. that he saith some Ceremonies may help for the furtherance of piety which have no foundation in the word: giving instance of the solemnities of Easter, etc. Tract. de Sacra. Scriptura. For whom I answer, that his sentence must be understood of no particular foundation, or else he should give more than any Papist will require, concerning their humane Ecclesiastical Ceremonies. As for his instances in the solemnities of Easter, it seemeth he reckoned them among Ceremonies of order and decency, because as the Def. and Rej. confess, that is the only place authorising humane institutions in Religion. If he meant otherwise, he did as a man, cross his own rules, as after (God willing) shall be showed.  
For the present, let that testimony of Zanchie be well considered, which he setteth down in Col. 2.8. It is certain, that this consequence is very good: this or that is not according to Christ: therefore it is not to be admitted. This aught to be enough to any Christian man: It is not according to Christ: therefore I admit it not, in the business of attaining to salvation. Where is to be noted, 1. That according to Christ, is opposed (by the Apostle) to according to the traditions of men, and therefore is all one, with not appointed by Christ. 2, that all Ceremonies instituted to teach the doctrine pertaining to salvation, are part of the means whereby we are supposed to be helped & directed, in seeking and attaining salvation.  
4. About junius, there is more ado, because his words are set down at large on both pars. But as for that which the Def. and rejoinder cite out of him, pag. 109. I cannot say much more than hath been answered to the other Divines, until a consequence be framed out of them, more effectual to the purpose, then is in that which the rejoined. only quaestioneth. And doth the rule 1. Cor. 14. concern nothing but circumstances of Order? Or can our opposites be accorded with this saying? For it hath been formerly manifested what that rule doth require, and how it may be accorded with our tenant.  
On the other part, this professed, sworn sentence of junius is alleged: If any man, either by Civil, or Ecclesiastical authority, will add things not necessary, nor agreeable to Order, we would not pertinaciously contend with him, but desire only that he would seriously consider of three things. 1. By what authority, or example, he is led to think, that the holy Church of God, and the simplicity of the mysteries of Christ (whose voice only is heard by his sheep) must be clad with humane traditions, which Christ doth reject? 2. To what end he judgeth, that thes things should be added unto those that are divine? For if the end be conformity with others, it were more equity, that other Churches should conform to those, which come nearest to the Word of God (as Cyprian's counsel is) then that these should conform to the other. If the end be comeliness, what is more comely than the simplicity of Christ? What is more simple than that comeliness.  
If there be no other reason beside will, then that of Tertullian is to be thought of: The will of God, is the chief necessity, and that the Church of God is not tied unto man's wisdom in things Divine. The third thing to be thought on is, what event always hath followed upon humane traditions, as long experience doth show? Ecclesiastíci, lib. 3. Cap. 5. This testimony is so full, and clear, that it needeth no candle of Commentary, or Consequence, to be set by it. What can the rejoinder answer?  
1. His first is, that junius doth not here condemn our Ceremonies even because they are not commanded in the Word. But he might have remembered out of sect. 2. that the argument is of warrant and direction from the word, not of direct and special commanding. Now junius plainly denieth authority or example of the word, or any thing but man's will, to be the ground of such Ceremonies, and for that cause would have them avoided.  
2. His second is, that junius wrote not this of such Ceremonies as ours: because he speaketh of those that are neither necessary, nor according to order, rejected by Christ, added to Divine things, which must needs import necessity and worship a● fixed unto them. But had it not been better counsel, for the rejoinder to have held his peace, then to let every man see what miserable shifts he is driven to? 1. junius having made this conclusion: that Magistrates may not constitute, and change persons, things, Ceremonies at their pleasure, and that those which teli them they may (as our Def. and rejoinder do in part) are therein no well willers to the Church, propoundeth this question: if it be not in the Magistrate's power, to appoint, or abrogate such things? to which he answereth negatively: because all necessaries, and essentials are appointed by Christ, and as for other not necessary things, above the sphere of order, he gives those reasons, which are in the words, largely cited. Now 1. what a wretched evasion is this, that he spoke not of our Ceremonies?  
He spoke of all not necessary not appointed by Christ: but yet he spoke not of ours.  
This is as some should deny that rule which some logicians call the omni & de nullo, to hold in Ceremonies: or affirm that to be false of English Ceremonies, which is true of all Ceremonies. 2. When our Divines speak against Popish Ceremonies, the rejoinder his ordinary answer is, that they speak of Ceremonies held necessary, and therefore not of such as ours. Now when junius expressly speaketh of Ceremonies not necessary, the rejoinder concludeth, that he could not mean ours or such like. How should any man speak, to put such a rejoinder from having some thing to speak? 3. junius said, that those Ceremonies are unlawfully appointed, which are not convenient to, or required by Order: Ergo (saith the rejoinder.) he could not speak of such as ours are. And yet the same rejoinder manud. pag. 33. confesseth our Ceremonies to be double or triple Ceremonies and those of order, to be only single. Neither could he ever yet find any fit place, to show our Ceremonies agreeable to order.  
Nay when the Repl. by this argument, out of 1. Cor. 14.40. proved these Ceremonies unlawful, the Rej. fled from Order, to Decency, and Edification.  
And yet here in this place, being beaten out of those coverts by judicious junius, he betaketh himself again to that halfmoon of order, which before he had quitted. 4. junius saith, such Ceremonies are rejected by Christ: Therefore (saith the rejoinder:) he cannot mean such as ours. As if he should say, those that affirm our Ceremonies are rejected by Christ, cannot mean our Ceremonies. 5. junius speaketh of Ceremonies added to divine things: and so (by the rejoinder his collection, not of such as ours, because that must needs import necessity, and worship affixed to them. And yet both Def. and Rej. cap. 2. sect. 3. can find out many additions to Divine things, which are intended only for preservation of them, and therefore (by their own judgement) must not needs import necessity, and worship. Such turning, winding, and running against walls, you shall seldom see an ingenuous man use in a good cause.  
5. Two things yet the rejoinder noteth in the by: 1. junius would not resist such things pertinaciously, as the Repl. doth 2. junius speaking against cladding Gods ordinances with the garments of humane Ceremonies, had another meaning, than the Def. p. 3. rejoinder pag. 5. where he calleth such Ceremonies as ours, the garment of Religion: because by clothing junius meant adorning and hiding of nakedness, but the Def. opposed garments to members of the body: and therefore the Repl. need not by his marginal note have applied junius his clothing to the Def. his garment. Now for the first of these, there is difference betwixt pervicatious contending, without reason and measure, which junius modesly putteth from him, and that constant restistance which he himself teacheth here in this place, where he affirmeth that Christ's sheep (even in such Ceremonial matter) will not nor aught to hear any voice but Christ's. For this, he foreseeing that it would be accounted pervicacy, disclaimeth that, and yet doth thoroughly resist. So would the Rep. if he may have leave: If not, I see not why he may not do the same thing, though he be censured for it, as junius feared he should be.  
And this I may truly say, I have heard the Repl. more than once profess, that when, in studying of Divinity, he was something perplexed about Ceremonies and such like humane institutions, by reason of some ambiguous, and ill consenting passages of some others, this one place of junius (so solemnly confirmed with the oath of such a man, for his sincerity and unpartiallnesse in the business, and alleging such grave reasons for his judgement therein) did very much affect him, and first settle his mind for such matter. So that if he be deceyved, junius hath deceyved him. But he hath now more cause than before, to esteem much of this place because, the utmost that the rejoinder could say to it, is as good as just nothing.  
As for the difference which the rejoinder would find, betwixt that clothing of Religion, which junius taxeth, and the garment of Religion, which the Defend maintaineth, I cannot discern it.  
For 1. If junius meant adorning, as the rejoinder saith he did, that is one office of a garment, and such a one as the rejoinder ascribeth to Ceremonies in respect of Religion, pag. 95. where is said that they are comely formalities, suitable to the dignity and variety of divine actions. 2. If junius meant hiding of nakedness of Religion, he meant it only in the esteem of those which impose such Ceremonies. And so all they that add their Ceremonies to Religion, as useful garments, do seem to account it (in comparison) naked without them. 3. If the Def. meant to show, that our Ceremonies are not essential limbs of the body of Religion, so did junius mean to show, that those which add their Ceremonies to God's ordinances, do pretend, they add only clothing, not members, to the body of Religion. Neither is this snaching at words, as the rejoinder termeth it. For it is, and hath been an ordinary commendation of Ceremonies, that they are as a garment to Religion. Whence it was that a Scottishman (as I remember) at the first coming of King james into England, hearing them maintained under that name, answered that he wondered then how Religion did live, and thrive, in the cold country of Scotland; without such linsiewoolsy garments?  
6. Unto this full testimony of junius, the Repl. added the words of Zanchie, another witness of the Defend. His words in his epistle to Q. Elizabeth, are these: the Church must be ordered by the rule of the Apostolcall Church, as well in Ceremonies, as in doctrine. The rejoinder answereth 1. that this is no more contrary to the Def. then to Zanchie himself, acknowleging (elsewhere) some Ceremonies lawful, which have neither command nor testimony of Scripture, which he would never say of doctrinals. Now 1. If it be also against Zanchie himself, yet it disableth his testimony, for the Def. 2. This which is alleged out of him, for Ceremonies without testimony or foundation in Scripture, hath been answered before, that it must needs be understood of particular foundation. And so he might well say the same of doctrinals. For in this there is no difference betwixt Ceremonies, and many other things, which are not Ceremonies, and yet appertain to Conscience. As the Apostle said: let all things be done comely and in order, so said he also: whatsoever things are venerable, or honest, just, of good report, and praise, let them be doen.  
All the particulars of these latter, are not Ceremonial: and yet many hundreds of such things have no more command, or testimony in Scripture, than the particulars of order and Decency: Neither have the generals of order and Decency, less command and testimony in Scripture then the general of these.  
His 2. answer that Zanchies comparison is to be understood of similitude, not of equality, is in the former words answered.  
For no disparity can be showed, betwixt many particulars of Doctrinal points, in their cases of practice, considered with all circumstances, and the particulars of Decency and Order: much less betwixt their generals. As for example it is as difficult for D. B. to fetch from any doctrine in Scripture, this particular: It is venerable, just, and of good report, for him to write such a rejoinder as he hath done, as this particular: the Cross in Baptism is orderly, decent, and to edification. I take both to be impossible. But suppose both to be probable, the former (being no Ceremony) is no more determined in Scripture, than the later.  
There hath been a fashion taken up of speaking otherwise, but no reason can be rendered of it. Let any man show the reason, and I will yield.  
The epistle out of which this quotation is, was written in deed against our Ceremonies, yet the Repl. leaving to a fit place, noted only for the present purpose, that it was written of them. But the rejoined. being great with an observation or two, addeth about that: Moreover Zanchie when he wrote to Q Eliz. to persuade her not to urge the Ceremonies so severely, did write at the same time to B. jewel, that Ministers should rather yield to them, then leave their places: because they are not simply unlawful.  
To which I answer 1. Zanchie writ to Q. Eliz not only that the Ceremonies should not be so severely urged, but also that they ought not to be urged, imposed, or allowed of at all, but abolished. And of this his judgement, he gave such effectual reasons, as can never be answered. Among other, one is proper unto this place, and fit here to be remembered, because it overthroweth all that warrant which the Def. and rejoinder have hitherto, or can hereafter plead for them, out of 1. Cor. 14. Order, Decency, Edification. These Ceremonies saith he make not for edification, but for public dissension, private perturbation of conscience, with scandal of good and bad. They make not for order, but disorder, and confusion of good Ministers with evil or Popish, who ought even in garments to differ. They make not for decency of Christ's Spouse: because they are a strange ridiculous, idolatrous attire of this Romish whore.  
2. Zanchie when he writ unto B. jewel, gave no reason of this counsel for yielding, but left them to be invented by B. jewel. Now because those reasons of yielding were never yet made known, whereby the former reasons directed by Zanchie against urging can possibly be overborne, I cannot otherwise think, but this later counsel was more out of charity guided by humane erring prudence, than out of judgement grounded on Scripture. Howsoever our question is, not only of yielding in case of extreme necessity, but also of appointing and urging men to that extreme necessity.  
3. Zanchie doth not persuade to allow of these Ceremonies by subscription, or silence, but only in extreme necessity, to yield unto them, and that with Protestation. 
Etsi fortitorestistendum est Magistr●it illis traditionum et leges: Po●tificum acriter v●tuperand●, quib●s in Populum Dei,  Now this was according to a kind of charitable Policy, which Luther is author of about all Popish Ceremonies: de Libertate Christiana, in these words: Although we must manfully resist those Masters of traditions, and the laws of the Popes wherewith they overrun the people of God are tartly to be dispraised, 
●t assantur, tarbae tamen pavi dae parcendum est, quam captivam tenent eisdem leg●●us impij illi tyranni, donec explicentur, In liges & legissatores ivehu●is, et tamen simoul serves 〈◊〉 infirmis, donec et insi tyrannid●m cognos●ant & liberta●●m suam intellegaus.  yet the timorous multitude (whom those wicked Tyrants lead captive with the same laws) must stoop till they be plainly laid open. You may inveigh against the laws and law makers, but withal you may observe them with the weak, until both they do know the Tyranny and come to understand their liberty.  
But 1. what warrant have we for such a course but of God's word? 2. Mr. Hooker, pag. 247. derideth this course, as a Theory neither allowable, nor any way practicable in England.  
3. Our opposites, that defend, and commend the Ceremonies, as orderly decent things, tending to Edification, cannot without contradiction assent unto this counsel. D. B. in deed did formerly begin after some manner, to put some piece of this course in practice. But the ill success that he found in it, hath since made him, & others, keep far from that part of it, which concerns Protestation, and in stead thereof, to turn them unto Commendation. Did ever any that writ for our Ceremonies, writ such an Epistle as Zanchies, unto Queen, or King? Can they say so much, and do as they do? Nay is there any Bishop, that dare licence Zanchie his Epistles, to Queen Eliz and B. jewel, both together, for to be printed in English?  
These things being so, I leave it unto consideration, unto whom the rejoinder his affected censure belongeth: Now wel-sare a good stomach: He cannot resist, but he will not yield.   

SECT. 20.21. Concerning Reasons against the Negative Argument from Scripture.  
1. THe Def. his first reason is: Whatsoever is unlawful is a trangression of some law revealed in the word. Ergo against it. Ergo not only beside it. The Repl. granteth all: and showeth, that it is a mere fantasy, before confuted, as a cavil, in the Reply, and long since, by Mr. Cartwrights, 2. Rep. p. 56. not agreeable to the very words of the Argument, to which it is opposed. Upon this the rejoined. poureth out words He turneth head: O strange! a Babe owned from the birth, suckled by many Scriptures, an ill favoured faced brat, absurd, contradictory, when he is taken in a snare, he says he is mistaken. And what reason hath he to back or bear out all these words with? If the Scriptures (saith he) condemn what soever is done not only against, but beside t●e direction thereof, then doth it condemn something as unlawful for being only beside it, and not any way against it. To which I answer, that it doth not follow: because a thing may be only beside the word some way, and yet some way against it. Only beside the particular prescript of it, and yet against the general command of it.  
If a Father charge his son, or a Master his servant, first that for a certain time, he do nothing beside that which he shall bid him: and then command him for that time, to read in a certain book, if that son, or servant, shall beside reading paint antic f●ces in his book, he shall do only beside the particular commande, and yet against the general charge, & both ways censurable. Let the rejoinder therefore spare his words, and see better to his Argument, or rather eat both, that others be not troubled with them.  
2. The second reason, brought by the Def. was: Nothing that is indifferent, can be pronounced simply unlawful. But some Ceremonies of man's invention are indifferent. Ergo, not to be pronounced simply unlawful. All which is granted of circumstances of Order, if by invention, be meant determination; otherwise, the Assumption is denied. Though it was added also (exsuperabundante) that things indifferent are sometime taken so generally, that in that sense, the proposition may be denied. Against this, I cannot discern what material thing is rejoined. He saith, that it is easy to say the Assumption is false, and not to show wherein. But I have hitherto thought that it is sufficient for answer to any Argument, to deny the Assumption, until it be proved: and that the falsity of any sentence, doth consist in this, that it pronounceth otherwise then the thing is, and therefore in saying an assumption is false, it is not needful, to show wherein.  
He saith also that the largest sense of things indifferent, doth make no variation of things indifferent. But the Author, and place, was named to him: Sopingius in his Apology ad lib. Anonym. pag. 166. Where the case is very pertinent. For Doctor Sibrandus was challenged by a Remonstrant, who entitled his book, Bona fides Sitrandi, that as in an Epistle Dedicatory to the Archebishop of Canterbury, he had, to win his favour the more against Vorstius, and his, declared his judgement of the Hierarchy (and Ceremonies) of England, to be things indifferent, so he spoke of the Magistrates power, under the same term unfitly, Sopingius, a godly learned man, who had beme a Scholar under Sibrandus, and so desired to help him out of this brier, had no other way to do it, but by saying that all those things are sometime called indifferent, which are not necessary to salvation, or without which a man may be saved.  
Now in this sense, the Repl. said, the proposition might be denied: viz. that nothing indifferent 1. e. not necessary to salvation, is unlawful. The rejoinder ●it seemeth) had not the book, and so ventured to contradict he knew not what.  
3. The third argument was: There must needs always be variety of Ceremonies in several Churches. Ergo all are not prescribed.  
The Repl. answereth, that there neither need, nor aught to be any variety, but only in particular circumstances of order, for time and place etc. Here the Rej. (complaining of Coleworts, and of not caring to say any thing, so it be in opposition) bringeth in to the contrary some examples of civil decency, variable according to times and places. But all such things the Repl. contained in his etc. He addeth also variety of solemn feasts But before those can have place here, it must be proved, that such feasts must needs be. But (saith he) never any Divine so spoke before Mr. jacob. And hath he soon forgotten, what was even now recited by himself out of junius? Such kind of Rejoinders will never be wanting.  
4. The Def. his fourth reason was, that the Nonconformists like well, that every Minister in his Parish, should determine of Rites and Orders: whence would follow variety. Ergo they hold some rites of humane invention and ordination, lawful.  
To this the rejoinder addeth, as an explication in text, and table, that Non-Conformists set up Parish-omnipotence without reference to Bishops, as some teach, or to Synods, as other. Whereby a Minister, and some of his Parishioners, may ordain some Rites and Ceremonies for their use, and the King, and Church under his authority may not. Now before we come to the Repl. his answers unto the Def. his reason, let us consider a little the rejoinder his addition. 1. The malignant imputation of Parish omnipotency, ill beseemeth our Opposites, except that they can show, more power to be given by us unto Ministers and Elders, in their several Congregations, then by them is given to Bishops, For until they can show this (which they are as able to do, as to call effectually that which is not, as if it were) in accusing us, of setting up Parish omnipotency, they confess themselves, to set up Diocesan omnipotency, Convocation-omnipotencie, etc.  
2. It worse beseemeth D. B. than most other, except he will confess, that he, when he was Minister at the Hagh, in Holland, and with the consent of his people, ordered things in that Congregation (as to receyve the Communion sitting at the table, to leave out the Cross in Baptism, and Surplice in all Divine service) did then and there set up Parish-omnipotencie. 3. It is an injury, more than ordinary, to make us (any way) extol the authority of a Minister, above the authority of the King, in any matter of appointing and ordaining. For though a Minister may do something in his administration, which no other man can lawfully do, yet none of us ever thought, that he may appoint and ordain any thing to be done, with coactive authority, which the King may do, in all things lawful, and convenient; even in Church affairs. So that our tenant is, that the Minister, and his people, may use no Ceremony, nor exercise any public act of worship, which the King may not appoint, command, and compel them to. For in holding that no such thing is to be done, beside that which Christ hath appointed, and that the King may, and aught to see that all Christ's institutions be observed, we must needs be confessed to hold that assertion, which is the conclusion of these two. 4. The fallacious ground of this accusation is, that the Minister with his people, may occasionally order some things, which no man absent can, not for want of authority, but for want of presence to observe the occasion: as what time the Church meeting shall begin, upon that day, that the Communion is to be administered, together with Baptism, and other business, more than ordinary. 5. That which he intermixeth, of reference to Bishops, bringeth all the Churches of France, Netherlands, etc. under his Censoriall note, of Parish-omnipotencie.  
Thus much for the rejoinder apart. Now to the Def. 1. His Argument is rejected, as supposing, all Circumstances to be of like nature with these in controversy. No (saith the rejoinder) but only that one would like one thing, and one another. But I say yes, or else he cannot argue from one to the other. For what consequence is in this: Men may determine of simple circumstances for order and decency: Ergo they may ordain double, triple, sacred, significant Ceremonies proper to Religion? beside he nameth in his supposition Festival days.  
2. The second fault, found in the Def. his argument was, it supposeth all circumstances to be of institution. No, saith the rejoinder again. Let him therefore put ordaining out of the Sum which he hath made of the Def. his reason, and confess also, that this reason maketh nothing for men's instituting of Ceremonies.  
3. The third was, it supposeth contrary circumstances, ceremoniously to be practised, by the same men as of institution. Not so (saith the rejoinder:) but only cantrarie fashions practised by several men, out of their election. Yet it seemeth to be for the most part so: because the question is of Ceremonies, and Ceremonious practising, not of incidental fashions. Of institution, which the Def. calleth ordaining, not of voluntary occasional election. If by variety of observing Festival days, and not observing them, was by the Def. understood of several men, then in that part he was misunderstood by the Repl. Now upon these premises, the rejoinder concludeth all the Repl. his answer to be nothing but boggling and scurrility. What would he have said, if one had accused him of setting up Diocesan, and Convocation omnipotency.  
It seemeth that (though he aboundeth in that faculty) he would have wanted reproachefull words, to express his indignation of such an imputation.  
5. In opposition to this misshapen Argument of the Def. taken from Non-conformists confession, the Rep. propounded one, from the Conformists' confession: You say these Ceremonies are Divine, and yet dare not deny, but the rejecting of them in other Churches, is Divine.  
You retain these Ceremonies as Divine, and yet reject other Ceremonies, of like nature, as divine as these. What divinity (or agreement) is in such courses? To this, the rejoinder answereth, that this argueth an ill conscience: because the Def. doth not say that these our Ceremonies are Divine, but that in respect of permissive appointment, and in these, they are divine, in particular, and hypothesi, humane. And this may be said of the different Ceremonies of several Churches. For ill Conscience, I will not be so liberal in charging the rejoinder as he is prodigal of it toward the Repl. But ill science I can easily prove. For 1. He denieth the Def. to call our Ceremonies Divine: because (forsooth) he calleth them so in the general, and not in their special: for so the Def. doth interpret his own terms.  
Which is as much as to say, he that doth not call them every way Divine, doth not call them Divine. 2. He passeth by the main terms of our Argument Divine rejecting of the same Ceremonies in other Churches, Rejecting of other Ceremomonies, as Divine as these in our Church; and for these he putteth only, different divine Ceremon. in several Churches. This sure is no scientifical kind of answer. 3. No Divinity will suffer any thing to be called Divine, but that which (all circumstances considered) may at least necessarily be concluded out of the Divine law. Otherwise all good humane laws may be called Divine laws. Now we have hitherto expected in vain, when our Ceremonies may be so concluded.  
It is altogether impossible, that the institution, and Rejection, of Cross, and Surplice, in diverse places, should be both Divine, or that the urging of these, and abolishing of Images, should be Divine, in the same place, and time. This part therefore of the Argument, the rejoinder thought good, to answer with silence.   

SECT. 22. Concerning the Assumption, of the main Argument, handled in this Chapter.  
1. THe Repl. set down the Def. his plea, with a general answer thus: After all this ado about the Proposition of the first Argument, Now we are told of an Assumption, out of the Abridgement, and Mr. High: viz: that Ceremonies have no warrant out of the word of God being humane inventions, For Mr. High: I cannot say much (because his reasons are not in print) but for ●he Authors of the Abridgement, they have great wrong done them. Whosoever will turn to the place quoted by the Def. in the Abridgement, shall see, that the words which our Def. hath turned into a Proposition, are there but part of an illustration, belonging to this proposition: All Ceremonies that swerve from the Rules given in the Word, for the Church's direction, in matters of Ceremonies, are unlawful. The Assumption of which is: But the Ceremonies in question, do swerve from those Rules. Now all this chief pith, both of Proposition, and Assumption, is by the Def. omitted: A by thing is put in place of the Proposition. A new assumption is form: and yet all fathered upon the Abridgement. What hath the rejoinder to say against all this? 1. This demurrer should have come in at the first. But first, or last, if it be true which here said, the Def. cannot be defended.  
2. The Repl. granted the whole Argument, sect. 2. In saying (forsooth) that he took for granted, whatsoever was there said for the all-sufficiency of Scripture.  
3. This of itself, is an Argument against our Ceremonies. What then? the Authors of the Abridgement, may yet have wrong, if it be made theirs, against their will. 4 It is fit to be the first Argument, because if this be granted, all other rules are vain. The question is nother of fitness for place, but of fitting it to the Abridgement. Yet this whole Argument being granted (according to our meaning) of those that the rejoinder calleth double triple Ceremonies, the Rules have use about single ones. 5. The Proposition is taken out of the Abridgement, pag. 44. and the Assumption is fitted to it, Let it be so, yet if that be made a proposition of theirs, which only was an illustration, or confirmation of their proposition, and (a new assumption fitted unto it according to an adversaries pleasure) the whole argument fathered upon them, as a first and chief one, this surely cannot be excused from wrong doing.  
2. To the Def. his answer unto the Assumption, viz. that in general and permissive appointment, our Ceremonies are (not humane but) Divine, the Repl. said that he understood not a permissive appointment, to be other than an appointment without appointment: because to permit, is neither to command or appoint, nor forbidden.  
Here the rejoinder among many shrewd words, hath this reason that the same things are commanded, in general, but in particular are only permitted, And for ignorance of this, he twi●teth the Repl. with want of logic. But I cannot yet see, out of any logic how a general can be commanded, generally, and any true special or particular of it be only permitted. He that commandeth all order and comeliness, commandeth also every special of it. Every general command, applied unto his true special subject, maketh that specially commanded.  
It is commanded in general that every husband should love his wife, not in special, that Aquila should love Priscilla: yet suppose Priscilla to be Aquila his wife, she may challenge conjugal love, all so well as if hername had been in that Command in special. Else we may as well say, that superstition, will-worship, or at least disorder, to which order is opposed, is forbidden in general, but some specials of them or it, are only permitted. The truth is, Cross and Surplice, cannot with any show of reason, or common sense, be said to be commanded in general, any more than in special, no nor yet permitted, either in special or in general. The rejoinder hath yet found no fit place, to prove the command though it mainly concerneth his cause, and of itself alone might satisfy any man's conscience, if it could be proved, and the permission is the main question of this whole Dispute.    

Chapter second, Concerning worship.  
ALl the material doctrine of this Chapter is before discussed, in the Manuduction, sect. 5.6.7. Where the nature, distinctions, and differences of worship, are weighed, and found of no moment for our Ceremonies aid. It shall suffice therefore here, to refer the Reader unto those places, adding only some notes, upon some passages, formerly not declared.  

SECT. 1. Concerning worship, distinguished into proper, or essential, and unproper, or accidental.  
1. THe Def. saith, that by proper and essential worship, he understood Ceremonies so necessarily required to God's service, as that the contrary thereof must needs displease him.  
Hereupon the Repl. inferred, that all Ceremonies, which serve for decency, and edification, must needs be proper and essential worship: because the contrary of decency and edification must needs displease God, in his worship.  
Mark now the rejoinder his answer: The contrary of decency and edification displeaseth God. But the contrariety of particular Rites, serving to decency and edification, do not displease him: because they fall into one and the same general kind, without contrariety thereto, or therein. As fire & water are not contrary to an element, nor black and white, to colour, nor reasonable, and unreasonable, to a creature: so contrary orders, contrary formalities of decency, and contrary means of edification, are not contrary to order, decency and edification. All this answer dependeth upon a distinction betwixt general, and special.  
Now 1. This is a certain, infallible rule: what essence soever is found in any general, that must needs be in every special, contained under it. There is no essence in an element generally taken, which is not both in the fire, and water, none in colour so taken, but is both in black and white, none in the notion of a creature, which is not in man and beast. From hence therefore it necessarily followeth, that if Order and decency in general, be essential worship, every true special of them must needs be so.  
2. It is not of, or for nothing, that the rejoinder doth so waver in his speech: contrary Ceremonies serving to comeliness, and edification, contrariety of orders, contrariety of formalities of comelínesse, and means of edification. For this means, all his answer is at least put out of comely order serving to edification. For that which serveth to comeliness, and order, all formalities of them, and all means are not specials, under the genus or general of decency, order, edification, but under the general of means, formalities, etc. So that the whole distinction is confounded, by this wordy explication of it. 3. Contrariety of orders he confesseth, and yet denieth them to be contrary to Order: As if order contrary to order, were not contrary to order! He will say no, not to order in general. But then that order in special, must have some specifical difference, not contained in the general of order, making the contrariety: which should (if it could) have been declared. By the same proportion, also as he acknowledgeth contrary orders, he must also acknowledge contrary decencies, and edifications: and this hath need of declaraiion, because it is a new invention▪ not to be trusted, before it be tried. 4. By order, in this place, must needs be meant good order, otherwise, it were as well order, to set the cart before the horse, as the horse before the cart. Now in good order, the things ordered may be someway contrary, as black and white horse set before the cart, and yet the order one and the same: and so in decency. Edification is only an end. But good order, and decency of the same things, in their particular or inviduall use, can be no more contrary to any good order, & decency of the same things in the same use, them blackto black & white to white. 5. The plain truth is, that order and Decency (as they pertain to our question) do arise out of the outward disposition and temper of things, as health doth out of the inward disposition and temper of the body, and therefore doth admit no more contrariety, then good health doth.  
2. Because the Def. in his distinction, placed Edification only on the part of Accidental worship, that was noted as a flaw. To which the rejoinder answereth, that essential parts of worship serve also to edification, and worship of themselves. But 1. this can be no more gathered out of the Def. his words, then that all essential worship serveth for decency: for he placeth these two together, as ends of accidental parts of worship, that they serve for decorum, and edification. 2. This is but to help a broken leg, with a broken crutche. For essential worship tending to worship of itself, is as broken a phrase, as the former was a distinction.  
3. It was noted also, that the Def. confounded appurtenances, and parts of worship. The rejoinder answereth, that those things which are appurtenances only in proper, simple, and strict sense, are parts of worship improperly, and in a sort. So in deed at the University, among Sophisters impropriè, laxè, modo quodam, quodammodo, are wont to help at a dead lift. But that which is only an appurtenance of worship, is no more worship, than a Bishop's Rochet, is a Bishop.  
4. About the same distinction, a question was made how any worship can be not essential, that is, not having the essence of worship in it. The rejoinder answereth, that these appurtenances have in them the essence of accidental worship, but not the essence of substantial. So then, they are essential accidental worship: and why not as well substantial accidental? A Rochet hath no more in it the essence, than the substance, of an accidental Bishop.  
5. The Repl. his last, was, that those which the Def. calleth accidental parts of worship, have not (by his own express confession, in this sect.) so much communion with the essential, as the hair of the body (which is but an excrement) hath with the body, and therefore cannot be accounted a part of worship. The Rej. here. 1. answereth, that they are in deed no part of essential worship, but of the compliment of worship, as garments are of men's external honour. So that now we are come to have that expressed, which before was implied, the Ceremonies may be called worship, as a Bishop's Rochet, or other Bishoply garment may be called a Bishop. Though it might be also further inquired, if Ceremonies be parts of the compliment, what the other parts of that compliment may be? Certes he that divided worship into essential and accidental parts, did not mean worship, and the compliments of worship, much less, parts of essential worship, and parts of compliment. If he did, his speech, and meaning, do not well agree together. 2. He taketh great exception against the term of excrement, as not well appliable to the hair of ones beard, savouring of a spirit full of rancour, to be judged of God as a reproach, tending to breed scorn and abhorring of these Ceremonies, in the minds of ignorant men. At all which a man might have laughed, if God's name had beme spared, in so frivolous a matter. All Philosophers, that ever I I heard, or read, heathen, and Christian, call and define the hair of men's bodies, an excrement. All Divines, when they speak of hypocrites in the Church, compare them to the hair of a man's body, under the term of excrement. I therefore would not be loath to hear one call the hair of my beard, an excrement. Neither can I smell any savour of a rancourous spirit, or any reproach, in that phrase. As for breeding of scorn in the minds of ignorant men, one would think, it should not be objected by him, that a little before spoke of Parish-omnipotencie, and stuffeth his book with such terms, as I am loath (for his sake) to repeat, but that they cannot be more gently refuted, then by bare repeating, after the occasion of them is discussed.   

SECT. 2. Concerning adding to God's worship.  
IN the second section, the rejoinder hath nothing materially, to be newly, or now first confuted, save only that about adding to God's word, and worship: which only therefore, needeth here to be discussed.  
1. God's laws of Praemunire, against all humane presumtions, in his Worship, are famously known. Deut. 4. and 12. Thou shalt not add any thing thereto. No man ever writ one sheet of paper against Popish Ceremonies, which did not confute them by these places. The Papists have marked this: Haeretiti accusantes Ceremonias a Deo non institutas, superstitionis, & idolatriae, fundantur praecipue in Deut. 12. Swarez de Relig. vol. 1. lib. 2. cap: 1. The Def. and the rejoinder their answer, is the same, that most Papists use: In these places, where addition is forbidden, is meant only addition of corruption, not any addition of preservation and additions made divine, not humane. Now 1. for the first part of the first distinction, God forbiddeth only an addition of corruption, It is worth the considering, which learned Chamier answereth, 
De Canone, lib. 8. cap: 6. Inductio contrarij pracepti, non solet, imo nec potest quidem Additio nominati In Additione ●nim utrumque manet: at cantrariae s●invicem tollunt.  The bringing in of a Contrary precept is neither used for, nor can be called Addition, for in Addition both remain, but contraries destroy each other. He that setteth a house on fire, or poisoneth a man, or corrupteth any thing, is not usuallly said to add unto them. 2. By the second distinction, no addition unto God's will and testament, is more forbidden, then unto man's. As it were a sin to add any thing unto God's Testament as divine, so also were it to add any thing unto man's testament, or testimony, and make it his, when it is not his. None may add any thing to D. M. his Defense, or D. B. his rejoinder, and make it theirs, when it is not theirs. Such additions, are usually called lies, sufficiently forbidden by the ninth Commandemenr: so that no indifferent man will think, that nothing more is contained in these prohibitions, so often and earnestly urged, in strict reference unto the holy ordinances, and worship of God, which by this interpretation, can challenge no privilege from them.  
2. For the second part of these distinctions: humane additions of preservation, the Repl. observed, that addition was, in the text, expressly forbidden, as a means of keeping or praeserving God's word, and worship: Deut. 4.2. To which it seemeth a contradiction, that addition may be for Keeping, or praeserving. To which the rejoinder answereth nothing else, but that, therefore addition hindering is forbidden, but not addition keeping. That is, he denieth the conclusion, but answereth not to the proof. But he addeth an example: He that leaves a jewel to be safely kept, doth not forbid the provision of a Cabinet, with lock, and key, to keep it in. True: Neither doth any man dream, but the King's authority, and Churches care, may, and aught to be as a Cabinet with lock, and key, to praeserve God's ordinances and worship. But what is this to additions? and to such additions, as our Ceremonies in question? The Lord's ordinance is, that the Sacrament of Circumcision should cease. For the preservation of this ordinance, the Def. and rejoinder pag. 285. provide a lawful Cabinet, under lock and key, that Circumcision as it is used in some places, may be lawfully appointed, and commanded. The Lord's ordinance is, that Baptism should be administered according to the primitive institution, without such sacrilegious cross, as are in use among Papists. They have provided a Cabinet, under lock and key, for this, that all which are baptised, shall be crossed. The Lords will is, that his holy supper should be received, and used as a supper, notadored.  
They have provided, that all men shall kneel in the receyving of it, for a Cabinet, like to the former.  
3. Cardinal Cajetans' interpretation, was (by the Repl.) alleged addition is forbidden even with the pretext of keeping the commandments of God, as more judicious, 
(Inhibetur additio, etiam pratextucustodiendi mandat● Dei.)  and religious. The Rej. answereth, that Cajetan doth allow the distinction, of additions, into corruptive, and preservative, in Thom. p. 3. q. 6. a 8. and that in the alleged words, meaneth additions corrupting, though pretended for keeping. Now this is as true an interpretation of Cajetans' meaning, and ours also, as can be invented: only that is wanting, whichCajetan (with us) intended, that all additions for preservation, are but pretences. But as for Cajetan his allowing this questioned distinction in 3. q. 60. (for 6. was an error) whosoever will look upon the places, shall find, that neither in Thomas, not in Cajetan, is any mention of addition preserving, which here is the only question. They speak in deed of adding words, to the form used in Baptism, and note, some words do corrupt the sense, and some do not: but not a word of adding Ceremonies preservative. The wordy additions, which they speak of, are as Thomas hath it, I Baptise thee in the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, (and the Virgin Marie:) or as Cajetan hath it: I baptise thee (Sexton what is a clock) in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. If these be additions of preservation let any Christian, that regardeth Baptism, judge.  
4. It was wished, that the Def. had set down some examples, of preservative additions. The rejoinder undertaking it for him, nameth for the Text divers readings, marginal notes, etc. and for the sense, interlineary glosses, notes, marginal references, and commentaries, and then, readings by sections, building and ordering of Synagogues, and a thousand such. And in deed he might as well name divers thousands, as these. But 1. if so many thousand Ceremonies may be added lawfully to God's law, what meant Augustine, and all our Divines, out of him, to complain of such an intolerable burden of Ceremonies, in regard of their number? 2. Divers readings, are no more additions, than Coningstable and Constable, are to the Statute of Constables. Marginal notes, no more, than an exposition is to the text, which kind of addition, the Papists do wickedly allege for their doctrinal traditions. interlineary glosses, notes marginal references Commentaries of the same nature. Reading by sections, building, and ordering, are evidently things of mere order, of which, if any man shall say they are additions, then if he be a poor man, he may make great addition to the little money he hath, by dividing it into sections, placing it fitly, and disposing of it orderly a hundred ways, to the increase (as it were) of a hundred fold: which would be a welcome doctrine (if it were true) to many a poor man, and even to those which are impoverished by the Bishop's silencings, deprivations, and excommunications, for not allowing of additions to God's worship.  
5. It was also justly questioned, if there were not a diminution, or taking from, for preservation, as well as an addition of that kind: because in the Text they are joined together, as drawing in one yoke? The rejoinder answereth no. And denieth the consequence, by example of hardening, and showing mercy, joined together, without the same mertiorious cause. But 1. the example doth not agree: because the question was not of a meritorious cause, but of a final. And in the chief or last end, hardening, & showing mercy do agree. 2. I can easily, find out a detraction, as of good preservation, as the addition of a Cabinet with lock and key.  
For from a sword, or any other iron weapon, a man may well detract rust, for the preservation of it, From an aguish man, blood may be detracted, for the preservation of his life, nay sometime a leg, or an arm, may be cut off, for preservation of the body. So that, all things considered, the rejoinder will upon second thoughts, either cashier in God's worship, his addition of preservation, or else add unto it, a detraction or diminution of preservation. Calvin in his nineteenth sermon upon Deutrinomie, hath this remarkable sentence.  
Let us assure ourselves, we shall ever be unruly and wildheaded, until our Lord hath tamed us, by long handling, and made us stick to this ground, that it is no more lawful for us, in any wise, to add any thing to his law, than it is lawful for us, to take any thing from it.  
6. It was likewise observed, that this praetence hath been always the shoeing-horne, to draw on superstition with. For (as Calvin noteth on Matt. 15) Legislatoris ipsi non jactabant, se novum quicquam tradere, sed tantum add●re cavendi formulas, quae media ossent adminicula, ad servandam Dei legem. The old Masters of Ceremonies pretended always, that they meant only to bringe-in additions of preservation. Like enough (saith the rejoinder:) But this very inlet of superstitious things, under the praetence of bringing in only preservative means, doth witness that such additions as are preservative, were always allowed by God's people, as confirmation of error by Scripture, doth show the dignity of holy Scripture. This is in deed as fair a praetence, for an inlet of superstition, as can be made. But withal it is manifest from thence, that is is no sufficient, but a very suspicious answer, for Ceremonies, accused of superstition, to say, and not to prove, that they are preservations. Yet these Ceremonie-mongers had all their pretence properly from means of preservation, which are and were always allowed by God, and his people, not from additions.  
Our Parliament statutes made for establishing of true religion, are a means of praeserving it in England: but I think that Hon. Assembly would take it ill, if the Rej. should publish to the world, that their Laws are additions to the word, and worship of God.  
The rejoinder addeth, that Calvin in the place alleged, doth account these praetented additions to have been corruptions, from the first. Now (though this is not here, but in another place, after to be handled) let the Reader guess of calvin's account, by these his words: Afterward there came teachers who did not think themselves should be esteemed acute enough unless they did patch something of their own to the word of God. 
Superveneran● doct●res qu●se non ●uta●ant sat●s acutos ha●itum ●ri, nisi aliquid assuerent vervo Dei Nulla tollerabilis est ad legem Dei accessio Secundarie illae leges a curiosis homin●bus inventae sunt, quasi simplex Dei mandatum non sufficeret. Novas ablutiones comminisci, otiosa vanitatis fuit. Si acqutevissent in leg● Dei, magis illi probata suisset modestia, quam scrupulosa anxieta●.  Yet no addition to that word is tolerable. Those secondary laws are devised of curious men, as if the single and simple command of God were not enough. To invent new washings was an idle vanity. Had they rested in the law of God their modesty wou●d have been more pleasing to him, than their Scrupulous anxiety in doing otherwise.  
If this be not enough, to show calvin's judgement, of Ceremonious additions, let that be added, which he saith to Cassander, and therefore to the Def. and rejoinder teaching the very same doctrine of Ceremonies, 
Statuit, Ceremonias a Christo institutas, caste, & integré observandas nihil eornm institutions, tan quam mutilati●, & imperfectis, addendum. Est hoc quidem aliquid quamvis non totum: quia alios omnes ritus obliqu● artificio, in Ecclesiam admittit. Sed haec dimidia veritas evertitur, quamdò Apostolis, corumque successoribus jus concessum esse credit, Ceremonias instituendi quae in Sacramentis administrandis, ornatus loco accederent. Ergo, qui nihil addendum conf●ssus erat, nune adve●ritias traditiones, non medò admitrit se●eti●● commendat. Verum arguto effug●o se expediet: modo ne Sacramenta putentur mutila, aut imperfecta, fereacas esse accessiones. Ita quibuscumque mixt uris, prope in novam figurom murata fuerint Sacramenta, nihil erit vit●j, m●do ne palam Christo exprobret ur, mancum esse, vel mutilum, quod instituit, etc.  that Cassander did. Opusc. pag. 355. He taught that the Ceremonies ordained by Christ are to be kept entirely, and incorruptly: and nothing must be added to their institution as if they were lame or imperfect, which indeed is somewhat, but it is not all, because by an indirect shift he would let into the church all other rites. But this half truth is overturned, when he believes a right given to the Apostles and their Successors, to institute such ceremonies in the administration of the Sacraments which may be for ornament. Therefore he which confessed before nothing should be added, doth now not only admit such by-Ceremonies, but also commands them. Yet will he help himself with a subtle shift, viz. additions are to be endured, if the Sacraments be not held lame or imperfect, therefore with what mixtures you will, the Sacraments may be wholly changed, and yet all be well, so be you charge not Christ to his teeth, that any of his institutions go lame, and halting etc.  
7, It was lastly added, that this answer of the Def. was Bellarmine's answer to Calvin, about this very point and place: the effect Sacr. lib, 2. Cap. 32. Prohibit Dominus additionem corrumpentem, as the Def. translateth it, an addition of corruption is forbidden. Which was the rather added, because the Def. had so vainly objected unto the authors of the Abridgement, symbolising with Bell●●mine. It might otherwise have been added, th●t it is not only Bellamines answer, but also Gregory's de Valentia, tom. 4. disp. 6. q. 11. p. 1. et tom. 3. disp. 6. q. 2. p. 7. Swarezes', de Relig. vol. 1. lib. 2. cap. 1. Baroninses; ad an 53. pag. 459. and that it is the common answer of Papists, in defence of their Ceremonies against this place, urged upon them by our Divines. Yet some few spying the vanity of this answer, as being ashamed of it, have found out another, of like stamp: For Cornelius a Lapide, in his Commentary on Deut. 12.32. so expoundeth the words of this prohibition: In rebus & Ceremonijs Dei, fac tantum illud, quod Deus, vel per se, vel per Vicarios suos, puta sacerdotes praeceperit. Which agreeth well with that of the Def. and rejoinder. Use ●hose Ceremonies only, which God, either by himself, or by the Convocation house doth command. And some more ancient, and therefore less praejudiced Papists, confess, this law did forbid all humame Ceremonies to the jews. So Tostatus, Defensorij par. 2. cap. 8. as also in Deut. 12. q. 12. that consequency is found among the Hebrews about the observation of Ceremonials. Something is not found written in the law, therefore the jews are not bound to keep that. Yea which is more, it was not lawful for the jews to observe any Ceremony about the service of God, unless that were written in the law as appears Deut 12. 
Valet insta consequ● utia inter He●raeo●, circa observ irio●em ceremonial●um Auquid n●n reperitur sc●iptum in lege. Ergo non obligantur Iudae● observare illud Im●, quod plus ●st, non licebat Indaeis, observare aeliquam ceremoniam, circa cultum Dei, nisi illud scriptum ●sset in lege, ut patet Deut. 12.   
The rejoinder hath many words, wherewith he raiseth up a great dust, to darken the cause with all. But no man can discern any direct answer of his to the allegation, save only his confession, that the Def. his answer, was Bellarmine's answer to Calvine, about th●s very place. All that he addeth to that confession, hath been before confuted. It shall be sufficient in this place, to set down Calvin's resolute conclusion, out of Sermon 85. in Deut. It is devilish blasphemy, to say, that God hath not taught men all that it behooveth them to do. The common by word here hath place: thou art the Devil's servant: for thou hast done more than was commanded thee. Here is no limitation, of new worships properly so called, which is the Rejoinders shift, but all that it behooveth us to do, is limited to God's command.  
In the fourth section, about Isa. 29. Mat. 15. Col. 2.27 hath nothing material in it, beside those distinctions of worship, which before in the Manduction, section 5.6. and 7. are distinctly examined, and discussed. To those places therefore I refer the Reader, for satisfaction, if there be any needful.   

SECT. 6. Concerning our Divines judgement about Ceremonious worship invented by man.  
THough those three staple sections of the manuduction. 5.6.7. may be sufficient also for clearing of all the materials here exstant, yet referring the Reader thither for the main, I must add something, about divers particulars.  
1. The Replier said▪ that Worship doth not vary according to men opinions, but consists in the nature of the action itself. This is (saith the Rej.) to speak monsters. If he had said, things to him unknowen, it had been enough. For all that he hath not known, are not monsters. But what is his reason of this so deep a censure? because (forsooth) opinion, by error of opinion, doth make that to be essentially false worship, which without such opinion, were no such worship. Of which I may as well say, that this opinion, by error of opinion, doth make the reason essentially false. For 1. the question was not here of essential false worship, but of essential, and accidental worship, whether opinion did make the difference? which the Def. affirmeth, the Repl. denieth, and the rejoined. declineth. 2. The rejoinder hath not yet (that I know of) nor can (as I think) define unto us, what is essential false worship, according to his rules.  
3. Every error of opinion doth not make essential false worship: he should therefore have told us, what error he meant. The Def. nameth opinion of justice, sanctity, efficacy, or divine necessity: and the rejoinder mentioneth often such and such opinion, held of the Papists, concerning all their Ceremonies. Of this enough is said, Manud. sect. 7. For the present, I deny, that such an erroneous opinion, by itself, and of itself, doth not make essential false worship. Opinion is but an adjuvant efficient cause of that affective act, wherein the essence of internal worship consisteth: and the external acts of worship, though efficiently differenced by opinion, or faith, are essentially distinguished by their form, and end. A man may have an opinion, that is just, holy, efficacious, and necessary, to perform divers works of the second Table, nay upon some occasions, to tell a lie, even against the second Table. Yet none speaking properly, will call, that essential false worship, which is a sin directly against the first Table. Hitherto therefore, I see no monster of the Repl. his making. And if we consider his reason well, which the rejoinder made to it, the mishaping of things will be found on the other side. If (saith the Repl.) worship did vary occording unto men's opinions, than a man may go to Mass, conceyving another private opinion to himself, than Masmongers use to have: and our Convocation may appoint us the grossest of all Popish Ceremonies, if they set another opinion upon it. The rejoinder his answers are divers, and some of them strange ones. 1. His first is, that going to mass may be a sin of scandal and presumption, though a man go not thitherto worship. By going to Mass (according to the use of our speech) is meant, doing all those external actions, which Masmongers use to perform. Now the question is, whether he that performeth all those external actions (intending only to save his life thereby, as having no opinion of any other good in so doing) doth only sin of scandal, and praesumtion, or else over and beside this, is guilty of external false worship? the rejoinder seemeth to say, no, he is not guilty of false worship. But when the Christians of the Primitive Church, did with such an opinion, lay but a little incense upon the Heathens Altars, they were by all Orthodox censured for Idolatry. The story of Origen is well known, how he delivered Palm, to those that offered it to the image of Serapis, with this expression of his intention: come, and receyve the bows, not of the image, but of Christ. Yet was he therefore censured as a worshipper of that Idol. Calvin writing of purpose concerning this very case, of going to Mass with such an opinion, accuseth them that do so, of externally professed idolatry: and therein was justified by Melanchton, Bucer, Martyr, Opus. de vitandis superstitionibus. And if this be not right, than all external acts, and real professions, whether symbolising with Papists, or with Turks, or Heathens, may be in themselves, (set scandal and danger aside) easily excused. So Calvin argueth, in the forenamed treatise and in a Homily, Opusc, pag. 532. he showeth, that those wise men which think otherwise, would have derided the simplicity of Sidrac. Misach, and Abednego, if they had then lived, in such a fashion: Miserable men, you may do that external act which is required of you: it is no worship, so long as you have no faith, trust, or devotion to that idol. 2. His second answer is that those which are present at false worship, by violence, are not false worshippers, and upon this he triumpheth, with fie man, fie. I may better say, alas alas, that good D. B. (I speak as I think) should be driven to such extremities, in defence of those Ceremonies, which he never loved, nor doth at this day. For going to Mass, or doing all those external acts, which massmongers use to perform, implieth more than violent carrying thither, and detaining there. 3. His third is, that nothing but opinion doth make humane inventions essential worship of God. Which is an essential denying of the conclusion. 4. For that which was inferred of the Convocation house, he saith first, it is a fling. Let it be so, yet it may hit that Ceremonious Goliath, as it is such, in the fore head. He addeth, that the grossest rites of Popery cannot possibly be washed from their opinion. Which is not for a Rite, being an external thing or act, any Rite may be separated from any internal opinion. The last is, that some other Popish rites might be lawful, if they could be cleansed, though we need them not. As if the grossest might not be lawful, if they could be cleansed, or the rejoinder had showed that we more need the Cross, than those other.  
2. Because the Def. placed so much in opinion of sanctity, the Repl. in the second place, opposed, that Sanctity cannot be separated from such Ceremonies, as are proper unto Religion, only used in the solemn worship of God: because they are neither civil, nor profane, and therefore holy. Here the Rejoynd●r being put to his shifts, as before, answereth that they are in deed holy by application, but not with inhaerent, or adhaerent holiness in them, or their use as those which God hath sanctified, nor so as they sanctify the actors, and actions, which is proper to God's ordinances. Now how many strange things are here? 1. That Ceremony, whose essence consisteth in application and use, is holy by application▪ and yet not by any holiness that doth adhere to them, or their use. Holiness is an adjunct received by the thing that is holy, and therefore either inhaerent, or adhaerent. 2. Is this a good reason: they are not holy truly, as God's ordinances, therefore they are not by men made holy? 3. Have any outward ordinances of God inhaerent holiness in them? 4. If God hath no way sanctified our Ceremonies, who can make them holy? 5. Do not Ceremonies teaching holiness, sanctify the actors, actions or spectators, after the same manner, that the teaching word doth sanctify them?  
3. Upon occasion of the other part, in the Def. his distinction, (that Accidental worship is any rite, which serveth for the more consonant, and convenient discharge of essential worship,) the Repl. whereas he might have said, that this is a misshapen definition of Accidental worship in general, as it may be divided into true and false, good, and bad, opposeth only this: that no judicious Divine useth to call circumstances of mere order and decency, (which notwithstanding serve for the more consonant and convenient discharge of essential worship) that is a Pulpit, a Table, a faire-Cloath, etc. Worship.  
The rejoinder answereth, that in deed, the Ceremonies themselv●s cannot be called worship without madness, but only the use and application of such circumstances, and rites. Now 1. mark here, how the rejoinder who defineth a Ceremony, it is an action etc. and laffeth at the Repl. (because he said, some Ceremonies may be put to other good use, as if all Surplices were turned into poor-folkes under-garments) as if the good wife of Bilson had burnt a Ceremony, when she burned a Surplice in her oven, mark (I say) that this same rejoinder doth distinguish Ceremonies from their use and application. 2. Who ever was so mad (because it pleaseth him to use this term) as to say, that standing in a Pulpit, the better to be heard (which is all the use of it) is to be called worship? 3. Crossing with such expression of the signification thereof, as is used in Baptism, can neither be distinguished from the use of a Cross, nor aequalled to the use of a pulpit, not yet lawfully styled true worship, without a spice of one disease or other.  
4. The first witness brought in for us, is Calvin, inst. l. 4. cap. 10. sect. 8. All those constitutions are wicked, in the observation whereof we place any worship to God. The Def. answereth, he meant not by worship, circumstances of order. Which the Repl. readily granted: because it were non sense, to say, all observations in which circumstances of order are placed, be wicked. To this the rejoinder saith first, it is a baby. 2. he saith, that Calvin meant not to comdemne all constitutions of order: which is as true a baby as the former. 3. Calvin (saith he) defineth what Constitutions are contrary to the word of God, namely such as are ordained and imposed as necessary for consciency, etc. But Calvin doth only show that such are of the forbidden kind: and every notifying of a special, is not a definition of the general kind. 4. He addeth, that Calvin doth allow of some significant Ceremonies sect. 14. Of signification, we are to consider in the next chapter. In the mean time this: Calvin generally speaketh against all worship invented of men, without any distinction. One ambiguous phrase of Ceremonies in general, without any example, save only Divine, in which he instanceth immediately after the words cited, doth not make a contradiction to the former sentence. All the rest of the rejoinder his allegations out of Calvin, about this answer have their answer, in the staple sect. of the Manuduction. 5.6.7.  
The Def. having thus told us, what Calvin did not mean, addeth that Calvin meant by worship, the inward virtue of worship, which consisteth (saith he) in an opinion of holiness and justice. The Repl here justly noted the ill sound of those words: the inward virtue of worship consisteth in an opinion, to which the rejoinder saith just nothing. And yet in all this chapter maintaineth all that doctrine of opinionated worship, which the Def. let fall. But a man would think, that upon this occasion, he should have declared, how, and how fare worship doth constift in opinion? As for inward virtues and vices consisting in opinion, it is as great a paradox, and greater also, then that of the Stoics, who made all other differences of men's estate, beside virtue and vice, to consist in opinion.  
In the second place, it was asked by the Repl. how an inward virtue, can be planted in an outward Ceremony? the rejoinder by error of opinion. But it is more than error, nay more than ordinary madness, for any man to think, his inside, is in his outside, his heart is in the feather that he weareth on his hat.  
Th● Repl. added in the third place, that the proper nature of worship, doth not consist in holiness, and justice, but in the honouring of God: so that all external Ceremonies, whose proper use, is the honouring of God, are external worship. This was directed against those words of the Def. the inward virtue of worship (placed in outward Ceremonies) consisteth in an opinion of holiness, and justice. Now what saith the rejoinder? 1. No man can in any action aim at God's honour, without opinion of justice and holiness in that action. Which may be granted, if justice (in this form of speech, whereby our Divines use to condemn many Popish Ceremonies) did not signify justification as it doth. But yet it doth not follow from thence, that every opinion of holiness, and justice, doth make worship, much less inward worship, and least of all, the inward virtue of worship.  
2. Then (saith he) all external Ceremonies must needs be worship. And this is that which we avouche, of all Ceremonies, whose proper use is the honouring of God. 3. It is not (as he addeth) the immediate and peculiar use of our Ceremonies, to honour God, but to a edify man unto the honouring of God.  
No more (may I say) is it any otherwise the immediate end of preaching the word, to honour God, but only by aedifiying of men, to the honouring of God: and yet preaching of the word is essential worship. 4. Pulpits. Fonts, Tables, Table-cloths, and Cups, are as much appropriated unto religious uses, as our Ceremonies in question. But this is confuted in the staple section of the Manuduct. 3. and 4. And the difference is acknowleged by the rejoinder, in that, he maketh Pulpits etc. to be only simple Ceremonies, and ours in question, double and triple. For by that it followeth, that our questioned Cerenies are twice, or thrice more appropriated to worship, than Pulpits.  
5. Calvin (saith the rejoinder) doth mark out false worship by a false opinion of worship and necessity: He doth so in deed: but never meant to make it a convertible, or reciprocal mark, much less that wherein the essence of all false worship consisteth, as hath been cleared. Paul Phil. 3. marketh out Dogs, by urging of Circumcision: but he never meant, that there were no other Dogs but such. Calvin also many times marketh out false worship by an opinion of merit: yet surely a man may use false worship, without such an opinion.  
In opposition to these allegations out of Calvin, the Repl. nameth one place, epist. 259. where he saith, according to the rejoinder his own translation: If it be well and throughly looked unto, what it is, that doth so much provoke man, to the making of Ceremonies, we shall find, that they all flowed from this springhead, because every man made bold ●o fancy some new worship of God: whereas God not only refuseth all forged worships, but utrerly abhorreth them. This (saith the Repl.) is a direct confutation of the Def. (and I add, of the rejoinder.  
For if all humane Ceremonies flowed from affectation of will-worship, than a Pulpit, and such like matters of order, and decency, are no Ceremonies. If all the worship which is placed in humane Ceremonies, be unlawful, than no such Ceremonies are lawful, what opinion soever there be of their necessity, etc. If this be so (answereth the rejoinder) than Calvin hath confuted his more public writings, in a private epistle.  
Which is nothing so, but only it followeth, (as the Repl. said) that he hath confuted the collection which the Def. made from a shred or two of his more public writings. He hath expressed so much in public writings as he doth in that private epistle. As to add one place of note, opusc. pag. 356. disputing against Cassander, who maintained humane Ceremonies, upon the very same grounds, terms, and condition, that the Def. and rejoinder do, 
Cum velit Deu● ex praescripto legis sua coli●●● proinde fictitios ●ultus det●stetur, fide● certere● ugnat, quicquam o●us mandatis addi, hominum arbitri●.  he saith of them: Seing God will be worshipped by the rule of his law, and therefore detests all feigned services, it is undoubtedly contrary to faith that any thing be added to his precepts by the judgement of man.  
But that answer being only for a flourish, the Rejonder his second is, that Calvin spoke of mystical Ceremonies excescively multiplied. As if both these could not stand together, for to speak against any sin excessively multipied, and yet withal against sin. The Prophets often speak of multiplying idols altars, fornications, according to the number of cities, or towns, on every ●igh hill, under every green tree. Do they not withal speak simply against all idolatry? But Calvin (as the rejoinder addeth) alloweth in some case, the mixture of a like water with wine, in the Lord's Supper. What? for a religions Ceremony? show the place, and after that, see how it can be justified, against those accusations, which the rejoinder layeth upon Sopping the bread in wine, pag. 61.62.63. Calvin (as he lastly addeth) epist. 120. could have wished, that Hooper had not so much struggled against the Cap, and Rochet, or Surplice. But beside that Calvin did not, nor we neither esteem a Cap, or a Rochet either (a Surplice is added by the rejoinder) so evil as the Cross in Baptism, Calvin could not say so much, without a shrewd item (ut illa etiam non probem, though I do not allow of such things.) Which manifestly declare that his wish was not grounded on such an opinion, as the Def. and rejoinder maintain. It might also be added, that Calvin in the same place accused them, of wicked perfidiousness, who though they seemed to favour the Gospel, yet made a party against Hooper, about that trash, unto the hindering of his Ministry: which is the case of all our depr●ving and silencing Prelates.  
5. The second witness, produced by the Def. for to be answered, is Chemnitius. To whose condemning of all worship instituded without the word, the Def. answered by his wedge, saying, that he meant only that which is made essential worship, not accidental. Concerning this distinction, enough hath been said in the 5. and 6. staple sect. of the manudiction, let this only be remembered, that it is all one, as if he should divide worship, into worship, and no worship: for both Def. and rejoinder often say accidental worship is no worship. They add some time, for explication, that it is no essential worship: but so they may say essential worship is no worship, and then add that they mean no accidental worship. The Repl. therefore justly required, that should be shown, if Chemnitius distinguish will-worship, as he doth, into lawful and unlawful.  
Upon this occasion the rejoinder 1. criethout of a falsehood shameful, and to be blushed at, for saying that the Def. distinguisheth will-worship into lawful, and unlawful. But let any man judge where is the falsehood, shame, and cause of blushing. The question is of worship invented by man, which Chemnitius (with other Divines) call will-worship, whether it be lawful or no? the Def. answereth by a distinction, that some is unlawful, as essential, and some lawful, as accidental. What can be more plain? But (saith the rejoinder) Accidental worship, be denieth to be properly worship, and therefore denieth it to be will worship, unless it be imagined essential. What a consequence is this, to bear up so weighty an accusation? It is not properly worship, and therefore it is not will-worship. He may as well say: it is not properly worship, and therefore it is not lawful worship. May it not be improper will-worship, though it be not properly worship? Or no improper worship come merely from the will of man? It is rather a property of Ceremonies, to depend merely on the will of the institutor. So Tostatus in Exod. tom. 1.148. et in Levit. pag. 585. A Ceremony is a certain observation, or a special mauner of worshipping God determined out of the sole Commandment of of the lawgiver. 
Ceremonia est observatio quaedam vel modus specialis colendi Deum, determinatus ex solo mandato legislatoris.   
His second exception is frivolous. His third is this: Chemnitius hath this distinction in substance, though not in terms. For he saith, that right inward worship being supposed, right external expressions will follow of their own accord, and they are external worship, though not acceptable in themselves. Where 1. Mark the partiality of the rejoinder.  
In the former answer, he requireth the Repl. to show the distinction which he attributeth to the Def. in his words, or terms, otherwise he may blush for shame. Now, when he is urged to show his distinction out of Chemnitius, he forsaketh words, or terms, and flieth to substance, without once thinking of shame and blushing. 2. This substance is a mere shadow. For first, Chemnitius acknowledgeth no outward expressions to be right worship, but only those, that flow of their own accord, without any institution, from inward worship. And who will say, that the Def. and rejoinder their accidental worship, of Cross and Surplice, do so flow from internal. Secondly, those external expressions, are as essential to external worship, as profession of faith is to a visible Church. Nay there is no external worship, beside the expressions, and setting forth of the internal. Thirdly, Though those expressions, be not acceptable of, or in themselves, being separated from the internal, yet it doth not follow from thence, that they are in their nature accidental worship, and no ways substantial. For the rejoinder confesseth, that all God's ordinances are substantial worship: and yet he will not say that Gods outward ordinances are acceptable unto him, when they are separated from internal worship.  
Upon supposition (which now appeareth true) that the Def. could not show his distinction out of Chemnitius, he was desired, at the least, to show, that there is some worship, which is not necessary: because otherwise he must needs sink under Chennitius his charge To this the Rejonder answereth, 1. that Chemnitius understandeth by will worship, whatsoever of man's device, is imagined necessary. 2. that there is some external worship, which is not in the particularities of it necessary. For the first of which, enough is said, in the 7. s. of the manud. Yet here I may add, that it is so fare from truth, (no will-worship can be without imagination of necessity) that on the contrary, whosoever doth take upon him, for his will sake professedly to appoint any worship, cannot possibly imagine it absolutely necessary, but acknowleging there hath been worship, without his addition, he professeth to add something, not simply necessary to the being, but only to the better being of it. As for the second, In Gods own ordinances, which were substantial, and essential, by the rejoinder his confession, the particularites were not always absolutely necessary Levit. 5. a lamb, or two turtle doves, or two young pigeons. And this answer may serve for all that is further rejoined about Chemnitius. For it beareth wholly upon perpetual necessity of the same particularities. The expressions which he instanceth in, are natural gestures, such as kneeling, lifting up of eyes, or hands to heaven etc. which have as manifest impressions in them, of God's will, without man's institution, as the offering of doves or pigeons ever had, and in their particularities upon occasion carry as much necessity with them. What is this to such unnecessary worship, as Cross and Surplice?  
6. About Peter Martyr his testimony, beside the repetition of that thread bare distinction of worship, into essential and accidental, he looseth also a knot by it. Peter Martyr saith, it is lawful for men, to appoint circumstances of order, but unlawful to appoint any worship. The Def. contradicteth him thus: if it be lawful to appoint circumstances of order, than it is lawful to appoint some worship. The rejoinder excepteth here 1. that the Repl. calleth that some worship ambiguously, which the Def. called accessory, and accidental worship. The accidental worship belike may be called worship, but not some worship, without ambiguity. 2. He answereth, that P.M. condemneth only the framings of essential worship. But first P.M. his words are, 
No quid butetur facere ad cultum, Apostolut prorsus damnat omnem cultum voluntarium.  lest any thing should seem to make for worship the Apostle absolutely damns all will worship.  
Secondly he discerneth all worship f●om order and decency, Thirdly he opposeth order, to significant Ceremonies, of man's institution, admitting the one and rejecting the other. 
Alij ita ratio●inantur: Populus est in doctus & rudis: ergo tenendus est Ceremonijs. Sed hoc discrimen est inter nos & veteres, ilii plurimas habu●runt Ceremonias, nos paucifsimas. Esse tamen oportet aliquas quae faciu ut ad ordin●m & decorum's.  Others argue thus: the people is unlearned and rude, therefore to be held in with Ceremonies. Put this difference is between us and them of old, they had many Ceremonies, and we exceeding few, but some there must be for order and decency.  
To the instance of bowing the knee, called by P.M. external worship, answer was given a little before. It is no voluntary invention, or institution of men.  
7. In the next place, D. Morton set down himself, as last at this table: which was excepted against by the Repl. because diverse others were invited to this meeting. Heerupon, the rejoinder after a few words of form, not all sound (as that he would have him that set himself down last, not to be too hasty, though he shut the door for haste against others that were invited) taketh occasion to say something, o● Melancton, Bullinger, Bucanus, Polanus, Cartwright, Fenner, Tilenus, Chamier, and Perkins.  
But he bringeth no answer of moment, but that weather-beaten distinction of essential and accidental worship, which is examined, Manud. sect. 5.6.7. Where also is handled of Tilemus, Polanus, Bucanus, Cartw. and Fenner, by name. It is not therefore needful to add much in this place: yet something in brief, of the rest.  
8. Melancton (saith the rejoinder) reckones it an error, in constitution of things indifferent, to account them worship: but he meaneth, with opinion of rightousenesse, and necessity, worship of themselves, whose immediate end is God's honour, not vestments, Feasts, and fasts, etc. Now concerning all these exceptions, enough hath been spoken, Manud. sect. 5.6.7. Yet concerning Melancton, he meaneth by righteousness, justification, by necessity, that which is necessary to justification, by of themselves, considered apart from God's ordinances, by immediate end, that which belongeth to the first table.  
Now 1. the rejoinder will not say that any humane worship, is lawful, beside that which is held absolutely necessary for justification, for than it may be lawful, though it be every way aequalled to many of God's ordinances. 2. The sign of the Cross, to signify our courage, and constancy in Christ's service, were worship, though it be considered, or were used alone by itself. 3. Our Ceremonies belong to the first table, so fare as they belong to any part of his law. 4. Vestments, fasts, and feasts also, are accounted by Melancthon, matters of mere order. For so Tom. 1.297. and 305. he compareth them to order of lectures in schools, and to the order of reading and praying, in families, morning and evening. And so fare, we also allow of them. Yet one thing is worth the noting, that whereas imposers of Ceremonies do much ground themselves upon the Apostles example, Acts. 15. and are therein allowed by the rejoinder pag. 45.46. of his manuducction, Melancton doth so disallow of this collection, that therein he condemneth all imposition of such Ceremonies as ours. For Vol. 3. pag. 91. he saith thus.  
It followeth not: the Apostles retained the rite of blood and things strangled, 
Non valet consequentia: Apostoli ritum de sanguine, & suffecate, retinu●runt. Ergo licet nova instituere tanquam cultus. Neganda est consequentia: quia Apostoli non instituerunt sed retinuerunt hunc ritum. Deinde, etiamsi quid novi instituissent, non sequitur, innovationem concessam esse: Semper haec imitatio nacuit Ecclesia. Episcipus est auditor, et accepet verbum, & ritus, ab Apostolis, cum certo mandato, ut haec non mutata tradat Ecclesiae.  therefore we may set up new things as matters of worship, t●is Consequence is false, because the Apostles did not Establish this rite, but only take it up for a while. 2. Though they had instituted some new thing here follows nothing for innovation. This imitation hath ever been hurtful to the Church. The Bishop is the hearer, and takes the word and rites from the Apostles with a certain charge, that he delivereth them over to the Church unchanged.  
9 Bullinger (saith the rejoinder) undoubtedly condemneth all worship of God, which is merely of man's tradition: but not Ecclesiastical laws, nor worship agreeable to God's word, as public meetings for worship, set times, places, manner of administration, holy days, and fast days.  
Now in all this we fully agree with Bullinger, understanding only by holidays fit times of preaching and praying and by days of fasting, occasional times of extraordinary humiliation.  
10. Chamier (saith the rejoinder) To. 3. l. 20. c. 5. four times, useth this distinction, of worship proper and accidental. But Chamier only calleth those special material acts, which are conjoined with formal acts of worship, accidental parts of worship: as if a man vowed to drink no wine for a certain time, his abstaining from wine pertaineth to worship, only by accident. So if in solemn prayer for a Prince, his titles, and style be rehearsed, or any special terms of honour, this pertaineth to prayer, by accident. What is this to such instituted worship, as the Cross?  
11. Mr. Perkins (saith the rejoinder) condemneth that worship instituted by men, which is so simple, and in itself. For he granteth a bodily worship necessary (as kneeling, lifting up of hands, and eyes etc.) terming it less principal worship. As if this were not the very same thing that we profess. But if any man see Mr. Perk. on the second Commandment, in his gold chain, in his explication of the decalogue, and in his treatise of idolatry, he shall find this constantly taught by him, as a positive doctrine, that all worship, all things obtruded under the name of worship (without any exception) if they be not by God commanded, are unlawful, superstitious worship.  
12. Now last of all (in due place) the rejoinder answereth for D.M. that he in that place, Apol. par. 1. c. 89. condemneth Romish Ceremonies, because they were so many and burdensome. Now except he meaneth, that these were the only causes, it is no answer, and (though I have not his Apology now at hand) I dare venture something on it, that other reasons are there alleged. This I am sure of, that in his Defence, cap. 6. sect. 6. he condemneth them not only for their number, but also for their nature. And it is as manifest, as any thing can be, that a number of them have no other nature than ours have. Beside one or two humane Ceremonies may be burdensome.  
If Circumcision were imposed in England, a the Cross is, upon which condition, the Def. and rejoinder allow of it, pag. 285. I think these allowers of it would account it a burden. And howsoever the light aerial Cross is not so burdensome to the body, as that, yet to the Conscience of many thousands, it is altogether as importable a burden.  
13. Upon occasion of that reason which the Def. rendered for condemning of popish Ceremonies, the Repl. addeth: because he had heard men often speak in this manner, of the fault that is in multitude, he would willingly know, what certain limits, and bounds are set, by God's law, for the number of humane Ceremonies, such as ours? If there may be three, why not four, five, six, and so forth, as many as shall please the Convocation? Surely (saith he) if once we depart from God's institution, there will be no place to rest our foot on, but we must ever follow wind and tide, which in religion is baseness itself. The motion is reasonable, even according to received grounds: because we must have a rule for number, if some number doth make Ceremonies to be justly condemned: and if that number doth make them condemned by the word, we must also have that rule out of God's Word. Now see what fluttering and flying answers are given, by the rejoinder. His 1. is that all our Divines do censure Popish Ceremonies for their number. So did all or most of the Prophets censure not only the Idols of Israel, but even their high places, for their number. His 2. is, that just so many Ceremonies must be allowed, as shall not clog an overcharge the Churches, in the judgement of those, to whose discretion it belongs, to judge thereof: Where he meaneth the Convocation house, for England. Now to pass by here, that which formerly hath been noted, (how corrupt this position is, to appropriate the judgement of discretion; even in Ceremonies, unto Prae●ats) if this be all the rule, than Augustine was too rash, in his time, to judge the number of Ceremonies used then to be a burden more than jewish. For it did no more belong to him, for to discern of Ceremonies used especially out of his Diocese, than it doth belong to every Minister in England, to discern what Ceremonies he and his people may use. Nay then all our Divines do wrongfully charge the Popish Ceremonies, for their number: because in the judgement of those among them, to whose discretion it belongs to judge of such things, as well as to our Convocation, they are not thought to clog and overcharge the Churches. Thence also it would follow, that no Praelats could offend, in instituting of Ceremonies, without sinning directly against their Consciences: whereas we are more charitably persuaded of many, evenconvocation men. His 3 is, from a comparison, of Kings laying up of treasure, & multiplying of horses, Deut. 17. as likewise of eating more or less.  
But 1. if there be no more certain rule of instituting of mystical Ceremonies, then for these things, th●n wiser men than any in our Convocation, may abuse the people with them. For so Solomon without question did, both in horses, & treasure. 1. King. 10. And so what assurance have our Consciences, from their judgements of discerning? King's multiplying of treasure, and horses, concerneth (in conscience of acting) only themselves, and their officers. but the Ceremonies (in acting) concern all the Churches. In that there is not only a disparity, and dissimilitude, but such a one, as requireth the rule to be more accurate in one, then in the other. 3. Within a latitude, it were easy to determine, how much treasure, and how many horses, ordinaily are lawful to be multiplied, by this or that Kings, as also how much is lawful, for an ordinary man to eat at one meal. But if the number of Ceremonies do depend wholly on the Praelats discretion, there can be no other rule given of them, then: so many as the Convocation house think good to enjoin. His 4. (as I take it) is, that on the margin, from another comparison, one or two cruches may help a weak man in his going, whereas 6. or 7. would hinder him. Which is very true. But if it should be appointed to all men in England, to go upon three Cruches, though they do not see, nor any could show them, that they had any need of them, only upon this ground that the Parliament judged, they had need first of cruches, and then of just three cruches, were not this (think you) a wise statute and to be observed as a law? His 5. and last is, that peril of leaving God's institution, there may be some, in matters of faith, and necessary duties to salvation: but in other matters, to speak of peril, is ridiculous. But some in matters of faith, and principal obedience? none to be feared but ridiculously, in point of Rites? It is strange that ever any man of D.B. his knowledge, and profession, should let fall such a sentence.  
He himself will recall it, when he hath considered how deadly a thing it is to departed from God's institution in fundamental points, and also, how great mischief hath arisen, by leaving God's institution even in Rites. It is well known that Ceremonies and rites, opened the door and paved the way for invocation of Saints in heaven, and evocation of men out of Hell, for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and Idol of the Altar, and such like pretty stuff to enter into the Church. And they were Ceremonies which came in with the wind and tide of custom, to which wind and tide if we yield ourselves again, God knoweth, what will become of us.  
But this especially is in the conclusion, to be marked: the Def. and rejoinder have hitherto said much upon the general rules for Ceremonies, Order, Decency, Edification, as if they did try the taste of every occurrent Ceremony, as perfectly, as if every one had been named: they are the rejoinder his words, pag. 89.  
Now when we are come to the issue, they are found to be nothing, but only wind and tide of custom. As if wind and tide did try the taste, or discern distinctly of every ship, or boat, that is carried by them. What meant they to trouble us about certain rules, if every wind and tide be enough? If the practice of this be not baseness, in any kind of worship, essential, or accidental, than it is not base, for a Christian man's conscience, in some worship, to be led through hedge, or ditch, only because some went before, or to crouch upon every Masterly man's word, or nod, which certainly is against the dignity both of Conscience, and also of Worship: because neither of them are subject to any mere pleasure or custom of men. Mr. Latimer Serm. 3. before King. Pd. seemeth to respect Ceremonies, when he said, that the Lutherans, in Germany, made a mingle-mangle hotchepotche of Popery with true religion, as in his country, they call their hogs to the swine-trough: Come to thy mingle-mangle, come pyr, come pyr. If this be not base, to be thus called to mingle-mangles, let any man judge, that is not wont to be fed with husks.  
Beside, one question yet remaineth▪ when winds, and tides, fall cross, as often they do, the winds of authority driving one way, and the tide of good Christians bend, the clean contrary, what is here to be followed? If we may make conjecture of D. B. his judgement, in such a case, by his practice, it will be very uncertain.   

SECT. 2. Concerning Vrsines and Zanchies judgement, about will-worship.  
1. Here (for brevity sake) the question was repeated, in these words: whether all will-worship, whatsoever, is to be condemned, or no. The rejoinder upon this, first accuseth the Repl. of falsifying and changing the proposition. Now he cannot mean this of words: because the verity and falsity of a proposition, doth not consist in words. And the sense he cannot deny to be falsified. For humane Ceremonies, imposed and observed as parts of God's worship, must needs be worship proceeding from man's will, or will-worship. This therefore is but a blushing at the name of that which without blushing is defended. 2. The rejoinder himself doth, in the very next words, confess so much, when he professeth, that some will-worship is not condemned.  
But I wonder from what good Divine he ever learned this assertion? The Papists are ordinarily charged by us for teaching, and practising of will-worship: yet divers of them are ashamed to profess the defence of such a monster, in plain terms. ESTIUS upon the Epist. to the Col. Cap. 3. ult. disputing against some one or two jesuites, that had been forced to let fall such a speech, saith of them, as we say of the rejoinder, Docere non poterunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usquam accipi in bono. They can never show, that will-worship is taken in good sense, 〈◊〉 wed of and not condemned. All our Divines might here be opposed to these two Doctors opinions. But it shall suffice, to allege only two for the contrary, and they are Vrsin, and Zanchie, whose authority are so much urged by the Def. and rejoined. in this section, Vrsin in the place quoted by the Def. upon the 2. Commandment saith thus: All feigned worship is forbidden: all worship which is not of God, 
Prohibitur omn●s 〈…〉 fictitius, omnis cultus qut non a Deo, sed ab hominibus est instirutus, cum ve o Deo cultus, seu honor fingitur prastari, aliquo opere quod ipse non praecepit.  but set up by men, when worship or honour is feigned to be done to the true God, in some work which he hath not enjoined. Zanchie also upon the same Com. q. 4. thus: We may not worship God with any other worship (though it be in the kind of external and Ceremonial worship) then with that which he hath required in the holy Scriptures to be worshipped of us by. 3. Concerning the examples, 
Nullo alio, etiam externi & Ceremonialis cultus genere, colere Deum licet, quam quo ipse in sacris ●●teris se colt a nobis juss●t. Apostolus Col. 2. omaes damnat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. e. voluntarios, extra verbum Dei, excogitatos & electos ab hominibus cultus.  which are here brought forth of warrantable will-worship, freewill offerings, vows, and kneeling in public prayer, enough hath been answered before. Yet briefly again freewill offerings were only to be made of such things as were manifestly known to be prescribed by Gods revealed will: and so not the offering, but undertaking of it, at such a time, or in such a measure, was left unto the free choice of men, according to occasion.  
It is no will-worship, to pray thrice or seven times in a day, or to preach thrice in one Lordsday upon special occasion. Some vows are no more worship, for the matter of them (and that only is left unto choice, no● the manner) then fight in a lawful war, upon the bond of an oath, is religious worship. Kneeling in prayer is expressly allowed by Gods revealed will: and the determination of it to this or that time, is to be ruled by occasion. 4. As for that conclusion which the rejoinder draweth from the former grounds, viz. that order comeliness and edification. 1. Cor. 14. give power to men, for to appoint accessory parts of external worship, first, it hath no connexion with them, as hath been showed in part, and may further be observed by this, that the inference is, from free-will-offeringes, vows, and Kneeling, that therefore the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. doth give Church's power to appoint such formalities as our Cross, and Syrplice: which is to tie harp and harrow together with a rope of sand. Secondly, suppose it had, than it is not fully and resolutely expressed: because from will-worship of free will-offeringes may as well be concluded essential, as accessory will-worship to be in the Church's power for to appoint it: because they were as essential offerings, as other sacrifices, which were by name commanded. If by accessory worship, he meaneth that which is appointed by man, in opposition to essential, as appointed by God (which his manuductive interpretation beareth) then in stead of a conclusion, we have a mere confusion: the Church may appoint that will-worship which God hath not appointed, but man doth. Thirdly, the appointing of this or that, doth not follow upon the practice of free-will-offerings, and vows, except it be understood, that the Church might have appointed men, what, and how many freewill offerings they should offer, which were to turn free worship into forced.  
2. About Vrsines testimony, we have such turnings, and windings of words obtruded upon us, as aff●rde no matter capable of sad dispute. It shall be sufficient therefore to note only the passages, which seem to look towards the question. The rejoinder pag. 179. told us, that the Def. offered to confute, out of Vrsine, this proposition: All human Ceremonies which are imposed, and observed, as parts of ●ods worship, are unlawful. Now first upon this, the Repl. brought forth the main assertion of Vrsin, in the place alleged, viz. that humane Ecclesiastical Ceremonies, not only are not the worship of God, but also they bind not the conscience. To this the rejoinder answereth, that Vrsin in his answer to an objection made against this assertion, saith, that such Ceremonies are not worship in themselves, therefore (addeth the rejoinder) his meaning is, that there is some true lawful worship, improperly, and by accident.  
Which is as if from these words: man's clothes, or armour, are not a man by themselves, one should conclude, that therefore they are affirmed to be a man improperly, and by accident.  
Secondly, the Repl. noted divers words of Vrsin, sounding wholly to the denial of the honourable title of good worship unto human institutions. Upon which the rejoinder complaineth, of wilful omitting these words of Vrsin: worship properly so called doth so please God, that the contrary of it would displease him. Where (saith the rejoinder) we have an exact description of worship properly so called. But he is herein deceyved. For if this be an exact description of proper worship, then when a child honoureth his father, he doth properly and immediately honour and worship God: because such an act doth so please God, that the contrary of it (dishonouring of one's father) must needs displease him.  
And so, in very deed, was the meaning of Vrsin, to call the moral duties even of the second table, worship properly so called. Which form of speaking, though it cannot be excused from great impropriety, yet maketh it nothing for, but rather against the Rej. because Vrsin hereby denieth human Ceremonies so much to participate the nature & name of worship, as any mean moral duty of the second tabledoeth, no not so much as the hangman's office, in the due execution of it.  
Thirdly the Repl. observed, that the Def. concludeth the very same thing out of Vrsin, which we maintain, and he undertook to confute, viz. that divine worship properly so called, is that which is ordained of God.  
To this the Rej. answereth (after an angry charging the Repl. with a contradctious spiri●, that this is not alleged, because we deny it, or to confute our proposition, in the sense of Vrsine, but to show what sense we must hold of it.  
Now did not the rejoinder himself tell us pag. 1794. that the Def. offered to confute out of Vrsin, our proposition? How can this be excused from contradictions (I will not say spirit, but) dealing, to say, and unsay the same thing, in the breath of one and the same section?  
Fourthly, to that which the Def. said, of Ceremonies, in a large sense, to be held worship, the Repl. answered, that thts should be proved. The rejoinder is, that the large sense it set down, viz. as circumstances appertaining to the setting out of divine worship.  
As if we had not required a proof, but only an explication. Yet this explication hath no more truth in this large sense, then if one should say, that all circumstances appertaining to the setting out of a man area man.  
But (saith the Rej.) Vrsin, or at least Pareus saith, that the genus common nature of these Cerem. as well as of civil laws is moral, and therefore worship. What could he have said more to confute both Defendant, and Rejoynder● they are worship, (and that only in their general nature) just as civil things: that is not otherwise then all good deeds are worship. So forbidding, or hindering of false worship (which may be done by Atheists) is worship, in this uncouth manner of speaking.  
One argument yet is of the rejoinder his own invention: Such things done to the honouring of an Idol were idolatry, as to build a temple, to the honouring of an Idol. Therefore the same things done by the rule, to the right end, are some way a worship to God. Wherein there are two ambiguous phrases observable: 1. such things. 2. to the honouring of an idol.  
If by such things, he meaneth such as cross and surplice, we not only grant, but urge, that such things done to the honouring of an idol, are idolatry, and therfrom conclude, that such things done to the honouring of God, are (not some way but) properly, latria, or worship of the true God, though (being destitute of his allowance) false, or superstitious worship. But if he mean such as circumstances of time, and place, than he accuseth all Princes, that ever granted time, and place, for idolatrous worship, to be Idolaters. Let him consider, how fare this stretcheth.  
Secondly, if by to the honouring of an Idol, he meaneth a devout intention of such an honour, we grant, that the taking up of a straw directly to such an immediate end, is idolatry. For howsoever such intention is not necessary to external worship, yet the presence of it doth make that worship which otherwise were none.  
Yet all circumstances of time and place, which are occasionally applied to idolatry, are not idolatry, either essential, or accidental. For then the same circumstances, should be (in divers City's) both Idolatry, and also true worship of the true God, as being circumstances of both.  
3. Concerning Zanchie. His name is by mistaking, much abused. For howsoever he distinguisheth worship into that which he calleth essential, and such thing as are annexed unto it, yet under these annexions', he compriseth such things as God hath commanded, all which the Def. and Rej. call essential worship. His words are these: Things annexed to worship are holy ordinances which among the jews were very many, as their temples, Altars, persons, garments, vessels, times etc. And afterward Ministers, Elders, Deacons, Lords Day &c are the holy things of the Christian Church. 
Annexa cultui sunt s●cra, qua apud Iudae●s permulta erant templa, altaria persona, vesti●●enta, vaesa, tempora, etc. et postea: Mini●●ri, Praesbyteri Diaconi, Dies Dominicus, etc. sunt sacra Ec●lesiae Christiana.  So that Zanchie calleth those annexed, which these men call essential worship: what an unhappy witness is he, that doth not agree with them of whom he is produced: But to take all that the rejoinder would have, this is the sum: If human Ceremonies be some part of external worship, and yet not of that worship which is essential, as Zanchie showeth, than (in a large sense) Ceremonies applied to religious actions, may be called parts of God's worship, though not essential.  
To which I answer, that according as Ramus showeth, about distribution, sometime adjuncts of a thing may (in a large sense) be called parts, and yet they cannot have the abstractive name of that subject attributed unto them: because the adjuncts of a man cannot (with any sense) be called men. The consequence ●herfore of this argument is rotten at the root.  
But such a reason, as that from the adjuncts of a man, to a man, was thus propounded by the Repl. the cross is annexed to a Sacrament. To this the rejoinder answereth, that the Cross is not annexed to the Sacrament, but only to the solemnity of the Sacrament, and so it is not a part of the Sacrament, but of solemnity.  
Now here let any man of reason judge, 1. If the Cross in Baptism, be not so much as a circumstance a Ceremony, or Rite (which all Papists, Lutherans, and our Conformists ordinarily, acknowledge) annexed unto Baptism? Common use of speech calls that annexed, which is joined unto another thing, as an adjunct. Now who can doubt, but the Cross is so joined to Baptism?  
2. If the Cross be not an essential part, or member of the solemnity, and therefore not an annexed adjunct of it, no more than a man's hand is to be esteemed a thing annexed unto him, or his body?  
3. If this being granted, that the solemnity of Baptism is annexed to Baptism, it doth not follow, that the Cross, a main part of that solemnity, be not also annexed to the same Sacrament? Such fig-leaves, so ill-favoredly sowed together, cannot cover the nakedness of will-worship.   

SECT. 8. & 9 Concerning Mr. BRADSHAW his argument, whereby he proveth our Ceremonies to be esteemed, imposed, and observed, as parts of God's worship, viz. because they want nothing to true, or right worship of God, but only a right efficient cause, or author.  
1. THe 8. section was neglected by the Repl. as containing nothing but affirmation on one side, and negation on the other. This omission (saith the rejoinder) was for advantage, because (forsooth) here the Def. his assertion was clearly set down, namely, that our Ceremonies are not imposed, or observed, as proper, essential and necessary parts of God's worship.  
But 1, If this had been a clear explication, yet seeing we meet with it, and handle it in a hundred several places, before, and after, little reason had the rejoinder to suspect advantageous craft, in passing by the same terms in this one place. 2. There is no clearness at all in heaping up terms, without any explication of them. 3. When these terms, proper, essential, necessary worship are now expounded, by the Rejoinder to mean nothing else but worship specially commanded of God, the sense is so absurd, that it was for his advantage, if they were omitted. For what answer is this: men appointing Ceremonies of their own making, do not say that they are specially appointed of God?  
2. The argument was thus form by the Repl. Those Ceremonies, which have the kind, nature, and definition of worship belonging to them, so that they want nothing but a right author, to make them true worship, those are in their imposition and use, worship, and for want ●f a right author, false worship. But our Ceremonies are ●uche. Ergo. Here the rejoinder first complaineth again, that the term Real. is left out of the assumption, into which it was put by the Def. But 1. who gave licence to the Def. for to put new terms into our arguments? It is not true, that he put any such term into the assumption, but only mentioned in the title of this section. 3. Except such a ridiculos sense be put upon this term Real, as was even now observed, of prop●r essential, necessary, it may be understood both in the proposition, and in the the assumption also. For if the kind, nature, and definition of worship do agree to our Ceremonies then they are not only verbal worship, in some fashion of speech (as the rejoinder distinguisheth, but real worship.  
3. Upon occasion of that scorn which was cast on the authors of this argument, viz. that this learning never saw print before, as the Def. thinketh, Mr. Bradshaw was named, as a man not to be slighted for his learning, who had long since put in print, without receyving any printed answer, unto it, or the book wherein it was contained. To this divers things are rejoined, not worthy any answer, but that they tend to the disgrace of a godly learned man, whose memory is worthy of all honour. 1. Mr. Bradshaw is ranked among discontented persons. Which imputation if it be understood of distentment for want of preferment, or great living, could hardly have lighted upon any man in England, whose course and conversation would more beat it off then Mr. bradshaw's did, in the consciences of all indifferent men that knew him.  
2. His tracts of indifferency, and worship are styled little Pamphlets, such as do creep in the dark, and are hard to be seen of men that walked by day light. This is (up and down) the language of great prelate's, when Goliah-like, they confute their adversaries with scorning of their little stature, and ignoble state. But the Def. or rejoinder might have put that little pamphlet into the belly of a whale, by setting it forth with a large confutation, in folio, and so also have helped it from creeping, to some kind of riding on horseback.  
Neither is it harder for daylight men, to see such treatises, though thrust by their command into dark corners, than it is to open their mouths for to ask after them, and then their eyes to look on them. Howsoever, if this be a sufficient answer, then what shall become of many little books for instruction, and help, dispersed by good men among the Papists, where public authority doth make them to keep them selves in a little compass, & to creep in the dark, for fear of being apprehended by the inquisitours daylight walkers? Mr. Bradshaw was made for accurate, short, & mere logical fashion of writing. So much appeareth out of other treatises of his: as that of justification. For to have drawn forth him unto large wordy discourses, it had been as hard, as to confine wordy men, unto the accurateness of mere logical dealing.  
3. Because the learning of this argument was derided by a Bishop, the Repl. doubted not to equal Mr. Bradshow, for his skill in framing of an argument, unto any of the Bishops. To which the Rej. answereth, that this is no more praise to him, than it is for a Carpenter's boy, to drive a pin as well as his Master. Which might be admitted for true, if there be any Bishop, that may in this kind of learning be Magister ejus. Howsoever, it is not to the purpose, except the Master carpenter, may deride his boy for driving a pin, which is as well driven as he himself can drive any.  
4. The rejoined. raiseth up a report, without showing from whom he received it, that Mr. Bradshaw reversed his own opinion of things indifferent. Which until it be some other way confirmed, then by an adversaries bore telling, and that in a humour of disgracing his person, it must be accounted a mere tale. But he had good reason to reverse his opinion (saith the rejoinder) because against all reason and sense, he resolved that there is nothing indifferent.  
If this were so as it is related, reason would persuade to some recantation. But it is only the rejoinder his telling again, without any show of proof.  
I, for my part, can find no such words in Mr. Bradshaw his treatise, neither any thing from whence such a raw sentence may be reasonably collected. He concludeth in deed cap. 3. that there is no absolute indifferent thing. 1. e. evereway, as well in order of nature, as of morality. He affirmed also cap. 7. there is nothing actually indifferent, which is not potentially good or evil, and cap. 8. there is no action of man's will so indifferent, but the doing thereof, by some circumstances, may be evil. There is no action that a man can do, by the power of his will, that is merely and absolutely indifferent. These passages come the nearest to that which is here fathered upon the treatise: in all which this crudity appeareth not: there is nothing indifferent. Nay the harshest of these assertions, may be found not only in little Pamphlets made by Carpenter's boys, against learning and sense, but in great volumes, written by those that go for very learned, and sensible in such matters as this is. Thomas Aquinas, in the great book, called his Sum, prima secundae, q. 18. ar. 9 hath this conclusion: 
Humanum actū●ndividuo consideratum ex deliberata ratione procedentem, vel bonum esse, vel malum, necesse est.  It must needs be that every individual act of man (proceeding from deliberate reason) is either good or bad. And all (or almost all) those which have written upon that place, do confirm, and defend the same, who yet were men, that in questions of such a nature, did not usually write against all learning and sense.  
4. At length, we have leave given, to examine the Argument itself: but with this remembrance, that is not like to be very sound, which all this while came into no man's head, ti●l Mr. Bradshaw rise up. But who told the rejoinder that it never came into any man's head before? though if that were true, the soundness may be likely enough.  
Many reasons have been in other men's heads, which never came to the knowledge of our Def. and rejoinder. And he is immediately told, that it is for substance in every one of our Divines, which hath written of worship: because they all, teaching that the common nature of worship required no more, then that it hath the honouring of God for the direct end of it, they add, that if this be according to God's commandment, it is true worship, if not, false. And the Def. was urged to show one instance to the contrary. The rejoinder is made, 1. by repeating over the empty terms, of in itself proper, essential, real, necessary, etc. Which have been so often discovered to be nothing but terms, that it were an idle tedious business, for to insist upon them again. Yet some few things may be observed, as proper to this place.  
First we are told here, that it is essential to proper essential worship, be it true or false, that it tend of itself, and immediately, to the honour of God. So then we have the common nature of proper worship, as it is common to true and false worship. Now add unto this that which is added, pag. 125.126. that this worship, if it be required of God, is true, if not, false. Now this being granted, our whole Argument is granted, so fare as it concerneth proper worship. For by this confession of the rejoinder it is plain, that the institution of God doth not make a thing proper worship, but only true proper worship, and the want of it doth make proper worship false.  
And this is all that we intend in this Argument, for which also we are twitted with new learning by the Def. pag. 185. where also he affirmeth that God's institution doth distinguish essential worship from accidental, and therein he is maintained by the rejoinder as by and by we shall see.  
But how can these things stand together God's institution is first the specifical difference, whereby essential worship is distinguished from accidental, and yet the specifical difference also whereby true essential worship is distinguished from false? Can any one thing be a specifical form of divers effects, or difference of divers subordinate things, such as essential, and true essential worship are? Can there be over and the same difference, betwixt a living and a liveless creature, and also betwixt a reasonable and unreasonable living creature.  
It is in the second place observable, how the rejoinder seeketh to convey, or (to speak plainly) steal away from us, that which he had given. Divines (saith he) do distinguish proper worship, from that which is after a sort so called, by immediate end, and per se.  
Be it so: this doth not contradict any thing here in question: and it hath been expounded before, in the head of worship. The Divines of Saxony, and Wit●enberge, Vrsin also, and Zanchie are alleged for the same purpose, 1. e. nothing to the purpose, Of Vrsin and Zanchie, enough hath been spoken in the former section. As for the other, see how they agree.  
It was required, that one of our Divines should be named, who handling the common place of worship, doth not distinguish true worship from false, by this, that one is appointed of God, and the other not.  
He bringeth in some Lutherans not fully consenting with our Divines, neither treating on any common place of worship, but only writing a brief confession, teaching a difference betwixt lawful rites of order, and proper worship, which we never doubted of. He taketh hold of those terms immediately, & of itself, by which (saith he) these divines distinguish proper worship from that which is after a sort so called.  
But it is more probable of the places cited, that they rather distinguish worship (by those terms) from mere rites of order and decency, which they do never call worship, after a sort. Beside, of our Ceremonies, it hath been showed, that their immediate end, is to honour God: in which respect also, the Rej. himself ranketh them under the head of immediate worship.  
As for per se, or of itself, it may mean also as much as ex opere operato, the mere work wrought. In which sense some Divines pronounce generally of all external worship, that of itself, and in it own nature, it doth not please God. Perkinse, in his Cases, lib. 2. cap. 6. Howsoever, to show how the authors of these confessions did not esteem significant Ceremonies Cross, Surplice etc. to be matters of lawful order, those words of the Wittenberg Confession do sufficiently declare. It is not lawful for Bishops, to thrust upon the Church, the Ceremonies of the old law, etc, where come in the words quoted by the rejoinder and immediately after, these: Neither is it lawful, either to restore the old Ceremonies of the law, or to devise new, to shadow forth the truth already laid open, and brought to light, by the Gospel: as in the day light, to set up candles, to signify the light of the Gospel, or to carry banners and Crosses, to signify the victoríe of Christ through the Crosse. Of which sort is all the furniture of Massing attire.  
Upon such grounds as these, the rejoinder concludeth thus: Therefore the institution of God alone is that which maketh the same things to be worship truly, and really, which without such institution, were no such real worship, though done to the same end, and in the same manner. But I know not how the term truly, and then again such worship came into the question. We stand upon this, that God's institution of worship, doth make true worship, and deny only that it maketh that worship, which otherwise, or without such institution, were no worship at all. How can then the rejoinder be excused in confounding true worship, with real worship in this conclusion? Now take away this intruded truly, and then let any man tell me, how this conclusion can be reconciled with those his principles of concerning worship, pag. 125? Any action done to the honouring of God immediately, and in that act itself, is proper immediate, external worship of God. If God requires it not, than that worship is false. And even now: such an act is proper worship of God, be it true or false. Proper and Real to him are all one: and yet granting some proper worship to be false (for lack of God's institution) he denieth it to be real worship, if it want God's institution: as if God's institution did make that real proper worship, which for want of that institution is false worship.  
This wild conclusion is further confirmed by a reason out of Tilenus, which is answered before, in the head of Worship, and by one example out of Fenner, whom the rejoinder is pleased to call our own Master. Where, I will not say, what kind of men may (by like reason) beproclaimed his own Masters, but only desire him to consider, what reason he had, to avouch, that to hold the Ceremonies unlawful, is a new tenet lately broached, contrary to that which was held in Queen Elizabeth's days, whenas he accounteh Mr. Fenner our Master in this doctrine, who had to do in the first infamous silencing of Ministers for Ceremonies, in the beginning of D. whitgift's Dominatinon? But what is that which is brought forth out of our own Master? Nothing but this: that after public worship, the people are to use a reverend gesture, as bowing down the head before the Minister. Whereupon the rejoinder demandeth, whether this adoration be essential, necessary worship or no? and in what sense this respect of the Minister be by him called worship of ●od? To which I answer 1. that I do not find it by him called worship of God at all 2. that it were a great absurdity for him to call a respect of man, worship of God, as the rejoinder doth. 3. that the adoration spoken of Neh. 8.7. from whence he took that observation, was proper essential external worship. In this therefore nothing is found to purpose.  
One observation is added further by the the rejoinder, namely, that divers of our Divines do make this part of the definition of proper worship, that it be according to the commandment of God. To which I answer, that such difinitions are to be understood of true and lawful worship, even as those definitions of an oath, which require the true God to be sworn by, are to be taken of right and lawful oaths only, because swearing by false Gods, is swearing, as all worshipping, of false Gods, is worship, though both unlawful.  
In the next place, answer is tendered to this reason of Mr. Br. The bare ratifying of the present use of any thing, cannot make it true and lawful worship, if it had not be●ore some nature of worship in the use of it. The force lieth in this, that bore ratifying or authorising of any thing to have that use which it had before without such authority, doth not change the physical entity, essence, or use of it, but only the authority, or legality of it. The instances brought by the rejoinder to the contrary, may have some show, but have no force to that purpose. 1. The sole stamp of the King, makes that current money, which was not money at all before, but only used by way of bartery. In which comparison, he utterly mistaketh and varieth the quality wherein it consisteth. For on the one side, it standeth thus: If God should command and us to use our Ceremonies, after the same manner that we have used them, without his command, they should be parts of God's proper outward worship. On the other side it standeth thus: if the King command that piece of mettle to be used for current money, which before was not used so, but only for bartery, it should be current money. Here is no similitude, because no proportion of quality.  
2. As the sole word of God, made living creatures of those that were not living, before, so saith the rejoinder the sole institution of God, makes that action to be true worship, which was before no real worship at all, though used to the same end, and in the same manner. But 1. the creating word of that which was not before in being, differs so much from that ratifying word which presupposeth the being of the thing ratified, that here is not so much as a show of proportion. 2. This is a direct contradiction to that which the rejoinder teacheth, pag. 125. If any thing be done to the honouring of God immediately and of itself, which God requires not so to be done, it is proper immediate external false worship. For hence it immediately followeth, that nothing can be done, to the same end with true proper worship, but it must be proper worship, either true, if it be required of God, or false, if not so required. 3. The place of Sacrifice, before God had determined the particular place, though used to the same end, and in the same manner, was not in itself any part of real worship to God: and yet after God's determination, it was. I answer. There was a great difference in the manner, wherein the place determined (so as it was) ought to be used. For there was special mysterial signification to be observed in the one, which was not in the other.  
Otherwise, I see not what more real worship there was in jacobs' place of sacrificing at Bethel, upon God's special determination, Gen. 35. then in Abraham's sacrificing at Hebron, without any such special determination of God, Gen. 13.  
When all other Essays fail, the Repl. himself is brought in as guilty of contradiction, because he affirmeth these two things: the institution of God doth distinguish true worship from false: and yet it doth not alter the common nature of worship. For (saith the rejoinder) it is as if one should say: the reasonable soul doth distinguish man from creatures that have not understanding: and yet it doth not alter the common nature of the creature. But the Repl. had answered this before, if the rejoinder would have attended unto his words, as they are by himself set down, pag. 189. altar the common nature of worship, that is, make that worship, which otherwise, being used to the same end, and in the same manner, without God's institution, were no worship at all. In which words he plainly expressed, that by altering the common nature of worship, he meant nothing less, than making true worship of false, but only creating or making the common essential nature of worship. And certain it is, that the reasonable soul (as it is reasonable) doth not make the common essential nature of a living creature, for then there could be no living creature, without a reasonable soul as the rejoinder affirmeth, there can be no proper worship, without God's appointment.  
5. Against the Def. his invention of indifferent worship, it was excepted (to pass by repetitions) that no Scripture, Divines, or good reason doth acknowledge any such worship. The ground is, because in Scripture, all worship is either approved as good, or condemned as evil: all Divines do distribute worship into true or false: and they have reason so to do. To this the rejoinder opposeth nothing but the contrary assertion, grounded upon examples. 1. So fare (saith he) as we may call the particularities of external disposition, in the m●nner of worship, respectively t● their end, worship, so fare may we call them indifferent worship: as kneeling, standing, bowing, or prostration, the place, and hour of worshipping, singing of this or that Psalm.  
I will not here write over again, that which hath been declared about these things in the head of Worship. But in brief thus: 1. The question is not, what this or that may be called, by a Rhetorical trope, but what it is in the nature of it. 2. Respect to the utmost remote end, doth no more make matters of order, time, and place, worship, them it maketh worship of eating, & drinking, and whatsoever we do to the honour of God, 1. Cor. 10.31.3. In place, and hour, or in the election of one Psalm, before another, there can no worship be placed, except we will make one worship to be worshipped by another, when it is timed, placed, and chosen. 4. There is no special worship in one of the gestures named that is not in the other. Neither is any of these gestures so indifferent, as that it may be lawful, to forbid, or refuse any of them, generally, and for all occasions, nor yet so, as that by circumstances (without any law or canon) they may become necessary. These examples therefore serve not the turn they were brought for.  
2. There is also (addeth the rejoinder) an arbitrary choice of essential Divine worship, as when we will pray or read, etc. where in respect of this liberty of choice, the kind of worship is indifferent in some respect. Of which assertion I know not what to say: Necessary worship is in some respect indifferent. Certainly that respect must make a worship, distinct from that necessary worship whereof it is a respect: or else, as (by the rejoinder his doctrine) all things in respect of their relation, are Ceremonies, and in respect of their utmost end, worship, so all things, or at least all human actions, are also in some respect arbitrary and indifferent. There is no end, or bottom in such reasons. The truth is, that this when which is here spoken of, is one and the same thing with hour which was mentioned in the former instance, and therefore needeth no new answer.  
6. The Def. for proving of his assertion (that God's institution doth difference necessary and essential worship, from indifferent and accidental) did bring in the instance of lambs for colour unspotted, which was necessary and essential (as he affirmed) after the law, though before indifferent and accidental.  
To this it was first answered, that this law of offering lambs for colour unspotted, is no where exstant, and therefore that this instance was alleged either out of ignorance, or for want of due consideration. The rejoinder being constrained to grant this exception to be just, turneth himself to those last words, either ignorance, or want of due consideration: and for them accuseth the Repl. of flying in the Def. his face, without Christian moderation. But if it be so great a crime, to impute either some ignorance or some inconsiderateness (such as no man alive is wholly free from) unto the Def. and if this be unchristian flying in his face, I am sure the rejoinder hath gone beyoynd the face and stabbed deeper into our Vitals, in many passages of his rejoinder.  
As succedaneall instances to the former, which was found failing, the rejoinder bringeth in divers, out of the levitical, or Ceremonial law, which were arbitrary before the law, and necessarily essential after. To all which, the second answer to the failing instance, giveth direct satisfaction. As for those Rites, which are further alleged, out of the legend of fabulous Rabbins, by Mr. Ainsworth, and ratified by the rejoinder we regard them no more, than the Popish leaden Legends. Only the marginal conclusion out of these Instances is observable: The Repl. fallaciously supposeth, that all worship is only true, or false, not observing a subdivision of true worship, into substantial, and circumstantial.  
For 1. what reason can he render, of that which he layeth upon the Repl. as if he had supposed all worship to be only true or false.  
The Repl. never denied, but all worship is also good, or evil, internal, or external, natural, or instituted, etc.  
2. The reason which he bringeth, is only from the subdivision of true worship. But that doth not hinder a superdivision, or aequidivision, into common, and special, Ecclesiastical, and domestical, as Mr. Perkinse divideth in the place before cited. 3. That division into substantial, and accidental, cannot possibly (with any reason) be more applied unto true then false worship, except the rejoinder will say, that no false worship is either substantial, or accidental.  
The seconde answer to the former instance (belonging to all those by the rejoinder adjoined) is, that i● before the law, the same worship had been performed, with the same mind, that is, in the same manner, and to the same end, it had been as essential worship, as after, though not so true, and lawful.  
The rejoinder here first, observeth a contradiction to that which was formerly said sect. 6. worship doth not vary, according to men's opinion. But if he understand the matter well, he shall find both sayings well to agree. For though the want of some opinion doth not vary the nature of worship, so as that the absence of this or that opinion, doth make any external worship, not essential: and yet it doth so vary the nature of worship, as that the presence of some opinion, doth (as an efficient, not as a formal cause) make some external act essential worship. The rejoinder his second observation is, that our Ceremonies are hereby discharged from will worship, and superstition, except it can be proved, the imposers, or users of them, do hold, that God is better pleased with them, then without them, in themselves, or that they are as pleasing to him, as if he had commanded them.  
The consequence of which hereby conclusion, no logician in the world can make good. Yet (taking out in themselves, as an intrusion) all the consequent part may be maintained. For if there be any more good h●lde in the imposing and observing of them, then in the omitting of them, than God is better pleased with them, then without them. And that which is lawfully and justly commanded by men authorized thereto, is as pleasing to God as if he had commanded it. Nay ●t must be received, as commanded of God himself.  
7. It was also by the Repl. brought into the Def. his remembrance, that matter, and form do usually make up the essence of things, and that to instituted means, a proper end is also required, but a right efficient cause not so. About this, the rejoinder showeth himself perplexed. For 1. he answereth, that this notwithstanding, actions have as it were matter, form and essence of accidental, though not of essential worship.  
Where he manifestly separateth the essence of worship, from essential worship, as if the essence of a man could exist without an essential man, 2. He gathereth from that which was said of respect to the end, in institutions, that thereby their assertion, is cleared: viz. that Cer. respecting the honour of God mediately, are not properly parts of Divine worship. As if here had been any mention or question, of mediately, or immediately, proper, or improper, and not only of essential. But for so much as the rejoinder would needs here cite D. Abbot, for his term immediately, I would desire him to consider of the whole sentence in that place pronounced by him, viz. Def. of Mr. Perk. pag. 844. Order and comeliness (saith the popish Bishop) is some part of God's worship. But (saith D. Abbot.) Who taught him this deep point of Philosophy, that an accident is a part of the subject, that the beauty, or comeliness of the body is a part of the body? Order and comeliness properly and immediately respect men, and therefore can be no parts of the woship of God. If this be not a plain refuting of the Def. and the rejoinder their assertion, than none is attempted in all the Reply.  
3. He in like manner concludeth, that every respect of the honour of God, doth not make a thing to be properly religious worship. As if the Repl. had ever spoken, or dreamt of such a fantasy, except it were in the rejoinder his name! His words are: beside the respect of the end, is also required institution of means to an end. What Paracelsian can draw so wild an assertion, from such a ground as this?  
8. It was (in the last place) demanded, whether, if the Temple of jerusalem had been built, with institution of all the appurtenances, sacrifices, and observances, there used, without any Commandment of God, according as they were by his appointment, whether (saith the Repl.) they had not been essential false worship, erected to God? The rejoinder answereth: Yes no doubt, if we may call (as the manner is) essential disworship, essential false worship: either in respect of the things themselves, or in the opinion conceyved in their use. Now mark (all readers that have sense) how this rejoinder (here in the conclusion of all) is constrained to confess, that to be true, which he hath hitherto striven against as false. 1. The Repl. his assertion was, that God's institution doth make that worship, which being used in the same manner and to the same end, were otherwise no worship, or (as it pleaseth the Def. and rejoinder to speak) no essential worship? The Rejoyn-hitherto hath contended against this, as against a great error.  
Now in the winding up of the whole Argument, he confesseth, that some essential worship may be, without any institution of God. Certainly, if this be so, than the institution of God, is not required to essential worship, neither is it of the essence of essential worship, that it be instituted of God. 2. He affirmed before, pag, 125. that proper immediate, (or essential) worship are only such things as God hath to that end ordained Yet here he confesseth, that essential worship may be without any command of God. 3. The rejoinder before, made essential and accidental worship to be a subdivision of true worship. Now he confesseth, that there is an essential worship under the head of false worship. 4. He acknowledgeth, that in all the former senseless assertions, he did not speak, as the manner of speech is.  
That was therefore against the manner of speech, which the Def. & he used before. 5. He granteth some worship to be essential, in respect of the things themselves, separated from men's opinion. Yet hitherto, he would have made us believe, that opinion did vary the nature of worship, as sect. 6. If this be not a plain yielding, and granting of the whole Argument, there can be none, save only in plain terms, to say, I yield.   

SECT. 10.11.12.13.14.  
THe former argument being (though demonstrative) yet to the Def. his apprehension new, was derided as new learning: these following are excused from that censure, as being more popular, and seeming more fadomable. Of which it is to be observed, that most of them are fetched out of incertain papiers, under the name of Mr. Hy. and others, upon the Def. his credit: wherein, what equal dealing hath been used, it is very suspicious to any judicious reader, and some of those others, (for Mr. Hy. is past writing to) being asked, have testified, that in divers passages they are much abused. Yet even these relics of Arguments are defensible.  
1. The first is: because they are imposed to breed an opinion of holiness, by Mr. hooker's doctrine and therefore, as parts of God's worship. To which the Def. answereth, that it is no meant of operative holiness, either by infusion, or inhesion, but only significative. Whence he concludeth, a perverse purpose of calumniation: and the rejoinder (adding another distinction, betwixt holiness in them, and in the users of them) maketh mention also of dotage. But 1. the Def. his distinction is vain: because even significative holiness is also a part of God's worship. Otherwise some holiness must be feigned, which having no other immediate end but that which directly and immediately tend to the honouring of God, is no part of his honour. The rejoinder also is vain in limiting the matter to holiness in them.  
For those things which are instituted to that immediate end only, that they may breed an opinion of holiness, and so holiness, in others, do (in all reason) deserve the opinion of holiness some way causal, or operative in themselves: because all breeding is causing, or working, 1. e. operative.  
It was also observed by the Repl. (only in a parenthesis, by the way) that holiness either by infusion or inhesion, were unreasonablie by the Defend. disjoined.  
This the rejoinder excepteth against, and saith, in those terms there is no more disjunction, then in these love or charity, Magistrates, or Governors.  
But he forgot the proper English note of disjunction, either, or.  
Where did he ever read such a phrase: either love, or charity, either Magistrates, or Governors?  
It was also replied, that Mr. Hooker attributed operative holiness to the Cross, in allowing all that the Fathers ascribed to it. The rejoinder his only material exception is, that the instance was here not of the Cross, but of the Surplice. Yet the question is of our Ceremonies, which is as well concluded from one, as another, and the rejoinder himself, even now, spoke of holiness in them, as of many, not in it, as of one Ceremony only.  
Neither is there any more holiness in one, then in the other, if both be only significative.  
The Repl. further affirmed, that Mr. Hooker spoke of reverence to be signified towards the Ceremonies. To which is rejoined I know not what. But let Mr. hooker's words, going before those nakedly cited by the Def. and rejoinder, be considered. The wise man could not mention so much as the garments of Holiness, but with singul●r reverence, and it will be evident, whereto he required reverence.  
In the last place, Mr. hooker's opinion is slighted, as private. Whereas all know, that he is in our Ceremonial controversies, of as public note, and approbation, as Bellamine in any Popish.  
2. The second reason being slenderly propounded by the Def. out of Mr. Hy. his mangled manuscript, was thus by the Repl. distinctly explained: A holy assembly of Spiritual Lords, and their Assistants, if they be truly holy, and spiritual in their authority, and in the exercise of it, will appoint no Ceremony but holy: and by the observance of the said Ceremonies, have some spiritual honour redounding unto themselves: because the virtue which is found in any effect, doth redound always to the praise of the cause. Of this argument, the rejoinder pronounceth, that it is a pouring out of sal● scurrility, to the very lees, a scornful jest, ascoffing, a spiteful jest, a vagrant thing, the very noting whereof is answer enough. Now how should a man deal with such disputers?  
The Def. brought this Argument out of unknowen papers, into a public book, and answered it with sharp words. The Repl. only shown the force of it: and for that, he is set upon a fresh with new words, like swords and daggars. Can they neither suffer this reason to sleep in the dark, nor endure any light of explanation should be set by it?  
And what fault can be found with the repeating of those titles, which the Prelates in Convocation take to themselves, or in drawing a conclusion from them?  
In the second place, our rejoinder undertaketh to give a real answer to this reason. To which purpose, 1. he denieth that our Ceremonies are of the institution of the Convocation-house. And yet the same rejoinder in answer to the Repl. his preface. pag. 61. complaineth of us, for infringing the liberty of the Church in her Convocation, touching the appointment of external Rites, or Ceremon. And pag. 71. as in divers other places, he telleth us that the Convocation house maketh and establisheth Canons upon & with the King's Commission, and allowance.  
They are the words also of the Parliament, set down pag. 70. that the Clergy of England made the Canons. Neither can any man doubt of this, that have but looked on the book of Canons. The ratification of such things by Civil authority, doth no more take the institution of them from the Clergy, than the like ratification of any point in true worship, doth take the institution of it from God and Christ. 2. He denieth the consequence: because a holy assembly may ordain them, and yet not make them holy.  
But it is manifest, that a holy assembly, as it is such, gathered together in the holy name of Christ, as their efficient, and final cause, cannot but put a holy form upon their ordinances. Qualis causa, tale effectum.  
3. His third answer is that these Ceremonies may be called holy, because, they are used in holy actions. Which is just so, as a pesse, hassok, or cushion may be called holy, because it is used to kneel upon, in the holy act of prayer. But instituted significant Ceremonies are evidently of another holiness, to all that do not of purpose shut their eyes.  
4. The Repl. (after the Def.) goeth about to prove that the Convocation may be called a sacred Synod, and holy in regard of their function. Which is so far from being denied by us (upon the supposition of the lawfulness of such a function, as they take upon them) that it is the ground of our reason, to prove their ordinances holy. So that the rejoinder might (in this place) have spared those sweet words of his: stomach, without wit, or learning: these men say (in effect) to all other men, stand back, I am holier than thou, they are censorious, and uncharitable. Yet the Repl. could not consent, that our Convocations should be so accounted holy as Churches instituted of Christ, and gathered for true holy worship: because neither of these do agree to our Convocation. Heerupon the rejoinder (having nothing to say that was pertinent) speaketh something of right Ecclesiastical Synods, accuseth the Separatists with Mr. jacob, and lastly affirmeth our Convocations to be gathered for a special duty of God's service, though he will not tell us, what it is, and confesseth, that little good is sometimes (he might have said at any time) done at their meetings. Which kind of answering I leave to the judgement of any reader.  
3. A third reason, feched out of M. Hy. his papers, is, that Cross and Surplice are set apart from civil uses, and appropriated unto the acts of religion in God's service. To which the Def. answered, by equal comparison of Pulpit-cloth, Communion cup, and place of meeting in like manner appropriated. Whereupon the Repl. was, in general, that the Def. did well understand what was meant by appropriation. This put the rejoinder into a passion, expressed by many words: a pretty sleight, for that which cannot be defended, by those which are puzzled and toiled, a f●im 〈◊〉, lent by Mr. jacob, a mere shift, proceeding out of an haughty desire of defending that which hath been once spoken. And this is all that I find rejoined to that passage. To which I say nothing.  
A reason was rendered of the former assertion: because a Pulpit-cloth Communion-cup, and Meeting-place are only civil, being taken from the ordinary civil customs of men. To which the rejoinder opposeth, that no civil man will say, that they are only civil in their application: Which is very true. Nor will any Grammarian say, that good Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, are only gramaticall in their application, because they are applied to the expressing of all kind of truths and falsehoods: and yet they are only gramaticall etymology and syntax. No Naturalist will say, that the earth and air are only natural in application, and yet they are only natural beings.  
It was further added, that clothes, cups, meeting places etc. are of the same use out of God's service, that they are in it.  
This is occasion of admiration, and exclamation to the rejoinder. But he might have considered, that the immediate end of a cloth, is to cover; of a cup, to drink out; of meeting places, to meet in: and then where is the strangeness of this assertion? Is there not the same immediate use of a man's eyes, in reading one book, as another, of a man's ears, in hearing one voice, and another, how soever the subject seen, or heard, may differ in nature or kind.  
A distinction was likewise used, betwixt appropriation of this or that individual, and of the kind. To this it is rejoined, 1. that the individuals are nevertheless appropriated. Which is not so: because appropriation of the kind and individual both, is more than of the individual alone. Individuals may be extrinsicallie, & accidentally appropriated, the kind remaining intrinsically common, & indifferent. 2. That some individuals (without all their kind) have been appropriated to holy uses. Of which no man doubteth: because one individual may be so used, without other. But is there therefore no difference, betwixt extrinsecall, accidental appropriation of one Levite to the Ministry, and the whole tribe? 3. Not all kind of linen garments, or crosses are appropriated to religious uses .. As if the question were of linen garments simply, though they were used without any such institution as a Surplice hath, only for the natural conveniency of it, or of crossing the fingers, upon occasion, to drive away flies, that come cross upon a man's face. There was (in the last place) mention made of the significancy of our Ceremonies, which maketh them in their intrinsical nature (as such) without any further expectation of occasional application, to be proper to religion. But of this our Rej. would not hear, in this place. Let it therefore pass to the next chapter.  
4. A fourth confirmation wholly dependeth on Matth. 15. Where the Def. would have it, that our Saviour condemneth not the act of washing (that is saith the Rej.) the monitory significant sign of washing, used by the pharisees, but their intention, & opinion, in attributing legal and operative sanctity, to that their own invention. Now concerning monitory significancy, enough hath been spoken, in the head of Ceremonies, and it remaineth to be discussed in the following chapter.  
For the present, it was first noted by the Repl. that some intention and opinion of holiness cleaveth to our Ceremonies. This is denied by the Rej. and yet in his whole dispute, he maketh them worship, though accidental, arbitrary, and improper. Neither can any man impose a double or triple religious Ceremony without intention and opinion of some holiness belonging to it, more than to that which is not so religious.  
It was in the second place observed, that more holiness was attributed to those washings, then is by many among us to the cross, cannot be proved out of the text, there being no one circumstance in it, which may not fitly be applied to our Ceremonies. To which the Rej. saith 1. that those are blind & superstitious persons, which attribute such things to the Cross, not the Church imposing. Just as Bellarmine, in the place by and by to be cited, answereth Calv. about the same matter: 
Si qui sunt inter Catholicos rudioras, etc. Eos corrigendos putamus, etc.  If there be any more rude among her Catholics, we hold them worthy to be corrected. But are not our blind Protestants, and those rude Papists, hardened in their superstition, by the imposing & urging of those things which they superstitiously dote on?  
The pharisees (addeth the Rej.) were so strongly conceited of this washing, that they thought, without it, the very creatures of God should defile them. But that of the very creatures defiling, is not in the text: It is but probably collected out of our Saviour's following discourse, that they estemeed some defiling to follow upon the eating of the creature, not as it was a creature, but as it was so used against the tradition of their Elders. And are are there not many to be found in England, that their very Baptism is deficient, unsufficient, and so defiled: if it want the Cross?  
For further answer, it was alleged by the Repl. that not only Calvin in Mat. 15. but also Bellarmin himself (de eff. Sacr. l. 2. cap. 32.) saith, that the pharisees washing was condemned as vain, and unprofitable, setting aside, intention, and opinion of legal, operative holiness. The rejoinder answering first for Bellarmine, saith he is abused: because (forsooth) he speaks that falsely, to defend the Popish Ceremonies. As if it were not the common notion of all Christians, that vain and unprofitable Ceremonies are to be condemned, or as if Bellarmine alone said this! or as if this could defend the Popish Ceremonies, which are more easily defended from any other charge, than they can be from this, that they are vain and unprofitable.  
Who would have thought, that D.B. would defend vain and unprofitable Ceremonies, in God's solemn worship? But Chemnitius (saith he) observes, that Christ condemned not these washings simply as profane fopperies, nor as simply unlawful, but in respect of religion placed in them. Not simply profane fopperies, that is, void of all show from Scripture, or reason, nor simply unlawful, if the acts in themselves be considered or abstracted from all relations by institution added unto them: but in respect of religion placed in them, 1. e. superstition adjoined unto them. Now there is superstitio not only pernicious, but also vain, and superfluous. Filucius, tract. 24. cap. 2. And chemnitius, in the same place affirmeth, the pharisees washings to have been condemned, for that (notwithstanding their vanity; and want of Divine institution) they were made some part of God's worship.  
As for Calvine, the Rej. doth not deny, but that passage alleged is found in the place, the inventing of Ceremonies was an idle vanity, before the high opinion of Religion was added unto it. Yet (saith he) 1. he cleareth our Ceremonies, which was cast upon the jewish superstitious washings. From some of that blame, (it may be granted) but not from all. For then those words (which the rejoinder confesseth him to set down) should have beme a contradiction to the other. 2. This shred (added he) is falsely alleged as touching the intention. And why so I pray?  
Because (forsooth) Calvin's meaning was, that to devise new washing, to the like end, and with the like opinion of them, as of those which God had set, uva of idle vanity.  
But if this were his meaning, how can that meaning agree with the meaning of these words: It was of idle vanity before the high opinion of Religion was added unto it?  
Was there any higher opinion of Religion added unto those washings, them to the washings which God had set? Extremity drives men to hard shifts.  
For the fuller clearing of this reason, that idle and vain or superfluous worship is condemned by Christ, Mat. 15. let these testimonies, and reasons be well considered.  
The Priests had brought in many Novelties, though Moses with great terror had threatened them not to add any thing, 

Plurima nova introduxerant sacerdotes, quamvis Moses, magno cum terrore, comminatus suerat, no quid adderent, ex quibus illasuere, de loti●nibus Duplex fuit culpa. Name & innovatio ipsa non parvum erat crimon, & quia illas observationes magis curabant, quam mandata D●●. Crimen illud prius non statim a●guit Chirstus, non ●rivolum id esse atque superfluum, dicit, ne inflammarentur.  
Tolet, upon Lic. c. 11. annot. 84. Altora causa, propter quam has lotiones sprevit, fuit illorum superstitio. Pharisai induxerant has lotiones, non ob civilem quandam & naturalem decenriam, & mun. di●iem, sed quasi ad religionem pertinentes, ut qui contemnerent, contra Dei cultum agere ●enserentur, quivero servarent, Deum in eyes colore viderentur. Hoc autem eis non licebat, quibus proh. bitur erat à Deo, Deut. 4. no quid adderent, Obid, quasi superstitiosas lotiones hujusmodi Christus rejeci● Quam causam indicat Matheus, cap. 15. Omnis plantatio quam non plantavit Patermeus, eradicabitur. Similiter Marcus cap. 7. in vasum me colunt, d●●entes doctrinas & praecepta hominum, etc. Qua propria inventione constitu●nt, contra Dei mandatum.   of which number of additions were those things of washing. There was a double fault for the innovation itself was not a slight metre and then this, that they stood more upon those observations of their own than they did on the Commandments of God. 1. That first offence Christ doth not praesently reproove them for saying it was a frivolous and superfluous, thing, lest they should have been inflamed.  
Another cause for which he despised these washings was their superstition. The Pharises had put in the said washings, not for any natural and civil decentie or cleanliness, but as pertaining to religion, who so did contemn them were judged to offend against God's worship, and who so did observe them seemed chiefly to regard, God's worship in them. But this was in no wise lawful for them to do who were so straight charged of God, Deut. 4. that they should add nothing. For this Christ rejected these washings as superstitious, which reason Mat. 15. ch. intimates when he saith: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted out. And Marc. ch. 7. In vain do they worship me teaching the Doctrines, and praeceps of men, etc. Such things as men set up of themselves against any Commandment of God.  

Estius in Tit 1.1. Mand●ta homanum ad pi●tatem nihil conducentia intelliguntur Mat. 15 & Mar: 7. in lo●ionibus multis supervacuis.  In Mat. 15. Marc. 7. the Commandments of men do mean such Commandments which conduce nothing at all to piety, as those Superfluous washings.  
5. In the fift place, another reason (or charge) was brought out of Mr. Hy. his papers, that the Ceremonies imposed, are (for their use and practise) preferred before principal parts of God's worship: because this is the Pralats Canons: wear a Surplice, or preach not: Cross, or baptise not. This the Def. accused of dull Sophistry: because by this means, only an orderly discreet preacher is preferred before one that is factious and exorbitant. Of this base Bonnerly speech, the Repl. shown his just detestation. For which he is censured by the rejoinder of casting it out of the mouth of his stomach, of malice, intemperate railings, and a furious spirit. All which I leave to the reader's judgement. Only this I observe, that he would excuse all or most of the Prelates, from willing silencing any able and godly ministers for omission of our Cerremonies, and doth absolutely deny, that the Def. ever silenced any Minister (willingly or unwillingly (for only omission of Ceremonies. Concerning which terms (willingly, and only omission) some light of explication were needful. For only omission of Cross, or Surplice, by oversight, or other accident, the Pope himself will not silence a Priest, as all Popish Divines tell us, in affirming that to be no mortal sin. And how those which make Canons for silencing upon purposed continued omission, and execute the same partly by themselves, and partly by their instruments, can be said to do it unwillingly, this requireth interpretation, which will certainly be found tardy. For clearing of this charge, from the imputation of dull Sophistry, the Repl. first propounded it in this manner: an able godly Minister without the use of these Ceremonies, is not suffered in the Ministry, whereas an unable & ungodly one, with the use of them, is suffered: therefore they are praeferred before main things: Upon this, the rejoinder 1. observeth, that from hence doth not follow that conclusion: therefore our Ceremonies are made parts of God's worship. As if this conclusion were once named by Mr. Hy. or by the Def. in this charge.  
If he will make it supposed, he must show us Mr. Hy. his concealed papers for the proof of that supposition. He addeth 2. that all Prelates are to be charged with this practice: and that they have no such power for depriving of bad, as they have for depriving of good Ministers. To which I answer, the question is not here of all, but of that which standeth by our Canons, and Canonical practice. Yet neither any authors, nor any defenders of the Canons, can be excused from partaking in this practice, no not the rejoinder himself. And as for those Praelats, which have great power to do evil, and little, or none, to do good (or which is all one, power effectually to hinder good, and not evil) they have a very dangerous standing, dangerous (I say) as well for others, as for their own selves. Yet, when our Prelates procured that authority of doing evil, they might as easily, and more lawfully have procured the other, of doing good: not to say, that none of them do so much for reforming or removing of bad Ministers, 
Estius in Ti. 1.1. Man● honunum pi●tatem conducentia intelliguntur Mat. 15 & Mar: 7. ●●ionibus ●tic superv.  as is in their power to do, either by themselves, or by other means. Nay is it not known, how such kind of catle are not only borne with, but borne up by the Prelates in bad causes?  
The third Rej. is of a calumniation, because some inconformable Ministers are suffered, and some unable, and ungodly deprived. But 1. this calumniation concerning some inconformable suffered for a time, extraordinalie, beside, nay against Canonical order. 2. He can scarce name one, that he hath known deprived for that he was unable. 3. The Turks and Infidels would cashier their Priests for some ungodliness. What a poor rejoinder is this?  
A fourth consideration is, that a fare less offence defended, is more punishable than a greater confessed, and that certain evils, in themselves lesser, may do more hurt, than others in themselves greater. Which consideration, if it be applied to the purpose, will appear in the proper colours: If a Minister confess himself unable and ungodly, he is not so punnishable, as he that defendeth the Ceremonies are not to be used. The refusing of our controverted Ceremonies, may do more hurt, than an unable and ungodly generation of Ministers conforming. In that which is further added, under the title of lastly I find nothing but words & assertions, without backing reasons. Valeant igitur, quantum valere possunt.  
The same charge was (in the second place) thus framed, by the Repl. Though there cannot be found able and discreet conformable Ministers, enough to supply all the Parishes of England, yet many of godly men are shut out of the Ministry for unconformitie. Therefore Conformity is praeferred before the main duties of God's worship. Here the Rej. having little to say, setteth notwithstanding two colours on the matter. 1. That the consequence is not simply true, but only that they conceive the non-conformity may, by consequence, be a greater hurt, than an able and godly Ministry, in such places, as want it, would recompense. As if this crying sin were only their conceit, not their practice, or that their conceits could make this sin no sin! or that the salvation of many thousand of souls, could not recompense the hurt that would come upon the refusing of human Ceremonies? What is this other then daubing rotten walls with untempered mortar.  
His second colour is, that non-conformitans are no less unblamable, who had rather have no worship, than conformity. Which is as much as if he should say, that whosoever will not sin for God's glory, doth as much offend, as he that will not suffer God to be glorified by those which will not to that end be content to sin against his conscience.  
Because this reason was accused of dullenesse, it was noted (by the way) that every Ploughman, being a good Christian, did usually make it in this blunt manner, against the Praelats proceedings, and that the Repl. (being, as it seemeth first brought up among such plain people) had from his childhood took it to be unanswerable. Heerupon, the Rej. 1. answereth the blunt argument, with this sharpness: It is like as if one should say, that God, admitting no man to the Priesthood with bodily blemish, did therefore praeferre bodily perfection before spiritual. Wherein, he deceyveth himself, & others much, whether he respecteth the first explication of this reason, or the second. For according to the first, it must be affirmed, that God would suffer men blemished in their bodies, to be priests, though they had no spiritual fitness for that office. And according to the second, he should have said, that God having otherwise to furnish the Priesthood, according to a superior law, which he might not of his will dispense with, did notwithstanding exclude some of those which that law did allow. But both these assertious are too absurd for the rejoinder to own.  
His second note is of Plowmen, and Children, that they are not the best Logicians. Which though it be true, yet is nothing to the purpose: because many Plowmen have good natural logic, to reason withal. Otherwise they did very inconsiderately, who vented so good reasons under the title of the prayer, and complaint of the Ploughman, as in Mr. Fox is to be seen, Edw. 3. among which reasons (a remarkable thing) this very slighted argument is one. For so are the words: O Lord, for breaking of thy law, the Praelats will set men penance, or pardon them, and maintain them, as oft as they trepasse. But Lord, if a man once break their laws, or speak against them he may do penance but once, and after be burnt.  
The sum of which, Mr. Fox, in the margin, thus gathereth: The breaking of the Pope's law is more punished, than the breaking of God's law. And as for children, I am persuaded, that D.B. himself, had some truths so evident unto him, that by no contrary show of logic they could ever be wrung out of him. Sure I am that Timothy, knowing the Scriptures from a child, had many such.  
Neither was their mention made either of plowmen or children, But only to show the evidence of this truth, not the logical Demonstration of it.  
That which was added, by way of limitation, to the name of a ploughman, namely, that it was understood of such a ploughman, as is also a good Christian, is very bitterly, and yet as very unreasonablie carped at by the rejoinder as savouring strongly of that spirit of Separation, which hath been hunted after in the ch●se of inconformity. For (saith the rejoinder if any will believe all his conceits) this shows, that with these men the adversaries of Ceremonies and Bishops are the only good Christians.  
Which is a strange strain, to come from D. B. who both hath been an unconformist, and since he hath changed that title, cannot but know, that sundry unconformists have carried themselves towards himself, in all respects, as toward a good Christian. And what strong savour is in this: every ploughman that is a good Christian doth unsua●ly make this Argument. Doth he imagine, that only those plowmen, that are professed adversaries to Ceremonies and Bishops, do● make it? Nay he knoweth, that many, and many of those that could otherwise well digest both, yet do apprehend this course of Bishops silencing Ministers for such Ceremonies is ungodly, and Antichristian. If he did not know so much, yet he cannot be ignorant, that the word here interposed by the Repl. for limitation, usually, doth except some more ignorant, or less attentive good Christians. And I doubt not, but the rejoinder will affirm, that every good conforming Minister in England, doth usually account them for schismatics that condemn the Ceremonies: yet I would not thence conclude, that with him, those of that judgement are the only good Ministers. For there is as much sin against charity, in rash accusing others of uncharitableness, as there is in being uncharitable: of which fault, the rejoinder can never clear this affected passage, which he in opposition let fall from him.  
For overthrow of the former reason, an instance was brought in by the Def. taken from a Chancellor, who may (saith he) put out of Commission him that refused to sit in the place appointed, without praeferring that place to the King's service. To this the Repl. 1. answered, that no wise Chancellor, would, for his own pleasure, or for the circumstance of a place easily change, or put out of Commission a grave wise man, when another like unto him cannot be found. These last words another like unto him cannot be found, are cached up by the rejoinder and under the show or sound of them, the Inconformists are by him tossed (as it were) in a blanket, as being of a high strain, beyond all other men, in their own persuasion etc. But he might have considered (if sinister affection had not hidden it from him) that the case immediately going before this answer, was of shutting out able godly Ministers for inconformity, when there cannot be found able and fit conformable Ministers enough. Whereupon is inferred, that the comparison of the L. Chancellor will not help the Def. in this case.  
Now what kind of strain is this then in the rejoinder to conceal the case, and stretch the words as it were with his teeth, unto such a strange odious meaning of so witless a brag. Yet if there had been no such dependence of these words upon that case, they might be well defended, as understood of an absolute comparison (either for ability, or piety) but in relation to this or that people; from whom such Miinisters are sometime plucked away by violence, whose like, in regard of that people (which have been much edified by them, and more inwardly known, and also (upon good ground) affected unto them, than they can suddenly unto any other) cannot be found.  
Otherwise, D. Burges, in his Apology (towards the conclusion) would not have alleged against the silencing of himself, and others like him, that those (at the least) should succeed them, which were not so well acquainted with the condition of their sheep. It might be also added, that though another like might be found, yet it is not in the power of that L. Chancellor, or the Bishop to find, bring, & place him in the same Commission, because (for the succession) he must depend upon the Patron's pleasure, not limited to another like the predecessor.  
But that this wresting of the Replyer his words, was affected (in some sort against conscience) it may appear by this, that no man will surmise, the Repl. to think, that to no unconformable Minister a Peer may be found: because it is to be supposed (at the least) that another unconformable one may not only be equal, but also superior unto him in all absolute perfection.  
It was also observed, for answer to this instance of a L. Chancellor, that about the circumstance of place, for Commissioners to meet in, there can be no Conscience pretended, whereas in our Ceremonies, solemn oaths are offered, that no thing but conscience doth keep us from them. The rejoinder 1. opposeth, that this unlikeness maketh, nothing to the question. And yet it showeth, that a Chancellor may in civil matters, where no conscience can be pretended, take more upon him without preferring, or comparing the matters, than a Bishop can, where Conscience evidently withstandeth: because Consciëce is not to be vexed, except the matter be so great, that (in respect of God's glory) it cannot be neglected. He 2. opposeth, that many more of the Conformitans, are ready to take it s● upon their oath, that nothing but conscience makes them conform. To which I say 1. that he who was immediately before, so curious in holding to the question, should not presently have digressed from it: as the rejoinder here doth, in turning the comparison, which was made betwixt a L. Chancellor and a Bishop, in respect of a conceited Commissioner, and a conscionable Minister about preferring one thing before another, into a new comparison, betwixt the consciences of Conformitants, & of those which refuse to conform. 2. Of that so, if the same meaning be kept on both sides, I much doubt.  
For our Conscience is, that in no place, nor uponany man's command, we may conform: and theirs is, that upon great urgent extremities, they may some time, and in some place conform. I am persuaded, that if it had been free in England to use these Ceremonies, or not to use them. D. B. himself hath no conscience, that would ever have made him conform.  
After this, the Repl. added something, about the Def. his Pontifical terms, factious and exorbitant men. opposed to orderly and discreet Preachers. As 1. that the Def. himself in his conscience will not say, that Mr. Midsley of Ratsdale, and others like him, were factious and exorbitant men. 2. That this is the language of that evil servant, who beat his fellow-servants, better than himself: Mat. 24.49.3. That all those who are placed in the room of silenced Ministers, are not orderly and discreet Preachers. 4. That faction and exorbitancy may better be charged upon the Prelates, for breaking many substantial, ancient, wholesome Canons, then upon us, for breaking a Ceremonious Canon. Now (setting aside the rejoinder his wand'ring words, with the honey and gall of them) see what he bringeth to the purpose. 1. The first he granteth to be true. But denieth that the Def. meant so generally. And yet the Def. his words are: who seethe not, that to deprive men of their Ministry for not using of the Ceremonies (for that was objected) is to prefer an orderly and discreet Preacher, before one that is factious and exorbitant. If this be not generally spoken, let any reasonable ear discern.  
2. The second he doth not absolutely gainsay but casteth the like, or rather a fare greater fault in our faces: that we (forsooth) do condemn to the p●t of darkness. Bishops, Conformitants, and in a manner all that are not of our party. Which is so manifest a slander, that the evil servant spoken of Matth. 24.49. could hardly vent one more shameless.  
3. The third he confesseth: But would make it impertinent though it clean overthroweth the Def. his general assertion, before expressed. He addeth also certain frothy words, containing little else, beside manifest slanders, which if he were put to such an oath, as they call juramentum calumniae, he would not own.  
4. The Prelates wilful, and continual breaking of many, substantial, & wholesome Canons, is not denied by the Rej. but yet to save their credit, he addeth, that all such Canons do not bind every particular Church, but her own. In which words there is neither rhyme, nor reason. The Canons objected, may be seen in Master Parker, part. 2. c. 9 sect. 4. to be Canons of our own Church. What then hath the rejoinder said to the purpose? His other stuff hath been sundry times examined, and found nothing worth.  
5. All these considered, it will appear, that the Rej. had more will, than power, to maintain, that the silencing of Preachers for our Ceremonies, is the praeferring of orderly discreet Preachers, before those that are factious and exorbitant.  
6. After all this, out of Mr. Hy. his papiers, it pleased the Def. to bring in some pieces out of the Abrigement: which for substance are such as divers times have been handled before: and therefore need not much labour in this place.  
The first is, that many people in our land, are known to hold the Sacraments not rightly and sufficiently administered or received without them. For the force of such an opinion in the muliitude, many testimonies are alleged in the Abrigement, and applied unto this assertion, not in deed to prove the same simply, but to show what is the consequence of it. All these the Def. left out, and the Rej. had no mind to take them in, but chose rather to rest in this: they are no proofs of the assumption. It was added by the Repl. the opinion even of a few, may make some action unlawful, which the opinion of many other cannot make lawful. 1. Cot. 10.28. To avoid this, the rejoinder had nothing material to say, before he had changed unlawful into simply unlawful.  
The just number of those that are so minded, cannot be proved, or disproved, without numbering and examining all the people. It was not therefore any meaning of those that gave the rule to reckon by the paul▪ as the Def. and rejoinder would have us.  
Neither is this observation brought in to prove imposing and observing, conjunctly, as they would bear the reader in hand, but only for the observing, other proofs being added for the imposing. Yet it was observed by the Repl. that while actions of this kind are superstitiously observed, they that still impose them in those places where they are so observed, may truly be interpreted so to impose them. To which the rejoinder giveth no other proper answer, but only leaving out the pith of that assertion, may be truly so interpreted, substituteth another; of a purposed end: and then misinterpreteth actions of this kind, as if they were meant of the special kind of things, and not of unnecessary actions known to be superstitiously abused.  
It was also noted as ridiculous in the Def. that those people which think that Sacraments are not rightly administered, or received without the Ceremonies, are brought into that conceit by our condemning of the said Ceremonies. The rejoinder answereth, that this condemning of them, must needs make some think that they are imposed as parts of religion, and so occasion the simple to think that we esteem them so.  
In which answer, beside that I know not who are meant by we, and that an occasion of the second or third hand, is made a cause, there is no mention made of right or unright Sacraments.  
For lessening of the number of those which so esteem of our Ceremonies, the Papists are first removed, as having no great conceit of them. Which I leave to experience. Only because the rejoinder requireth testimony, I can inform him, that Gretser, Apol. pro Greg. 7. p, 8. hath these words: A Lutheran, preaching in certain garments like the Ape of the priests, 
Pradicans Lutheranus ut Sacerdotum simius, vestibus certit indutur, Missam Germa nicam celebrat.  celebrates a Germane Mass. And the rejoinder himself confesseth in the next words, they have a better conceit of them, then of the contrary, and that such as hath been held likely to araw them to our service, and that they have a great disaffection to those that will not tollerat the resemblance of their religious Ceremonies. Add further, that after B. Babington, and B. Andreos, D. Morton himself, in the last words of his Protestants Appeal, hath confirmed the rumour, that Pope Paulus quaertus, did offer to confirm our whole Service and Liturgy. The Papists therefore have no cause why they should not have a good conceit of our Ceremonies, which of all the Service come nearest to, and make most for them.  
As for the rest, that so conceit of the Ceremonies, which are not of your disciplining, saith the rejoinder) and yet are conformable they are not many. As if those of our disciplinating, were so conceited, or those of Wales, Nonresidents, and dumb-residents forlorn charges, who are not disciplined by us, were either few or of reformed judgement. Surely D.B. is not like himself, when he upon engagement defendeth that which cannot be defended.  
7. The second thing brought out of the abridgement, is about the punishment inflicted for omission of our Ceremonies, greater than for breaking of God's law, in perjury and adultery. Now this hath formerly been handled. In this place therefore, it shall suffice, to set a few notes, upon the Rej. his answers. 1. He distinguisheth betwixt punishing, and punishing as a sin. As if punishment in the internal nature of it, were not of sin! 2. He distinguisheth betwixt internal peace of the Church, consisting more in observance of God's commandments, and the peace of her external policy, impeached by the neglect of her constitutions. Whereas he should have made the distinction betwixt one consisting, & another, or betwixt one impeaching, & another.  
And yet both the consisting and impeaching of the Church's peace, doth principally depend on the keeping of God's commandments: which is all the Repl. affirmed. 3. He distinguisheth betwixt an offence every way less, and in it own nature less, whenas the question is not, whether the neglect of our Ceremonies, be not only in it own nature a less offence, but also in all the circumstances of it. The Def. and rejoinder themselves confess, that this neglect, in the nature of it, is no offence at all. 4. Because such answers were termed Sophistical evasions, the rejoinder twice crieth out of railing: forgetting (without doubt) how often he had abused the same term against the Repl. and that in the next former section, he had maintained the Def. his accusing a plain popular argument, not only of Sophistry, but even of dull Sophistry. For the rejoinder certainly will not confess himself a railer. The rest is not worth repeating, that paper should be twice blotted with it.  
Against the Def. his distinction, betwixt omission, and contempt, the Reply was 1. that mere omission hath been punished with suspension. Of which the rejoinder requireth a continued instance. To which I answer, that one instance may be given in Ispswiche, where D. B. was Preacher. For most of the Ministers were suspended upon the complaint of one Web, who professed, that he would not put on the Surplice except others did. D. B. may inquire easily if it was not so. As for continuance, it maketh not to the purpose, except all malefactors be not only put in prison, but also continued in the same, above the judge's pleasure.  
The Repl. for affirming, that punishments for mere omission, are provided for by Canon, is accused by the rejoinder of an untruth in print.  
Yet the rejoinder cannot be ignorant (beside other examples) that every man not kneeling, is to be denied the Sacrament, and that the Minister administering to such, is by the Canon, to be suspended.  
So that this was truth in print, ever since the Canons were in print: except suspension from the Sacrament, & from the Ministry be in his account no punishment.  
8. The last thing noted out of the Abridgement is, that nonconformitants are accounted Schismatics, Puritans, and excommunicates, ipso facto, without appeal: which is without example. The rejoinder here 1. denieth that flatly, without more words, which is plainly cited out of the 6. Canon, let the Canon therefore be looked upon, and that is enough. 2. He saith that the old anathema sit was as much as to excommunicate ipso facto.  
And yet King james himself, in his answer to Perone, doth show, that the old anathema sit, was only a declaring who ought to be excommunicated, and not an excommunication de facto. 3. He saith for Appeal, that none is admitted, from the highest Court, such as the Convocation is. As if either the Convocation were the highest court, or any court at all, for aught that I ever heard of the Court of Convocation, as I have of a Court of Parliament, or as if so much liberty were left unto a poor Minister, now standing at the Bishop's bar, as to appeal to the next Convocation. The rejoinder surely did not well consider what he spoke.  
4. Whereas the Def. granted, that we have reason perhaps to wish, that some poenalties were released, the rejoinder interpreteth this reason to be such as all men that feel the smart of punishment (for whatsoever offence) may have. Which is nothing else, but to look on, with laughter, at all the grievous things which any Ministers have suffered, for this cause. And yet every foot the rejoinder putteth on another person, and (as I am persuaded) hath another heart.  
After this, the rejoinder cometh to the slanders of Puritamisme, and Schism. And as for Puritanisme, he saith the Def. slided by it, as a term not imposed upon us by him. As if we may not complain of, or infer a consequence, from any term, except it be imposed upon us by D. Morton, or D. Burgess or at the least, they were not bound to answer for any terms, except such as they themselves have imposed!  
For Schism, and Separation, after some sparkling words of rash-blasphemous, and fiery Sirs, he telleth us 1. (1. that nothing may be established in the Church, which God hath not commanded in his w●rd, 2. that all forms of worhip and all more Ecclesiastical rites, not prescribed, are will-worship. 3. That the calling of our Bishops, and consequently of our Ministers, is Antichristian. 4. That our Ceremonies are idolatrous,) are the first principles of Separation. Now if it would please the rejoinder either to declare what is Separation, or what is a principle, this question would be easily decided. In the mean time, I answer. 1. the first principle is from Moses, if it be understood, as we mean it: thou shalt not add any thing thereto. 2. The second confounding mere rites, with forms of worship, is not ours, but only by the Rej. his fiction. 3. The third supposeth, that which we utterly deny, that the calling of our Ministers doth essentially depend upon the Bishop's calling. 4. The fourth is made schismatical, by a schismatical conceit of the Rej. namely, that every Church is to be utterly condemned▪ and so separated from, that hath any thing in it, by participation idolatrous. His ever being of this opinion, may be answered in that fashion which he answereth the like phrase withal, pag. 216. He hath not ever been the best Logician. His profession, of separating (this day, ere he sleep) if he did believe these principles, is nothing else but a rhethoricall flourish, which he would twice recall, before he would separate from those that bow to Altars, or even those which worship an ubiquitary body, in the Lord's supper, though these are more palpably idolatrous (in his conscience) than the Ceremonies questioned are in ours.  
As for the addition, with a yea, that Mr. bradshaw's very arguments are pretended for Separtion so as they cannot be denied with any forehead, etc. It is not worth a refutation: because Mr. Bradshaw himself in a book entitled, the unreasonableness of the Separation) hath sufficiently showed how unreasonably they are pretended, and abused. If the rejoinder hath any thing to rejoigne thereto, I would willingly see with what forehead he can do it.  
The other talk of this section, as also the recounting of a confutation in the 15. section, I leave to be counted as it deserveth, by him that will compare what hath been said, with the wordy rejoinder to it, so vainly opposed, and so often repeated.  
Only (in few words) let it be noted 1. how in the 15. section, he slighteth the sentence of D. Covell as not worth any answer) who confuted his Apology, and in that writing (at the least) was a kind of public wrighter, having had as much approbation, as this rejoinder hath for his rejoinder as appeareth out of the rejoinder his preface pag. 18. namely of the than L.A. D. Bancroft, etc. 2. How he maketh the imposers sentence, to be an adequate rule of observance, de facto. 3. How he denieth some divine worship only to be unholy in the kind: as if some singular true divine worship may be unholy. 4. What a wild consequence he buildeth upon: if the cross be no part of the Sacrament, than it is no part of worship: because it may not (in the Repl. his opinion) be a part. 5. How unreasonablie he defendeth this consequence: our Ceremonies are changeable, and therefore not essential worship; when yet he confesseth the Popish Ceremonies to be changeable, and yet essential worship. 6. What science there is, for a rejoinder upon such grounds to charge the Repl. for violating his conscience?    

CHAP. 3. The third Argument, taken from the significant nature of our Ceremonies.  

SECT. 1. and 2. Concerning certain miscelaneall notions and testimonies against humane relegious significant Ceremonies.  
1. THis Argument pleadeth, that no humane Ceremonies, appropriated to God's service, ordained, or instituted, to teach any spiritual duty, by mystical signification, are lawful. About this the rejoinder threateneth blows. But we have had now such experience of his forceless endeavours in other Arguments, that the fear of his blows is past.  
2. The first proof of our proposition was taken from the second Commandment: which the Def. omitted in this place, and the rejoinder will not have any man to take exception against the said, omission: but with what reason, let his reader judge.  
3. A second proof was, that Christ is the only teacher of his Church, and appointer of all means whereby we should be taught and admonished of any holy duty, and all Christ's doctrine, with the means thereof, is perfectly contained in the holy Scripture. Here (saith the rejoinder) the Def. forgot to tell, how absurd this collection is, Christ is the only authentic teacher of his Church etc. therefore they may be no means of teaching or admonishing unto duties, but such as be ordained as necessary. As if it were sufficient for the Def. or rejoinder to tell us any thing as they please, how little ever it be to the purpose.  
He maketh show of a distinction, betwixt an authentic teacher, and another, what do you call him? to which we cannot say much until he remember to tell us the name, style, and office of that other by-teacher?  
Only this, by the way, I would learn: how we can acknowledge and receyve any means of religious teaching with faith, except it appear to be appointed by an authentic teacher and lawgiver? And how our Prelates in oppointing means of spiritual teaching which Christ appointed not, can be accounted (therein) Ministerial teachers under him as their and our only authentic teacher? As also, if Christ be our Authentic Teacher in all good that we learn about religion, who taught our Prelates such good manners, as to put fescues, of their own making, into his hand, and so appoint him after what manner, and by what means he shall teach us? P. Mart. (in Reg. 8. thus disputeth. For as much as God is most wise he needs not our devise for instruments to stir up faith in us which also no tradesman in his kind would endure, 
Cum Deus sit sapientissimus, non opus babet ut nostro cogitatu, illi par●mus instrumenta (ad fidem in nobis excitandam) quod etiam quisquam Artifex in sua facultate minime serret, se dipsomat velles su● arbitratu, sibi deligere.  but would choose to himself at his own pleasure what he should think most fit. Nay I would be resolved of this doubt: whether this be not a doctrine religious in England: The sign of the cross doth signify unto us that we should not be ashamed of Christ crucified etc. If it be (as no Conformist can deny) than I would know: whether and where Christ, our only Authentic teacher, doth teach this doctrine? or if our Prelates may bring in a new doctrine into the Church, and cause Ministers to preach it? He leaveth out of our proof, that Christ is the only appointer of means, as also that those means are limited to admonition of a holy duty: and in stead of our conclusion, he bringeth in another, of ordaining as necessary.  
The support also of our collection he omitteth: to acknowledge any other means of teaching and admonishing us of our duty, than such as Christ hath appointed, is to receyve another teacher into the Church, beside him, and to confess some imperfection in the means by him ordained. Yet in the midst of this shuffling, and cutting, he telleth us, that our collection is absurd. His reason is not by manifesting the fault of our consequence, but only by objecting some instances, and those also nothing to purpose. Then (saith he) it should not be lawful to use any help of Art Memorative, nor to set up a gybbett, or a traitor's head on a pole, to give men warning against murder, or treason. Had he so soon forgotten, that the question is of Ceremonies, appropriated to God's service, teaching by ordination, or ínstitution? If he had not, what did he mean, to instance in things that were never called Ceremonies (before this rejoinder made all things in the world, in some respect, Ceremonies, by his wild definition of a Ceremony,) things that have no use in God's service, much less appropriated thereto, things not teaching by virtue of any ordination, or institution, but only by their natural relation, nay things not teaching at all any spiritual duty directly, and immediately? Characters and such like helps of memory, do no otherwise teach trueh, than error, and heresies no more spiritual duties, then carnal lusts, as experice doth teach. One of the ancients, and learnedest Schoolmen of our Country (Alex. Alensis, p. 4. q. 1. m. 1.) teacheth us, 
Literae significantes sacras sententias, non significant eas in quantum sacra sunt, sed in quantum su● tres.  that Letters that signify sacred sentences do not signify them as they are sacred, but as they are things. And if it be lawful to institute significant Ceremonies, for all things, that we may note in characters, for memory sake them certainly our Convocation may instituteCeremonies properly Sacramental, even such as do signify and seal the Covenant of grace. For there is no doubt, but that we may note in characters or writing all that belong to that Covenant. Gibbets, & traitor's heads (besides the former exception out of Alex. Hales) are remembrances of death inflicted upon such malefactors: but neither to be appointed by any, without that authority, by which death is inflicted, nor in their use imposed upon any, nor determined by institution, to the teaching of any thing, which they would not otherwise teach, not yet such remembrances as may be brought into God's worship. Nay, from them some good Divines do reason against images in Churches, and such like significant Ceremonies. D. Fulke against Sanders of images, hath these words: Images (saith Sanders are profitable: because they bring us in remembrance of good things. I deny this argument: because nothing is profitable in religion, but that wh●ch is instituted by God. For otherwise we might bring the gallows into the Church, which bringeth us in remembrance of God's justice.  
4. To pass by those exceptions of the Repl. against the Def. which the Rej. calleth wranglinges (though they be defensible enough) The first proof of our proposition is taken from Mar. 7. and Matth. 15. where (as we allege) our Saviour by this argument (among others) condemneth the jewish purifijnges, and justifieth himself, and his Disciples, in refusing that Ceremony: because (being the precept of men) it was taught, and used, as a doctrine, by way of signification to teach what inward purity should be in them, and how they ought to be cleansed from heathen pollutions. To this the Rej. (supplying again that which the Def. had forgotten) answereth, that this reason (among others) of signification, is our fiction. Now (though these places of Scripture have formerly been handled, in the second chapter) let any man considerthis observation: we find in our Saviour's answer, three reasons of reprehending the pharisees: 1. That their washing was praeferred before the Commandments of God. 2. That it was hypocritical. 3. That it was a vain worship, & therefore sin. If any say, it was not vain, as significant, we reply, it could be no outward worship, but as religiously significant. For washing, without signification had been mere civil. And Marc. 7.4. The pharisees are reproved, for mere undertaking to observe washings, no mention being made of any other reason, but only that observance, which must needs be understood of all observance, which was not civil, but (by institution & intention) religious.  
5. For this interpretation, and collation, many good Divines were cited as fathering the same. They are all abused, saith the Rej. Now of chrysostom, enough hath been said, in the former chapter. D. Whitakers his approbation of the same sentence is shifted of, with binding of conscience, and holiness placed in them. But these shifts are sufficiently discussed in the former part of this book. To the Confession of Witenberge it is answered. 1 That it doth not so much as give any glance at Marc. 7. Which how true it is, may appear by these their words: 
Non licea, vel vet●res legis vitus restaurare, vel nov●s comminisci, ad adumbrandam veritatem Euangelicam jam patefactum: quales sunt. Uti vexillis, & crucibus, ad significandam victoriam Christs per crucem: quod genus est universa panopliae vestium missalium, quam aiunt adumbrare totum passionem Christi, & multa id genus alia. Da hoc ●enere, Ceremoniarum & sacror●m, Christus ex Isaia concionatur, f●ustra (inquiens) colunt me doc●ntes doctrinas, praecepta hominum.  Nor is it lawful to restore either the old rites of the law, or to devise new in their place to signify the truth of the gospel now come to light, as for example, to use banners and Crosses to sign Christ's victory on the Cross: of which kind of i●ly devised repraesentions, is the whole furniture of Mass accontrements, which they say doth set forth the whole passion of Christ, and many such like things. Of which sacred ceremonies Christ preacheth out of Isajah; In vain they worship me teaching for doctrines the precepts of men.  
Which last words are (in every syllable of them) found Marc. 7.7. Is not this so much as a glance at Marc. 7? Suerly here the Rej. had more affection to his cause, than attentation to the place in quaestion,  
6. Of Calvin, see the former chapter. Yet here also let these words of his be remembered: 
Omnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 damnars mini● me obscurun● est. Eos errare▪ Christus pronunciat, qui loco doctrina obtrudu ut hominum mandata, fixum illud maneat fictitios omnes cultus coram Deo vanos esse  In these words it is evident, that all will worships are condemned. Christ pronounceth them erroneous, which for Doctrine obtrude mens p●aeceps. Let this stand firm, all devised worships are most vain before God. Under which censure and sentence, that he includeth such significant Ceremonies as ours are, it appeareth, as out of his condemning them in the Lutherans, against Westphalus, so out of his own practice in Geneva and France, where all such are abolished: for he professeth (the necess. ref. Eccl.) We have touched nothing no not with the least finger to remove it except that which Christ accounts nothing, 
Nil vel minimo digito attigimus nisi quod pro nihilo Christus ducit, cum frustra coli Deum humanis traeditionibus pronunci●t.  seeing he pronounceth God is vainly worshipped by humane traditions.  
7. Virel (in Catechism. in praecep. 2.) extendeth the second Commandment, unto the forbidding of every humane religious likeness. The Rej. also confesseth, that the same Virel, there condemneth all superstition: to which he if he had added his definition of superstition, viz: that it is a worshipping of God by rites and Ceremonies devised of man, all would have been plain. Neither is it material, that Virel pointeth not to Marc. 7. (as the Rej, noteth) seeing he groundeth his doctrine upon Matth. 15.9. where the same words are found, which in Marc. 7.7. are repeated. The Rej. therefore had no show of reason to say, that Virel was abused, in that he was cited as interpreting Mark, because (by his own confession) he doth interpret the same words which are found in Mark.  
8. Zepperus his testimony (which was not his alone, but the common sentence of divers Protestant Synods, as appeareth out of his preface) is so full, that the rejoinder in him forbore his common accusation, that he was abused. His words are these, de Pol. Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 10. reg. 3. 
Cum D●us per humanas traditiones frustra colatur, Mat, 15.9. perque illas in hominum cordibus efficax esse non velit, oneras illas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse, opinionem tantum sapientiae habentes, per quas nullam animorum devo tionem, fidem, invocationem, & poenitentiam veram, in cordibus excitare velit. & reg. 4. Ceremonia ab hominibus administrationi Sacramentorum assutae, tetidem sunt varierum errorum, idololatriae, & superstitionum seminaria & fomenta Tales Ceremoniae sunt abolendae Mat 15 6. Mar. 7.9. Hinc manifestum evadit, abroganda esse circa Baptismum, oleum, shall, aquaem lustralem, cereos, characterem Crucis, etc.  Sith God is worshipped in vain by humane traditious Mat. 15.9. Nor will be of an efficacy by such things in the hearts of men, and being mere will-worships, Carrying but an opinion of wisdom through which God will never stir up devotion, prayer, faith, and repentance in us etc. And again. The ceremonies Cobbled or botched by men to the administration of the Sacraments are so many seminaries and nurseries of error, idolatry and superstition such ceremonies are to be abolished Mat. 15. Marc. 7. Whence it is manifest that about Baptism oil, salt, holy water, tapers, the sign of the cross etc. are to be abrogated.  
If these words be not to the purpose, in the rejoinder his own conscience, than I despair of satisfying him about any testimony that maketh against that tenet which he is resolved to maintain (as they say) by hook or crook.  
9 D. Fulke (saith the rejoinder did not think humane Ceremonies to be condemned for being significant, when no religion, or service of God is placed in them. Which is as much as if he had said: D. F. did not think humane Ceremonies to be condemned for being significant, when they are not significant: For (as hath been showed in the former part, all religious Ceremonies instituted, by their signification to raise up the heart unto the honouring of God, have some religion and service of God placed in them. And that D. Fulke did mean by placing of religion, or God's service in them, the using of them unto religious use, it appeareth by a like place in Act. 17. sect. 5. Though it be not simply unlawful, to express in painting the visible shapes showed in Visions to the Prophets, yet to make those shapes for any use of religion, is abominable idolatry.  
10. For D. Raynolds, the rejoinder answereth 1. that he giveth no hint touching the interpretation of this place. 2. that he only inveigheth against the multitude and burden of Symbolical rites, showing their use in Popery to be jewish. 3. that D.R. judged our significant Ceremonies lawful to be used in case of silencing and deprivation. Now for the first, I answer, that as there are hints of interpretation for many places of the old Testament, in the new, which yet are not cited there, so may it be that D. R. gave a hint, without quoting. About the third point, I 1. observe, that by the rejoinder his own relation, D. Rain, was not of his and D. Mortons' judgemen. For he judged our Ceremonies only tolerable in case of extremity: but they allow the very institution of them, as good and profitable for order, decency, and aedification. 2. D.R. never manifested to the world in public any reasons for that judgement, but rather for the contrary, as by and by we shall hear. 3. There is a kind of suspensive judgement (such as cyril, Peter Lombard, as Estius in 2. d. 21. allegeth and interpreteth them, say Eve had, about the Serpents speaking) to which the iniquity of times do draw many godly and learned men, not only about Ceremonies violently urged by & with grievous poenalties, but also about greater matters, as experience in all ages hath showed. But that is nothing to others as being destitute or forsaken of certain grounds or supports.  
Concerning the second and main point, the best way is, to set down D.R. his own words, which are these: Were it so, that the Popish Unction had another, either work, or meaning, with the Papists, then with the jew, as after a sort, it hath, yet might the Ceremony be jewish notwithstanding, as sacrificing of a lamb, to signify Christ already come. At the least S. Peter did constrained the Gentiles to judaize (Gal. 2.12.) though he, and those Gentiles had another meaning, then that wherein that choice of meats was prescribed to the jews. Adu. Hart. chap. 8. sect. 4.  
Thus far I had in my notes, out of the English edition but there is this more in the book, as I now find in the latin copy, not having the English at hand: your rites in the very kind are jewish or as the jewish were. Now out of these last words I argue thus: 
Vestri ritus ipso genere, judaici sunt, quales Iudaici exstiterunt.  1. If all umbraticall rites be judaical, and therefore unlawful, than all religious significant Ceremonies are jewish and unlawful.  
But D. R. saith the first: therefore he teacheth also the later. 2. Out of the former I conclude thus: if a jewish rite may be without a jewish opinion, than our Ceremonies may be jewish, or Popish, without a jewish, or Popish opinion, or doctrine.  
But the first is affirmed by D. R. therefore the later also. Which if it be true, then both the Defend. and rejoinder have taken a false ground of their Ceremonial doctrine, in affirming so confidently upon all occasions, that it is the opinion and docdrine only which maketh a Ceremony jewish, Popish, or any way unlawful.  
All this notwithstanding, the rejoinder could not forbear, to accuse the Authors of the Abridgement, his old reverend friends, of shameful abusing the world, with false allegations of these Divines, nor to triumph in his discovering of this shame.  
But I could wish, from my heart, that he, and his best friends living, had no more cause to be ashamed of his Rejoinder, than they had of these allegations, which none of the Authors, if they were on earth alive would disavow.  
11. In the last place, upon occasion of our disliking all the significant Ceremonies, brought in by the pharisees, it pleased the Def. to tax us for being too like the Saducees, in refusing such Ceremonies. Now of this accusation the Replier only desired the Def. to consider, if it did not touch our blessed Saviour himself, who by his example, and doctrine opposed the same Ceremonies? Heerupon the rejoinder answereth, that our Saviour walked a middle path, betwixt the excess of the pharisees, and the praecisenes of the Saducees, in Ceremonies, observing many humane significant Ceremonies in religion, as the Feast of Dedication, embaulming at burials, sitting at burials, sitting at the Passover, and the Synagogues, with their formalities. In which answer, the rejoinder hath showed, that upon occasion, he dare go as far, and say as much for humane Ceremonies, as any that went before him, if not more, and that with such confidence as is not abated with reverence of our Saviour himself, whom this passage doth concern. But beside this audaciousness, I find no truth in these words, For. 1. That which he saith of the Saducees praecisenesse in flying all human Ceremonies, is not true. The Saducees (saith Epiphanius lib 1. c. 14.) omnia aequabiliter cum Samaritis observant. i e. they observe all that the Samaritans observe: and who can doubt but the observations and Ceremonies proper to the Samaritans, were all inventions of men, with the Devil's help. The Saducees also were sometime high priests at jerusalem, as for example, Annas is noted by josephus (l. 20. c. 15.) and by like historians, to have been a Saducen. Now it is not credible, that any high Priest in those times, did abstain from all humane Ceremonies, used commonly by all the jews Mar. 7. 3. At the least the high Priest did observe the feast of Dedication, sitting at the Passover, and such like (in the rejoinder his account) humane Ceremonies. 2. The Saducees were profane beasts, not hoping for Heaven, nor fearing Hell, and so were always ready to observe any Ceremonies that made for their temporal advantage, of what kind soever they were. 3. It appeareth out of the premises▪ that our blessed Saviour (in favour of our paltry base Ceremonies) is wronged in his holy name, as if he had been more observant of humane mystical constitutions in religion, than many of the worst jews, whom yet he reproved for following traditions of men. 4. Because the rejoinder speaketh of a middle path, betwixt the excess of the pharisees, and preciseness of the Saducees, observed by our Saviour, it would be known, whether that middle were medium participationis, or medium abnegationis? i. e. Whether it was only a third way partaking of neither extreme? or had in it part of the pharisees excess, and part of the Saducees preciseness? The former sense we may (upon the rejoinder his supposition acknowledge: and that maketh nothing to the purpose.  
If the later meaning be the Rejoinders, than he must show us, how far our Saviour did agree in practice with the pharisees? And to clear that, he must prove that the pharisees had lawful authoritte, for appointing or instituting mystical Ceremonies, and which of them were allowed by our Saviour? 5. The examples here given, pertain nothing to the question. The feast of Dedication cometh after to be handled. Embalming at burials, was no significant religious Ceremony, but a civil rite common to the Israelites with the Egyptians, and other Heathens. If it were, yet being from the time of the patriarchs, how will the rejoinder prove that it was instituted without Divine direction? Sitting at the Passover can neither be proved to be mystical, nor yet instituted by man. Synagoges were no more significant Ceremonies, than was the school of Tyrannus, Act. 19.9. The opening, closing, and delivering of the Book, Luc. 14.17.20. was no more mystical a Ceremony, than the opening of a man's mouth, when he speaketh, and the shutting of it again, when he hath no more to say. Are not these worthy grounds, for to conclude upon, that our Saviour was an observer of humane religious mystical Ceremonies?   

SECT. 3. Concerning S. Augustine.  
1. AVgustine, in the Abridgement, was among other Divines cited, as allowing of one proof belonging to this Argument, taken from significancy. This the Def. catched hold of before the time or place of it, as matter of a section by itself, distinct from the testimonies of other Divines. Which dealing we must not speak of: because the rejoinder saith, it was orderly doen. But if their Printer-hath failed in right noting the numbers, he will needs have that a very slippery trick. If also the Def. brought in this testimony out of place, that was (in the rejoinder his language) because he would not teather us up too strait. All this we may let pass, as formality of words, suitable to his Ceremonies, which he seeketh to maintain.  
2. But (saith the rejoinder) if in stead of lib. 3. c. 35. be put in lib. 2. cap. 1. as the Repl. would have it, yet nothing is found to the purpose. Now (though it skilleth not much: because this place was but conjecturally pointed at, in stead of another miscited yet) in that place, this is to be found, so much to the purpose, that I know not how the Rej. will avoid the weight of it: that S. Aug. distinguishing betwixt natural, and instituted signs, saith presently after, that there is no use or cause of instituted signs, nisi ad expromendum, & trajiciendum in alierius animum, id quod in animo gerit is qui dat, i.e. but to declore and make intelligible, what the institutor meaneth. From whence, we gather, that our Prelates instituting significant Ceremonies, can signify no more than what they would have, and not what God would have.  
3. Another place of Augustine was alleged. out of Ep. 5. Signs when they belong to divine things are called Sacraments. 
Signa, cum ad res divinas pertinent, Sacramenta appollentur●  Of these words. the Rej. (differing from the Def. saith) that his meaning was to show, that the name of Sacraments belong properly to divine things, and not to all signs of holy things.  
But it is plain, that his meaning was, to show, that all things instituted imbuendo virtutibus animo, i. e. to stir up the mind to virtue, as he speaketh immediately before, are Sacraments. In defence of the Def. he answereth, with the Def. that in Augustine's language, all signs of holy things, are familiarly called Sacraments, and that we bewray small acquaintance with Augustine's language.  
Where (because both the Defend. and Rej. would seem so familiarly acquainted with Augustine's language) I would desire only, that they would interpret unto us (strangers from it) the meaning of these words of his, Epist. 119. Dies natalis Domini, non in Sacramento celebratur, sed tantum in memoriam revocatur, quod gestum est. Pascha sic agimus, ut Sacramenti significationem non omittamus. Sacramentum est in celebratione quum rei gestae ita commemoratio fit ut aliquid etiam significari intelligatur quod sancte accipiendum est. i e.  
The celebration of Christ's nativity is no Sacrament: but the celebration of Easter is a Sacrament. Here we must have a new distinction, never head of since Augustine's time, or else it cannot stand (which yet they, who will seem so versed in Augustine's phrase, will needs dictate unto us) that all signs of holy things, are, Augustine's phrase, Sacraments: except perhaps (against their often professed tenet) they will say, that holidays no not that which is appointed for memory of Christ's own nativity, is a sign of a holy thing. Neither can it be (according to Augustine's phrase) but all such significant Ceremonies as Easter was, must have more than the mere name of Sacraments.  
4. And this was that, for which Augustine's testimony was only borough in for, viz: to show that religious significant Ceremonies participate part of the Sacraments nature. To this (after some words of course) it is rejoined, that the name Sacrament improperly given to other things, doth not prove them to participate the property and nature of Sacraments, no more than the Swan in Houlborne, or the Idols of the Gentiles, do participate the nature of a Swan, and God: such denominations not being real, and proper, but logical, or relative. And if it were so, than the taking away of that name from our Ceremonies, doth discharge them from partaking the nature of Sacraments. To which I have this to say 1. that our Argument is not taken from the mere name: for we know that some names are common to things quite differing in nature, so falling (as they say) by chance, But this community of the name Sacrament, was not so: it was communicated to Mystical Ceremonies upon certain counsel and reason. And that reason was not mere similitude outward, such as is betwixt the picture of a Swan and a living Swan: Because there is no such outward likeness betwixt the Cross, and any proper Sacrament: but from some proportion of inward nature, either in men's esteem, as an Idols was called God, or in deed wholly so fare as man's institution can effect, as ●he Popish five Sacraments are so called, or else in part, as this kind of significant Ceremonies, which are in quaestion. Now that this last was the reason, Augustine himself teacheth in the for-alleged sentence, concerning Easter: and Chemnitius, out of him, doth largely declare, in the beginning of his 2. tome, de Sacramentorum numero. Bellarmin also (de effect. Sacrament. l. 2. T. 24.) giveth the same rule, 
Sacramentae dicuntur omnia, quae mysticum sensum habent, & f●gue sunt & typt aliarum rerum.  and reason: All are called Sacraments which have a mystical sense, and are types or figures of other things. 2. From the former answer, the Rej. his Host in Holborn can gather, that not the picture of a Swan, but a living Goose, hath that proportion to a living Swan, which is betwixt other mystical Ceremonies, and proper Sacraments. 3. It is but a picture of a reason, which the rejoinder maketh, from giving of the name Sacrament, to the taking of it away. For no man will say, that a name taken from the nature of a thing doth argue more the nature of it, than the taking away the name alone, doth argue the taking away of the nature. The ancient naming of such Images as the Papists are, did argue them to have an idolatrous nature: but the removing of that name from them, by the Papists, doth not argue they are now of idolatrous nature.  
5. From the name Sacrament, which first was given to this kind of Ceremonies, it came that afterward they were called sacramentals. For so saith Swarez de Relig. Vol. 1. tract. 3. lib. 4. cap. 14. 
Sacramentalium nomin● significari solent, vel generalius omnes Ceremoniae & benedictiones sacrae, qua in Ecclesia fiunt. ) They use to be styled sacramentals, or more generally allCeremonies & holy blessings done in the Church. To this observation of the Replier, the rejoinder answereth, that the name Sacramental, taken properly, is given out of relation to Sacraments, not out of participation or resemblance of their nature. And that analogically such Ceremonies as are consecrated to signify and work supernatural effects are called Sacramenta●is. The first of which interpretations we do not deny: saving only, we see not why the rejoinder should say in that sense only that name istaken properly.  
In the second, he confesseth as much as we desire: saving that he shufleth in two terms unfitting: consecrated to work. For many Mystical Ceremonies were not consecrated at all among the Papists (as the aereal sign of the Cross etc.) and some were consecrated in Augustine's time, (the practice whereof is here defended by the rejoinder) nor can be condemned by those that consecrate Churches, Churche-yarders, Altars etc.  
And as for working, if it be understood of moral working by admonition▪ then it cannot be denied unto mystical signs by institution admonitory. 
Sacramentalia non operantur remissionem peccatorum venialium, nequè instituta sunt ad came significandam, sed ad excitandum animum in detestationem illorum.  Howsoever a principal jesuit may profess as much at Rome, of Popish Ceremonies, as the rejoinder doth here of ours. So Vasquez (in 3. Disp. 128. cap. 5. ar. 4. Sacramentals do not work remission of venial Sins nor are instituted to that end, but to stir up the mind to detest them.  
6. It was in the conclusion of this passage, granted by the Repl. that neither Augustine, nor other fathers, did constantly in doctrine, and practise reject humane mystical Ceremonies. Whereupon the rejoinder inferreth, that Augustine therefore is wronged, and we are mere Navalists. But here he forgot, that all our Divines, and also our English Articles of confession with our Apology, do reject diverse things (as prayer to, & for the dead, men's falling from grace etc.) which those Fathers did not constantly in doctrine and practice, reject, and yet are neither to be esteemed mere Novalists, not yet accused of wronging those Fathers, when they cite some testimonies out of their writings, against those errors. Concerning Ceremonies, it is the common sentence of our Divines, which Beza expresseth (add Bald winum) It is not to be doubted but that most of your ancient Bishops were somewhat too busy in devising rites etc. but unhappy was the Counsel. 
Extra controver●iam est, in excogitandos vitibus, ple rosque veteres Episcopo●●lus aquo fuisse soli●itos etc. Hoc autem confilium fuit infelix   
7. To make an end of this one testimony, which it pleased the Defend. to take into so large consideration, for advantage. Augustine Epist 119. ad jan. is cited by all, as condemning the multitude of humane Ceremonies which were then crept into the Church and worship of God: and therein (without all doubt) he said that out, which many other godly men did inwardly conceyve: yet neither he, nor they, did constantly reject that multitude, nor he declare his mind, but when he was urged by januarius. The stream of the times, bearing toward Popery, made him (with others despairing of reformation) yield too much unto such abuses. Yet in that famous place (Epist. 119.) not only the number, but even the nature of such Ceremonies is condemned. 1. For the manifesting whereof, I note these passages: 1. He noteth these Ceremonies, that they were instituted, ut quasi observatio Sacramenti sint. i e. so that they partaked the nature of Sacrament. For as quasi contractus, and quasi peculium castrense, do in the Civil law note participation of the nature of such things to which they are quasi; so doth, quasi Sacramentum. 2. He professeth, that by reason of times, he durst not speak against such Ceremonies so freely as his judgement did lead him: liberius improbare non andeo. 3. He calleth them servilia onera, and humanas presumptiones: servile burdens, and humane praesumtiones. 4. He accounteth the Church, in regard of them, to be troubled with much chaff, & tares: inter multam paleam, multaque zizania constitutam. 5. He saith, that such Ceremonies, though they were tolerated, yet they were not to be allowed of, but upon the first opportunity to be cashiered resecanda, yea though it were not discerned, how they made against faith or good manners.  
Let any man now judge, if Augustine did in this his clear sentence about Ceremonies, agree with our Def. and Rejoyner.   

SECT. 4. The judgement of Protestant Divines concerning significant Ceremonies.  
1. THe rejoinder was not so large in the former section, about one Divine, but he is as brief, in this, about many. For first in general, he would persuade us with words, that the Def. in answering four testimonies, had answered all, in one word: that no Protestant Divine (except Beza) hath spoken absolutely against signs symbolical and merely significant▪  
Which kind of rejoynding, had had some sense, if mere denying of a conclusion, were a sufficient answer to an argument drawn from divers testimonies alleged for the proof of it. But yet not trusting to this kind of answering, he adventureth, to clear the particular allegations: which was more than the Def. would undertake. One would have expected, that here he should have answered, that which is so pertinent to the purpose, found in the Abridgement, pag. 32. because he put it of before (pag. 247.) with a tale of boy, and promised after to show, that it is nothing to the purpose. The allegation is this: To them that say Images may stand in Churches, as helps to stir up devotion, and to put men in remembrance of good things (with whom the Def. and rejoinder consent) it is answered (by P. Martyr, Gualther, Lavater, Vrsine, Polanus, and others) that the Lord himself hath appointed means enough to do that; and that no means may be used to that end, but such as he hath ordained. This certain was to the rejoinder as it were a noli me tangere: that no means must be used to stir up devotion, and to put men in remembrance of good things, but only those which God hath ordained. He was therefore contented to pass it over without meddling with it. And he that with ●is answers to the other allegations, may think that the be●ter way for him, had been, to deal in like manner with all. This will appear in the examining of them, one by one.  
2. In the first place, therefore, we expect his answer to that which is found in the Harmony of Protestant Confessions, generally approved, by Reformed Churches. About which he is very brief, as his cause required. The Divines of Witenburge (saith he) and those of France, and the Low Country's: viz. that they speak only of those significant Ceremonies, which serve to shadow out the Mysteries of the Gospel, or to supply the office of true Sacraments. Now (for the present) we will not stand much upon those phrases, shadows of the Mysteries of the Gospel, supplying of the true Sacraments office. It shall be sufficient, to reci●e the words which he hath so easily and often answered. The Wittenburge Confession (sect. 17.) saith thus: It is not lawful, either to restore the old Ceremonies of the law, or devise new, to shadow forth the truth already laid open, and brought to light, by the Gospel: as in ●he daylight to set up candles, to signify the light of the Gospel▪ or to carry banners and crosses, to signify the victory of Christ, through his Crosse. Of which sort, is all that Massing attire, which (they say) doth shadow out the whole passion of Christ, and many other things of that kind etc. The other words are these: No Mysticull rites (that is, which carry some mystery, or signification, in them) though not otherwise impious (as namely such as should be parts of God's doctrine, or kinds of Sacraments) but only such laws as pertain to order and decency are lawful. Let any man that undetstandeth English, and reason, judge, if these words ought, or can be interpreted, only of (I know not what) mysteries of the Gospel, or Ceremonies supplying the office of true Sacraments, further than our Argument doth import. If not, than the rejoinder granting the premises, denieth the conclusion as he did before.  
The Confession condemneth banners by name and Crosses, signifying the victory of Christ through his Cross: Our men defend the sign of the Cross, signifying that Christians shall not be ashamed, to fight manfully against Satan under Christ's Banner. The Divines of France and the Low Country's, (with the Confession) reject all Ceremonies, that carry some mystery or signification in them: Our question is, whether humane Ceremonies of mystical signification, be lawful? If these testimonies be not plain enough, I know not what is plain.  
3. Peter Martyr (on 1. King. 8) is the next witness of whom the rejoinder saith, that he speaketh of Exorcism, oil, spittle, and exsufflation, to all which the Papists ascribe operation, and to that end do consecrate some of them, by prayer. Beside (saith he) Martyr did approve these our Ceremonies as lawful, and bowing of the knee at the name of jesus: so that he wondereth Martyr should be alleged in this cause. Now therefore let us hear P. Martyr himself speak: 
Cum Deus fi●. sapienti simus, non opus habet, ut nostro cogita tu, vel industria illi paremus instrumenta (ad fidem in nobis excitandam) Quod etiam quisquam Artifex, in sua facultate, minime ferret, sed ipsemet vellet suo arbitratis sibi deligere. Magna est it aque audacia horum hominum, qui Deo velint organa praescribere, quibus, ad nostram salut emoperetur. Signa mult●plicant, quae sacra esse volunt, adhibendo oleum, sputum, exsufflationes, et alia h●jusmodi. Quo circa unum Baptism● Sacramentum, in multa de generate. Nec audiendi sunt, quando ut simplicibu● illudant, distinctionem inter Sacraementa & Sacramentalia confingunt, qua omnino Sop●istica est.  The most wise God needeth none of our help to devise means to excite faith, nor would the meanest Mechanie endure to etc. See before, how bold then are these men who will prescribe to God wherewithal to help forward our salvation.  
They multiply signs which they will leave to be sacred as oil, spittle, exsufflations etc. & that one Sacrament of Bapt. is much degenerate. Nor are they to be heard when to abuse the simple they use to distinguish between Sacrament and Sacramentals mere Sophistry. As for operation, we have oft showed, that many Papists ascribe no more of that, nor no other wise, to many of their Ceremonies, than the Def. and rejoinder do allow of in ours. Consecration by prayer, may as well be used about a Surplis, as about a churchyard. It is plain by the words, that P. M. doth condemn all means instituted by man, for the stirring up of our faith: which are in the Def. and rejoinder his language, mystical moral ceremonies, serving for aedification: saying that no Carpenter, or Mason would be so dealt with in his occupation, as the institutors of such mystical Ceremonies do deal with God. He accounteth humane sacred signs in Religion, to be humane Sacraments: and will not admit of such distinctions, as the rejoinder hath multiplied: Sacred properly, and reductively, rightly, or abusively sacred, simple or double sacred. Sacramental, or moral, reductive, or analogical sacramentals, etc.  
Yet we deny not, but the same P.M. being sometime perplexed in the case of England, did suffer his affection to carry him so far, that he seemeth to make some of our Ceremonies, in some case, tolerable. But then any man may perceyve wavering in his words: as when (in his epist. to Hooper) he requireth five conditions in such Ceremonies, 1. that the Church hath liberty to ordain them: 2. that the worship of God be not placed in them: 3. That they be few: 4. Not burdensome. 5. Not a hindrance to better things.  
The two first of which conditions are the very question: viz: whether the Church hath any such liberty, and whether all such Ceremonies be not part of worship: 
Quid pro sunt in Baptismo, Exorcismus, consecratio aquae, cereus sal, sputum, oleum, v●stis candida, nolae, etc. Nunc ad Baptismi ornatum, additamenta illa pertinent? Num igitur sunt prudentiores jesu Christo, qui instituit Baptismum, tanta cum simplicitat●, & puritate, quique melius novit quam ●mnes simul homines, quae illi conveniant ornamenta? Qua est hac arrogantia, adji●ere institutioni jesu Christi Gal. 3.  and for the two last, experience teacheth, how burdensome our Ceremonies have been, and are still, to many good men's consciences, and how much good hath been hindered, by the urging, and practising of them.  
4. Sadeel is put of, with the like shift, of consecration, necescitie, efficacy Sacramental. Now these terms have been sufficiently unmasked before, in the first part. Let Sadeel here only be heard, and he will tell his own meaning. The exorcism holy water, taper, salt spittle, white garment, the little bells, etc. what good do they do in Baptism? Do they indeed being added to Baptism add at all to its ornament? but what are these devisers of such things wiser than Christ jesus who instituted Bapt. with such simplicity and purity as knowing better than all men besides what ornaments suit best with his own ordinances? what arroganice is this to add thus to Christ's institution? Gal. 3. the unction added to Bapt. we allow no more than that of Confirmation. Bec. it belongs to God only to appoint Sacraments The old pastors of the Christian church did more than was meet accommodate themselves to jews and Gentiles whence many cere: cr●pt into the Church but Experience shows God blessed not such Counsel. 
Chrismae so● unctio Bapt. adhibita, non magis novis probatur, quam Chrisma Confirmationis▪ quia unius est Dei constituer● Sacramenta. Veteres Ecclesia Pastores plus aequo sese voluerunt, tun● judaeis, cum Et buicis accommodare. Vndê multa Caremonia in Ecclesiam irrepferunt. At experientia declaravit, Deum non be nedixisse hi●c consolio. etc. adverb. Mon. Burd●g, ●rt. 1●▪ 13.  In these words 1. all humane addition to God's institutions are absolutely condemned. 2. Those that undertake to add such Cerem. are censured of intolerable arrogancy, as presuming to be wiser than Christ. 3. Lights, and white garments, are by name condemned, which only offend, in their mystical signification upon man's will. 4. Chrism or oil in Baptism is esteemed a Sacrament, though the Papists deny it conferreth grace, as the Sacraments. 5. The first bringers in of Ceremonies (only significant) into the Church, are taxed for departing from the simplicity of God's word, as therein finding rather the curse, than the blessing of God upon their presumptions.  
5. Daneus is the next (who maketh it blasphemy, to think, and teach, that any outward things (of humane institution) may be made a sign, in the Church, of spiritual things) the first answer is, that this was spoken in opposition to Bellarmine's consecrating of creatures to signify, and work supernatural effects. Which is very true: but this must be added: that in this sentence, he toucheth only the signification, not the operation of those Cere. as any that readeth his words, may observe. The second answer is that Daneus (elsewhere) alloweth some significant Cere. But the Rej. should have done well, to name the place or places, which he meant by elsewhere. For we cannot by conjecture find it.  
This I am sure of, that it is not Isagoge, p. 3. l. 3. c. 11. where he saith, that the teaching under the law was 〈◊〉 signs, & earthly figures, as a Schoolmaster speaketh to young children: but under the Gospel, open, and manifest, as one dealeth with grown men. They than that thrust in significant Ceremonies, what do they but confounded the most wise dispensation of God, and make a mingle-mangle of those things, which he hath separated asunder?  
6. Polanus (misprinted, or uncertainly printed in the Abrigement) is said to allow some significant Ceremonies, as feasts, Fasts, Gestures: and his definition of Superstition, is thought to make only against Ceremonies Sacramental, not Morally significant. The only way therefore is, to set down his words, out of which his judgement about this point may appear of superstition, he saith thus (Syntag. l. 9 c. 3.) Superstition stands in choosing worship to God, or exceeds measure therein. True religion worships the true God in a manner prescribed by the word: false, (that is to say Superstition) worships God otherwise then he wills or enjoins. In another place whatsoever perteines to God's worship must by him be required. Again it is a foolish ill zeal of the popish clergy to use such playerake apparel in Divine service and by apparel to be distinguished from laics, that difference and variety was in the old Testament typical, but the substance being come, what mean they to require types any more? 
Superstitio est in eligendo cultu Dei, vel modum excedit in colendo. Vera religio colit Deum verum, modo verbo Dei prascripto: falsa (i.e. superstitio) v●rum Deum aliter colit, quam ipse vult & mandat. lib. 8. c. 1. Quicquid ad cultum Dei pertinet, a Deo mandatum esse aportet. lib, 9 c. 38. Inopta est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cloeicorum Papistorum, qui vestitu theatri●● in sacris utu●tur, et vestitu laicis distingui volunt, Illa defiintio & varieras, erat in V. T. ●ypica: veritate autem ixhibita, quid amptiu● typos reguirunt?   
7. The next witness is Mr. Perkinse, on Gal. 3. but (by variety of editions) uncertain what verse of the Chapter was designed.  
The rejoinder therefore guesseth, that the words upon v. 2. or rather 1. were intended, where Mr. P. condemneth the setting up of Images, to be laymen's books. To which he answereth. 1. That he also doth blame the same. 2. that Mr. P. in some persons and places, preferreth dipping, before sprinkling, in Baptism. Now for the first of these, if the rejoinder when he writ these words condemn (with Mr. P.) such images or pictures as are laymen's books, it is wonder, he forgot, or changed this judgement, before he came to the seventh section of this very Chapter, where he doth defend them. And this is plain, that if images be to be condemned, as they are lay men's books, or teachers, than all humane signs, ordained to be laymen's teachers, in religion, are also to be eondemned with them.  
The second is an affected flim-flam. For dipping (upon just occasion) rather then sprinkling, is no more a humane Ceremonies, in Baptism, then drinking a convenient draft of wine rather than slight tasting is an humane significant institution.  
But yet (howsoever the rejoinder upon conscience of the consanguinity, betwixt Images, and significant Ceremonies did suppose this first verse of the Chapter to be meant by the Authors of the Abr.) I think rather that they intended the four and twenty verse, where M.P. doth distinguish betwixt Ceremonies significant, and those of Order, and saith that the former sort were alsolutely abolished, but the other only in respect of their special determination.  
8. Master Merbur●e was cited (out of a Manuscript, (as it seemeth) as giving the same judgement of significant Ceremonies. But in his later time, he crossed not so much others, as himself in blotting out this sentence I leave therefore his name under that blot, and other like, wherewith he soiled himself in his later times.  
9 D. Witgift himself, is brought in (by Abr.) dissliking any prescript apparel, should be used in God's service, for signification. Def. pag, 291. To this the rejoinder answereth 1. that in the same place. P. Martyr is alleged, as approving white apparel, for Ministers (who are compared to Angels) to use in signification of their office, because Angel appeared in white: which should have put him (at the least) out of our Bill. But it followeth not, that therefore all testimonies of Martyrs, must be put out of our Bill, because he varieth from them, in this. In the other places, he speaketh from good grounds of Divinity: but this reason of his, hath no more force in it, then if from the picture and apparation of Angels, it should be gathered, that no Minister should wear a black nightcap, a black tippet, or a black hood, which our Canons do command: or that every Minister should have six wings fastened to his body, with certain, vizard faces, like unto the faces of Lions, Eagles, and open, because Angels have so appeared, Isa. 6. Ezech. 1.  
It is answered 2. that we should believe the said D. Whitgift in this, that our Surplices are not appointed for any moral signification. But we cannot beleiv, whatsoever one Prelate saith of our Ceremonies, (for to avoid the dint of Argument, though it be against the common profession of our Church, in the very Service-book,) is presently to be believed.  
The 3, answer is, that D. Whitgift did use, defend, and urge, significant Ceremonies, which is true, with shame and all: but many a man, upon the rack of an Argument is brought to confess that, which other while he is wont to deny. Finally this consequence is denied: D. W. did not approve of the Surplice for signification: ergo of no significant Ceremony: the reason of which consequence is given in the Abridgement (p. 35.) because no good reason can be given, why the Church may not enjoin a prescript apparel for signification, as well as any other Ceremony.  
Thus the rejoinder hath tried what he could say to those testimonies, which the Def. had omitted, in this place: and doth so please himself therein, that he beginneth a plaudite to himself, saying that he hath openly whipped the Repliers friends: he meaneth the Authors of the Abr. who were wont to be his reverend friends also. But this whipping of his, is just as if a man should whip thorns, and pricks, with his bare hands, getting more gashes thereby, than he dealeth or giveth blows. It is not safe so much as to handle sharp edges much less to whip them, with naked fingers.  
10. Now we must hear, how the rejoinder doth say for the defence of those answers which the Def. gave to four● Divines, chosen out by himself to answer, of whom, Calvin is the first. Of whom it is said, that he condemneth only such Ceremonies, as are substituted to the very office of Sacraments. Where if he meaneth part of the office of Sacraments, 
Si Isayat sua sponte Loc f●cisset merito irris●s stusset. Nihili sunt ea symbola, quae Deum Anthorem non habent. Quod diligenter notandura est adversus Papistas, qui manes Ceremonias pro veris Sacramentis obtrudunt. Ipsit haec regula a● ponenda est: Si presiciscuntur a Deo ea ●mplects debemus: sin minus intrepidè repu diare licet, imo sine Dei contumelia non r●cipiuntur: quiatum ejus aut bovitatem sibs usurpant mortales.  he and we consent about Calvin but if he mean the whole complete office of Sacram. than he wrongeth Calvin. For upon Leu. 4. 21. his meaning cannot be, that all the old Ceremonies of the jews, had such a complete Sacramental office, as Circumcision, and the Passover had. Upon Isa. 20.2. speaking of Isays going barefoot for a sign of future captivity (which was not the full office of a Sacrament) he saith: If isaiah had done this of himself he might well have been laughed at. Those rites are of no worth which have not God for their author, which we are carefully to note, against the papists who obtrude upon us empty ceremonies for true Sacraments. This rule is for them: if they come from God we are to embrace them, if not, to scorn them, nay they cannot be received without dishonour to God, when therein mortal men take upon them the authority of God. And upon Mat. 21.25. he hath this doctrine: no sacred sign ought to be admitted among the godly, unless it be shewwen to be of God, 
Doctrina est utilis▪ nullum sacrum signum deberae inter pios admitti, nisi a Deo profecta esse constat, nec esse in hominum arbi●rio quicquam 〈◊〉 udere.  nor is it in men's choice to mint any thing. But the rejoinder affirmeth, that Calvin doth expressly allow Symbolical signs, as exercises, and incitements of piety. The Place he meaneth is Inst. lib. 4. c. 10. sect. 14. where there is no express allowance at all, of mere humane Symbolical signs, but only of some Ceremonies, to help the ruder sort of people in their unskillfulnesse. Now this kind of Ceremonies Calvin himself in the 28.29. sect. of the same chapter, doth manifestly declare, to be matters of mere and necessary decency. The end of decency is, 
Decori finis est partim ut dum adhibentur ritus, qui venerationem rebus sacris concilient talibi●s adminiculis ad pietat●● excitemur. Illud nobit decorum erit, quodita erit ad sacrorum mysteriorum reverentiam aptum ut sit idon●um ad pietatis exercitium, etc.  that (while such things are used which purchase respect to holy things we be stirred up to piety. That is a Decoium which so makes for the reverence of holy things that is that it be a fit exercise of Godliness. This being considered, and withal, that the rejoinder in his great Charter, (cap. 1. 〈◊〉 16.) dureth not build his mystical Ceremonies upon that decency, which Paul doth appoint, and Calvine only admitteth, it is plain, that Calvines exercises and incitementes of piette, are not his more humane 〈…〉 Ceremonies.  
11. The second witness, whom it pleased the Def. to take notice of, is Zepperus, or rather, sundry Protestant Synods, by Zepperus divulged, as he showeth in his preface. Now his words are set down before in the 1. and 2. ●ection of this chapter: so that here we are only to consider what the rejoinder hath to say against, or upon them. And first he flesh to his old muse of Ceremonies efficient of grace, in Popery. But this muse-hole hath been formerly stopped. And if it were open in other assaults, yet Zepper hath sufficiently provided for it here. For beside that he directed his censure of Cerem. (in a great part) against the Lutherans, who deny all efficacy that the rejoinder denieth, he saith plainly that by these humane mystical Ceremonies, God will nor sti●● up devotion, faith, and repentance, in the heart of Christians not at blank cross to our Def. and rejoinder his tenet. For the relieving of that weak shift, the rejoinder (in the second place) affirmeth, that Zepper (cap. 16.) doth allow of dipping, and thrice dipping, in Baptism, as an humane Ceremony stated in God's worship to signify the Trinity, and our Lord's resurrection on the third day. Now in the 16. chapter, there is no one word of these matters (which kind of misciting or misprinting the rejoinder useth to make a great matter of in others) but in the 12. chapter, I find such a fond allegory of thrice-dipping merely related out of Augustine, but no allowance of the same. Nay, if the matter be well considered, I think the rejoinder himself will scarce allow of it. For 1. there can be no better reason given for placing of a mystery in thrice dipping for Baptism, then in dividing of the bread to be received in the Supper, into three parts, as the Papists do for a mystery, among other of their massing toys. 2. This thrice-dipping for mystery, is so mingled with the true Mystery of Baptism, that (to all appearance) it is made a part of that Holy Sacrament 3. For man to institute an outward representation (as an Image) of the Holy Trinity, is a very great presumption, against the second Commandment. Christ himself never appointed any such mystical real sign neither can that incomprehensible mystery be fitly represented by any such triplicity as is of man's making. 4. To invocate the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost over the baptised, and then by thrice redipping, or sprinkling, upon man's pleasure, to signify they are three Persons, is as if one should light a candle, for the manifesting of something, and then put a bushel over it, for signifying of the same thing. 5. How can the same three at one and the same time, signify three Persons, & three days? Can men give manifold disparate senses to one and the same Ceremonies, as literal, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical? 5. Why may not as well three Crosses be made upon the Baptised; for the same mysteries? 6. It could not be of any moment, for those ancient Bishops, sometime to dip thrice, for signifying of the Trinity, and some time once, for signifying of the Unity. Seing Trinity and Unity are not to be separated in the solemn signification of them, and Heretics are not confuted with humane signs.  
12. jewel is the next in order. But for so much as neither his words are quoted, nor the place where they may be found noted, (on either side) but only according to one English Edition, which I have not, I cannot say much of them: Yet this I may truly say, that the rejoinder is put to hard shift, in opposing of the Repliers answer, when he distinguisheth betwixt graces, and duties, actually performed. For these two are expressed by the same name, of the Apostle Paul, 2. Cor. 8.1. I do you to wit of the grace of God, bestowed on the Churches of Macedonia etc. But it seemeth that humane mystical Ceremonies are of like nature unto those old legal Ceremonies, which only signified what men ought to do, but gave not grace to do it: so that they are to be referred unto the kill letter.  
In searching also for the place, in my latin copy of jewel, 
Sacramenta Domini, multit●din● quadam supo●stitio sarum & puerilium Ceremoniarum commacu laru●t Pontificij, eisque sanctiones ejusmodi addidot●●●, etc.  I found these words Act. 1. pag. 23. The Papists have blurred Christ Sacraments with a number of Superstitious and Childish Ceremonies, and have added such like Sanctions to them. Now if by the superstitiousness, and childishness, which is found in the Popish Cere. before their multitude, and before their sanctions binding consciences to them, he did not mean their mystical signification, upon humane institution, I would willingly learn of the rejoinder what his meaning was?  
13. Beza was by the Def. granted to speak for us. But the rejoinder (having now exercised hmself unto confidence in such elusions) will needs have it, that Bezas' phrase only, not his meaning doth make for us. Let us therefore hear his reasons. 1. Beza (saith he) condemneth all Symbolical rites, 
Graevis●ime a veterihus toties peccatum esse dico, quoties ullas Sacramentales. i.e. verum spiritualium significativas Ceremonias in Dei Ecclesiam introduxerunt. Ritus omnes symbolycos semol ex Ecclesia Christiana, in quam nullo unquam jure inve●● potuerunt, profligari op●r●ere, nec eti manentibus, suam Ecclesia nativan pulchritudiné restitui posse existimo.  which he calleth Sacramental, that is signifying spiritual graces, not duties. Now Bezas' words (ep. 8.) are these: I affirm that so often as the ancients brought into the Church any Sacramentals i e. Significative ceremonies of Spiritual things so oft they greivously offended. Withal I think that all symbolical rites should be once profligited out of the church whereinto by no right they could ever enter nor as long as they remain can the Church have her native beauty restored. Here is no mention at all of graces, but only of spiritual things: and yet the rejoinder would persuade his reader, that he saith not spiritual duties, but graces. His gloss is naught. Spiritual things comprehend so well spiritual duties, as graces. How this reason will be excused, I cannot guess: except perhaps it be answered, that humane Ceremonies do signify duties as they are carnal, and not as they are spiritual. It is further to be marked, that Beza there speaketh of of such humane significant Ceremonies, as were in common use among the ancient Fathers. Now the rejoinder will not say that they had in common use, so many humane Sacraments, as Beza noteth them to have had significant Ceremonies. 2. The second reason, by which the rejoined. would prove that Beza meant not simply to condemn all significant Ceremonies, is, because he alloweth some Feast-days, confesseth the Surplice and kneeling to be in their nature indifferent, and saith that the Cross might sometime of old have had lawful use. For the former of which, if the words of Beza, had been noted, more might be said. In the mean time, let this suffice: If Beza did allow of some humane Feast-days, it may better from this place be gathered, that he did not account them significant of spiritual things, than it can from them be gathered, that in this place he did not condemn all such significants of man's making. Neither doth he affirm a significant Surplice to be indifferent. And as for kneeling, that is more excepted against for other causes, then for instituted signification.  
But in the last, there is odd dealing. For whereas Beza saith of the Cross, ut olim aliquis fu●rit usus ejus etc. which is as much as to say though this were granted, that there was some use of it of old, the rejoinder makes him to say that there was of old a lawful use of it.  
It is enough for any man, to read over Beza his eight and eight Epistle, for understanding not only of his meaning, but also of his reasons.  
14. Because the Def. made Beza a singular man, in opposing all humane mystical Ceremonies, the Replier added out of Bellarmine's observation (de effectu Sacram. l. 2. c. 30.) that at least Calvin, Barentius, and Chemnitius were of the same mind. Now concerning Calvin, enough hath been said before. For the other, mark what the rejoinder hath to say.  
The question (saith he) in that place of Bellarmine disputed, is of Ceremonies meritorious, and binding the conscience, out of the case of scandal. And is this all? Surely then the rejoinder had no reason to object unto the Abrigers, and the Replier, abusing the Reader. For (to omit that which in the first part of our Dispute, hath been answered, concerning merit & binding) any one that looketh upon Bellarmine, de effect. Sacr. l. 2. cap. 30. may see, that he divideth the controversy betwixt us and the Papists, into six heads, the fourth is about binding the conscience, and the fift about merit, but the third is whether the Church may appoint new Ceremonies? The Afirmative of this question Bellarmine proveth, from the Feast instituted by Mordechay, and that of Dedication, 
Nostra propositic solum assarit, contra Haeriticos, ●icere Ecclesiae ●ns●ituer● novas Ceremonias, non ad just●ficandum a pec●at is mortalibus, sed ad alios fines. cap. 31.  instituted in the Maccabees time, etc. which are the Def. and Rejoyners' chief arguments for significant Ceremonies. And professeth plainly (as our men do) Our Proposition is no more but this against heretics, that the church may appoint new Ceremonies not indeed to justify us from mortal sins but to other ends. On the Negative part, Bellarmine nameth Calvin, Brentius, and Chemnitius. Now the rejoinder to darken all, confoundeth the third, & fift question into one hoche-poche. Who then doth abuse the Reader? Of Calvin, enough hath been said before as also of Brentius, under the title of Witenberge Confession, Chemnitius only (being altogether passed over by the Rejoinder though he was not only propounded by the Replier, out of Bellarmine but also in the Abridgement, pag. 32,) is here to be represented, in his own words. Yet concerning Brentius first, a few words may be needful. The words of Wittenburge Confession (before cited) are plain. It is not lawful, to devise new Ceremonies, to shadow forth the truth already laid open, and brought to light by the Gospel: as in the day light to set up Candles, to signify the light of the Gospel, or to carry banners & crosses, to signify the victory of Christ, through his Crosse. Of which sort is all the massing attire. Of this Confession Brentius was the penman: and therefore Bellarm. citeth the same as Brentius his sentence about Ceremonies. The rejoinder answereth 1. that Bellarm. saith only that Brentius reproveth the hallowing of water, oil. etc. consecrated to signify and work supernatural effects: because the mysteries of faith should not now be shadowed out. De cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 7. Which to be nothing so, the very words of Bellarm. will show. for neither out of Brentins, nor against him, doth Bel. make any mention of consecrating such things to work, but only to signify spiritual effects. 
Primo benedicuntur ad significando ispirit●● ales 〈◊〉 ut. Nam cinaris aspersio significat poenit●●tiam, etc.  First they are blessed to signify spiritual operations. For the sprinkling of the ashes signifieth penance, etc. Nor doth the reason of Bre●tius of adumbration hinder, 
Neque ob●at r●tio Brentij de adumbratione. Nam istae significa●i●tes on sunt proprie ●d●mbration●s, sed repr●sentationes externae I●rum praes●nt●um ●nvisibilium, & spiritu alium, vel etiam re●um praeteri●a 'em, quae utilisitmae sunt ●d affectum oncitandum.  for those significations are not properly adumbratious, but outward representations of present invisible things, and of things spiritual. Or else of things past, most useful to stir up the affection. Hence it is plain, that Brentius is opposed by Bellarm. for holding the Proposition of this our third. Argument, that his reason is ours: and that Bellarm. his answer, so well as his tenet, is that which the Def. and rejoined. do maintain against us. 2. A second answer, or rather objection, is used by the Rej. that Brentius allowed Lutherun Crosses, and Images, as being a Lutheran. Now it is well known, that Brentius at the first did write as became a grave Divine: but after broke out into the Ubiquitary faction, siding against those whom he called Zwinglians and Calvinists. That which we allege, was written in the name of the Church of Wittenburge, & so presented unto the Counsel of Trent, out of his and others best judgement. If either out of security, or out of faction, he did, and written otherwise, after, it ought not to be put in balance against this Confession. It is no great mervayll, if a Lutheran doth cross his own Doctrine, even about Ceremonies.  
For in the same kind they have Luther himself for their example: 
Nemo (saith Calvin 2. Def. de Sacram. ●●●rius quam Lu●herus covectus ●st in illas nugas, quo● tamin pr● temporis infirmitate, ●●tinui● Quod tantâ vehementiâ usus est, loudabile est, quum ita exigeret necessitas. Quod non ab●●usit 〈◊〉 ● predis, ignosetinus.  No man did more hardly inveigh against those trifles than Luther did, and yet retained them for the times sake. That when occasion required he was so vehement we commend him, but that while he contended against them, he submitted to the them, we pardon in him.  
Something like was the case of Chemnitius, whose words the rejoinder thought good to pass over in silence. They are these (de ritib. Sacr. ad Can. 13.) When Christ himself so instituted the Sacraments that he required them to be used with such and such rites, 
Cum ipse filiu Dei Sacramenta ita instituerit. ut ea certis institutis ritibus praeceperit administraeri, valde ardua est questio, an hominibus permissum sit, alio● praeterca, et quidem mult●s ac varios ritus quocunque confilio supperadder●: quasi Ceremoniae illae qua in administratione Sacramentorum Divinitus institutae sunt, non satis sunt vel idonea, vel sufficientes Institutioni Divinae sicut nihil detrahendum, ita etiam nihil addendum est, Quod vero bratendunt, per illos ritus ab hominibus additos multa pié & utiliter significari, moner●, & doceri, ad illud responderi potest, figuras propriat esse Veteri● Testamenti, quae vero in Novo Testamento Christus mo●eri ac doceri voluit non umbtis, sed luce Verbi, tradi ac proponi voluit Et de Verbi, non antem de figuratum ab hominibus inventarum, efficacia, habemus prom 〈◊〉 nem: quos ve●● ritus ve●bo adhiberi voluit, eos ipse instituit. etc.  it is a very hard question whether it be lawful for men to add other and that so manyover and above. As if what rites Christ himself prescribed were either not enough, or not fit enough. In divine institutions as we must take nothing from, so we must add nothing to them. But whereas they say by such rites many things are proffitably signified, we answer that belonged to the State of the Old Testament, but what Christ in the New Test. would have learned, must be taught with the light of the word, not by shadows. And we have a promise of the force of the word; but not of the efficacy of shadows devised by men. And what rites he would have used by the word, those he himself appointed, etc.  
There was some cause, why the rejoinder did not care to insist on these words. For Chemnitius maketh it a very hard thing to justify humane significant Ceremonies in God's worship. The rejoinder saith, it is as easy as to justify writing by Characters. Chemnitius maketh them additions to God's Institution. Nothing less (saith the Rej.) no more than a Cabinet, wherein a jewel is kept, is an addition to it. Chemnitius judged them repugnant to the New Testament. The Rej. saith, that there is manifest allowance for them, and authority left unto men for instituting of them: (as forsooth) in those words of Order, Decency, and Aedification.  
15. The Replier added unto the witnesses aforesaid, junius & Daneus. But concerning Daneus, we have already considered what the Rej. had to except. junius only remaineth: whose words were quoted out of his animadversions upon Bell. de cultu Sanctorum, lib. 3. cap. 7. an. 12. Here the Rej, rouseth up himself, as if he had gotten a great advantage, putting on such confidence, or rather forth such shows of it, as if it had been mere folly in the Repl. to make mention of junius. His rejoinder therefore is to be considered in all the parts of it. 1. First, he concludeth that the Repl. is no wise man, in not telling them, to what objection, or assertion junius doth there answer: because (forsooth) the Repl. himself had said, it was no wisdom for any man, to take up an answer made to an objection, before he considereth the assertion against which the objection is made. As if it were all one to consider the assertion, and to tell them what it is. Is not this a fine consequence? 2. He attributeth unto the Repl. a Sophistical wit, in concealing, that the assertion of Bell. by junius opposed, was, that the Church may of her power, consecrate creatures, to signify, and work supernatural effects, etc. But from hence nothing can be gathered, for the advantage of the Def. and Rej. except it appear, that junius did only speak of the working, and not distinctly of the signifying, which Bell. would have given unto those Ceremonies: which how false it is, shall praesently appear. 3. He noteth a shameful falsification of junius his words, in the translation of them. junius his words are: Homo non potest creaturas ad significationem adhibere. The Translation is: Humane Ceremonies cannot be lawfully used for signification. Where is that great falsification, which drew from the Rej. Are you not ashamed? or can you not blush? The Rej. his own translation of the same words, is: No man-can lawfully apply things to signification. He must discover the mystical difference betwixt using for signification, & applying to signification, before he can cast such shame upon the Repl. & none upon the Rej. 4. To show junius in his own posture, and the misreporting Repl. in his own colours. The rejoinder translateth that whole passages of junius, and noteth upon it, first, that junius speaketh of consecrating ceremonies. To which I answer, that in the words, as they are by the Rej. translated, he expressly condemneth all applijnge to signification. And if consecration were included therein, I hope the Rej. will not disavow consecrating of Churches, Churcheyardes, Altars, etc. Secondly, he observeth, that junius doth professedly sever the point of signification, from that of efficacy. As if the Repl. had confounded them, and not rather distinctly insisted upon ●ignification only which junius doth as distinctly and professedly condemn, as efficacíe, Nay it is the Rej. his common fault, that where the Papists speak of efficacy and signification, and our Divines distinctly answer of both, he will have no answer, no not those of Calvin, Brentius, Chemnitius, Daneus, nor this of junius, to belong unto signification distinctly, and by itself. In the third place, he telleth us, that junius in the two next annotations, doth allow voluntary significant Ceremonies. Let it therefore be considered, that junius in the thirteenth annotation, insinuateth at the least his doubt, whether any voluntary significations can proceed from good: a bono, si forte. 2. He saith they proceeded from simplicity, and turned to superstition. Which phrases of his, he so interpreteth other where, that it may easily appear, he did not allow that which here he calleth simplicity. For cap. 5. annot. 15. he calleth it vanity, in opposition to the simplicity of Christ. And in the second book, de reliquijs & imaginibus, cap. 27. annot. 29. he calleth it plainly simple superstition. In the fourteenth annotation, he maintaineth this assertion: 
In rebus divinis, & sacris ad Ecclesiam pertinentibus, mul te adumbrationes in Ecclesia recte adhibentur, nisi quas instituit Deus.  In divine things no shadows are rightly used in the Church but what God hath instituted. But (saith the Rej.) he doth by name allow standing in prayer, on the Lord's days, as a significant Ceremony, as also holybread: annot. 10. Whereas junius testifieth plainly, in the 9 note, immediately before, how he did only excuse, as comparatively tolerable, such ancient Ceremonies of the Fathers. Primum suit tolerabile: Patrum simplicitatem piam excusamus. So that junius being seen in his own posture, and the reporters in their colours, let the Reader judge, where is the cause of shame and blushing?   

SECT. 5. Concerning the wrong, that is done to God's Sacraments, by humane sigmificant Ceremonies.  
1. THe Argument dependeth on this: that humane Ceremonies appropriated to God's worship, if they be ordained to teach any spiritual duty, by their mystical signification, usurp a chief part of the nature of Sacraments. This was in the Abr. backed with many testimonies: which the Rej. having before eluded (so well as he could) here contenteth himself to say, they are counterfeit, forced, or forged stuff: The contrary whereof hath been declared. Now for the naked Arg. he affirmeth it to have no sienws which must be tried by the answers, & defence of them.  
The Def. first answereth, by a distinction, betwixt the signification of grace conferred, and the signification of man's duty, the former whereof he maketh Sacramental, but not the later. To the which was replied, that Sacr. also do signify the duty of man towards God. This (saith the Rej.) is not true: bec. Sacr. do only imply that duty. But I would know of him, 1. how the Sacr. as signs, do imply that which they do not signify, all so well as our sign of a cross doth signify any duty? The aerall cross doth (though very untowardly) represent the wooden cross, whereon our Saviour was crucified, & so by a trope, Christ crucified: & then implieth our duty to Christ. And do not Sacraments signify Christ, & our duty toward him so well as this? 2. I ask,  
If Baptism do not signify our whole mortification, vivification, and putting on of Christ? 3. If the Sacraments do only by themselves, imply these duties, yet that implication being explicated in their administration, what use is there of putting that explicated duty under a bushel, or bed of man's making?  
2. The rejoinder not trusting to that denial, saith further, that if the Sacraments did signify man's duty, yet that is not a chief part of their nature. To which I may reply, that if it were not a chief part of their nature, but a part only, yet it is presumption for men to take any part of the Sacraments, and set it upon other things, at their own pleasure. But seeing by the nature of the Sacraments, is meant their office, and use, and there be many offices and uses of them, some of which come not so near their chiefest office as this signification doth, it may with good reason be termed a chief part. Calvin (Consens. de re Sacram.) saith thus: Sacraments are notes and badges of our Christian profession and incitements to thankfulness, Exercises of piety, & bonds under our hands to tie us to God's service, but their chief end is to signify and ●igure the grace of God to us. 
Sacramenta no●ae sunt ae ●essara profession●s Christianae, five societatis, item ad gratiatum actionum incitam enta, pietatis denique exercitia, & syngrapha ad' Dei cultum nos obligantes: finis tamèn praecipuus est, ●ratiam Domi●●● testari, repraesentare, atque obsignare.   
Now though this last be the chief office, yet among the former one is more chief then another, and which of them more chief, than this of signifying spiritual duties with obligation to the performance of them?  
3. To prove that the Sacraments signify moral duties (which first the Def. and in defence of him, the rejoinder denieth) it was alleged, by the Repl. that the whole Covenant is in them signed and sealed, betwixt God and man in which Covenant man's duty, through grace is there professed, and represented. Whereupon the rejoinder 1. concludeth, that such signs as do neither sign nor seal the covenant of grace, cannot partake the office, or special nature of Sacraments. Whereby he gaineth nothing but his own ideal shadow. 2. He gathereth, that unless signifying, without sealing, be a more principal part of the nature of Sacraments, then sealing, such signs as communicate with them only in signifying, do not participate any chief part of their nature. Which is as mere non sense, as if one should say, that unless teaching, without sealing be a more principal part of Sacraments, than sealing, than the preaching of the doctrine which in Sacraments is signified and sealed, doth not participate any chief part of their nature. 3. He answereth, that the Sacraments do confirm our obligation unto sanctimony, in general, but not signify any moral duty in particular. Here then is the mystery: the Sacraments to confirm (by signification) all our duties, but not this, or that duty.  
If our Convocation had been of the Counsel, when Sacraments were appointed they would (as it seemeth) have made them more perfect. But this is certain, our Saviour meant to put a difference, betwixt the old A. B. C. and the new manner of teaching fitting for riper years: and therefore did not shoull out every letter concerning our duty, in signs, as of old, but give us the sum in a few signs. Whosoever therefore goeth about to multiply significant signs, crosseth th● very intention which was respected, in the institution of two Sacraments only. Beside, the Cross itself, doth not signify our duty of constant fight under Christ, in particular, against this or that temptation of sin, the world, or the Devil, but only in general, so that by this reason, we should, or may have as many significant Ceremonies, as there be particular temptations to be resisted. Whither shall we come, at length, by walking in this Ceremonial way?  
4. The second Argument, to the same purpose, by the Repl. alleged, was, that the name Sacrament, as it signifieth an oath, or obligation, doth import, that the Sacraments signify our duty to God. To this the rejoinder answereth, that the Sacraments do in deed imply, but not represent any moral duty. Now let any reasonable man judge, whether dipping under the water, and rising up again, or taking of food for strength, and growth, doth not more represent spiritual duties, then making a Cross with ones finger, in the air?  
5. The third reason mentioned, was taken from the name Eucharist, notifiing thankfulness, and the taking of the same, in remembrance of Christ. The rejoinder his answer is, that the word Eucharist is no Sacrament, but a term brought in by men to put them in mind of their duty in receyving it. But that word doth notify the nature of the Sacrament, at least in the judgement of all Divines, ●hat have in this meaning used the term, though it be not a Sacrament. And they are more than that the Rej. his judgement can counterbalance. Yet if significant Ceremonies be like unto words and characters, as the rejoinder formerly maintained, that very word must needs be a Sacrament, or a significant sign of a Sacrament: because it was brought in to put men in mind of their duty in receyving, as the Rej. speaketh. He addeth 2. that there is no element, nor action of that Sacrament, so particularly repraesenting thankfulness, as kneeling doth reverence, or humility, Where first, he maketh kneeling a significant Ceremony, which hitherto he hath seemed to deny. 2. I answer, that the very action of receyving so great a gift, in a cheerful humble manner, doth repraesent both thankfulness, and humility, so far as Christ would have it repraesented by signs. The very celebration of a great benefit received, is a sign of thankfulness. Otherwise, let the rejoinder tell us, what representation of thankfulness was in the Passover, for that benefit of passing over the Israelites houses, when the firstborn of the Egyptians were slain?  
6. Instance was given (by the Replier) that both sanctity, and constancy, which are the things ●ignified by Surplice, and Cross, are signified in Baptism. The Rej. his answer is, that they are not barely or only signified in Baptism, as duties, nor by any distinct sign repraesented. As if this were the question, and not this: if Sacraments do signify moral duties! Certainly, if Sacraments do signify these virtues as graces and duties (as is proved, and also confessed) no Christian need desire to have them ●ignified over again barely and only as duties, no more then after an instrument made betwixt the Lord of Manner, and his Tenent, containing the conditions of both parts, the tenant should seek for a new instrument, signifijng his conditions a part: and not only so, but after that his conditions had been expressed generally, that he should keep all the land in good culture, according as he found it, he should seek for one instrument about the woods, another for the ●arable land, another for the meadows, another for the pastures, and another for the broom fields, or for every acre one, & that not from the Lord of the manner, but from some justice of peace, or high Constable of the Hundred. Neither is it a thing profitable, for Christians to remember their duty, without remembrance of God's grace thereto appertaining.  
7. Against mysticall-morall Ceremonies, of humane institution, the Repl. brought this Arg. in Mr. Baines his words: To be a teacher of my understanding, and an exciter of my devotion, are such effects, as require virtue, inhaerent, or assistant, to those things which should be causes of them. But no sign of man's divizing, hath any such virtue, in it, or with it. For than it must come either from the word of creation, or from Gods after institution.  
But from neither of these, have the signs of man's divizing any such virtue. Therefore no sign, of man's divizing, can be a teacher of mine understanding, or an exciter of my devotion.  
This the rejoinder confuteth first, with scornful words, as a sickly childish, and long some objection. After, he answereth, that our monitory Ceremonies, are only external occasions, and objects, whereby the mind of man worketh upon itself, not causes working by some virtue in them.  
Where 1. observe, how he mangleth and marreth the Argument, that he may master it: the words are, that such effects require virtue inhaerent, or assistant: he interpreteth them only of virtue in them, i. e. inhaerent, leaving out assistant: and yet dareth affirm, that upon this fiction of virtue in them (which is his own fiction) the whole objection is builded. 2. He maketh our Ceremonies to be only occasional objects, and no causes: whereas every instituted sign is a means, and so a cause of that effect for which it is appointed, as Logic teacheth. And if they were mere occasions of conceyving that which they signify, than a white Surplice would not prove half so significant a Ceremony of Minister's sanctity, as a white Cock, especially when it croweth, nor an aerial Cross, so significant, as a Gallows. Beside, if our Ceremonies be occasional objects only, than no man is tied to regard the whiteness of his Minister's Surplice, thereby to think of his sanctity, any more than he is bound to regard the foulness and soil of it, when for a long time, it is unwashed, and he also useth it in stead of a handkerchif, about his nose, thereby to think of the imperfection, spots, and blots, which are found in Minister's disposition, and conversation. Concerning, Letters, Characters, and Giblets, mentioned here again by the rejoinder, answer was made before, in the first section of this Chapter.  
8. To like purpose, the Repl. used this reason: If humane inventions be such moral admonishers, in spiritual duties, than our consciences are bound to subject themselves to their admonitions, and so to those mortal men, who made them admonishers. The rejoinder his answer is like his former: humane significant Ceremonies have no virtue of teaching the understanding, or exciting the devotions of men: but only external objects tending by their signification to those uses, to the use of which, the consciences of men are not bound simply but only collaterally, and for another thing. In which answer, 1. there is a strange mystery confessed: that humane Ceremonies are appointed to do that, which they have neither antecedently, nor consequently, any virtue to do. 2. Externall objects are made opposite unto admonishers with virtue to admonish: as if no external objects (as Baptism administered to a child, before mine eyes) had any virtue of admonishing 3. As strange a distinction is made betwixt simply, and collaterally, and betwixt simply, and for another thing: which are such sustian stuff, that there is no fear, they should satisfy any but such as take terms without reason's or right reason.  
9 Another reason of the Repliers, was, that every teaching sign, of public use in the Church, ought often to be interpreted, in preaching, and also defended if they be called in question, in the same preachings, which kind of preaching, upon Cross and Surplice, were very absurd, especially in those Parishes, that scarce have Quarter-Sermons. The rejoinder answereth 1. that the Cross having interpretation with it, need not be interpreted: and that the Surplice signifieth, he doth not well know what, but such a thing as may be soon taught. Now that which he saith of Cross, he may as well say of the Sacraments, that because in their administration, they have the interpretation going along with them, therefore no Minister need much preach of them. But indeed, there is special need, that the very interpretation which goeth along with the use of the Cross, should be well interpreted: because few or none, either of the people, or of the Crossers themselves do understand, how it hath that signification which the Convocation hath laid upon it, any more, than any other toy, which may easily be devized by the same Convocation: as if they should put a straw into the child's hand, in stead of a spear, to signify, that he should manfully fight, against all enemies of Christianity. And of the Surplices signification, seeing the rejoinder himself is not yet certainly informed, what it is, there must needs be great use of much preaching about it, first to declare certainly (if it may be found) what it signifieth, secondly to show the ground of that signification, or authority from whence it cometh, lawful, and thirdly to urge it upon the consciences of those that are to make use of that signification. His second answer is a bundle of phrases: and so let it pass. Only let it be noted. 1. that he calleth it fury, to charge our Ceremonies of superstition and yet in sobriety, maintained before, that those which count them unlawful, are superstitious brethren. 2. that he determineth absolutely, upon his refuted grounds, that we have stopped our own mouths, from preaching the Gospel, by calumniations. Whereas all England knoweth, that those which never preached, or writ against the Ceremonies, have their mouths stopped by his Prelates, though they only profess, they cannot use them, by reason of scandal, of which number, Doctor Burges himself hath been one. 3. He would persuade the world, that some of us place all religion in opposing Ceremonies by speaking and writing: which is greater calumny, than any he charged us with, or then he can prove of any one. 4. He affirmeth us to be of all men he ever knew, the most impatient of opposition, and so most partial, and Pharisaically proud as if his Prelates were very patiented toward those that oppose their Ceremonies, no way so partial, nor drew any thing from the pharisees, or as if himself in this rejoinder, had not showed more of these virtues, than any other. 5. He sheweth where the store lieth: in rooting of them out of the hearts of their people, by clamours, and calumnies. We cannot then defend our practice, but with clamours and calumnies, nor answer for our hearts, without rooting them out of people's hearts.  
10. For the further manifestinge of the useless signification of our significant Ceremonies, the Repl. appealed to the consciences of the best conforming Christiansin England, whether ever they found themselves truly stirred up to holiness, by the Surplice, or to constancy in faith, by the Cross? The rejoinder answereth, that no man is stirred up by them, as by causes, but only as by the sight of the creatures, or other memorials: of which use if men deprive themselves, it is their prejudice or negligence. Now of causes there was no mention in the quaere. And the question being made of the best conforming Christians (among whom the rejoinder himself is one) prejudice, and negligency of some, make up no answer. The truth is, that he himself could not say, out of his conscience, that ever he felt such motions within him, by occasion of a Surplice, or Cross, and therefore baulked the question. Yet this is here to be observed: that by the rejoinder his confession, our sacred Ceremonies are no more admonishers unto spiritual duties, than any creature of God, i. e. then any butterfly is. And are not then our Ceremonies very sacred, or religious. Or is our representative Church's institution, of any more force, or worth, than any child's, that catcheth butterflies?  
11. It was added also which by experience, it is found) that in some one Congregation, where these Ceremonies have not been used, more holiness, and constancy of faith hath appeared, then in many Cathedral Churches, where they were never omitted. The rejoinder his answer is, that where other helps stand equal, there is no difference, save only in a Pharisticall opinion of those, who count their very opposition of Ceremonies an high point of devotion, and stiffness therein, constancy in the faith.  
Behold the man, that even now complained of clamours, and calumnies. The reasonable part of this answer is, that in Cathedral Churches, other helps (as diligent preaching, catechising, admonishing, directing in Christian duties) are not equal or answerable to that which is found in diverse Congregations where the Ceremonies have not been used: otherwise there were no difference. Now herein, 1. he confuteth himself, in confessing that his Prelates, even those whose admirable wisdom he extolleth, though they have power enough, do not provide the chief helps of edification, for their Churches, equal to those that are found in poor Congregations, which receyve not their Ceremonial helps, and yet will not suffer those poor Congregations to enjoy their helps. For do they not by this, place a high point of devotion in their Ceremonial helps? 2. How can this stand with reason: where other helps are equal, there is no difference? Certainly, if our Ceremonies be helps to Edification (as the Def. and rejoinder maintain) then where other helps are equal, the Cathedral Churches have a great advantage in helps, above other, that want those Ceremonies. Nay one Cathedral Church exceedeth another in this kind: as Durrham, for Ceremonies, doth Chester, and Lichefeild.  
12. Because the Def. (to make way for an injurious accusation) changed the phrase used in the Abrigement, a chief part of the Sacraments nature, into another more obnoxious unto exception, the chief part, the Repl. justly noted this, as no plain dealing. The Rejoinjoynder (being loath to leave any of the Def. his words un-mainteyned) answereth, that the Sacraments have but two parts, signification, and obsignation: and therefore if signification be a principal part, it is also the principal part: so that the Defend (saith he) dealt herein fairly, and pressed us with such words as our Argument requires.  
But 1. who authorised the Defend. to change the terms of our Argument, and then press us with his changelinges? Let him reserve such fair dealing for other occasions, when it may pass with less notice taken of it. 2. What doth the rejoinder mean, to imitate the Defend. in attributing unto us, that we make mere signification, without any qualification or limitation, either the or a chief part of the Sacrament? The Abrigement saith only, that such signification as is ordained mystically to teach and admonish us of spiritual duties, is a chief part of the Sacrament. 3. Mr. Hooker, (lib. 5. pag. 3.10.) saith that there are great store of properties belonging to the Sacraments▪ as that they are bounds of our obedience, obligations to mutual charity, provokation to godliness, preservations from sin, memorials of great benefits, marks of distinction from strangers etc. How then can the rejoinder so resolutely determine of two only offices, which belong to them? 4. If all essential parts of the Sacrament may be reduced to these two, yet the lesser of these may be called a principal part, without any prejudice to the other, in respect of those men, which make accidental, circumstantial, & improper parts of God's worship, and so of his Sacraments, as the Def. and rejoinder upon every occasion do shift off Arguments with those terms. The rest of this section (beside words of no weight) containeth nothing which hath not been in the former passages, sufficiently cleared.   

SECT. 6. Concerning jewish Ceremonies.  
1. IN the Abrigement, after the former reason, now maintained, this was brought in: that In the time of the Law (when God saw it good to teach his Church by significant Ceremonies) none might be brought into, or received in the worship of God, but such only as the Lord himself did institute. Ergo. And after that, this: It is much less lawful, for man to bring significant Ceremonies into God's worship now, than it was under the Law. For God hath abrogated his own (not only such as prefigured Christ, but such also, as served by their signification, to teach moral duties) so as now (without great sin) none of them can be continued in the Church, no not for signification. Upon which last ground, they infer thus: If those Ceremonies which God himself ordained to teach his Church by their signification, may not now be used, much less may those which man hath devized.  
Now the wisdom of the Def. was, to pass over the former grounds, and only to insist upon this last inference derived from them. But let us see what he, and the rejoinder have to say of that.  
2. About this inference, many testimonies of great Divines, were alleged in the Abrigement: all which the Def. passeth by, as not worthy answer: for which, he was challenged by the Replier. The rejoinder answereth 1. that this is wrangling, spoken not out of conscience, but out of a spirit of contradiction, etc. To which I answer nothing. But that which the Def. neglected, the rejoinder taketh to supply, lest we should brag, as it pleaseth him to phrasifie. See therefore how he dischargeth that which he undertaketh. 1. The Nicen counsel (saith he) is twice falsified: first; that it is supposed to condemn significant Ceremonies, by man devized, upon this reason, that God had abolished his own, and secondly, that the Council is affirmed to condemn such Ceremonies at all.  
It seemeth the rejoinder hath more skill (about this cause) in multiplying falsities, then in dividing of them from truths. For the Nicen Council was brought in as speaking for one proposition: and the rejoinder maketh two false assertions of that one simple axiom. Beside the words of that Council, or Constantine, speaking for it, are (in the Abrigement) only brought in as testifying this▪ that the old Ceremonies of the law, being abrogated by God, cannot (without sin) be now continued in the Church for signification. In stead of this, the rejoinder feigneth two other propositions, and then faith, that they are two falsifications: which if they be, let him (who is the coiner of them) see how he can excuse them. The words of Constantine are: It seemed unworthy to celebrate the Passover with imitation of the jewish custom. Let no (such) thing be common to Christians, with the jews. We have received another way from our Saviour, a more lawful and convenient of our holy Religion. This is pat to the purpose, for which it was alleged.  
2. The testimony of all the rest (saith the Rej.) are perverted. 3. Sundry of the witnesses are known to have allowed our, and all, some significant Ceremonies. It is a shame therefore for men glaring of sincerity, in refusing the Ceremonies, thus to leave all sincerity, in alleging of Authors. In which never any protestant writers abused the world so much, as the Abrigement, and this cavilling Repl. Now 1. for the perverting of all testimonies, it is affirmed only, but not proved. Only some general suppositions are brought in, to support the accusation, all which have formerly been confuted. 2. Among those which he saith were known to allow of our Ceremonies, he nameth D. Humphrey, of whom Cambden in his history of Q. Elizabeth, observeth, that he (though very learned and worthy) never was raised to Ecclesiastical preferments, because he allowed not our Ceremonies etc. Harding also objecteth him by name, with Mr. Samson, as one that had rather lose all, then use our Ceremonies, and jewel (Apol. c. 5. div. 1.) doth not deny, but defend it: besides how well he allowed of our Ceremonies, let all men judge by a certain letter of his here printed, written to the Bishops, the Copy bearing this inscription.  
A letter sent to the Bishops from Doct. Laur. Humphrey precedent of Magdalen College in Oxford and Reader of Divinity lecture there.  
YOur Lordship's letters directed unto us, by our vicechancelour, although written in general words, yet hath so hearted our adversaries, that we are now no more counted brethren & friends but enemies: & sith the old mass attires be so straightly commanded, the mass is self is shortly looked for. A sword now is put into the enemy's hands of these that under Q. Mary have drawn it for Popery, & under pretence of good order are ready without cause to bewreck their popish anger upon us, who in this will use extremity, in other laws of more importance partiality, I would have wished My Lords rather privy admonition then open expulsion, yea I had rather have received wounds of my brother, then kisses of mine enemy, if we had privily in a Convenient day resigned, than neither should the punisher have been noted of cruelty, neither the offender of temerity, neither should the pap. have accused (in their seditious book) protestants of contention. Religion requireth naked Christ, to be peached, professed, Glorified that Graviora legis, by the faithful ministry of feeding pastors, should be furthered, & after that orders tending to edification, & not to destruction, advanced, & finally, the spouses' friends should by all means be cherished favoured & defended & not by counterfite & false intruders, condemned & overborne, & defaced. But alas a man qualified with inward gifts for lack of outward shows is punished, & a man only outwardly confornable, inwardly clean unfurnished, is let alone, yea exalted, the painful preacher for his labour is beaten, the unpreaching Prelate, offending in the greater is shot free, the learned man without out his cap is afflicted, the capped man without learning is not touched. Is not this directly to break God's laws? Is not this the Pharises vae? It not this to wash the outside of the Cup, and leave the inner part uncleansed? Is not this to praeferre mint and anis to faith and judgement and Mercy? Man's tradition before the ordinance of God? Is not this in the school of Christ, and in the Method of the Gospel aplayn disorder? hath not this preposterous order a woe? That the Catechism should be read is the word of God. it is the order of the Church, to preach is a necessary point of a Priest, to make quarterly sermons is law, to see poor men of the poor men's box relieved, vagabonds punished, Parishes Communicate. Rood lofts pulddowne, monuments of superstition defaced service done and heard, is scripture, is statute, that the oath to the Q. Majesty should be offered and taken, is required as well by ordinance of God as of man. These are plain matters necessary, Christian and profitable. To wear a Surplies, a Cope, or a cornered cap is (as you take it) an accidental thing, a devise only of man, and as we say a doubt or question in Divinity. Sith now these substantial points are inall places of this realm almost neglected the offends either nothing or little rebuked, and sith the transgessors have no colour of conscience, it is sin and shame to proceed against us first, having also reasonable defence of our doings. Charity My Lo. would first have taught us, equity would first have spared us, brotherliness would have warned us, pity would have pardoned us, if we had been found trespassers God is my witness who is the beholder of all faith. I think of your Lordsh. honourably, esteeming you as brethren, reverencing you as Lords and Masters of the congregation: alas why have not you some good opinion of us, why do you trust known adversaries? and misttrust your bretkrens? we confess one faith of jesus, we preach one doctrine, we acknowledge one ruler upon earth, in all things (saving in this) we are of your judgement, shall we be used thus for a surplus? shall Brethren persecute Brethrens for a forked Cap, devised singularly of him that is our enemy? Now shall we fight for the Popish Coat, his head and body being banished? shall the controversy so fall out in conclusion, that for lack of this necessary furniture (as it is esteemed) labourers shall lack wages? Churches preaching? shall we not teach? shall we not exercise our talents as God hath commanded us. Because we will not want that which our enemies have desired, and that by the appointment of friends Oh that ever I saw this day that our adversaries should laugh to see bethrens fall together to the ears! Oh that Ephraim should thus eat up Manasses, Manasses Ephraim. My Lords before this take place consider the cause of the Church, the Crests and triumphs of Anti Christ. The laugher of Satan, the sorrow and sighs of a number, the misery and sequel of the tragedy: I writ with zeal without proof of my matter at this time present, but not without knowledge of it, nor without grief of mind. God move your spirit at this present to fight against Carnem, Circumcisionem, imo Concisionem, against literam et legem, which principally is now regarded & rewarded. Speak I humbly beseech you to the Queen's Majesty, to the Chancellor, and to Mr. Secretary and the rest, that these proceed may sleep, that England may understand your zealous mind toward the worship of God, your love toward the poor well-willers, your hate toward the professed enemies your unity in true conformity, the other neither be needful now, neither exacted in any good age. So shall the little flock be bound to you, so shall the great shepherd be good to you.  
By this we may judge of some others, whom he only nameth.  
3. That all allowed some ●ignificant Ceremonies, is manifestly proved false, in the former allegations. 4. We glory no more of sincerity, in refusing the Ceremonies, than the rejoinder doth in using of them. 5. It is no abusing of the world, to allege general sentences of men condemning that which they seem to allow in their practice. If it were, I can name one protestant writer, who hath more abused the world, in this kind, than any, or all of us: and that is no other, than our Def. D. Morton. For he hath written many books of good use, against the Papists, the chief grace whereof is, that (having a good Library, and using it with diligence, and discretion) he hath alleged many thousands of their own testimonies, for the disproving of those errors and superstitions, which the same Authors, in other places, or at least in their practice, do apparently either allow, or admit of. This is the wordy answer which the rejoinder giveth unto the testimonies alleged in the Abr. (pag. 33.34.) for to prevent our bragging: now let us try if the Argument naked of testimonies, will not stand.  
3. The Argument is this: If those Ceremonies which God himself ordained, to teach his Church, by their signification, may not be used, much less may those which man hath devized, The Def. his first answer is, that the use of some jewish rite, without any jewish opinion, as Circumcision, and Easter. In which answer nothing is found, that toucheth any term of the Argument. Yet upon the occasion of it, the Def. was asked how a jewish Rite, can be used, without some part of a jewish opinion?  
The rejoined. answereth, materially, but not formally, and in use, But he should have remembered that the Argument is of significant rites using, and the Def. his answer is of jewish significant rites using: so that in his grant, there must needs be granted some formal use for signification. Beside, in all using of humane mystical rites, upon due consideration, there is some part of a jewish opinion. I prove it thus: All they that considerately use carnal, beggarly rudiments, in God's service, have this opinion, that such rites as the jewish (set praefiguration aside which no Christian ever admitted) are good in the Christian Church. But all that so use humane mystical rites, use carnal, beggarly rudiments, in God's service. Ergo. The assumption I prove thus: All that use mystical rites, whereto there is no Spirit annexed by God, as unto the Evangelicall institutions of the new Testament, use carnal beggarly rudiments, in God's service. But they which use humane mystical rites, use mystical rites, whereto there is no Spirit annexed by God. Ergo. The Proposition cannot be denied, until a better definition of such rites be given: nor the assumption, except an Evangelicall promise can be showed of Spiritual blessing upon the use of humane mystical rites.  

Concerning Circumcision.  
4. Because the Def. for an example of a jewish rite, lawful for Christians to use, named Circumcision, the Repl. concluded, that belike, he holdeth Circumcision, as it is used under Prester john, to be lawful.  
The Rej. therefore resolveth us, that He doth so: and also challengeth the Repl. for saying nothing to disprove him. Upon this provocation, it is necessary to say something against these patroness of Circumcision. Where it is to be marked, that the quaestion is of Ecclesiastical Ceremonies devized by man for signification of moral duties; whether it be lawful, for a Church repraesentative, (such as our Convocation) to appoint, and urge Circumcision, in this kind, and to this purpose, upon those Christians who are under their power?  
5. Now of this quaestion in the formal state of it, I find not, that scarce any doubt was among understanding Christians, before this Def. and Rej. being urged thereto by direct consequence from their principles, have now found it necessary, to maintain the affirmative part, for defence of our beggarly Ceremonies.  
There was some difference betwixt Hierome, & Augustine, about observing of legal Rites, & in special about Circumcision (as appeareth out of the Epistles which passed betwixt them, yet exstant) but both of them agreed on this, that as well to jew, as Gentile, all religious use of Circumcision, for Ceremony, etc. is now after due publication of the Gospel, unlawful or deadly. All that have written since, agree about the same truth, except Caietan in one place; who is forsaken & opposed therein by all Papists, the jesuites themselves not excepted. Our Divines are so confident of this, that from the unlawfulness of Circumcision, they usually dispute against other humane Ceremonies: and the jesuits in answering, are forced to fly unto this (which must be our Def. and Rej. their answer) that the Ceremonies of the old Testament, are not absolutely abrogated, but only in regard of their special manner, end, & intention. Greg. Valent. tom. 2. disp. 7. quaest. 7. punct. 7. Bellar. de effect. Sacr. l. 2. c. 32. which answer is called by D. Fulke (ag. Saund. of images, pag. 672.) a beastly doctrine.  
But because it were an infinite and needless labour, to allege the testimonies which may be easily alleged, against Ceremonial Circumcision, among Christians, as unlawful, I will pass on to reasons against it; that the Rej. may no more say, You say nothing to disprove it.  
6. First, The only place, in the New Testament, by which all Divines (as the rejoinder speaketh, pag. 75.) prove a power in the Church to constitute Ceremonies, is 1. Cor. 14.26.40. Edification, decency, order. But the Apostle, in that chapter, doth no way give leave either unto our, or any other Church to constitute Circumcision for a Ceremony. Therefore no Church hath power to constitute Circumcission for a Ceremony. For Order, and Decency, no man in his right wits will say that Circumcision cometh under their notion, And as for Edification, it hath been formerly showed, that it doth not require new instituted significant Ceremonies, much less a rejected or abrogated Ceremony, but only is the end of orderly and decent carriage of things instituted by God.  
7. Secondly, no part of the partition wall, betwixt jews and Gentiles, may by any Convocation-house, or other Church be reared up again. But Circumcision is a part, nay a principal cornerstone of that partition-wall, howsoever it be interpreted, so it be appointed. Ergo.  
8. Thirdly, Circumcision cannot be esteemed more lawful to be instituted for a significant Ceremony, than a Paschall lamb: and they two being brought into the Church, what shall hinder (if it please our Convocation house) but the greatest part of the old Ceremonial law, may in like manner follow? For the rejoinder cap. 2. sect. 6. acknowledgeth no other limits, or bounds for number of such Ceremonies, than the judgement of those to whose discretion it belongeth to judge thereof.  
9 In the fourth place, It is not lawful for any Church to impose Ceremonial burdens upon Christians. But Circumcision is a great burden to them upon whom it is imposed: as our Convocation men would confess, if it were imposed upon them. Ergo.  
10. Fiftly, It is not lawful for any Church, or Convocation-house, to usurp authority over the bodies of men, especially unto blood. But appointing of Circumcision is usurping of authority over men's bodies, to the shedding of blood. Ergo. Add unto this, that the Convocation-house may better appoint, that all English men, should have their lips, or their ears pared, or their ears nailed to their Parish-Churche door, for signification of that duty, which they are bound to perform with their ears and lips, than such Circumcision as is in use with the jews, and Prester-Iohn. These things considered, I think there is no reasonable man, but will sooner reject our Ceremonies, for bringing such a foul tail after them, (as that our Convocation may cause all Englishmen to be Circumcised) than admit of Circumsicision, for love of our paltry Ceremonies.  
11. Presently after the Def. had excused jewish Rites, if they were used without jewish opinion, he confesseth (without distinction) that all jewish-rites are abolished. Wherein the Repl. noted a contradiction. But the rejoinder (to help at a dead lift) distinguisheth betwixt jewish Ceremonies, as they were typical or figurative and necessary, and jewish Ceremonies, as they are morally significant, and free. Now for necessity and freedom, enough hath been spoken in the first part. In the other distinction, he disliketh nothing but typical signification: so that (in his imagination) any jewish Ceremony may be now used, and by our Convocation-house imposed upon us, if typical signification of Christ to come be taken from it. And is not this a Christian doctrine of Ceremonies; that sacrifying of a lam●e to signify Christ already come (as D. Reinolds ag. Hart. cap. 8. div. 4. doth conclude from the like answer of Hart ● is now lawful? It may be he will answer, that he doth not allow of Ceremonies signifying Christ at all.  
But it hath been formerly showed, that our sign o● the Cross doth immediately and directly signify Christ his death upon the Crosse.  
But let all this be as the Rej. would have it: what i● this for the defence of the Def. who said even now▪ that a jewish Rite, without a jewish opinion, is not unlawful; and then addeth, that yet it is more safe to invent new Ceremonies, than those jewish rites now abolished? Is ● jewish Rite used without a jewish opinion, typical▪ Or is it only less safe, to use abolished types, then new invented Ceremonies? This is nothing else but to make ropes of sand.  
12. Upon the former grante (that all those jewish rites, which were once God's institutions, are now abolished) the Repl. concluded, in the words of D. Whitakers: Num verò veteres figurae sublatae sunt, ut locus esset novis? Num Divinae sublatae sunt, ut humanae succede●ent? Are Divine Ceremonies abolished, that humane may be erected in their place?  
The Rej. heerupon complaineth of manifest abusing and perverting D. Whitaker his words. And why so, I pray? 1. D. Whitaker spoke of Divine figures, and the Repl. by corrupt translation maketh him to speak of Divine Ceremonies. As if D. Whitakers did understand by figure's typical praefigurations of things to come only, in his dispute against the Papists, who by Bellarmine in that place confess, the Ceremonies of the old Testament were figures of the new Testament, and therefore when the thing itself is come should cease. 
Ceremoniae veteris Testamenti figurae erant Testamenti novi, & proinde re ipsa praesente cessare debuerunt.   
And what else could he understand, but significant Ceremonies? Doth not the Rej. rather pervert D. Whitakers meaning, in making him to conclude against typical praefigurations, which Bellarmine did as well disclaim, as himself?  
2. He cuts off by the waist, D. Whitakers his sentence, saith the Rej. Let us therefore take-in the next words, according to the Rej. his own translation: Therefore if the Ceremonies of Moses were removed because they were typical, why should not the Popish Ceremonies be removed which are not less typical? Is not this above the waist, against significant Ceremonies? Certainly It was not the meaning of D. Whitaker to charge the Papists with typical praesignifications of Christ yet to come: and therefore he must needs understand, by typical, significant Ceremonies.  
3. The wholly intention saith he) w●s, to condemn the Popish Ceremony, as necessary, or Sacramental, But this could not be so: because Bellarmine in that place, first answereth about their figurative nature, and then after addeth: 
Ad id quod obijcitur de unmero, & gravi●ate legum Pontificiarum.  to that which is objected of the number and weight of popish laws. 4. D. Wh. (addeth he) did allow of humane significant Rites: as certain Feasts. Now if D. Wh. yielding something to the stream of time, and custom, did account some such humane institutions tolerable, that is nothing to the purpose. For we urge here his general rule only: of Feasts we shall after answer. In the mean time, concerning D. Wh. his general sentence of humane significant Ceremonies, let these his words be considered: Bellarmin saith, the Ceremonies are instituted of the Church to help the ruder sort. I answer the rude are not to be instracted with Ceremonies, God hath given Scripture that out of them the rude may draw instruction. 
Bellarminus ait, Caeremonias ab Ecclesia institutas ad juvand●s rudiores Respondeo, rudae non esse Ceremonits erudiend●s dedit Deus Scripturas, ut ex ●is rudes ins●itutionem necessariamhaurirent, etc. De Sacram. pag. 203.  And it is to be observed, that D. Wh. in that place confuteth the one and thirty Chapter of Bell. his s●cond book, de effectu Sacram. But the confutation of the two and thirty Chapter is wholly wanting: in which this Argument was to be handled, in defence of calvin's, Chemnitius, and Brentius his reason: God would have this difference between us and the jews, teaching them as children by sensible signs, us, as men more simply without signs. 
Deut hoc discrimen esse volu●t inter judaos & nos, quod illos ut pueres docuit per signa sensibilia; nos ut viros, simplicius sine talibus signas.  Now that D. Wh. in his Lectures passed over that Chapter with silence, it is not credible; but it seemeth rather, that honest Mr. Allenson found his sentence there so cross to our English tenants about Ceremonies, that he durst not set forth his words in print. For of D. Wardes fidelity, in setting forth what Mr. Allenson had praepared for the press (ne verbulo immutato) cannot without wrong be doubted of.  
13. For the backinge of the former consequence, this reason was added, by the Repl. If it had been the will of God, that we should be taught, by other signs, than those which are appointed in the N. Testament: He could easily, and would surely, either have chosen some of the old, for that use, or appointed some new in their places. The Rej. his answer is, that God willeth humane significant teaching Ceremonies, only permissively, not praeceptively. Of which distinction I know not well what to make: as being uncertain whether he meaneth, that God hath only permitted in general, that Christians may be taught (if men shall think fitting) by humane signs; or that he hath commanded that in general, and only permitted the particulars to men's discretion! Howsoever, those who usurp this authority, must show good evidence of this permissive will of God, before we can find ourselves, either praeceptively, or permissively willed of God, to subject ourselves unto their institutions. But that evidence we have hitherto expected in vain. The Rej. to darken the cause objecteth, that It is God's will, that we should worship him constantly in one set place, at such an hour, in such an order; and yet these are not prescribed by God. Where it is not true that it is Gods will, to have us bound constantly to one place, time, and order of worship. 2. So far as we can discern God's will for to have us use any one place, time, and order, we discern that will to be praeceptive, and not merely permissive.  
For all know, that God hath commanded most convenient place, time, and order, for to be observed in his service: When therefore (all circumstances considered) we find this place, time, and order, most convenient, we observe it as commanded of God. The like cannot be said of our Ceremonies: except first it be showed, that God hath commanded humane significant Ceremonies in general: and after it be made apparent, that our significant Ceremonies are more convenient for us, than others.  
14. The Def. having given a reason, why it is safer to invent new Ceremonies, then to use those old ones of the jews: because they might engender an opinion of necessity: and so might bring in all the levitical law: was answered by the Repl. 1. that though more danger may be in some respect, on the one side, yet more may be absolutely on the other. To this (though it be evident) the Rej. answereth with a bare denial. 2. The Repl. observed, that the inventing of new humane Ceremonies have engendered an opinion of necessity in them: and have brought in all the Popish law of Rites: so that the comparison, even in these respects, may be quaestioned.  
The Rej. here first observeth, that it was formerly alleged out of Calv. Ep. 259. that the original of all humane Ceremonies was, that men would needs forge new worships of God. In which words, he findeth more than any other man can: opinion of necessity: and upon that accuseth the Repl. of I know not what varying uncertainty, without any reason at all. Afterward, he observeth, that jewish Ceremonies have more colour of necessity, because of their first Divine institution.  
Now let that be so: yet if preaching, or the Church's sentence declared in a Convocation, be sufficient to remove from Ceremonies all false opinion (as the Def. and Rej. would persuade us) that maketh no such difference, but that the comparison may still be quaestioned.    

SECT. 7. Concerning Images, etc.  
1. A Third reason brought against significant Ceremonies, was, that they open a gap to Images, etc. where the Reader must remember, or consider, that the meaning is: Images instituted for signification of moral duties, may as well be set up in Churches, as Cross and Surplice. The Def. his answer was (to pass over superfluity of words) that Images are not to be accounted Popish, or unlawful, but only in regard of superstitious adoration. Whereunto it was replied, that then Cassander's Images (not for adoration, but for information & incitement) are not Popish: which the Rej. doth not only grant, but also proveth it, by the consent of Calvin himself, Instit. lib. 1. capit. 11. sect. 12. where he saith, that Historical Images, or Pictures, may have some use, in teaching, and putting, in remembrance.  
Now for this, let it be considered, that Calvin in that section, speaketh only of ordinary pictures, for teaching and putting in remembrance of that which they repraesent of themselves, without any Ecclesiastical institution, as certain words written do signify a certain meaning, without any special institution. Such (it may be) would be the picture of Ananias in a white Surplice, signifying with other pictures agreeable to the story, that Paul esteemed and called him a whited wall, Act. 23.3. But in the very next section, which is the thirteenth, Calvin, disputing against setting up of any Images in Churches, doth sufficiently declare, that he allowed of no Ceremonial religious use of Images, such as is of our Cross, and Surplice.  
2. The Replier alleged against this defence of Ceremonial religious use of Images, especially in Churches, the common consent of our Divines. Against this, the Rej. first opposeth Luther and the Lutherans: and then asketh if they be none of our Divines? To which I answer, that they are in most main points our Divines: but about this business they are no more our, then about Ubiquity, Consubstantiation, etc. for which they disclaim us, even the whole Church of England, as no part of the Catholic Church, but Sectaries, Sacramentarians, etc. Secondly, the history of Luther about Images is well known: how in opposition to Carolastadius, who broke down Images without his consent, he would have them to be tolerated, only for a time, until men were more fully instructed. But that he allowed them for good Ceremonies of religion, that cannot be showed. Mr. Fox, in the story of Luther, hath this: Luther misliked the rashness of Caro●astadius, in stirring up the people, to throw down Images, without authority, and before the people were taught, that Images serve to no purpose. Not that he would maintain Images (as he said) to stand, or to be suffered: but that this aught to be done by the Magistrate etc. This was Luther enforced unto, by the slanderers, that accused Protestants of sedition and tumults, etc. This is no argument, for the Magistrate to let Images stand; whoe may and should remove them, and will not. The cause why Luther did so stand with the standing of Images, was time, and not his own judgement. He wished them away. Nay (as Zuinglius relateth) he turned them, some with their feet upward, and some with their faces toward the wall, & their backs to the people, for to make them not religious, but ridiculous. Thirdly, the Lutherans make this one of their controversies, against Calvin, Beza, etc. whether Images may be tolerated in Churches, or in religious use. Fourthly, Polanus (who was borne among the Lutherans in Silesia) in Ezech. cap. 11. testifieth, that the Lutheran Images, are worshipped of most Lutherans, etc. and therefore are Idols to be avoided. 
Lutheranorum Imagines, a plerisque Lutheranu coluntur, etc. sunt igitur Idola fugienda▪  And will the Rej. then defend the Lutheran use of Images?  
3. In the next place, the Rej. asketh, in mumminge fashion, if Vrsinus, junius, & Mr. Perkins be not of our Divines? or if they do not acknowledge an historical use of Images lawful? To which I answer, that they are in our consenting Divines.  
For Vrsine, his words are plain (part 2. pag. 45. they must needs have large consciences, 
Spatiosissimos & amplissimos utique illis ●p●rtet esse con●cientia re●essus, & licentiam patentissimam, qui rem pessimi exempli, ex Ethnico ritu & consuetudine, in Ecclesiam, maximo cum ejus dedecor●, & damns, translatam, in adiaphoris numerare non erubescunt.  who blush not to reckon a thing of the worst example, and from heathenish rite, and custom brought into the Church, not without the great disgrace and hurt thereof, among indifferent things. Where it must be observed, that he disputed against Flaccius Illiricus, about Images, even in the Lutheran use, which our Def. and Rej. maintain. junius also is ours. His words are these (adv. Bell. de Imagine. lib. 2. cap. 12. v. 30. It is God's cause and ours (as is plain out of the word, that neither his Image nor Christ's, nor any of the Saints for a religious end, be set up in any place (specially that is appointed for God's worship) or at any time without his order. Verily those Images are to be reckoned not only among things Superfluous, 
Interest Des & nostra (ut Verbo sacro exponitur) ne ipsius imago unquam, & ne Christi, aut Sanctorum imago, de causa religiosae, in loco ullo (praesertim religioso) & temporo, sine authoritate sius statuatur Profecto, ista Imagines, non inter superflua selum, sed etiam inter vetita, & damnosa sunt numerandae.  but Scathie and Forbidden things. Mr. Perkins (being in every man's hands) may be easily consulted with, upon the second Commandment, and in his treatise of Idolatry.  
4. Beza, with his fellow Ministers of Geneva, are next brought in, who allowed many pictures, to be set forth in the French Bible. Beza his judgement (even of Lutheran Images) is plain in his answer to Westphalus, a Lutheran, capit. 36. The placing of Images in Churches we think a 1000 times flatly forbidden by the word of God. Whosoever would see Bezas' resolute judgement, about the Lutheran use of Images, which the Def. approveth of, 
Imaginum & statuarum collocationem in Templu, putamu● expresso Des Ve●bo millies interdictam.  let him look upon his Antithesis ad th●s. 4. Witenbergentium, in Colloquio Mompelgardensi: & ad Colloquium Mompelgardense, part 2. And he shall find enough to satisfy him, not only about Bezas' judgement, but (if he be a good Protestant) concerning the cause, or quaestion itself. For no answer of moment could ever be brought forth, by any either rigid, or gentle Lutheran, from that time, unto this day.  
As for those pictures in the French Bible, they are not significant Ceremonies of religious use by special institution; but such signs as Characters or letters, concerning which, answer is given, in the first section of this Chapter, out of Alexander Hales: They signify holy things not as they are holy, but as they are things. 
Significant sententias (a●● res) sacrae non in quantum sacra sunt, sed in quantur● res.   
The Rej. therefore foreseeing what would be answered, goeth about to prevent it, by saying, that the Def. condemneth all religious use of Images, properly so called, 1. e. whose determination must be to God-ward, as Polanus in 2. Praecep. expresseth the meaning. Which expression I cannot find in Polanus, but this to our purpose: Images are not to be allowed in Churches for laymens' books. 
Non sunt Imagines in Templis tollerande, quae pro libri● sint imperitae multitudu●i.   
Neither can the Def. or Rej. deny all religious use of Images, properly so called; except they deny significant Images, appointed for commonefaction and institution of men in religious duties, to be a religious use. Which if they could have done, they needed not have admitted Images into the same rank with their income significant Ceremonies, accidental parts of religious worship. By this also is answered that which he addeth of simple historical use of Images, as separated from all religious use.  
5. Of having Images for religious use, the negative is defended by Calvin, and the affirmative by Bellarmine, de Imag. lib. 2. cap. 9 in which quaestion, it was observed by the Replier, that the Def. taketh Bell. his part.  
The rejoinder here first maketh a kind of doubt, whether Calvin did not therein contradict himself! But not trusting to that, he addeth, that the quaestion was, whether Images may be well (rectè) placed in Churches? because things lawful in themselves, are not lawful in all times & places to be used. Now the mere looking upon that Chapter of Bell. will praesently manifest, that Calvin, calling Images in Temples, Idolatrous signs set up wherewith the Churches are defiled, 
Erecta signa Idololatriae, quibus Templa dehonestantur.  never meant so to minse the matter, as to make them lawful, but not expedient. And in deed, if Images may be used for commonefaction, and institution, as Ecclesiastical significant Ceremonies, there can be no reason given, why they should be shut out of the Church, where Ecclesiastical significant Ceremonies have their chiefest use.  
This is certain, that the Def. expressly denieth the bringing in of Images into Churches, for some such uses as Bellarmine speaketh of, cap. 10. For instruction, and erudition, for stirring up unto ímitation, and for praeserving of the memory of Christ, and Saints, he denieth (I say) this to be any part of Popish use or abuse about Images, when he saith, that Only in regard of superstitious adoration, the use of Images is to be called Popish.  
6. It was added by the Repl. that the Def. his assertion is directly against the Homily against the peril of Idolatry, unto which we are bound to subscribe. If this be true (saith the rejoinder) the Bishop deserveth to be suspended: the Replier, if it be untrue. Now I do not desire that he alone, (separated from the rest either partaker of the same or guilty of equal faults,) should be supended: but I dare adventure my suspension, against his, that neither he nor the Rej. can clear his assertion, from direct contradiction unto that Homily. I will take no other words for proof of that which the Repl. saith, then that found in a book written against Mr. Richard Montague, about the like sentence, called A dangerous Plot, etc. pag. 94. and 95. where these words are quoted out of that Homily: The words Idol and Image, be words of diverse tongues, and sounds: yet used in the Scripture indifferently, for one thing always. To bring Images into the Churches, is a foul abuse, and great enormity. They be forbidden, and unlawful. They are not things indifferent, nor tolerable. If the Def. will say, that his assertion is not contrary to these words, than I am contented, that his suspension should be deferred longer than Mr. Mountagues' promotion was, after he had written this, and such like scandalous doctrines, tending directly to the overthrow of our religion. And this reason may be alleged for him: that Mr. Montague in some points went so fare beyond D. Morton, that he reckoneth him among the Puritan Bishops.  
7. The Repl. noted also, that the Def. his assertion confirmeth Bellarmine's foul words, who saith, that the Apology of the Church of England lieth, in affirming the Council of Frankford to have decreed the abolishing of Images: the Concil. lib. 2. cap. 8. because the only answer is that which junius (in his notes upon that chapter) giveth: He that forbiddeth Images to be worshipped, doth forbid having of Images worshipable, especially in Churches: which answer this Def. doth flatly deny. The Rej. answereth, that the meaning of B. jewel, in that place of the Apology, was, not that the Council did simply take away Images, but contrary to the Council of Nice, which required the adoration of them. But 1. If these words do not show juels meaning, yet certainly they declare junius his mind and judgement, plainly. How then dare the Rej. avouche junius to have allowed Images worshipable? 2. jewel his words are: Charles the Great had a Council at Frankford, contrary to the 2. Nicen Council, concerning the taking away of Images: where the taking away is not limited by contrariety to the Nicen Council, but manifestly explaineth the sentence wherein that contrariety did mainly consist. 3. Learned jewel knew, how to write plainly, so that his words and meaning may be understood. Now what his judgement was of Images for religious use, (adoration set a part) appeareth evidently, as in his 14. Article, so especially in that notable and Prophetical sentence of his, concerning the Image of the Cross of Christ, as it was in some place or places of England: Si illa mala Crux stat, nos cadimus. If that evil Cross stand▪ we (or our religion) must fall.  
This is related by D. Humphrey, in the history of B. juels life and death, a little before the end. And in very deed, except those which writ against the Papists, do refute all Images instituted for religious signification, they do not make any difference betwixt us, and a great part of Popish Doctors. For (as Bilson, against the jesuites Apology, pag. 572. well observeth) this is the doubt, betwixt us and the Papists, whether we should not content ourselves, with such means as God hath devized for us, and commended unto us, thereby daily to renew the memory of our Redemption; or else invent others of our own heads? Nay if we admit of significant Images, as religious Ceremonies, I would fain know how we in England can condemn, those that worship before them, or them commemoratively, or recordatively, as Petrus de Crabrera (in 3. q. 25. a 3. disp. 2. n. 35.) speaketh, and Vasquez defendeth to be the common tenet of the Romish Doctors. For that is nothing else, but at the beholding of a Crucifix, or such like Image, and calling to mind Christ, and our duty to him, upon the same to worship him which (upon the supposition of their religious signification lawful) can hardly be condemned by those which hold kneeling at the Communion good.  

Concerning Oil, Light, Spittle, Cream and H. Water.  
8. In the Abrigement, unto Images were joined Oil, Lights, Spittle, Cream, and Holy Water. But it pleased the Def. to pass over Lights, and Cream, untouched. And concerning Oil and Spittle, by the rejoinder his own correction of the Repliers collection, his answer is: that they, having their birth and being from an Apish imitation of a miraculous employment of them, are therefore to be kept out of doors, though some significant Ceremonies be let in. Now this is no answer (as the Replier observed) except the miraculous using of any thing doth forbid, that it should at any time after be used for signification. Which the Rej. would neither affirm, nor deny; but only calleth it a flout. But it is such a flout, as being granted, it ca●hiereth the Cross, as being above all other Ceremonies for fame of miracles wrought by it, and the Surplice also, as being, in part, an Apish imitation of the Angels miraculous apparitions in white. But the truth is: our Prelates do place it in the Church's power, to retain, as Ceremonies of Baptism, Chrism, Salt, Candles, Exorcisms, Ephata, and the Consecration of the Water, so well as the Crosse. These are the very words of Lancelot Andrues, the late famous B. of Winchester, in his answer to the 18. Chapter of Cardinal perron's Reply, pag. 12. or sect. 17. For Holy Water, his more distinct answer was, that their (i. e. Papists) sprinkling of water upon the People, for remembrance of their Baptism, if it were applied only for to make them often mindful, and careful to keep their vow of Christianity, made once to God in Baptism, it might be called a moral Ceremony and Christian. But as it is used in Romish Church, as operative, to the purging of venialb sins, and driving away of Devils, it is Popish and execrable. I am constrained to repeat the Def. his words, that they may discover the vanity of the Rej. his exceptions against the reply to them opposed: which was, that Calvin Inst. lib. 4. cap. 10. s. 20. And junius in Bellarmine de Cultu Sanctorum, libr. 3. cap. 7. n. 8. were of another mind: etc.  
The rejoinder 1. blameth the Replier for making show, as if the Def. were fairly inclined to let in the use of Holy Water: But without any cause, except he will deny the Def. to be fairly inclined, to let in the use of a moral Christian Ceremony, as the Defender calleth it. 2. He observeth, that the Def. named not H. Water, but sprincking of Water upon the People. Now the Rej. saith expressly thus: We come to that which they (the Papists) call H. Water their (i.e. the Papists) sprinkling of Water upon the People, etc. confounding plainly these two terms. 3. He noteth, that the Defender did not say it may be, but it might be called Christian: that is (by the rejoinder his interpretation) if superstition had not stained it. Now I cannot see any difference betwixt that which the Replier saith, it may be accounted Christian, were it not for this or that; and this of the Rejoinders: It might be so accounted, if it were not for this or that. But if a stain of superstition, doth hinder, that a humane Ceremony cannot be after called Christian, though that superstition be taken from it, by doctrine & profession, what will become of our Ceremonies, which the rejoinder doth so labour to maintain as Christian, that he hath scarce one thread left about him dry, or free from his sweeting? 4. He denieth the Defender to have said, that were it not for the operative power which is ascribed unto it, it might be accounted Christian.  
Wherein whosoever will but look upon the Defender his own words, even now quoted, must needs wonder, what subtle difference the rejoinder can conceyve betwixt his formal words as only making mindful, it is Christian, but not as operative: and that sense which he denieth. 5. Because both the Defender and rejoinder do make so much of operative virtue ascribed by the Popish Doctors unto Holy Water, for cleansing from venial sins, as that therein they place all the Popery and fault of it: let them know, that divers of the best learned among them do flatly deny it. As Estius in 4. pag. 14. Some speak improbably, that Holy Water Con●erreth remission of venial sin, only by the deed done. 
Improbabiliter dicunt quidam, aquam benedictam conferre remissionem venialium peccatorum ex opere operato.  Vasquez in 3. disp. 128. cap. 5. ar. 4. Sacramentals do not work remission of venial sin, nor were instituted for any such end, but to stir up the mind to abandon them. Now as for necessity, 
Sacramentalia non o●erantur remissionem peccatorum ventalium; n●que instituta sunt ad eam significandam: sed ad excitandum animum, in detestationem illorum.  wherewith the rejoinder would put off Calvin: Bellarmin himself (de Pontif. l. 4. c. 18.) answereth: It is an admonition or holy institution only without any obligation to a fault if it be omitted. 
Est admonitio, vel p●a institutio▪ sine obligatione ad ●ulpam. Non peccant, qui citrà contemptum, non asperguns se aquâ ●ustrali quandò Templum ingrediuntur.  They sin not who (without contempt) do not Sprinkle themselves with Holy Water, when they enter the Church. junius his words are so full and plain, that they admit no answer: no humane ordination can make it good. 6. The Rep. conclusion: that such sprinkling of water as the Def. alloweth, may perhaps be called Jewish: but not Christian, without taking Christ's name in vain; cannot be eluded by the rejoinder his comparatively Christian, no more than some uncleanness may be called Christian, in comparison of filthiness contrary to nature.  
9 In the following passages, concerning abuse o● imposing humane Ceremonies, and P. Martyrs, judgement, nothing is worth the answering, which hath not been formerly cleared. Only about that which the Def. affirmeth, concerning the shutting up of the gap, which was said to be opened by this doctrine of humane significant Ceremonies, in God's worship, something must be answered unto the rejoinder his fierce accusations. 1. The rejoinder asketh, If any more significant Ceremonies have been brought-in this threescore years? To which I answer, first that there have been of late more bringing in of Altars, with bowing unto them, than was before: and at Durrham, the third Seat of our Def. more superstitious observations are now said to be urged, then in threescore years before. Secondly, it is well known, that in threescore years, there have scarce any general significant Ceremonies been newly brought into the Church of Rome: yet Chamier (tom. 2. pag. 1299.) answereth to the like evasion: We are to regard not only what is brought in, but what may be brought in. For while such authority is challenged, the ●oke ìs not certain, but wavering. 
Rituum non tantum inductorum habenda est ratio sed & e●rum qui induci possunt. 〈◊〉 enim authoritas talis vindicatur, ingum non est c●rlum, sed in fl●xu.  2. Because the Replier said, that the gap is every day made wider and wider by such defences as this is, which allow of Images themselves, for some religious use; because by this means any Crucifix may come in, that is not greater than the Church door: the rejoinder accuseth him of a steeled conscience, if he doth not bleed for such an injurious jest of falsehood, tending to bring them into suspicion, and hatred: so that in his charity, we can no longer be accounted sincere men. And I pray you why? Forsooth the Def. doth not allow all Images, and in Churches too, and for religious use. Now (if his heat be over) let him consider the Def. his words, cited, allowed, and maintained by himself, pag. 291. the use of Images, only in regard of superstitious adoration, is to be called Popish, and not true. What distinction is here betwixt Images? though he was not by the Replier accused, as favouring all Images, but only a Crucifix. And let him tell us, if he doth (or can by his grounds) disallow of all Crucifixes? or if there be no use of such Images, in Churches, but only for superstitious adoration? or if there be no religious use of a significant Image beside adoration? The case is so plain, that every man may see the rejoinder in this place, breaking out into an intemperate passion, for want of a reasonable answer to that which he was ashamed to confess.  
3. The rejoinder confessing that our Prelates can when they please, open the gap, to many other Ceremonies like to these which now they urge upon us, addeth notwithstanding, that the Replier his spirit in saying so, transported him, to involve his Majesty, and the State, by an uncharitable surmise. And that this gap shall never be opened, unless our janglings, and our sins bring God's displeasure upon our land. Now alas, what involving is this of Civil powers, to say, that the Prelates, by their permission, may bring in threescore Ceremonies, as well as three. And what humane religious Ceremonies can be brought into England, without our sin's desert? As for his intermixing of our janglings, as a possible cause, it is not worth any jangling.   

Concerning the second Commandment.  
10. One Argument is yet to be handled, either omitted, or (as the rejoinder saith) put off unto another place, by the Defendant. The Argument standeth thus: The second Commandment forbiddeth to make unto ourselves, the likeness of any thing whatsoever, for religious use: as Bucer, jewel, Fulke, Andrews and Bilson do interpret it. Therefore to make, appoint, or use significant Ceremonies, of man's devizing, is unlawful.  
The rejoinder answereth, in general, that Religious use, by these forenamed Authors, is taken. 1. For worship to the Image: 2. Worship to God, by the Image: and not simply, that which may any ways confer to the furtherance of Religion. Wherein, he saith nothing but truth, and yet no truth at all to the purpose: except he understandeth in the that which he affirmeth, only, 1. e. that they meant no more, but worshipping to, and by: and in that he denieth, by simply, no difference, betwixt any of those things that help forth or further Religion: as if civil circumstances, and instituted religious Ceremonies, were all one. And if this be his meaning, it requireth more than his simple testimony, to confirm it.  
11. For the backing of this Argument, it was first observed by the Replier, that the word likeness, used in the second Commandment, is general, and comprehendeth under it, all religious similitudes: because they are homogeneal to Images, there expressly forbidden. To this the rejoinder answereth nothing: but only saith, that our Ceremonies are not religious similitudes in such a sense as the Commandment intendeth, and Divines understand. And that the Replier speaketh ignorantly: because the Commandment doth as expressly forbidden such similitudes, as any graven Images.  
Now the first of these sayings, we cannot understand, until the rejoinder explaineth himself, what that sense is, in which the Commandment intendeth to forbid all religious similitudes? As for the second, to leave the Repliers ignorance unto the reader's judgement, more in it is granted, then was demanded: viz: that all religious similitudes are expressly forbidden in the second Commandment.  
12. It was secondly added by the Replier, that significant Ceremonies are external acts of religious worship, even as they are used to further devotion▪ Suarez, in 3. q. 65. ar. 4. Bell. de Eff. Sacr. lib. 2. cap. 29, and 31. and therefore being invented by man, of the same nature with Images, by which, and at which, God is worshipped. The rejoinder here (for want of a better answer) flieth to his old Sanctuary, of meritorious, necessary, and immediate worship grossly held by Papists of their Ceremonies, whether th●y be significant, or not significant. But he hath in the former part of this writing, been so beaten out of this burrow, that we need not again spend time in digging about it. Let any man look upon the places quoted, and he shall find, that (merit necessity, and immediatnesse set a part) significant Ceremonies are external acts of religious worship: which was all that this argument required. And I dare leave it (though not to the rejoinder yet) to D. Burgesses judgement, if merit, necessity, be things either chiefly, or at all, forbidden in the second Commandment, more than in any other? Certainly, meritorious conceits are generally forbidden: but in no one Commandment specially: and necessary binding of Conscience by man, belongeth to the first. The Replier looking for an answer something like this, of essential and accidental worship, for praeventing of it, said that such a distinction would help no more here, then that of the Papists, betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
For this the rejoinder accuseth him of an uncharitable heart, and an unlearned head. But I see no cause: as hath been fully showed in the confutation of that distinction, both in the first part of this writing, and also in the second Argument, or Chapter, of this part. Yet because the rejoinder is so impatient, of hearing his distinction of essential and accidental worship, compared with the Papists vain distinctions: let any man consider a little the Popish distinctions, which Rivetus hath well noted and expressed in his Cases, on the second Commandment: Worship religious is either of itself, or by accident proper or improper of itself, 
Per se aut per accidens, proprius aut improprius: per se, aut per aliud, propter se, aut ratione alterius, primarius, aut secundarius, proprius, aut analogicus: absolutus, aut respectivus: simplex, aut secundum quid: directus, aut reductivus perfectus, aut imperfectus.  or some other thing, for itself, or in regard of another. Primarie or secondary, proper or Analogical. Absolute or respective, simple or according to some respect. Direct, or reductive, perfect or imperfect. And compare with them the Rej. his distinctions of Ceremonies, and worship, in the first part examined. I doubt not, but he will say, they come nearer together, in the very terms, than one would have expected.  
13. The Replier in the next place, argued from the affirmative part of the second Commandment, unto the negative, thus: This Commandementinjoigneth obedience to all the worship appointed by God, all which was significative, Heb. 8.5. and 10.1. therefore it forbiddeth any significative Ceremonies to be brought in to the worship of God, devized by man: etc. The rejoinder here 1. answereth out of Mr. Cartwright, that the Affirmative part injoineth us, to use such as himself doth approve in his word. Now though in that edition of Mr. Cartw. his Catechism printed an. 1611. the affirmative part is thus expressed: Do that which I command thee, and do no more; Yet that which he quoteth, out of another edition, is enough to cashier all humane significant Ceremonies. For what can be more plainly spoken against them, then that only such outward means must be used in God's worship as himself hath allowed▪ But (saith the rejoinder) Mr. Cartw. reckoneth the reverend gestures of the body, among those outward means▪ What then? Then bodily gestures in religious actions are either determined by God, or may be lawfully appointed for signification, by man. A strange consequence: as if, when God allowed for an offering either a pair of Pigeons, or two Turtle doves, without particular determination, the Priests might have appointed for signification, that only two Turtle doves should be offered!  
His second answer is, that all worship of God among the jews, was not significant in his sense of significant. What his sense is, I know not: but the sense and words of the Replier his argument, was of worship appointed, or instituted, beyond that which is naturaall, or necessary, without any institution, except the law written in every man's heart, be an institution; which he seemeth not to have conceived.  
14 The last consideration by the Replier propounded was, that significant Ceremonies, which are by institution, must needs belong unto the second Commandment; as he that maketh an accurate distinction of the Commandments, will presently see: but to man the second Commandment is (in regard of making) wholly negative. Ergo. The Rej. answereth first, that significant Ceremonies may belong rather to the third Commandment, as D. Ames referreth them; or accidentally to the fourth. Now as for accidental belonging to this or that Commandment, it is not in question. To the third Commandment they cannot be directly referred, according to that distinction of the Commandments, which the Rej. himself produceth, in the next words as accurate. As for D. Ames, let any man look upon his Medulla, lib. 2. cap. 13. th' 34.35.36. and he shall see how the Rej. mistook him.  
His second answer consisteth in distinguishing the Commandments of the first Table: Wherein (to let other things pass) he maketh the second to provide, that from God we take the prescription of all that, by use of which we may really worship him, and esteem him to be truly and properly honoured of us: and the Third to provide, that in all acts of his worship, we carry ourselves sincerely and reverently, from this he concludeth, that the right use of Ceremonies, belong rather to the third Commandment, then to the second, as touching their end. Of this I know not well what to make: 1. The argument was of significant Ceremonies, in regard of their institution and making, the Rej. answereth, touching their end. 2. Touching their end, I cannot understand (nor I think any man else) how the proper end of the Cross in Baptism, should be sincerity and reverence; except mixture of humane inventions with God's ordinances be sincerity; and presumption of doing so, be reverence. 3. If the second Commandment doth provide that we take from God the praescription of all real worship; then also of significant Ceremonies, except they be fantastical worship: and yet even figmenta cerebri, cordisve humani, the very fantasies, or images of the mind, not prescribed by God, are (by the most interpreters) held as well forbidden, as outward real images. If the same Commandment do●th bind us to God's prescription, in all true worship; then humane significant Ceremonies, being not prescribed by God, are fa●se worship. If also in proper true worship; then they are only metaphorical worship, like unto true worship, or at least tropical; which hath been sufficiently confuted in the first part, and in the second Chapter of this.  
The third answer given by the Rej. is, that in the second Commandment, nothing is forbidden, as touching making, but the instituting, or fancying of our own mere devises, as an immediate means of worshipping God thereby. The force lieth in those two terms, mere devises, and immediate means of worship. Now for the distinction betwixt immediate and mediate worship, it hath been sufficiently canvized in the first part. The other evasion, of mere humane devises, is the common refuge of jesuites, when they are pressed with this argument. So Bellarmine (de effectu Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 32.) to Calvin, alleging that all humane will-worship is condemned in Scripture, 
Vo●atur cultus humanus & voluntarius, qui est mere humanus etc. Quae autem ab Ecclesia docentur non sunt mere humanae.  answereth: That is called humane and will-worship which is merely humane. etc. but what the Church teacheth is of another nature. Beside, lay these two terms together, and then this is Pes computi: man's devises may be even immediate means of worship, if they be not merely man's.  
15 In vie of those grounds, laid by the Repl. against humane significant Ceremonies, out of the second Commandment, the Rej. by way of Reconvention feigneth two grounds to the contrary: the first whereof is taken from supposed true worship, & means necessarily inducing thereto, as only forbidden in the second Commandment: and the second, from our placing the worship of God, in forbearing these Ceremonies, which he hath not commanded us to forbear. Now to both these earthy dead grounds (or Capita mortua) answer hath been given in the first part; partly in the chapter of Superstition, and partly in that of Difference betwixt our and Popish Ceremonies. So that nothing need here be added. Yet in few words, 1. He forgetteth himself much, in distinguishing significant Ceremonies (which he confesseth to be some kind of worship) from true worship; except he will confess them to be false worship. 2. He considered not what he written, when he speaketh of means necessarily inducing to true worship. For no Papist ever conceited, that their Ceremonies, were either necessary to true worship, as if no true worship could be without them: or necessarily inferring true worship, as if he that used them, howsoever he did it, must needs perform true worship: and yet one of these senses must needs be the meaning of that phrase, if it hath any meaning at all. 3. He taketh the whole quaestion for won, or granted, when he speaketh of our forbearance of that, which God hath not commanded us to forbear: and thereupon concludeth thus: God hath not commanded us to forbear humane significant Ceremonies. Ergo.    

SECT. 7. Concerning the Oath-gesture of Abraham's Servant.  
1. IN this section, the Def. beginneth a confutation of the fore-proved Proposition: All humane Ceremonies, being appropriated to God's service, if they be ordained to teach any spiritual duty, by their mystical signification, are unlawful. His Scripture confutation (for want of rule or precept) is only by Examples.  
Now to omit words of no weight, his first example is Abraham's directing his servant, to put his hand under his thigh, when he did swear. Gen. 24.2. Against this, the Replier first excepted, that in probability, Abraham was not the appointer of this Ceremony. The Rej. answereth, that this is not material to the point, what man appointed it, so that it was not of Divine appointment. So that their first proof of Ceremony appointed by man, is from an example appointed they know not by whom: only begging of us to grant, that it was not appointed by God, which they ought to have proved. Yet the Replier for citing Calvin and junius, as leaving it most probable, that is, was an ancient custom before Abraham (which any man looking upon their interpretations, may see to be true) is called by the Rej. a false man in all his allegations. But let that go.  
2. Because the Def. for magnifying of this example, said, that there is not a more Divine service of God, than the taking of an oath; the Replier denied this: affirming the proper, and principal end of swearing is (not to worship God, but) to confirm a truth. To this the rejoinder answereth 1. that so the proper end of Preaching, Sacraments, Petitioning, is edification of men, confirmation of faith, and obtaining of mercies. Where if he had repeated the Repliers other term, proper and principal end, his exception had been at an end: because the principal end of these means, is to honour God. Beside those very ends which he mentioneth, edification, confirmation of faith, and obtaining of mercy, are ill-favoredly distinguished from God's worship, as no more appertaining to it, than the fidelity which a Vassal, or Copi-houlder, doth by oath confirm ordinarily unto his Lord. The rejoinder his second answer is, the Replier before placed worship in the nature of the action itself▪ and yet now placeth it in the end of the action. As if the nature of an action, may not be gathered from the proper or natural end of it! Nay the Replier before declared, that the end of an instituted means, is part of the nature thereof, and hath a place in the definition of it.  
D. jackson (in his Original of unbelief, pag. 327. and 328.) by the difference given of the Replier, doth well answer the Popish Proctors for Images, who allege as like, the Ceremony used in an oath: Particular oaths, given only for satisfaction of men, are not such proper acts of God's service, as supplications, thanksgivings, and solemn vows are. The honour of God would be no whit l●sse, if the use or necessity of oaths among men, were ne'er. In supplications, and thanksgivings, it is far otherwise, the more often & solemnly we praise God, or pray unto him, the more we honour him; because these are direct and immediat● acts of his service, etc.  
3. Because the Def. proved nothing to the purpose, about this Gesture, he was required to prove it significative of some spiritual duty: For it was in probability only a common sign of subjection, as well out of an oath, as in it, without any respect unto Christ. The rejoinder in stead of a proof, saith, that some Ancient and Later Writers do so conceit. And if the Def. and he also do conceit it so, we do not strive with them, about that: but men's conceits are no great proofs. He addeth 2. that if it were a sign of subjection yet might it be significant of a spiritual duty. But may be, and might be, is no proof.  
He subjoigneth 3. that it was a common sign used in solemnity of that kind, as well out of an oath, as in it; this (saith he) is barely and boldly affirmed, & implieth a contradiction, as importing other solemnities without an oath, of the same kind with thi●, wherein was an oath. Now for bareness, or boldness, of a probable conjecture, by way of answer, it should not be objected by him that bringeth mere conceits and might bees, for proving Arguments. And as for contradiction, if he had repeated the word subjection, than he might have discerned signs of that kind, as well without, as with an oath. By the noting of this also he may see how the Replier herein agreed with Calvin. For no Gesture of subjection to a superior man, is wont to be proper unto subjection signified in time of swearing.  
Neither is the Repliers observation (that as imposition of hands, in those parts, did always signify some superiority: so this underposi●ion of hands was, by proportion, fit to signify inferiority, or subjection) this I say was not a mere fiction, as the rejoinder would have it. For, beside that the meaning was, of the usual imposing of hands in blessing, where the lesser is blessed of the greater, as Scripture teacheth: the rejoinder hath brought but two examples, to infringe the generality of it Act. 13.2. Leu. 1.4. and in both of these it holdeth. For they that laid hands on Paul and Silas, did it not only in the name of the whole society, which in such cases hath some dispensative superiority over particular members; but also by Commission from God, which gave them in th●t business superiority. And he that brought a beast to be sacrificed, Leu. 1. had certainly power over it. If the rejoinder could have showed us, where, and when, a servant imposed his hand upon his Master's head, or a son upon his fathers, that had been to the purpose. We on the contrary say with Tostatus on Gen. 47. that the putting under of the hand, was never used, but by an inferior, to his superior.  
4. Yet the Rej. hath more to say: namely, that the sign of a servants duty to which he is bound by oath, is a mystical sign of some spiritual duty: because all the law is spiritual; and obedience to masters, for conscience sake, is a service of God. Whereto I answer, that I never heard the Hangman's office, which is servile, called a spiritual duty; no though he be bound to it by oath. 2. The oath maketh the thing sworn to, no more spiritual, than a carnal obligation unto it (which may concur with the obligation of an oath) maketh it carnal. 3. The Law is all spiritual, in the manner; but yet all the works required by it are not spiritual, nor so esteemed. The Apostle (1. Cor. 6.) distinguisheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things pertaining to this life, from spiritual things. All Divines usually distinguish the common moral duties practised by light of nature, from such as are spiritual. 4. Obedience to masters for conscience sake, is a service, or obedience to God, as it cometh from conscience toward God: but every sign of subjection, is not a sign of it as it cometh from conscience toward God.  
5. In the last place, the Replier, supposing all true that hitherto the Def. and Rej. have striven for, yet denieth that any thing could be concluded from thence, for our Convocation-power in appointing such Ceremonies: because such Prophets as Abraham might do more than our Convocation.  
The Rej. here, would have us show that this was done by Prophetical inspiration: and because this is not done, he calleth this answer a bolting hole, fit for a distressed and wilful disputer, whose cause cannot be defended and yet his stomach will not yield. But if he had well considered, that it belongeth not properly to the answer, but to the Opponent, to produce reasons; and how unreasonable it is, for to require a reason proving a thing to be done, of him that judgeth it false, and only for disputation's sake granteth his adversary to suppose and take it as true, he would never have abused so many words by misplacing of them. All these things considered, I doubt not (as the Replier said) but Abraham's servant, if he were here present, and need required, would swear, that his example maketh nothing for our Ceremonies.   

SECT. 10. Concerning Suarez the jesuite, his stating of the Controversy, betwixt Protestants, and Papists.  
1. IN this section an objection of ours is brought in, without rank or file, in the middle of Examples, forgotten (as the Rej. saith) in the proper place. But nothing of moment is answered thereto, either by the Def. or Rej. which is not sufficiently cleared in the first part of this Writing, Chapter the sixth; except the state which Suarez maketh of the question betwixt us and Papists. This therefore (as being very observable) remaineth here to be declared.  
2. The place quoted is in 3. tom. 3. Disp. 15. Sect. 2. The words (as the Replier hath them) are these: The first error is, that only those signs which are written, aught to be retained and used in the Church. The second, that no outward worship of God is lawful, but only that which is appointed by God. The third, that the Church hath not power of commanding, and ordaining those things, (he meaneth mystical Ceremonies) which are necessary for convenient celebration of the Sacraments. Of which three points, there is none, wherein Suarez and the Def. do not jump. To this the Rej. first answereth, that Suarez doth not propounded these three points, as three errors of the Protestants: because he mentioneth not Protestants, but Heretics, which reason is not worth the answering: because he mentioneth Heretics of this time, which phrase is oftener in the jesuites writings, understood of Protestants, then of any other, as all know that have looked upon them. By the ●ame reason, one may argue, that he understood no special Sect, or persons: b●cause he mentioneth not any by name. But it shall appear, that his meaning could be of no other than Protestants.  
3. He addeth in the second place the words going before those quoted, he spoke of Suenkf●l●ians. And this is true: but nothing to the purpose. For he leaving them as desperate phantastics, passeth on to others, that is, Protestants, as by and by shall appear.  
4. In the next place (saith the Rej.) Suarez speaketh of such as allow some external worship of God, but refuse all Ecclesiastical Ceremonies in his worship, as the inventions of men; and hold nothing to be lawful in God's service, but what is commanded in holy Scriptures; which is the ground of those three errors mentioned by the Replier. This may be called truth: but it is not all the truth, which belongeth to our present purpose. For Suarez his words are these: Others reproove Ecclesiastical Ceremonies as humane inventions without authority or precept in Scripture: 
Alij Ecclesiasticas Ceremomonias reprehendunt, eo quod sint humana inventa, absque Divino praecepto, vel authoritate in Scriptures contenta. Putant enim ifri, non licere Deum colere alio cultu, nisi illo qui in Scriptures nobis praeceptus est. In quo fundamento tres isti errores continentur etc. Putant isti, non licere Deum colere alto cultu, nisi illo qui in Scriptures nobis praeceptus est.  For they think it unlawful to worship God with any other worship than is in Scripture enjoined. In which ground three errors are contained. Here may a great difference be observed betwixt the Rej. his translation, and Suarez his words; especially in that for those words: Th●y think it unlawful to worship God with any other worship than is in Scripture prescribed, the Rej. giveth these: they hold nothing to be lawful in God's service, but what is commanded in Scripture. For many things are lawful in God's service, which are not worship: as civil circumstances, etc.  
5. After those three errors, the Rej. abserveth Suarez to speak of some that disallow not Ceremonies in general, but impugn the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, as vain and superstitious. These no doubt (addeth the Rej) are the Protestants: to whom he imputeth there no other error, but their opposition against Romish Ceremonies, as vain and superstitious, as the Defender doth. Concerning this, 1. This therefore was not mentioned by the Replier, because Suarez himself testifieth, that it is concluded in the former: Which error cannot be founded, but upon one of the three above rejected errors. 
Qui error non potest nisi aliquo ex supra rejectis (tribus scil. illis) fundari.  2. Suarez also addeth that these men of whom he in these words speaketh, say nothing against all their Ceremonies, but only, that they are used with intention of worship, 
q●oda nobis fiunt intentione cultus, & tanquam pertinentes ad virtutem Religionis.  as pertaining to the virtue of Religion: that they are done by us with intention of worship and as pertaining to the virtue of Religion. This they hold Superstitious▪ For though in the Sacraments we are to observe a measure and due circumstances, yet this they will only have as a certain humane polity, not out of intention of worship and religion: for this they say is Superstitious. 
Hoc s●●e stitiosum esse dicunt: quia licet in Sacramentis, oporteat servare modum, & debitas circumstantias, tamen hoc solum esse volunt propter quandam humanam politiam, non vero ex intentione cultus & r●ligionis: nam hoc dicunt esse superstitiosum.   
Out of these two observations, I make these two conclusions: 1. If this error be necessarily founded on those three mentioned, (as Suarez saith, and showeth) than such Protestants as hold this (among whom the rejoinder professeth the Defend. and his own name) hold also those. 2. If Protestants hold this tenet, that it is Superstition, for to intent worship in humane Ceremonies (as Suarez saith) than our Defender and rejoinder in this point are by Protestants found guilty of Superstition. For they place special immediate, though improper, accidental, and secondary worship in humane Ceremonies; as is to be seen in this rejoinder pag. 125.127. etc.  
Here they cannot ●scape, by alleging (as they use to do) that the Papists place proper essential worship in all their Ceremonies. For Suarez in the same place expoundeth the Popish tenet, concerning worship, just as they do theirs: Sacramental Ceremonies belong to secondary worship: not only because they contain External worship, but also in the very Externall worship itself, they are as it were accidents of other more noble actions. 
Ceremoniae sacramentales pertinent ad cultum secundarium: non solum quia continent cultum ixternum: sed etiam quia in ipsomet externo cultu, sunt veluti accidentia aliarum a●tionum nobiliorum.   
6. Hitherto we have had noting directly answered, concerning the three errors, which the Replier said Suar●z imputed to Protestants, about Ceremonies in general. Nor is any other given but this: that Suarez chargeth those errors, not on Protestants, but on Anabaptists: who hold this negative argument: whatsoever is not commanded in the Word, is unlawful. This the Anabaptistes, and not the Protestants, hold, fanatically even about rites, and formalities, etc. To which I reply 1. that if Suarez his words be taken as before they were recited, & not as the rejoinder doth ill-translate them, than no man is conversant in the Protestant writings, or have read over that which is formerly cited out of them in these three general Arguments, but must needs confess, the very same sense is to be found in most of our principal Divines: and the same words in many: 
Non licere Deum colere, alto externo cultu, nisi illo, qui in Scriptura nobis praeceptus est: Inventae bumana, quae absque Divino praecepto, vol authoritate in Scriptures contenta, esse reprehendenda.  It is not lawful to worship God with other external worship save with that which is in Scripture prescribed us. And humane inventions without warrant from God in Script. are to be reprehended.  
2. If all things be Ceremonies, which are circumstances of order, and decency (as the Defender and rejoinder do not only affirm, but make their chief Anchor) then (whatsoever Gui de Er●s discourseth of one furious company of them) much injury is done to the Anabaptists, in making them to hold, that all Ceremonies are unlawful, which are not contained in the Word.  
For it is well known, that they have certain times, & places of meeting for worship; certain order of preaching & praying; nay in Baptising of men-growne more formalities than many Protestant Churches; and even Bishops over diverse Congregations, for order sake (as they say.) D. B. having lived in Holland, can scarce be ignorant of these things.  
3. To put it out of doubt, that Suarez, under the name of Heretics, in this place, meant Protestants, let any man look upon his book de Religione, Volume 1. treatise 3. lib. 2. cap. 1. and there he shall find these words, to the same purpose: The Heretics of these times say every ceremony, and all worship not prescribed of God, or not contained in the Gospel is Superstition, yea and Idolatry. They stand much upon Deut. 12. 
Hae●etici huius temporu, dicunt omnem Ceremoniam, & omnem cultum, a Deo ip●o non praceptum, seu in Euangelio non contentum, Superstitionem esse, imo & Idololatriam vocant. Fundantur praecepue in Deut. 12.  Now 1. this cannot be understood of the Anabaptists: because they make no such account of deuteronomy, or the old Testament, as that they found any doctrine chiefly on that. 2. Suarez himself, in the same Chapter, showeth plainly that he there meant Protestants. For he sendeth the Reader, for confutation of these Heretics, to Gregorius de Valentia, tom. 3. disp. 6. q. 11. p. 1. where he disputeth against Herbrandus, a Protestant, not an Anabaptist: & to Lessius de just. & jure, l. 2. cap. 43. dub. 4. where he disputeth about this quaestion, against Calvin. And (lest any man should think, he meant one kind of Heretics there, and another in this place quaestioned, he there referreth his reader, for further satisfaction about that quaestion, unto this very place, in 3. tom. 3. disp. 15. What can be more clear? When as therefore the rejoinder upon such sandy grounds, concludeth, that we are somewhat encamped in the Trenches of Anabaptists; because we do not jump with Suarez, in condemning these three Errors; we may better conclude, that he and the Def. by rash undermining of us have, unawares, broken into the works of Papists; because they do condemn with Suarez, those three Protestant truths. And withal (seeing so great a School-Papist as Suarez, in stating of the controversy, maketh no mention of merit, necessity, efficacy, number, or holiness, either inhaerent or adhaerent) it is but an evasion of the Defend. and rejoinder upon every occasion, to fly unto these, as only differences betwixt us and Papists, about Ceremonies. And so we have more cleared, then that, for which Suarez his testimony was produced by the Replier: namely, that learned Papists have no opinion of all their significant Ceremonies, which the Defender and rejoinder do not maintain.   

SECT. 11. Concerning the Feast of Purim. Ester. 9  
1. THis example was, seven hundred year since, objected by Papists, unto the Waldenses, for humane Ceremonies: & since, by all Papists that have written against Protestants about Ceremomonies; as Gregorius de Valentia, Bellarmine, Suarez, in the places before noted. And we need not seek for new answers about it, seeing that which our Divines have answered is sufficient. Our first answer is that of junius to Bellarmine, de Cultu Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 10. Praeceptum ●uit politicum: which words because they were translated, a precept of order, the rejoined. catcheth occasion to conclude from thence, that order doth require institution of new things. But therein he misseth, except he can prove some new religious thing instituted, beside a circumstance of time, which the Replier (whom he seeketh to involve in a contradiction) doth expressly distinguish from things. His answer is, that though this precept were Political, yet by junius himself, annot. 17. it was also significant. Wherein he mistaketh junius his meaning, which is expounded annot. 28. It signifieth no days, nor repraesents mysteries, but is a commemoration that day instituted. 
Non dies sign●ficat, aut repraesentat mysteria, sed commemoratio in dic illo instituta.   
2. It was added by the Replier that some of our own writers at home, say that it was appointed for a civil rejoicing day. Here the rejoinder (naming M. jacob for such a writer) accuseth him of making it a Guttide: As if no Civil day of rejoicing could be without Gutting. Yet there be men reverend for learning, and piety, which say some such thing as the rejoined. detorteth M. jacobs' words to. For Pellicanus upon that place of Ester, 
Hebrae. convi●●● se consolati 〈◊〉.  saith thus: The Hebrews solaced themselves with feasts. We read of a festival Solemnity instituted, and that for two days, 
●olemnitas as a●●das leg●tur instit●ta, ●●que ●●●iuana, in qui 〈◊〉 〈…〉 & 〈◊〉, etc. Eum aut●m r●tum spente su●repetunt judai, pro●●. vieres ad ga●●ia v●nt●●●, quam ad fiductum sutri●us in Defamed quo illis tempori●us Ordentur 〈◊〉 curosse.  wherein they please themselves with meats and drinks, etc. But the jews took up that rite voluntarily as being more prone to the Contentments of the belly, then to the Confidence of the Spirit toward God, whereof in those times they seem to have been little Careful. And for this sentence, it seemeth to make, that the jews are said to have made such feasts, before and without any public institution: and that nothing is mentioned in the text: Which two observations do not agree to the Feast of Tabernacles, Neh. 8. which the rejoined. would make like unto this. Add hereunto, that, if josephus may be credited) the heathen King, Artaxerxes, was the instituter of this Feast, among the Heathen, and, the jews at Susan following his order, it came to be propagated by Mordecay, and Hester, unto all other jews. josephus, lib. 11. cap. 6.  
3. Another answer is, (upon supposition of a religious Ceremony instituted by Mordecai) that it was by Divine direction. The rejoinder to this returneth, 1. that no man ever so defined before. But he might (when he was a Student in Cambrige) have heard D. Whitakers thus defining. For in his printed Lectures, de Sacramentis, pag. 206. it standeth so: 
Respondeo: & hoc Mardochaeum fecisse, Deo inspirante & forsan. Prophetae cujuspiam monitu & authoritate. Etsi vero non legimus, aut Deum ipsum, aut aliquem Prophetam, hoc Mardochao mandasse, tamen quia in libro Canonico, hec factum reperitur, and commendatur, non dubium est, quin divina authoritate nitatur.  I answer that both Mordecai did this, God inspiring him, and peradventure by order from some Prophet. And however we do not read that either God, or any Prophet did require this, yet for as much as it stands approved in Scripture there is no doubt but it was done by Divine authority. As for the several holidays instituted 2. Chr. 30. cast in here by the way of the rejoinder as a Precedent for the Feast of Purim; they agree not. For they were not yearly holidays; nor holidays at all, of institution properly so called: but an occasional continuation of freewill offerings, (which might be offered any day in the yeear, without new holidays) for that one time. If it had been by men appointed, that every year, 14. days should be observed for the Passover Feast, it had fitted to the purpose. But that had been no less presumption, then if they should have decreed, that every year after, the Passover should be celebrated in the second month, as it was then, by occasion.   

SECT. 12. Concerning the Feast of Dedication. john. 10.22.23.  
1. A Feast of Dedication is brought-in as an instance of a humane Ceremony appropriated unto God's service, out of john 10. Now what Feast of Dedication this was, & whether it were merely of humane institution; this hath always been, and is still in great quaestion. Nonnius taketh it for that which Solomon appointed: chrysostom, Theophilact, Euthymius, Cajetan, Calvin, etc. interpret it of that which began in the time of Ezra: Others of that instituted by the Macchabees 1. Mac. 4. This last the Defender took for granted, and thereupon buildeth his Argument: and yet neither the former, nor this can easily be so evidently proved merely humane, as it may be made a foundation for humane Ceremonies now. junius de cultu Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 5. thus answereth Bellarmine, affirming that God did not appoint this Ceremony: It is false: Solomon, Ezras, the Maccabees, followed the Analogy of that place Ex. 4. Leu. 8. the right of which law if it had not been, yet we must needs say that as Prophets they were led by extraordinary & singular revelation, not to be Exemplary therein to us. 
Falsum est: Solomon, Ezras, Macchabat sequnti sunt praceptum, Exod. 4. Leu. 8 ●n juris legalis analogia. Quod jus si non extitisset, tamen dicendum f●ret, seciss● cot ut Prophetas, revelatione extraordinaria, & singulari, quae in exemplum non potest tral●●.   
2. The Replier first observed, that this example is much alleged by Papists, against Protestants for their Ceremonies: and so indeed it hath been always, from the time of Waldenses, as was noted, in the 2. Chapter. of our first part. Bellarmine hath it twice: once, de Rom, Pont. l. 4. c. 17. and again, de Cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. ●. To this the Rej. answereth, that this example served 〈◊〉 Bellarmine's turn, for imposition of Ceremonies upon the conscience as of necessity to be observed, as God's laws; but it serveth the Defender his turn: because as junius saith, Co●r. 3. l. 4. c. 17. an. 5.) it was not enjoined by way of authority, but taken up by consent. He would make us (as it seemeth) believe, that our Ceremonies are not enjoined by way of authority: and if he can do this, he may also persuade us, that we are for refusing them, excluded, suspended, deprived, excommunicated, fined, & imprisoned, without any way (lawful or unlawful) of authority. Concerning necessity in conscience, see the first part, chap. 6.  
Another answer of the Rejoinders is notorious: Bellarmine (saith he) allegeth this feast of Dedication, to prove the Dedication, or Consecration of Churches: which is nothing to our question of significant Rites. Now surely if Dedication and Consecration of Churches be nothing to our question of significant Rites; the Def. and Rej. say nothing to the purpose, when they prove this question of signifying Rites, by the Maccabees Feast of Dedication. And if that Feast of Dedication, doth not prove humane Dedications lawful; much less doth it prove the lawfulness of other significant Ceremonies, such as ours are.  
3. The Defendant for backing of this instance, added, that our Saviour seemeth to approve that humane Feast, by his presence, joh. 10. To which it was replied, that he seemeth only: because we only read, that he walked in Solomon's Perch, at that Feast: which he might do, without observing or approving of it. This is junius his answer to Bellarmine, alleging that Christ by his presence honoured that Feast: 
Non sestum proprie honorawit Christus, sed coetum piorum convenientium festo: nam omnes ejusmodi occasiones seminandi Evangelij sut, observabat, & capieba● Christus Con. 3. l. 4.6.17 an. 6. So Peli●anus in Mac. 1. cap. 4. Nec aliud in his Encoenijs) Christus egisse legitur, quam praedicasse in Templo.  Christ did not properly honour the Feast, but the Congregation of the faithful at the Feast: For Christ took all such occasions then, to wit, before those solemnities were abolished, of sowing the seed of his Gospel: Nor did Christ aught that we read at those times, but preach in the Temple. And sure I am, that neither walking in the Porch, nor declaring that he was that Christ, belonged properly unto the solemnity of that Feast. If he had preached of Dedications and Consecrations, with allowance, that had been something.  
The Rej. objecteth 1. That we plead Christ's approbation of marriage, by his presence. This indeed added unto evident grounds, addeth some honour unto that state: especially, in that a miracle was wrought to the furtherance of a marriage feast: if we had no other plea for lawfulness of marriage, but that mere presence; I, for my part, would as soon separate from my wife, as the rejoinder saith he would from the Church of England, if he were of our mind, about Ceremonies; that is, to day, before to morrow. His 2. objection is, that Christ whipped the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, joh. 2. Ergo. Which maketh directly to the clearing of this cause: For there were two whip of these Merchants out of the Temple; the first whereof was this joh. 2. in the beginning of his preaching; the other toward the end of it a little before his passion; so that it appeareth plainly, they were not so driven out, but they came in again, and continued their merchandise there: and yet in the mean space, our Saviour was often present in the Temple, without allowance of that their practice. So had he often condemned the traditions of men, in God's worship; and yet was present some time, where they were observed. Beside, because the Def. and Rej. are wont to accuse the jews for placing holiness, necessity, efficacy, and proper essential worship in humane traditions, whereby they would avoid the dint of that general censure which our Saviour giveth of them, Mat. 15. Mar. 7. etc. I would fain learn of them, how it appeareth, or may be conjectured, that they placed not as much holiness, necessity, efficacy, etc. in this and such like humane Feasts, as in washing of hands before meat. If they did (as any man will think) then how can they say, that our Saviour condemned the one, and allowed the other?  
The following 13. and 14. Sections are spent about some objections taken out of Mr. Cartwrite. But because the slitenesse of this Instance is already sufficiently discovered, I will not cloy, nor detain the Reader about them, at this time; but pass on to the next Instance.   

SECT. 15. and 16. Concerning the Altar of jordan. josh. 22.  
1. IT is the Def. and Rej. their fashion, to produce Instances, without proof of their fitness, and so expect from us that they should be disproved: which is all one, as if john a Styles should in a great traverse, bring forth against john a Nokes, some instruments, for evidence of his cause, which few, or none, beside himself, can read, (at least so as to discern any thing in it making for him) and plead that in them was evidence enough, except john a Nokes could prove the contrary. So it is here, about the Altar of jordan: no demonstration is first made, how it agreeth to the purpose: but we are challenged to show how it disagreeth. Yet yielding them this liberty, we have enough to oppose.  
2. And first of all, we answer, that this Altar of the two Tribes, was not in the state, or use, religious, as the Cross is, by the confession of an English Bishop, Babington on the 2. Commandment.  
The rejoinder 1. opposeth out of Mr. Parker, par. 1. sect. 34. and 36. that religious in use is that which hath a religious end: and religious in state, which is Ecclesiastical, belonging to God's service. Ergo. But Mr. Parker in those sect. told him, that religious in a sense common, or mixtly, all things are, that are done to an holy end: and religious in sense special, or in state, all those things are, that have Order, Obligation, and a kind of immobility, in God's service. Now the quaestion is not of the former common mixed sense: but of the later special state: according to which, no man can say the Altar of jordan to have been religious, upon ground of Scripture or reason. Let any man judge then, whether partiality did put out Mr. Parker's eyes (as the Rej. speaketh) or blear theirs, that see not the vanity of this allegation?  
3. B. Babingtons' words on the 2. Commandment are these: They erected that Altar, not for religion, but in deed for a civil use, as you may see, josh. 22. The rejoined. answereth, that he calleth the Altar civil Analogically, because it was ordained by consent of fellow-Citizens, which is as mere a shift, as any yet invented by the rejoinder. For 1. he calleth not the Altar, but the use, civil. 2. He opposeth this civility not unto Divine Institution, as the rejoinder would have him, but unto the same fellow-Citizens erecting of an Altar for Religion. 3. What he meaneth, appeareth plainly, by his third Proposition, there set down in these terms: It is lawful to make pictures of things which we have seen, to a civil use, but not to use them in the Church, and for Religion.  
4. To pass over circumstantial passages, the Def. (proving this Altar to be appointed unto God's service, because it was a pattern of the Lords Altar, as our Cross is a resemblance of Christ's Cross) was 1. reproved by the Replier: because the Cross, whereon Christ did suffer, was no more holy than judas: and so not to be compared unto the Lord's Altar. To this the rejoinder in many words, maketh show of saying something, but I leave it to the Reader, if he saith any thing. I (for my part) can not discern what it is.  
5. The Replier also in the second place alleged▪ that every resemblance of a holy thing, is not therefore holy: because then every Alehouse picture taken from holy things mentioned in Scripture, should be holy; and a model of the Temple, carried by a Tyrian workman, into his country for news, should have been holy.  
To this the rejoinder (after a few words of course) answereth, that this is to separat the resemblance of a thing, from the use of it. As if the Def. had not argued simply, & merely, from the resemblance, making, as yet, no mention of the use! If there be any Sophistry in this argument (as the rejoinder saith there is) it is first found in the Defender his uncouth reason.  
6. The Defender went about to prove, first, that this Altar did mystically signify a spiritual duty, in respect of the Gileadites then living; viz: to teach that the Lord was God.  
To this it was replied, that it doth not appear out of the text, that there was intended any use for the present age, that then lived: nay the contrary may be gathered out of the 24. and 25. verses: We have done it for f●ar of this thing, saying: In time to come, your children might speak unto our children, etc. So shall your children make our children cease from fearing the Lord. The rejoinder opposeth, that there is afterward mention made of us, and you. But that is nothing: because it noteth only, that the generations to come, may deny us, on this side jordan, not to have been joint Tribes with you on the other side of that River. Upon this, the Repl. concluded, that this Altar was no direct help unto devotion. To which is rejoined, that it was not a direct (that is immediate) help unto devotion; but immediately significative, & collaterally for devotion it was. Such distinctions I never heard, nor read. Any man may see, that a Ceremony directly and immediately signifying a spiritual duty, is a direct & immediate help to devotion. To what other help, this help was collateral, I would fain know.  
A further reason of this conclusion was added: viz: then most of the other Tribes should have had use of it, and also reason, to have set up Altars of devotion at every three-way-leet, as Crosses stand. The rejoinder is 1. that the other Tribes (no doubt) had use of it, as of a witness that the Lord is God. Now let any man consider, whether they which ordinarily resorted to the Tabernacle, and Altar of God, had need of a humane Altar, fare remooved from their sight, to put them in mind, that the LORD was God? And whether the two Tribes and a half, without the consent, or knowledge of the chief Priests, the chief Magistrates, the fare greater part of people, and power to appoint unto all Israel a solemn significant Ceremony, for their common use? The Rej. addeth in the 2. place, that all are not bound to the same helps to devotion, and the other tribes needed no such monument, or pattern, having the Altar itself in possession. Where 1. except he holdeth the two Tribes, and a half bound to set up this Altar, he maketh in that no difference: if he so holdeth, than it is no instance of a mere arbitrary Ceremony. 2. The two tribes had the Lords Altar in present possession, as well as diverse of the other: so that by this reason, they also for the present need no such monument and pattern: which is the very point in this place questioned.  
7. The Replier affirmed, that (in regard of posterity) the immediate end of this Altar was, to testify, that those Tribes beyond jordan, belonged to the same people, and so had right to the same worship, with those of this side jordan: which is nothing to a Ceremony of state and immediate use, in the special solemn worship of God. The rejoinder asketh if this were not a holy religious end? I answer, It was so holy and religious, as every Landmark of a Parson's Glebe-land, or every sign of a Parish-bound is holy and religious: but not so as mystical Ceremonies. B. Andrew's (against Perone, p. 18.) giveth some light to this, by the ancient use of Lights, and incense: There were lights (saith he) there was incense, used by the Primitive Church, in their service; not for any mystical meaning, but (as it is thought) for this cause, that where the Christians in time of persecution, had their meetings most commonly in places dark, and so needing lights, and dampish, and so needing good savours, they provided lights against one, and incense against the other. After the Churches retained these things, to show themselves the successors of those ancient Christians, etc. the After-ages devized meanings and significations of their own, which from the beginning were not so. If this be so (as it is thought) then there may be signs of succession unto religious forefathers, without any mystical meaning: which is all that by us is pleaded about this Altar of jordan.  
And for further manifesting, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that it was so in this Altar, let it be well considered: what josephus, one of the learnedest, and most ancient jews now exstant, saith, Antiq. lib. 5. cap. 4. They placed an Altar on the bank of the river as a memorable sign of the nearness and affinity of them that dwelled beyond jordan, viz. with them within Canaan: Again, it was not placed for worship, but symbolically and as a memorandum of their relation to you.  
8. The rejoinder as having sufficiently confuted all other answers, bringeth in one made to himself in conference, (though he hath not found it in print) as a grand absurdity: namely, that the Gileadites did ill, in erecting this Altar; and the rest also in allowing of it. Now as for allowance by the High Priest, Princes, and all the Congregation of Israel, which he speaketh of, I find it not evident in the Text. About the other, I find this: 1. that D. Fulke, no absurd Divine, (against Sanders, of Images, pag. 649.) writeth thus in print: The two Tribes and a half, josh. 22. made not an Image, but an Altar for a memorial: and yet their fact was not commendable, though it was, in some sort excusable. 2. I find also that Calvin, before him, upon josh. 22. saith thus: Duae tribus, ●um dimidia, non leviter peccarunt, etc. The two tribes and a half did very ill: Which is the great absurdity that the rejoinder had heard in conference, but not seen in print, before now.   

SECT. 17.18.19.20.21. Concerning the Brazen Altar, built by Solomon. 1. King 8.64.  
1. THe Defender bringeth for instance, a Braze● Altar, built by Solomon. It was replied, that in the Text, there is no mention either of Altar, or Brass, or Building, but only of Sanctifying the inner part of the Court. The Rejoyner answereth, thatch word Brazen slipped in by oversight; the Court may well be called an Altar, in respect of present use. The Rej. before, upon far less occasion, talked of slippered tricks, etc. but I leave this slipping in, and out, unto the Readers censure, so that no advantage be made of it, in prosecution of this Instance.  
2. Yet because not only the Defender named a● Altar, but the rejoinder also maintaineth it for good let us see, what may be answered unto the Replier hi● collection therfrom; namely, that if man may on hi● own head appoint an Altar (as they say) than man may appoint not only accidental worship, but also such a● is greater than some essential worship; because the Alter which sanctifieth the Offering is greater, than the Offering Mat. 23.19? The rejoinder here accuseth the Replie● for want of judgement, in this allegation: because tha● which our Saviour saith, is proper to that one only Altar in the Temple, by reason of the special command of God to use them, and their superadded mystical signification: whereas other Altars were only permitted, and so helps to the Offerings, but not sanctifiers of them; nay they were sanctified by the Offerings; as also the Altars of God's appointment, in the time of Moses, Solomon, Ezra, and Machabeus, were first sanctified by the gift that was offered on them, and so installed in their peculiar privilege, of sanctifying the Gifts which were afterwards offered upon them. For all this, no consent is showed of any Divine: Only we are bidden to see Zanchie, de Redem. lib. 1. cap. 16. thes. 2.3. Now 1. Zanchie hath nothing to the rejoinder his purpose: he doth not distinguish betwixt Altars commanded and Altars permitted: but saith of the commanded Altars, that they were annexed unto the acts of worship. And so he doth of the Ark itself, and all the principal & most essential means appointed by God. What can the rejoinder make of this? 2. The special command of God was as well for the Offerings, as for the Altar: so that cannot be the reason, why the Altar did sanctify the Offering, more than the Offering the Altar.  
And the same equality is in the superadded mystical, and typical signification. 3. I am sorry to hear from D.B. that the Altars built by Abraham, jacob, etc. before Moses, were only permitted. He may as well say, that all the Sacrifices before Moses, were only permitted. Bellarmine himself, de Eff. Sacr. lib. 2. cap. 31. confesseth, that they were by inspiration, and impulsion Divine: and all our Divines, disputing against Papists about will-worship, make that Divine instinct, for substance, a Divine command. 4. How could Altars be sanctified by Offerings, when the Offerings themselves were not in state of sanctification actually, and properly, before they came to the Altars? He that left his gift at the Altar, that is ready to lay it thereon, and then went to be reconciled with his brother, had not yet actually sanctified the same. 5. The Altars of Moses, and Solomon, were not first Sanctified by Offerings upon them, but by Moses his Anointing: the manifestation of God's glorious presence in a Cloud, filling the Tabernacle, and Temple: and by that fire which came down from heaven to consume the Sacrifice. Ex. 40. Leu. 8. & 9, 1. King. 8. 2. Chr. 7.6. If salomon's sanctified Court▪ did not sanctify the Sacrifices offered thereon, then either those Sacrifices were less holy, than those which were offered on the Altar, and sanctified thereby: or else they had more sanctifying virtue in them, than the other, which did not sanctify their Altar, as those did their Court. The like may be said, and more also, of Abraham's Altars, etc. but this is enough.  
3. Our first answer is the same that D. Whitakers, D. Sutlife, etc. giveth to Bellarmine (who de Pont. lib▪ 4. cap. 19 hath the same objection against Calvin) Quicquid Salomon fecit, id Dei authoritate & Spiritus Sancti nutu fecit (saith D. Whitakers) that is, Solomon did this by Divine authority, and instinct of the H. Ghost. The Rej. excepteth 1. that Bellarmine would prove by this example, proper, essential worship, by man ordained. But if he had looked upon the chapter quoted, he might have seen, that the only quaestion there, is, whether it was sin, for men, by their own authority, to erect a new Altar in the Temple? And this the Def. and Rej. with Bellarmine deny, against Calvin. 2. He addeth, that all our Divines do not give this answer alone. As if we also did not follow them, in adding other answers to this!  
4. Our second answer (for I will not dwell on words) is, that Solomon did this from equity of the Law. This is junius his answer to Bellarmine, Cont. 3. lib. 4. cap. 9 It was done extraordinarily and by singular occasion and according to the Analogy of the common ground, whereby they did other things, and it may be by special revelation. 
Hoc factum est extrà ordinem, & occasione singulari, on necessitate prasenti, cui per analogian communis juris, prospectum e●● a Salomone, Rege: forté etiam particulars revelatione.  To this the Defend. answered, that this interpretation overthroweth the former. Nothing less (saith the Replier) because Solomon might be directed, to see, and authorized to follow that equity. The Rej. here, having little reason to oppose, putteth down, in stead of it, great words: as this is to confound Ordinary, and Extraordinary; Special, and Common; Scripture-light, and immediate Revelation; and so hath no sense in it. And what show of wool for this great cry? May not one be extraordinarily, specially, and immediately directed, to see that Scripture-light which in itself hath ordinary, & common shining? Surely, the Apostles had extraordinary, special, immediate direction, to see the meaning of diverse passages in the old Testament (as the allegorical meaning of Sara and Hagar, Sinai and Zion, etc.) which was before contained in the Scripture.  
Yet (addeth the rejoinder) Solomon (by this reason) needed no special Authority. Which I grant, if he be considered as a perfect man; but if he be conceived as Peter, who after he was sent unto all Nations, needed after a Vision from Heaven, to send him unto the Gentiles, than this consequence is nothing worth.  
4. Passing over the third answer (in pity) the fourth is, that this sanctification of the Court by Solomon, was no addition of a diverse kind. This is Danaeus his answer to Bellarmine, Cont. lib. 1. cap. 19 To this the Defender answered nothing, which either the Replier thought worthy any answer, or rejoinder of improving. So that I need not add any thing to it, but only a fitting explication which I find in Tostatus (in 3. Reg. cap. 8.) thus expressed: It was lawful to do● what Solomon did, because though it were forbid to offer sacrifice elsewhere then at the Altar of whole burnt-offerings; yet now upon necessity it might be, when the Altar was not sufficient to hold all. Nor did Solomon against the Law, because now sacrifices were burnt at the Altar, and on the Altar together, and so the whole Court of the Priests was in a manner but as one Altar, and the intent of the Law was no other, then that they should not offer in diverse places, but here was but one continued place. 
Licin●● fuit quod 〈◊〉 Solomon quia, licet prohibitum asset, of●erri sacrificia alibi, quam in Altari Hol●caustorum, tamen nunc ex necessitate, licuit, cum non possint capi sacrificia super Altar's. Etiam non videbaturagi contra legem: quia nunc cremebantur sacrificia apud Altar, & simul in Altari, & ●ic videbatur totum Atrium Sacerdo●●m esse tanquam unum Altar. Intentio autem Legis erat, ut non offerrerentur sacrificia in diversis locis.    

SECT. 22. Concerning Synogogues.  
TO this simple instance, the Replier answered, 1. that Synagogues were no significant Ceremonies. 2. That it is most likely, they were first founded by those Prophets, which brought in Schools of the Prophets. 3. That in them, there was (of old) no significant humane Ceremony used. To the first is rejoined, that the Synagogues bore some representation of the Sanctuary. But I ask, How? Was this representation in matter, or form, or use? He seemeth to refer it unto use, in resorting to solemn worship. Now let any man consider, whether every place appointed for solemn worship, be a significant Ceremony? If so, than no Anabaptists ever denied significant Ceremonies of mansappointing, which yet the Rejoynderaccused them for. But this fond conceit is sufficiently confuted in the first part of this writing, Chap. 4. and 5. Yet suppose the Synagogues had been a representation of the Sanctuary, which was a Ceremony; is every representation of a Ceremony, a new Ceremony? then any man may make more Ceremonies, than there are men in his Parish. The second (about the founding of Synagogues by Prophets) which the Repl. said, is most likely, the rejoinder maketh a bold affirmation, without proof. But what boldness is, in conjecturing that to be likely, which no man can give any likely reason against? The third (of no humane significant Ceremonies used in Synagogues) is absolutely pronounced false. But no reason of this sentence is given out of the Scriptures, but only that they used there reverend gestures: as if all reverend gestures were significant Ceremonies of man's invention! The rest that he quoteth out of Purchas his Pilgrimage, are wand'ring Pilgrims, without house or home, and therefore worthy no other answer, but that which our law hath provided for Vagabonds   

SECT. 23.24.25.26. Concerning Love-Feasts.  
1. THe Instances out of the old Testament were such, as we have now shown them to be: Out of the new Testament first are brought in the Feasts of love, or charity. Now concerning these Feasts, no man can certainly inform us, who did appoint them! I mervayl (saith the Apostle, according to Erasmus his Paraphrase, on 1. Cor. 11.) Quis ritus istos i● vos invexerit: who brought-in these Love-Feasts? No man can tell us, what religious signification was by institution annexed unto them? Nay it cannot be showed, where they are spoken of, without reproof? Yet the Defend. and rejoined. will needs have them significant humane Ceremonies, ordained, and used by the Apostles.  
2. To this, it was 1. answered by Mr. Nic. that if they were of Apostolical, than they were of Divine institution. Then which (saith the Defender) he could not have uttered a more unlearned position. Nay soft (it was replied) this censure is too too Magisteriall: because to say that that which came from the Apostles, as Apostles, came from the Spirit of God, is no unlearned Position. O yes (answereth the rejoinder) because the Apostles ordained some things, not as Apostles, not by immediate revelation, but by the direction and authority of God's Word. In which kind of rejoining, I see no more learning than needs must. 1. The quaestion was of Apostolical institutions: the answer is of that which the Apostles did, but not as Apostles, that is not properly Apostolical. 2. That which is manifested by the Holy Ghost shining ●n the Word (they are the rejoinder his words) is de●ied to be Divine. 3. No example is, or can be brought, of a new significant Ceremony instituted by the Apostles, without immediate revelation. The allegations opposed, may fill up paper, but not satisfy any reasonable Reader.  
3. For removing of that Magisteriall censure of the ●reat unlearnedness of the foresaid Position, it was no●ed that some learned men, were authors of it, or partakers in it. junius is one: who (Cont. 1. lib. 4. cap. 2. an. 6) ●ayth, that this distinction betwixt Divine and Apostolical traditions, is almost imaginary and superfluous. Where ●he rejoinder hath nothing to catch at, but only that particle almost. Take therefore another place of the same ●unius (in his Hidelberg Theses de Traditionibus, th'. 24) where without almost, he saith fully thus: The distinction of traditions into Divine and Apostolical is a false distinction, because such traditions are of one sort, for there be no Apostolical traditions but such as are delivered from God. 
Falsò divinae traditiones a● Apostolicis distinguuntur, quae unum reipsa sunt: nam Apostolicae nullae sunt, nisi a Deo tradit●.   
4. It was added also by the Replier that Danaeus (upon the same place) calleth it a childish distribution. True (saith the rejoined.) but he meaneth by Apostolical, things determined by the Apostles, by their ordinary faculty, as Pastors, and yet having the same authority with their writings: Now let the Reader mark, that the Defender his charge of unlearned rudeness, depended on this, if Apostolical traditions may be called Divine, as being commanded of God. To talk here of faculty, ordinary, pastors, authority equal to Scripture, etc. it is nothing else, but to bring him unto loss. Neither is, or can this limitation be justified by any other proof than the Rej. his own testimony.  
5. When the Repl. spoke of more learned men allowing of the foresaid position, and rejecting the distinction made betwixt Divine and Apostolical traditions; the rejoinder stayeth him, and confesseth that the distinction is ridiculous, in the Papists sense: yet (saith he) in another sense (not telling what) it may stand. And is the great charge of a most unlearned Position come now to this: the contrary words in some sense may stand? Be sparing (my masters) in crying down your poor neighbours, for such extreme want of learning, when you● opposite learning can scarce stand in any sense.  
6. After these testimonies, the Replier inquired into the Logic of this distinction between Divine and Apostolical traditions. But the rejoinder correcteth his interpretation, and saith this distinction is taken chiefly from the different Authors, Christ, and the Apostles. Be it so: yet it were not extreme rudeness, to say that whatsoever the Apostles as the Apostles of Christ, appointed, that Christ himself appointed. But saith the rejoinder, some things were appointed by Christ himself immediately, and others by the Apostles occasionally. Which is true: yet 1. this overthroweth that which was even now alleged, that this distinction is chiefly taken from different Authors: because this is only a difference of manner, as Polanus (Syntag. lib. 1. cap. 47.) doth clearly manifest, in his large confutation of this self same distinction. 2. By the same or somewhat like reason, a distinction may be made, betwixt the word of God, and the word of the Prophets, 3. It were worth the knowing, upon what occasion these Feasts were ordained by the Apostles?  
7. It is brought in by the Def. as a second answer of Mr. Nic. That these Love-feasts, were abrogated by the Apostles. From which he gathereth, that then they were not of divine institution. No say we, nor yet Apostolical. For it was only said before, that if they were of one, they were also of the other: but not positively that they were of either. So that the Defender forgot, when he inferred: So this second answer confuteth the first.  
8. The third answer of the same Mr. Nic. was (as it is reported) that these Love-feasts were not of mystical signification, nor yet merely Ecclesiastical. And this the Replier undertook to maintain: because no signification was added unto their nature by any institution, so fare as by any certain evidence can be declared.  
The rejoinder opposeth, that the appropriating of their natural signification, to the signifying of Christian love, might be in that use, by Ordination. Where, First might be, is not a proof: and we require in an instance objected for an Argument, that it should be proved fitting. Secondly, Every Ordination doth not infer mystical signification. I● it be ordained (as it is) that Collection of Alms, for the poor, be used in the Church, hath it therefore a new mystical signification put upon it above that which it would have out of the Church?  
9 Ecclesiastical the Replier denied these Feasts to have been, or Religious, because they were used in the same manner, or to the same end, out of the assemblies, that is, to the relief of the poor, and maintenance of brotherly love. The rejoinder, First, opposeth appropriation: as if all things used in the Church, were appropriated to it! So common salutations used at Church should be appropriations. He secondly concludeth from thence, that (by this reason) Eating of things offered to Idols, in the idols Temple, should not be religious. But this doth not agree; except the meat used in Love-feasts, were first sacrificed to God: which yet hath not been proved: nor then, except the eating of things offered to Idols, were merely religious; which the Christians of Corinth (ep. 1. cap. 8.) did not think, nor the Apostle teach. Yet might those Eatings have such a relation unto the Idols, as might make them superstitious (even without that superstitious opinion which the Defender and Rejo. require unto superstition) though such a relation unto the true God, and his religion, do not make feasts by man invented, truly and merely religious.  
10. It was finally replied, that the Ordination of these feasts cannot be showed, to have been Apostolical: and to that purpose P. Martyr was alleged, in 1, Cor. 11.22. The rejoinder opposeth 1. that t●e Argume●● so much the stronger: 
Videmus holoco quam sit periculosu●●, Divinis institutis addere. Quod factum est à Corinthiis, qui sine Verbo Dei, convivia haec admiscuerunt etc.  because than they were merely of humane institution, and yet had Apostolical approbation. Secondly, that P. Martyr confesseth the same feasts to be mentioned every where in the fathers, as a thing descended to them, from the Apostles, as their Springhead.  
To the first, I answer, First, that the Def. his Argument which was taken from the ordination of the Apostles, cannot possibly be strong at all, 
Hinc videmiuin totum displicuisse Apostolo conviva●di morem, etiamsi abesse● ille superior abusus. Vitiosum est conv●rtere in alienes usus sacrum conventum etc.  if these Feasts were not of Apostolical ordination. Secondly, Apostolical Approbation of them, hath not yet been proved. As for P. Martyr, his testimony is clear. We see here how dangerous it is to add to divine institutions, which the Corinthians did, setting up these feasts without warrant from the word. To P. Martyr, add Calvin, upon the same place: 
In Agapis, hoc primum reprehendendum fuit quod Christi D. institutum non simplicite● observarunt, sed ei aliquid addiderunt. Apostolot eo● ad primam institutionem revocabat. Sed non tanta ejus fuit apud posteros authoritas, quo minus, ad Corinthiorum exemplum multo quidem zelo pio, ac ●ono, inconsulto tamen instituerint, quae tandem nocentissimas superstitiones p●pererunt.  We may see hence, that their manner of feasting wholly displeased the Apostles, albeit the forementioned abuse were away. It is not well to turn a holy meeting into strange customs. As for the after-continuation of like feasts, which the rejoinder maketh so much of; Hospinian (Histor. Sacram. lib. 1. cap. 6.) answereth fully: This was first to be found fault with in their love feasts, that they did not in simplicity keep the institution of Christ, but added somewhat thereto. The Apostle recalled them to the first institution. But it seems his authority was not such with them that came after, but that as the Corinthians had done, so also they would appoint many things in great zeal, I confess: but very unadvisedly, which also in time brought in most pestilent superstitions.   

SECT. 27. Concerning the kiss of Charity.  
1. THis instance is like the former, in that neither the institution, nor the mystical signification of it can be showed out of Scripture. Our answer also is the same with that before: It is a natural indicant sign of peace and reconciliation; used in those parts, as embracing, and shaking of hands, with us. For this Mr. Nic. is accused, as more civil, or rather uncivil, then spiritual. But with whom the civility or uncivility about this matter resteth, neither the Def. nor Rej. are fit judges. It may prove this charge hath as little ground, as the other of an extreme unlearned Position.  
2. The Replier passed over allegations mentioned by the Def. as Oratoriall Phrases: but the rejoinder will have them explicatory; & setteth them down again, at large. I will therefore take the said Allegations into a summary consideration. He citeth justin, Origen, Tertullian, Cyrill, Clemens Al. not noting the places where their words are to be found. But Baronius had An. 45. (out of whom he seemeth to have borrowed these quotations) affordeth us some light that way. Where this is by the way to be marked, that Cardinal Baronius himself concludeth no more out of them then this: 
Centilium oscula, pacis & amoru symbola, non tollenda, sed moderand● inter Christian●s, eurarwit Apo●●oli, dum ecs se invic●m salutare debera osculo sancto, se●e admonuerunt.  The kisses of the Gentiles being tokens of peace and love are not to be quite taken away but with a kind of moderation to be used among Christians, as the Apostles provided when they so often put them in mind of Saluting one another with a holy kiss. Out of the two first, nothing is alleged, but that when Prayers were ended, Christians were wont to salute one another with a kiss: which proveth nothing more than we grant.  
Tertullian calleth it Signaculum Orationis, the Seal of Prayer; the words of prayer therein used being Peace be unto thee. Now though Tertullian maketh no words of this form of Prayer to be used; yet suppose all: 1. this is manifestly an Oratoriall phrase (which the rejoinder denied) not explicatory, but needing explication; which yet I will not spend time about. 2. Tertullian according to his hyperbolical fashion, ascribeth so much to this Kiss, as smelleth of Superstition: 
Quae orati● cum divortio sa●cti osculi integra?  What prayer is there perfect which is separated from a holy kiss? He showeth notwithstanding that it was used in private houses as well as in the Congregation: 
Potet domi forsan differre pacem.  At home perhaps you may put of till another time the Salutation of peace. 4. He discovereth a custom something contradictory to his former assertion. At Easter we do well to lay aside the Kiss. 5. 
Die Paschae, meritò depenimus osculum.  There were even in Tertullia's time, diverse superstitions creeping in among Christians, about prayer, as he in that his treatise of Prayer showeth: Washing, doffing of cloaks, sitting upon beds. What then can be made of this testimony?  
Civil is the next, who calleth it Signaculum reconciliationis, quo in sacris utim●r: the Seal of reconciliation used in Divine Service. But 1. we may well quaestion the Author of that Catechism, whether Cyrill was he (as D. Andrues saith, in his answer to the 18. chap. of Person, pag. 3.) 2. Whosoever was the Author, he was so prodigal of dealing significations, according to his pleasure, that we may say of him, as jerom of Origen, His brains were the Church's Sacraments: 
Ingenium suum Ecclesia fecit Sacramenta.  so that he hath no credit left about such things. 3. How do Tertullian and Cyrill agree in their testimony? One saith, the Kiss was a Seal of Prayer; the other, that it was a Seal of Reconciliation. 4. The same cyril, in the same place, Cat. 5. giveth another mystery of Kissing: Because Christ's body goes through our mouth. Just so therefore we kiss the mouth as we do the doors we enter into the Church by. 
Quia per o● nostrum ingreditur corpus Christi: illud ergo osculamur, perinde ac januas osculamur, per quas in Ecclesiam ingredimur.  How doth he agree then with himself?  
Clemens is the last: who calleth this gesture Mystical, (Paedag. lib. 3.) But this was a Rhetorical phrase. For it signifieth nothing else (as the fore-goeing words show) but that they should not use it, qui non habent intus amicitiam; but as a true sign of good will. In the words also next following that common salutations (dilectorum in via salutationes) should be with mystical grace, mysticè, intus, amanter & benignè alloqui. Now let the Def. and rejoined. cast up their accounts, and tell, what they have gained by these Testimonies more than before was given them?  
3. But yet (saith the Defend.) this gesture is called Holy, and the object of it is Peace: 'tis true: But all our civil actions ought to be such as becometh Saints, 1. e. so far Holy for manner, that they be free from sin; and to the Glory of God: many also have Peace for their direct object.  
Furthermore, if this Kiss was holy in the nature of it, I ask whether a representation of it may not be made also for a holy use, as the Altar of jordan, and the Synogogues were in the Def. and Rejoinders opinion? And if so, why have we not a Pax to kiss at the Communion? I see not (by these tenets) what should keep out Paxes, more than Altars, with bowing to them, but only the mere pleasure of our Prelates Regent.  
Now we have thus dispached the Defender we need not trouble ourselves with his Second, the rejoinder proceeding another way, against the Replier. Yet I will note what new weapons he useth.  
4. The rejoinder thinketh it strange, that constant Application by direction, or custom, should not be Institution. But it is no more strange, then that the common using of one way from Lichefild, to Coventrie, or from thence to Coldfeild, may be without Institution; or that the same word which of old signified Love, is now among Christians commonly applied unto Christian Love, without any new institution.  
5. He saith, that natural fitness for signification, doth hinder Institution. True: but fitness, with actual use for signifying of true love, doth prevent an institution of the same signification: as the former signification of the word Love, doth so hinder a new institution of the same word to signify Christian love, that it would make the Authors of such an institution, ridiculous, & idle.  
6. He affirmeth, that the ordained seating of a Minister in an higher place, in way of Reverence to his Function, is as Mystical a Ceremony, as the Cross in Baptism. Then (say I) a Mother's kissing of her froward child, in the Church to still it, in reverence to Preaching or Praying, is as Mystical a Ceremony, as the Kiss of Peace. And what need any other institution, then constant application of such gestures, by the rejoinder his rule?  
7. He quoteth Calvin, upon the place, as for him, whom every man that will, may see to be against him. So Beza, and Paraeus. Only he hath a little show (but no substance) out of P. Martyr his words, upon 1. Cor. 16.20. Who yet upon Rom. 16.16. in few words, showeth his meaning all one with ours: and his judgement of humane significant Ceremonies hath been before declared.  
8. Notwithstanding all this weakness of his praemisses, he concludeth strongly, that those which do not yield unto his proofs, have themselves, above all other men, in estimation for soundness of judgement. To which I will only say this, we have (by God's grace) more judment, then either to accuse others so vainly, or to make any account of this accusasion, as if it would prejudice us with any man of judgement.   

SECT. 28 Concerning women's Veils. 1. Cor. 11.  
1. THe last example of Apostolical Humane, Significant Ceremonies by Institution, and Appropriated unto God's worship, is a Woman's Veil, such as a Huik is, in the Low-Countries, or a french Hood, with a Bon-grace, was wont to be in England. Now at this it was answered, that the Veil was neither Apostolical, nor merely of humane institution, nor of instituted signification, nor yet appropriated unto God's worship: but a civil order of decency, used as well out of God's worship as in it. And the rejoinder granteth, that it was a civil custom: but addeth, that it is as absurd, from thence to conclude, that it was in religious worship civil, and not religious, as to affirm this of blowing of Trumpets in the new Moons, etc. Where first, he should have remembered, that we are here in answering, not in proving, and concluding, which is the Def. his part. Secondly, The Replier said it was a civil order of decency, expressing the immediate end, which it had as well in, as out of worship, which will well bear this conclu●ion: that it was no more religious, than women's proper apparel, long garments, etc. (to which Chrisostome upon 1. Cor. 11.) compareth the Veil, as one part to another, or their shoes, or slippers are. 3. Concerning Trumpets, in some use of them, we have their instituted signification, expressly set down in the Word, Nunb. 10. show the like, for going to Church in shoes, or Veils; and then we will confess a parity of reason.  
2. The Def. proceeding by interrogatories, maketh this the first: whether the Veil was not significant of some good thing? To which the Repl. answered, yes, it did declare, or argue a good thing, as indeed all civil apparel of modest fashion doth. For this he is checked, and bidden to stand by, with his answer while his elders speak. As if we were now in the High-Commission; and he as Commissioner, might prescribe us when, and how much we may speak for ourselves, though much without ground be spoken against us, and interrogatories propounded to the prejudice of our cause!  
3. He asked secondly, what it did signify? Answer was made, that it signified subjection to superior power. Then a moral duty was professed by it, saith the Rej. just so, as modesty, and shamefastness, gravity, and care of not offending, are professed by all apparel of modest honest fashion. And yet I never heard all modest apparel called a mystical religious Ceremony. Theophilact (in Cor. 11.) maketh a man's beard like and equal unto his uncovering in signification. And will the Def. and Rej. say, that Beards are religious mystical Ceremonies?  
4. The Def. added, that it had some relation unto God. To which it was answered, that so there is in an upper Seat, of an Heathen Magistrate, sitting in judgement: which yet is no mystical Ceremony of religion. The Rej. (altering first▪ the case, into a throne set up to that end, to represent the Sovereignty of God, for religious cognizance, and document) affirmeth the Seat of a Heathen judge, to be a mystical Ceremony of Religion. Now set aside his changing of the question, and take him as answering, that everry Seat, of judgement among all Heathen, is such a Ceremony; and then, let any man consider, if he hath not brought his pigs to a fair market? Seats of justice, are religious Ceremonies, even among those that know not what religion meaneth: what is become of intended immediate, though improper worship, which he is wont to require as necessary unto a religious Ceremony of mystical signification? He may as well say, that such veils as Tamars' was wherewith she deceived juda, even unto incest, was religious Ceremonies among the Heathen; because a Veil (in the nature of it) declareth a moral duty. For many of those Seats (in their nature tending to justice) are but veils of injustice, as Tamars' was of uncleanness. If those High-seates be religious Ceremonies, than the bowing of inferiors unto them, kissing of their feet, or footstools, must be such also. Why then did the Def. seek (as with a candle and lantern) in every dark corner for instances or examples of religious significant Ceremonies of man's appointing? every civil meeting, every Company of Soldiers, every School of Children can afford examples enough, and more then enough.  
5. It was added, by the Repl. that the Def. allegeth nothing out of Divines, which may not as well be applied to the judge's Bench, as to the Veil of Women. Yes, this (saith the Rej.) that the one used in civil actions, is religious in use only, not in state: the other used in religious actions, is religious, both in state and use; which is (saith he) Mr. Parker's distinction. Now 1. there was no such distinction as this, alleged by the Def. out of our Divines: so that this contradicteth not that which the Repl. affirmed. 2. This distinction as it is here explained, was never used by Mr Parker, or (as I think) by any reasonable man, before now: A circumstance used in civil actions, is religious in use; the like used in religious actions is religious in use and state. Is the Criers O wize Religious in use, because, or as it is used in civil actions? And is the Paraters citation religious in state, because, or as it was used in Spiritual Courts? 3. What if ●udges have a peculiar Seat in the Church, as in diverse places, they have? Is that Seat therefore religious in state, as an Altar, a Cross, the Chair of Peter, & c.?  
6. The Repl. also observed, that the Veil was of the same nature with long hair, such as becometh women; and therefore, no religious mystical Ceremony. No (saith the Rej.) because long hair is of nature; and the Veil of institution, which to a Ceremony is essential. To which I oppose 1. the true observation of P. Martyr, the Def. his chief witness, about this instance: A woman aught seeing her hair is given her of God, to follow this his institution, and to imitate her Maker, and cover her head: which if she will not do, as much as is in her, she throws off the natural veil. 
Debet mulier, cum dat asit ipsi coma à Deo, hoc illius institutum sequi. & imitari factorem suum, ut caput conte●at: quod si sacere nolit, quantum in ipsae est▪ naturale t●gmen ex●usit, etc.  where he showeth that it is so natural, that it cannot be imitated without some violation of nature, by any woman, though no new institution impose it upon her. 2. Chrisostome (upon the same place) hath this: That is from nature itself, 
Illud à natura institutum est, quod scilicet velaremus caput (mulieres) & non velaremus (viri) Natura ut mulier regeretur, voluit, ut inde docta regeretur.  that we women should cover our heads, and we men should uncover our heads. Nature would that women should be covered: she is taught to be covered even from thence. 3. Paul himself saith not only that nature itself hath taught women to use a veil; but also, that the disguising of it is all one, with shaving: so that long hair, and a veil, according to the Apostle, is all one, for the ground of it. If therefore special institution, above nature, be essential to a Ceremony, then certainly vailing of women is no Ceremony; much less religious, and mystical significant, by institution humane.  
7. The Def. his third demand was, whether these Ceremonies of covering, and uncovering, were not instituted to be observed in God's public worship? Answer was given (by the Repl.) that this indeed was required, in every grave meeting of men and women: but not primarily, and principally instituted for God's worship. Paul surely did not institute them for new Ceremonies, but only urged the Corinthians, not to neglect them, as being natural. The Rej. opposeth 1. that requiring is an institution. As if the Kings requiring his subjects to observe Christ's institutions, did therefore institute the Sacraments, etc. 2. His second answer is, that application, by injunction, was (as it were) an institution. So that by and (as it were) the Lords Sacraments have been so often instituted, as they have been applied, and enjoined; that is an hundred thousand times, and more. But if any man will needs use the term institution in such a sense, that is nothing to our question; which is of Ceremonies, whose first author and appointer, in special, was man. Otherwise, all Divine Ceremonies will prove humane institutions; and so the Rej. hath disputed all this while, about nothing. The rest of the Rej. his words, in this Section, are either mere repetitions of confuted fictions, or such as need no confutation, I may well again repeat (as justified) the Repl. conclusion: Seeing the Def. could find but three examples of humane Ceremonies, in all the new Testament; and none of those there can be showed, to be of mystical signification, or appropriated only to God's worship, or of humane institution; the Prelates may be ashamed in such domineering fashion, to urge humane Ceremonies upon the consciences of Ministers and People of the new Testament.   

SECT. 29. Concerning the Ancient Custom of Significant Ceremonies among Christians.  
1. AS the Def. was passing over from Scriptures, to humane writings, and customs, he was told by the Replier, that here he may find more fish for his net, in the troubled waters of man's infirmity, than were to be looked for in the Scripture fountains. This the Rej. thought not worthy of any answer. Let the Reader yet take knowledge, that we esteem not any thing like of a thousand objections fetched from testimony subject to error, as we would have done of one plain testimony Divine, if it could have been produced.  
2. The oldest Records we have (saith the Rej.) do mention humane mystical Ceremonies in God's worship, as Apostolical traditions. Which 1. is not true: because those which call them Apostolical, use not to call, or esteem them humane. 2 The Records of the first age, which we have, are so imperfect, and uncertain, that God (in so disposing of them by his Providence) doth in a manner warn us, not to depend on them, but only on his written Word. 3. The great variety that was found, in the first ages, about the observation of Lent, and Easter, doth manifestly prove, they were not Apostolical: as Chamier showeth (De jejunio, cap. 7.) Not out of any certain law, but out of private devotions, and consequently Superstition. 
N●t ex ul●a lege ce●ta, sed en privates religionibus, atgue adeo superstitionibus▪  In the next place, for a main ground of this assertion (that the universal Church observing humane Rites, took them to have been of Apostolical allowance) the Rej. bringeth in the common text of Papists, out of Augustine, ep. 118. Such universal observations, not being written in Scripture, must be understood to be commanded by general Counsels, or from the Apostles. Where 1. he faulteth twice in the translation, in (turning dantur intelligi, into must be understood, when D. Morton himself (Pr. Ap. lib. 2. cap. 28. ●. 3.) maketh a strong probability only; and in turning commendata, by into commanded. 2. This being but a probable rule, and And Augustine's conjecture of that probability, being also but probable, it may fail, with all that is built upon it. 3. Chamier (in the place forementioned) answereth Bellarmine about it, that it must either include the Apostles time (whose history is in Scripture) and so the humane Ceremonies come not within the compass of it; or else it may be denied as false. 4. If this rule be good, then Apostolical Ceremonies cannot be known from other, but only by those who know certainly what is and hath been always observed in all Churches: which will fall hard upon most Christians. 5. Augustine (in the same place) complaineth of men's presumptions and burdensome Ceremonies, contrary to Christ his merciful institution; requiring the easiness and lightness of that yoke or burden which Christ hath imposed in his Sacraments, to be still preserved in the Church. Now those Ceremonial observations, which are said to have been universal in the Primitive Church, did not agree to this rule. For they had then in common use, beside other solemnities, fifty Holidays, betwixt Easter, and Pentecost, Ambrose in Luc. 17. of which Tertullian boasteth (lib. de Idololatria, cap. 13.) that they were more than the Heathen used: 
Excerpe singulas Solemnitates Nationum, & in ordinem ●exe, Pentecosten explore n●n possunt.  Reckon all the observations of the Heathen in order, and they will never fill up Pentecost. They had also with Lent and all) more than fifty fasting-dais. Add unto these, the Ceremonies the which Tertullian reckoneth up, de Corona cap. 3. and then, I ask, if any man can upon consideration, believe, that all these were either Apostolical, or so accounted by Augustine? Certainly, to exced or equal the Heathen, in humane observations, was not agreeable to the Apostles rules, nor the Fathers. 6. It is a received rule, that the writings of the Apostles, are the only certain rule of true Apostolical traditions. D. Fulke, Rej. ag. Brist. cap. 7. But this rule, as it is understood by our Rej. maketh those writings not the only certain rule.  
4. The Father's practice (saith the Rej.) interpreted their rules touching the perfection of Scripture, and purity of God's worship, to be understood of necessary doctrine, and proper worship. The contrary whereof appeareth, partly by the forementioned place of Augustine, where he complaineth of the Ceremonies which he practised, as disagreeing from the Doctrine of the Gospel which he taught. Beside, (because proper worship hath been discussed in its proper place) it would be inquired, what the Rej. meaneth by necessary doctrine? If he meaneth only that doctrine which is absolutely necessary to salvation, it is a poor commendation of Scripture-perfection: because that is found in every good Catechism; and Bellarmine himself doth not deny that perfection to Scripture. I cannot guess at his thoughts, by his words: because (to my remembrance) this distinction (betwixt necessary, and unnecessary doctrine) is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this place only let fall. But for the interpretation of doctrine, by practice, if the rejoinder will have this hold in the ancient times, what reason can he give that it should not also hold in our time? If so, then why is not our argument good: Calvin, Bucer, Beza, the Divines of Helvetia, France, netherlands, etc. have in their practice, banished Cross, Surplice and kneeling, Ergo, their doctrine is against them?  
5. The Rej. calleth it, a spirit of singular singularity, to think, the whole Church, in the days of purest zeal, and frequent martyrdom, did not du●ly examine the●r Ceremonies. And yet the same Rej. (without any spirit of singular singularity) acknowledgeth, that in the two first ages, after the Apostles, there was either want of clearness, or a manifest touch of error, about some sixteen points of doctrine, very important: pag. 458. Which if he will reconcile with this affected accusation, he must say, that Christians in those times, more attended to certain humane Ceremonies, then to diverse points of divine doctrine, though in the main power of Godliness they went beyond those which are purer both in Ceremonies and doctrine. But the truth is, he spoke there for excessive commendation of our English-Church-doctrine, and so, in comparison, depressed the Primitive; and here he seeketh to defend our Ceremonies, by theirs, and so extolleth their judgement of Ceremonies; in both places (according to occasion) exceeding th● just measure, as it usually falleth out to those, who dispute out of affection, more than out of judgement.  
6. The Rej. taketh it ill, that the Repl. should say, that the bringing in of humane Ceremonies, made any way for Antichristian superstition. But seeing that the Antichristian Papists, argue so strongly from those first humane Ceremonies, to diverse of those which they use, and by us are rejected, that they cannot be fully confuted, but by rejecting of both, I see no reason for his indignation. gideon's Ephod, in the argument of the eight chapter of judges (according to our new translation) was a cause of Idolatry. And was not the old crossing, at every step, at every coming to and going out, 
Ad 〈◊〉 progressum, atque promotum, ad omnem ad itum, & exiitum, ad vestitum & calceatum, ad lavacrae, ad monsat, ad lumina, ad cub●iie, ad s●dil●a (sert. a● Corona.  at the apparreling themselves, at washing, at eating, at lighting candles, at sitting, etc. as a great cause of that Idolatry which hath been, and is-used, about the cross? D. Fulke (in his Rej. to Bristol, cap. 3.) maintaineth, that many abuses and corruptions, entered into the Church, immediately after the Apostles time, which the Devil planted, as a preparative for Antichrist. The same Doctor also (ibid. sect. 4) proveth many Ceremonies of the Primitive times, to have been unprofitable; because they are abrogated. And (cap. 9) he saith plainly, that the error of conceiving and using some superstitions, or superfluous Ceremonies, is common to the Fathers, with Papists.  
6. A great matter is made of that which the Replier said, concerning 1500. years experience of humane significant Ceremonies. For about this the Rej. saith, that it is wonderful rashness, answering the spirit of montanus, to challenge the whole Church of error, in this matter, for 1500. years. But 1. it is rashness in the Rej. to accuse one of challenging the whole Church, who mentioned not, in his challenge, either Church or whole. 2. The whole Church cannot be understood, except the Waldenses and all like unto them, that is the purer part, be excluded out of the whole Church. 3. Doctor Morton himself (Prot. Apol. cap. 25. sect. 9) maintaineth this sentence of Mr. Calfhill: the Fathers declined all from the simplicity of the Gospel, in Ceremonies; if by simplicity be understood a virtue, opposite, either unto superfluity, or superstition. And And are not superfluity and superstition, errors? 4. From the primitive times by the space of six hundred years, the Church generally erred, in giving the Lords Supper unto infants, as D. Morton showeth (Prot. Apol. l. 2. cap. 25. sect. 10.) and after that for many hundred years, it mended (for the common course of errors) as sour ale doth in Summer. 5. The Rej. cannot name any Church in all that time free from errors: neither can he deny, but the Church that erreth in doctrine, may err in Ceremonies. Ergo. 6. He was unhappy in mentioning Montanus his spirit, which breathed, and broached so many humane Ceremonies, that the Church hath ever since been more wronged thereby, in Ceremonies, then in any other respect, or by any other spirit of that time, as all men know, that have read those writings of Tertullian, which were dictated by a piece of Montanus his spirit. Montanus would have three Lents, in stead of one: Montanus advanced the Cross unto more honour, then ever it had before: Montanus (in one word) was of a ceremonial spirit.   

SECT. 30.  
IN this section, four or five Protestant Divines are named, as allowing of some significant Ceremonies. But there is not any one of them, whose judgement to the contrary, hath not been manifestly declared. I will not therefore so much distrust the Readers attention, and understanding, as to weary him with needless repetitions.   

SECT. 31.  
Here the Defend. urgeth upon us, the ordinary form, of swearing upon a book. To which if the Replier hath not said enough, I leave it to the Readers judgement, after he hath compared the Rej. opposed: which speaketh 1. of Gamballing; 2. of Bucklers and Quarrelling; 3. of a proof necessary to an answer; 4. of swearing by a bocke; 5. of Sophistication, in confounding our Church's esteem, and the truth about this form of swearing; 6. of equality betwixt special solemn worship of God, and occasional swearing, in civil Assemblies. I will only add, as an explication of the Repliers answer, that which D. jackson answereth the Papists, about this fashion (Orig. of unbel. sect. 4. cap. 35.) We use the book, only as a compliment of the civil act, whereby we give satisfaction unto men; or as a visible resemblancer partly, to by standers, or spectators, whose eyes by this means may become as true witnesses as their ears, that such protestations have been made; partly unto him that makes them, who will be more wary and circumspect what he avoucheth and protesteth, when he perceiveth his speeches must be sealed with such remarkable circumstances, as they cannot be often recalled to his own and others memory. To the same end, men of honourable place and calling, use to lay their hands upon their hearts, when they take a solemn oath.   

SECT. 32. Concerning the Lordsday, Temples, and ceremonial Festivals.  
1. THe Def. having spoken of his much sailing in the main, and narrow Seas, cometh to object the observation of the Lords Day, as a fit example of a humane Ceremony: whereupon, the Replier continuing his similitude, saith, that he was at this time, either sea-sick, or sleepy, with his much sailing. This the Rej. calleth a scurrilous jest, and scoff: so liberal is he of terms, when reasonable answers are not at hand. But if he had thought of the ordinary sayings, Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus; animi perturbatio est quaedam ejus aegritudo; he would have spared an innocent usual phrase of speech, and not marked it with so foul pitch or tar as Scurrility.  
2. Now let us hear, how he can excuse the Def. his allegation, from all sickness, and drowsiness! The observation (saith he) of the Lords Day, in place of the jews Sabbath, is not a humane institution: but the analogical and allegorical instructions, lawfully raised from that Day, are of humane institution, not divine. I say again, as the Repl. said, (without fear of the Rej. his Spit of scurrility) this is a sick or drowsy answer. For 1. it maketh all analogical instructions, instituted Ceremonies: as if nothing could be gathered from any fact, or text, in the Scripture, by analogy, or proportion, but it must be strait a ceremonial institution! 2. These analogical instructions, are, (as the Def. expresseth them) meditation of Christ's resurrection, and of our eternal rest to come. And who ever heard or read, that these were humane institution? what man instituted them? when? by what authority? upon what necessity? Are they ambulatory, or mooveable Ceremonies, which our Convocation may change at their pleasure? Awake, awake, both Def. and Rej. and see the vanity and scandal of this allegation.  
3. As a Parallel of the former example, Temples were added by the Defend. And to make it agree, the Rej. is driven to this issue, that if it be lawful by accommodation, to put men in mind of heavenly things by earthly; than it is lawful to institute things to that use. Which is as if he should argue thus: if it be lawful, by accommodation, to put men in mind of God's faithfulness in keeping his Covenant of Grace, by the constant course of nature which he hath set in heaven and earth, or by the faithfulness and constancy of men morally honest; than it is lawful for men to institute sacred signs for confirmation of the Covenant of Grace, and so new Sacraments properly so called.  
4. Concerning Ceremonial Festivals, of man's m●king, our practice cannot be objected: because we observe none. We take occasion of hearing, 
〈◊〉 sed We 〈…〉 & a●censione 〈…〉.  and praying upon any day, when occasion is offered. We say (with Hospini●n de Orig. Fest. Christ. cap. 2.) Not the day, but the Word of God, etc. puts us in mind of the nativity, resurrection, and ascension o● Christ. And this might be the reason, why the Repl. passed over this example, as of no moment. For we do not fear (as the Rej. imagineth) lest all the Churches of God will condemn us herein. Those that consent with Geneva, nor those of Scotland; (except some of the new edition) no nor any that follow Bucers' judgement (in Mat. 12. 
Ferias alias (prater diem Dominicum) sive Christi, etc. optarim abrogatas universas. Zelus ille quo introductae fuere, omni verbo & exemplo Scripturae caruit, mereque rationem secutus est, ut ferias Ethnico rum, seu clavum clavo truderet. Tantis sup●rtitionibus contaminata illa festa fuerunt, ut mirer, si quisquam Christianus fit. qui ad nomina corum non exhorrescat, etc. Dominicum diom, resurrectionis Christigaudium, festiviorem nobis reddidit, etc. Nullum prudentem virum audivi, qu● non censeat magnam p●r●m aliorum festorum abolendam. Maximè consentaneum est cum princa institutione, & cum scriptis Aposteli●, ut unus tantum dies in s●ptimana, sanctificatur. ) I would to God that every Holiday whatsoever beside the Lord's Day, were abolished. That zeal which brought them first in, was without all warrant of the Word, and merely followed corrupt reason, forsooth to drive out the Holy days of the Pagans, as one nail drives out another. Those Holy days, have been so tainted with superstitions that I wonder we tremble not at their very names. See the place. Occolampadius (in Isaiam, cap. 1. v. 4.) thinketh that no wise Christian will condemn us. I never heard wise man yet, who did not judge that a great part at least of other feasts beside the Lord's Day should be abolished. He insinuateth manifestly more than he speaketh. Zanchie (how favourable soever he speaketh of some festivals) cannot condemn us by that sentence of his, (in 4. praec) It is most agreeable to the first institution and Apostolical writings, that only one day in the week be kept holy.   

SECT. 33.  
IN this Section (which the Repl. thought to require no answer) the sum is, that we are cross and contrary to the Authors of our service-book, who thought our Ceremonies to be the better for being significant. Now if this be understood so, as if we disliked the significancy of them, because those Reverend men did like it; then we are uncharitably wronged by rash judgement. If so, that though such excellent men did think so, yet we think otherwise; then our answer is they were men; and though they saw much evil in Popish Ceremonies, yet not all; and therefore judged some tolerable for a time, which were free from some faults, that others were guilty of; though they banished diverse, which were as free from darkness and dumbness, as those they retained. Why they removed those, we see good reason: why they retained, or rather tolerated these, more than them, we see none, that experience hath not confuted.   

SECT. 34.  
1. IN this last section, this reason is brought (accordding to the Rej. his construction) If all Ceremonies (properly so called) must some way be significant; then either all Ceremonies are unlawful, or some significant Ceremonies are lawful. To which I answer 1. that all outward actions designed or purposely observed, and done in reference to some other thing, beside the cause or part thereof, which is the Rej. his definition of a Ceremony, Manuduct. p. 29.30. are not mystically significant, by the rejoinder his own doctrine, ibid. pag. 32.33. Mystical signification, or the want of it, doth not make a Ceremony, or no Ceremony. A character of significancy, maketh a double or triple Ceremony; Relation without signification, maketh a single Ceremony▪ So, pag. 39 Simple Ceremonies are those, whose use is only for order and decency: Double are those, which serve also to edífication, 1. by some profitable signification. 2. If all Ceremonies were significant, yet it doth not follow, that they all teach a spiritual duty, by their instituted mystical signification: of which kind of signification, all the question is in this chapter, as is to be seen in the first section. 3. If all Ceremonies be significant, then there is no sense in exposing double Ceremonies to significant: because none are, or can be dumb. A●d yet this opposition is made use of by the Def. and Rej. as other where, so in these two last sections.  
2. The Repl. taking from the Def. this proposition: Nothing is properly called a Ceremony, if it be altogether destitute of signification; saith that this convinceth not us at all: because, if this be true, than our tenet is, that all ceremonies properly so called, of man's invention, should be packed out of the Church. What? (saith the Rej.) even Sitting at the Communion, and a communion-Table? Yea, say we, even these if they can be proved to be Ceremonies of man's invention.  
3. From the former consideration, the Defen. was challenged, for having gone about to deceive us, often times before, by confounding all circumstances of order and decency, with properly called Ceremonies; whereas now, in the winding up of all, he confesseth, that they cannot be properly called Ceremonies, except they be significant. The rejoinder his answer is, that all such circumstances are some way significant, though not symbolically: because they signify some way what is to be done, or where, or when, or why, or how. Now though every circumstance doth some way argue that whereof it is a circumstance, and so in a large sense may be called a sign of it; yet 1. every circumstance is not a sign of what is to be done: because some have no place, until the thing be done. 2. Both the Def. and Rej. have hitherto confounded indicant and symbolical signs, except only one place, where (for a shift) the Rej. saith, Beza, differing in phrase from other Divines, meaneth by Symbolical, Sacramental signs, pag. 264.265. Hear therefore to distinguish them, is to confess their former dealing not fair.  
4. If all circumstances belonging to time, place, person, instruments or manner of actions sacred, be sacred significant Ceremonies; than not the Clock only, but the leaden weights of it, not the ground only upon which men stand in worship, but the Rushes also strewed by occasion upon it, or the Bosom wherewith it is swept; not the Preachers voice only, but his black Cap, his comely heard; not the Communion Table-clothe only, but the colour of it; not distinct speaking only, but every Preachers proper Tone, are sacred, significant, ceremonial Weights, Rushes, Bezomes, Caps, Beards, Colours, Tones, etc.  
See what an argument the Def. made against us, according to the Rej. his explication: If Signs Indicant that is, such as by the nature of the things themselves, without any religious signification put upon them by institution, are lawful; then Symbolical signs, that is, those which teach a spiritual duty, by their mystical instituted signification, cannot be unlawful. In striving to help the Def. out of the water, he hath sunk, and followed him deeper in, then before he seemed to be plunged.  
5. Calvin (said the Def.) and some other, do accuse some Popish Ceremonies, because they are dumb. They accuse them also (answereth the Repl.) for speaking: as the Scripture doth condemn images, both for being dumb, and also for teaching lies.  
Well said, (saith the Rej) When the Ceremonies are altogether dumb, they condemn them for not speaking: when they speak idly, or falsely, they condemn them for speaking amiss. But you condemn them simply for not being dumb. But here is a great mistaking of the Rejoinders. For we condemn humane Ceremonies for speaking idly, that which Gods Ordinances do sufficiently speak; and falsely also for their manner of speaking, as if they had just commission to speak in God's name, when they have not. When an image of the blessed Virgin, spoke in the Church, to Bernard▪ good morrow Bernard, good morrow; Bernard answered, 〈◊〉 Madam you forget your Sex: it is not lawful for a woman to speak in the Church.  
The Scriptures also condemned the same image for standing (at other times) dumb in the Church. Even so we condemn humane Ceremonies, both for standing in the Church dumb and unprofitable; and also for speaking in such a place, idly, and above that which beseem their Sex or degree. I repeat therefore again, not as a mere jest, in which name the rejoinder putteth it off, but as a sad and serious truth, that which the Replier concluded this Argument withal: Lay all together which our Divines say, and you shall find, that in their judgements, Humane Ceremonies in God's worship, are like a fool in a place of honour, who whether he speaketh, or holdeth his peace, still showeth himself unworthy of that place.    

CHAP. 4. Concerning Idolatrous Ceremonies.  

SECT. 1. About the forming of this argument, and the general answer given thereto.  
IN the former Argument as being most essential, I suffered my pen to run a larger course, then in the beginning I intended. Hear I purpose to hold it shorter. Passing over therefore by-matters,  
1. The Argument was thus propounded in the Abridgement: It is contrary to God's word, to use (much more to command the use of) such Ceremonies in the worship of God as man hath devized, if they be notoriously known, to have been of old, and still to be abused unto Idolatry, and Superstition, by the Papists, especially, if the same be now of no necessary use in the Church. But our Ceremonies are such. Ergo.  
The Def. his answer was so set down, that (by the Rej. his own confession) no sense could be discerned in it. But the said Rej. (after three patchings of the words, and the distinctions, about abolishing, abused, and necessary) bringeth, for account, this answer, out of all: If by abolition, be meant, Abscission, and not Cure, the Proposition being meant of things indifferent, is false. But if in the exception, of things, necessary, be meant not an absolute, but a convenient necessity, the Assumption is false, which saith: that our Ceremonies are of no necessary use in the Church. Hear we have three distinctions, betwixt 1. abscission, or cutting off, and curing; 2. things evil in their nature, and indifferent: 3. necessity absolute, and convenient. Now 1. see how they agree among themselves: In the first, the Ceremonies are considered as members of our Religion, or worship, which must be either cut off or cured (for so the Def. explaineth it of cutting off the members by the joints) whereas they were never members jointed to our religion, or worship, but to the Harlot of Rome. In the second, they are considered as no members, but things indifferent; and in the third (at the best) only convenient. 2. For the first, it is well known that they are clouts, which have lain upon the plague-soares of Idolaters, many hundreds of years: and what wise Physician, or Surgeon, was ever known, to go about the curing of such clouts? 3. For the second, it is a mere affectation of casting a mist before the Readers eyes. For both the Def. and Rei. knew well, that the Authors of this Argument, hold our Ceremonies not indifferent, but unlawful in their nature, and yet upon supposed indifferency, undertake to make good their Proposition; as having all sense on their side, namely, that things otherwise merely indifferent, receive some difference, by their notorious abuse to Idolatry. 4. For the last, The Ceremonies are here, only in a blind distinction, (as it were in a parenthesis) affirmed to be of convenient use in our Church. Now let any man consider of this dealing, whether it be not more necessary for the Def. and Rej. then convenient for the Reader. In the Abridgement, pag. 42. and 43. etc. it is largely proved, that these Ceremonies in controversy, are not convenient. The Def. (professing a full answer to all that is objected) giveth no answer to any thing there alleged to that purpose. When he was challenged by the Repl. for not showing them convenient, the Rej. pag. 167. accuseth him of more impudency, than he would have expected from any Friar, and yet directeth us not to the place, where he hath gone about any such matter. The Rej. himself, undertaking to manifest their conveniency by the Rules of God's Word, suddenly breaketh off, pag. 74. and referreth that demonstration to a fit place: which place hitherto he could not find, nor ever will. Beside, the Rej. confesseth, a multitude of godly learned men, (among whom were) Calvin, Beza, Martyr, Bucer, Hooper, jewel, Fulke, Rainolds, Whitakers, Humphrey, Perkins, etc.) to have held our Ceremonies inexpedient, or inconvenient, at the least. Nay he himself hath been in the same heresy. All this notwithstanding, he thinketh it not significent, in one word, to say (for a shift) without any proof or declaration, that they are convenient for our Church. Conveniency is esteemed when as a thing after the consideration of all circumstances, isfound to bring more good (at the least) then evil with it. And I dare appeal to the Rej. his own conscience, whether our Ceremonies have been causes, or occasions of more good than evil? They may do hurt (saith Beza) but they can do no good. God knoweth (saith Mr. Fox) they be the cause of much blindness and strife among men.  
Let this (by the way) be well observed out of this general answer, that the particular answers following, in this argument, are nothing worth, but only upon this supposition, that our Ceremonies are not only curable and indifferent, but also convenient for our Church: which neither Def. nor Rej. nor any for them, will ever be able with any show of reason, and honesty, to demonstrate, while the world standeth. So that this whole fourth Argument is here in the first section, sufficiently yielded, For all that we desire, is plainly granted, concerning the unlawfulness of all such human Ceremonies in God's worship, as are notoriously known to have been and be abused unto Idolatry and Superstition, if they be now of no convenient necessary use in the Church.   

SECT. 2. Concerning the second Commandment. Leu. 18.3. and 19.19.27.28. Exod. 23.24. Deut. 14 1. and 12.4. and 30.32. 2. Cor. 6.14.18. Rev. 18.4.  
1. THe second Commandment was here alleged, in the Abridgement, as forbidding all provocation unto spiritual fornication, as the seventh doth unto that which is carnal. This the Def. passed by in silence; and therein is defended by the Rej. because, according to his method, in one particular argument, he taketh knowledge of it, par, 2. c. 2. s. 2. As if john a-Stiles his plea, for 3. acres of ground, were sufficiently answered by john a-Noxe, if he cold with any show ward it off from 1. acre. His own answer is, that as the seventh Commandment doth not forbid the use of all such things, as accidentally do, or may provoke some men to base uncleanness; but only such, as in and of themselves, are working incitements thereto; so neither doth the second Commandment forbidden the use of all such things, as the lust of some Idolaters may turn to spiritual fornication; but only of such, as have in themselves, or in such use of them, an habitude, or aptness, to provoke thereto. But 1. Our Divines generally teach (as Zanchy de Red. lib. 1. cap. 14. briefly expresseth their meaning) The sum of the second Commandment is, that in the worship of God, or Ceremonies thereabout, we are to devise nothing of our own brain, or borrow aught of Heathenish idolatrous rites. 
Summa est secundi pracepti, in externo cultu, qui Deo debetur, seu in Ceremonijs, nihil nobis esse ex nostr● capite comminiscendum, neque ex ritibus gentium Idololatrarum adhibendum, etc.  2. Let this be so: the question yet remaineth; whether our Ceremonies, the Cross (for example) hath not some habitude, and aptness, to provoke towards Idolatry? I think it will not be denied, but the Cross is an Idol, at Paris, at Calis, and among the Papists, in England. Now suppose a known harlot to be brought out of the Stues at Paris, or Calis, unto Dover, and lodged there in an honest man's bed, or bedchamber (as the Cross is in the bed of our Religion, the holy Sacrament) would any man say, that there were no habitude nor aptness, in such a harlot, and her lodging, to provoke, even an honest man, and much more, a dissolute companion, unto filthy folly? Difference I know none; but only that the spiritual folly may be more secretly, and mystically provoked, and exercised, then carnal can. The Rej. should have done well, if he had given us a certain rule, whereby we might have distinguished, betwixt those monuments, or relics of Idolatry, which have an habitude or aptness in them to provoke unto Idolatry, and those which have not. For then more might have been said therefrom, either for, or against our Ceremonies. Now we cannot tell where to take hold, saving only in this; that habitude and aptness of provoking, towards Idolatry, is in every consenting relation that any Ceremony (otherwise unnecessary) hath to any Idol: and all such relation of our Ceremonies to Idols cannot be denied: neither can their necessity to true Religion be with any show of reason, or honesty, maintained. Beside, what jealous or wise husband, if his wife should receive any thing from a known adulterer, who hath also gone about to undermyne her honesty, and keep it always in her bosom, would take this for a sufficient excuse; that such a thing hath not in itself any habitude or aptness of provoking unto Adultery? And doth not God tell us, that he is in like sort, a jealous God? From hence it is, that Mr. Perkins, with diverse others, in writing on the second Commandment, doctrinally, without special meddling with controversies, making one head of things therein forbidden, the monuments and relics of Idolatry.  
2. To Leu. 18.3.4, and 19.19.27. the Def. his answer was (according to the rejoinder his extraction) that these places do not prove the abolishing of things indifferent in nature, merely for the abuse of them to Idolatry, which was (saith he) the point to be proved: because cutting off the flesh for the d●ad was evil in itself; and sowing with diverse seeds in one field, was forbidden for a typical document of that sincerity which God required in his people. Where 2. he mistaketh, or perverteth the question: which was not of things indifferent, but not necessary, nor of all things not necessary, but of Ceremonies. 2. Cutting off the flesh for the dead, with a good meaning, nor was, nor is more evil in itself, than Circumcission, which both the Def. and Rej. allow as lawful, under Prester john. pag. 285.3. That typical doctrine of sincerity, forbiddeth plainly all mixing of Idolaters relics, with God's holy ordinances.  
3. The Repl. alleged, that the words Leu. 18.3.4. are general: after their doings ye shall not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. To this the Rej answereth, that these general words are to be restrained unto the ma●ter spoken of, that is, incest, and such mad doings of the Egyptians, and Canaanites. But 1. why are these words more to be restrained unto the matter spoken of in the same chapter, than those, 1. Cor. 4.40 Let all things be done decently and in order, which the Def. and Rej. extend as fare as it pleaseth our Convocation to call things decent, and orderly. 2. That they cannot be so restrained, is manifest out of the context; where the ordinances of Idolaters are opposed to all those Ordinances, Statutes, and judgemenes of God, to the doing whereof is promised life. 3. junius a judicious Interpreter, in his Analysis of the place, maketh the four first verses of this 18. chap. to pertain unto diverse chapters following, and not, to the 18 only: ne alienis exemplis, aut legibus vivant. Pelican also upon the place, speaketh home, in this manner: God, by this one law, would have them cast away and abborre, whatsoever had (in worship) pleased the Gentiles. Much more care ought Christians to have of this; who being taught to worship God in spirit and truth, aught, first and last, to have abhorred the idle, unreasonable, and deceitful forms and rites of Idolaters. Which if the ancient Bishops had well considered, the Church had never been pestered with so many profane rites, and base Ceremonies; by which it came to pass, that some Christians differ little from Gentiles, save in the names of their Idols. 
Voluit Deus unâ lege, abominari, & abjici voluit quicquid istis populis pla●uisset. Idipsum fuerit longè studiosius cavendum Christianis, quos ut in spiritu & veritate Deum colere edocti, à ceremoniis otiosis, & irrationabilibus, deceptionumque multiplicium formis, & ritibus Idololatrarum, oportuit imprimis, & deinceps maximè abhorruisse, Id si olim Episcopi considerassent, non tot scatuisset Ecclesia profanu ritibus, non prolapsaesset in tam sordidas, & a pietate vera abhorrentes ceremonias, ut fere nihil immutatum cernamus a pristinis Gentium ritibut. praeter idolorum vetustorum nomina, & imagines, quibus successerunt (proh dolour) nova.  Lyra also (a Papist) on Leu. 18. saith plainly: He intended to exclude from the children of Israel every rite of the Gentiles. 
Intendit excludere a filiis Israel, omnem Gentilem ritum.  And on Leu. 19.19. This is commanded, for detestation of Idolatry: because Idolaters did so, the Israelites may not do so. 
Pr●cipitur hoc in detestationem Idololatriae: quia Idololatr● faci●bant, propterea talia prohibentur.   
4. Exod 23.24. (saith the Rej.) Speaketh of superstition, or vicious worship. And this (say we) is the point by us intended: viz: that Ceremonies borrowed from Idolaters, are vicious and superstitious worship.  
5. To Deut. 12.4. (Thou shalt not do so to the Lord thy God) the Rej. after many words, answereth (with the Def.) that not unlawfulness, or abuse, but another reason produced this Law. To which it shall suffice to answer, that the other reason was, as Pelecan upon the place noteth; In Ceremonies, we must hold us strictly to the word of God; lest we should transgress either in number, or in form, if men's traditions were to be followed. 
Ceremoniandum juxta verbum Dei, no quid excederetur, mul●itudine, aut forma, si ad humanas traditiones standum fuisset.   
6. Deut. 30.32. was (as it seemeth) misprinted, for Deut. 16.22. and so cometh after to be handled in the next Section.  
7 As for 2. Corint. 6.14. (saith the Rej.) that place condemneth only marriage or familiar society with infidels, and v. 17. partnership with men in uncleanness, by consenting thereto. But he should have remembered 1. that the general condemnation of Fellowship, implieth more than marriage, or familiar society. 2. That using of Idolaters Ceremonies, is more religious fellowship with them, then falimiar society civil. 3. That Idolaters Ceremonies cannot be wittingly and willingly used, without implicit consent unto them, hitherto, that their Ceremonies are lawful.  
8. To Rev. 18 4. the Rej. answereth in many words; but to the purpose thus: As concerning Ceremonies only separating from those of Babylon's Ceremonies is enjoined, which cannot be separated from sin. Which if it be understood of sin in the religious use of them about God's solemn worship, is as much as we desire: we only add (which is our defence) that such an use of them is sin in itself.  
9 Calvin's grave collection, on Leu. 19.27. was by the Replier alleged, which thus soundeth, according to the Rej. his own emendation of the translation: Although rounding, or cutting the hair, was in itself indifferent, yet God would not have it indifferent to his people that they as little children, might learn by small rudiments, that they could not have his favour, unless they should be unlike to the aliens, and uncircumcised, & be altogether and far different from their examples, especially in those Rites wherein religion was showed. The Rej. answereth 1. that the cause of this restraint, was the jews childlike estate, by calvin's own words. But calvin's meaning is removed from the right centre. For that he meant not to exclude our age, he showeth in the next words: Experientia docet, etc. Experience doth (not did) teach. And this childlike estate was the cause (according to him and truth) not of the doctrine taught, concerning unlikeness unto Idolaters, but of the manner, or means, wherein it was taught, namely, by abstaining from that fashion of hair, and beards, which Idolaters used. God teacheth us to teach our children, agreeably to their age, not that afterward they should forget, that which was taught them, but that they may remember what they were then taught, and not departed from it, when they are old. Prov. 22.6. And did he give us a contrary example? The precepts given in the Church's minority, are her direction (by proportion) in her ripest years. And what direction is in these precepts, for us, the Rej. doth not show. Surely, I should think, if the common sort ofGods people might not fashion themselves then to Idolaters, than neither now our Ministers: if not then in a matter of passion, much less now in actions pertaining to God's worship: if not then in a tuft of hair, much less now in a Ministering garment, a Ceremony consecrating us and our children to Christ, and a solemn manner of receyving him in his mysteries. The difference of childhood, from perfect age, may teach us, that we should not look for such particular warnings now what things of Idolaters we are to shun, as were given in the Church's infancy, but make use of them; being now also generally warned to fly from all Idolatry, & that in the same forms of speech which then were used. 2. He answereth, that It pleased God to set up a partition-wall betwixt jews and Gentiles, in things otherwise lawful. Which is very true: but among those things, otherwise lawful (as Calvin clearly insinuateth) Rites of human invention, wherein religion was showed, had no place. 3. The Rej. addeth, that neither Calvin, ever affirmed, nor any learned and advised man, dare affirm, that no conformity with Idolaters in any Rites, abused by them to Idolatrous superstition, is lawful to be used of God's people in his service. To which I answer 1. that if he taketh any Rites so largely, that among them he reckoneth God's ordinances, than he saith nothing but truth, and yet nothing to the purpose. For the quaestion is, of Rites devized by man, not necessary in the Church: as may be seen in the terms of our Argument, expressed in the Abrigement, though in part omitted by the Def. which omission was so approved by the Rej. that he accuseth the Repl. of wrong-doeing for mending it. Pag. 404. We see now for what advantage. 2. If we may have leave to put in that part of the quaestion, as it standeth in our Argument (Rites devized by man, not necessary) then hear calvin's and some other learned and advized man's judgement. 
Rectius ac sanius dicitur: quae Deus ipse instituit, nullo abu●●● aut vitio posse abo●eri: qua autem humanitus tradit● sunt, postquam errore sunt vitiata, si corum usus nec●at, & pariat offendiculum fratribus, esso abstinendum. Magna pars superstitionum, quibuscum hodie bellum gerunt veri Dei cultores, à lacunis nescio quibus manavit: omnes impijs erroribus delibutae sunt, qui nunquam elui possunt, nisi a●rogato illarum usu. Cur ergo non simpliciter quod verum est agnoscimus, n●cessarium hoc esse purganda à sordibus Eccle●●a remidium. Cum vellet suas significationes, in vestibus, & suis à magieis nihil evariantibus signis obtrudere: no● contra proponebamus, Christum, purius docuisse Patrem (nempe spiritu & veritate) esse adorandum, sublatis umbris adorandum. Cumque sanctus Rex Hezechias non consuit tantum incumbendum, ut tolleretur superstitio, quod agre sciebat so impetraturum, sed prorsus serpentem ignominiesé iussit comminuendum, quid Christianis Du●ibus & Magistratibus non est faciendum, in ijs quorum superstitio & cultus omnem Idololatriam Iudao●um sup●rat? i● ijs qua homines male seriati erex erunt, quibus significationes e● arbitrio addiderunt?  Calv. Resp. ad Versipellem: It is more right and sound, to say, that the institutions of God may not be abolished for any abuse: but humane institutions, being defiled, and so proving hurtful, and offensive to our brethren, are to be abstained from. The superstitions against which true worshippers of God do fight, came (for a great part of them) from unknown puddles: and all of them are soiled with ungodly errors, which never can be remooved, but by utter abolishing of their use. Why then do we not simply acknowledge that which is truth, namely, that this remedy (of abolishing their use) is a necessary remedy, for taking of dross from the Church? Mr. Farrel Calvin's fellow-minister, and in some sort, Father, Epist. Calv. 49. disputing against a popish fellow, whose name was Carolus, saith thus: When Carolus would obtrude his significations, in garments, and other magick-like signs; we opposed, that Christ hath taught us a purer manner of worshipping the Father, in spirit and truth, without shadows. And Princes may learn by Hezechias his abolishing of the brazen serpent, what they are to do in those Rites which idle men have erected, and added significations unto, according to their own pleasure. Beza, their son, Disp. Genev. 66. 
Addititias illas innumerabiles nugas quae mox in manif●stam superstitionem abierunt, ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abol●vimus D. 84. Male Ecclesijs suis consulere affirmamus, qui in suis ditionibus, inutilium Ceremoniarum reliquias vol retinuer●●●, ●el aliquat e●us corrigere (prapo●●●r● qu●dam judicio) quam semel abolere maluerunt.  The trifles which had proceeded unto manifest superstition, we have abolished as will-worship. We also affirm, that they which retain the relics of unprofitable Ceremonies, and (out of preposterous judgement) correct them rather than abolish them, deserve ill of the Churches. Yet some there are, 
Idem de Coena, adv. Harchium, pag. 4. ant● finem. Non desunt qus Pastores vellent, in illis, si non origin●, at certe usu, vere Baaliticis v●stibus apparere. jevel. Def. cap. 2. div. 9 His Ceremonijs vo● tam estis abusi, ut nis● maxima nos religione nos obligare malimus, retinore ista amplius nequeamus.  who would have Pastors put on garments, which if not by their first bringing in, yet by their abuse, are Baal's garments. You Papists have so abused these Ceremonies, that without violating of religion, we cannot retain them.  
D. Morton, our Defend. Appeal. lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 25. Pope Stephen prescribed in such like cases of humane inventions: If our Ancestors have done any thing which is afterward turned into superstition, it is to be abolished without delay. Which was also the only remedy which the ancient Council of Eliberis propounded against Idolatry. To omit particulars; it hath hitherto been received for a ruled case among our Divines, as Rivetus (one of our last writers) showeth, on the fourth Commandment: It is a rule, that things indifferent, not being necessary, if they be polluted with horrible Idolatry, are to be abolished. 
Regula est illa, Adiaphora non necessaria, horrenda Idolomania polluta, esse abolenda.  The rejoinder his confidence therefore in this point, did exceed all comely measure. The opposite assertion may be better maintained: viz. that no learned and advised Divine, can be named, free from manifest prejudice, arising from the use and urging of such Ceremonies in that Church where he lived that doth not condemn all conformity with Idolaters, in their religious unnecessary Ceremonies.   

SECT. 3. Concerning Pillars, Leu. 26.1. and the name Baal, Host 2.16.17.  
1. IT was said by the Repl. that for preventing of an evasion, or stopping of a muse, the Abrigers added; that even such things are to be cast away, which had a good original, and use, (if they be not still necessary and commanded of God) when once they are found to be defiled by Idolatry, as Leu. 26. 1. etc. To this the Rej. (abounding as it seemeth with leisure, and words) saith diverse things in general, not worth much refutation. 1. He objecteth Tinkers-lucke, because then all our Churches must down. But this Ting-tong shall not have the luck to stay us: because we hold our Churches commanded, in general, though not for their particular places and forms; which particularity was neither mentioned, nor meant in the Argument. 2. He seeketh more than one knot in that rush (necessary or commanded) as if in either sentence that particle or must needs be disiunctive, and not the same with and; which he himself will not affirm in his second thoughts. 3. He affirmeth some distinction to be betwixt things originally evil, and those that are successively evil: which we deny not; but only say, that distinction doth not make such a difference, as that therefore one should be rejected, and the other received. 4. He denieth the 2. sertion plainly: which he might have done with ●ewer words, to as good purpose.  
2. Concerning Leu. 26. it was alleged by the Rep●. that those (at lest some of those) titular pillars were firs●▪ only set up for civil use. To which the Rej. answereth, that this was not the first beginning of their religious use: which is nothing to the purpose, except no use be good but religious. 2. that though many statues which afterward only for worship, were at the first, for civil respects and had still a civil use, (for this antecedent only is the Repliers) yet it doth not follow, they were civil at the first▪ which answer is by itself confuted.  
3. Calvin's collection or conjecture, was objected: that these statues were erected, to represent God: and this was answered, that according to calvin's phrase, there is a representation of God, in all pictures that corrupt Gods spiritual worship. The Rej. opposeth, that Calvin on Deut. 12.3. showeth his meaning to be only of such representation as was in the golden Calf, and Michas Seraphim; not such as jacob set up for a monument. Which may be calvin's Conjecture of that place in Deut. though not of this in Leu. Yet to such a monument as jacobs' was, being grossly abused unto Idolatry, Hezechias would have shown no more courtesy, than he did to the Brazen Serpent. So Pelicanus, upon the place, collecteth: We must ceremonize according to God's Word only. 
Ceremoniandum est secundum Verbum Dei solum.  as upon Leu. 26.1. Even triumphal statues were forbidden. 
Statuam erigi prohibet, etiam triumphalem.  And Lyra, The memory of Idolatry is totally to be wiped out. 
Memoria Idololatriae totaliter delonda.   
4. The Def. objected jacobs' pillar, Gen. 28.18. So (●ayth the Replie● he did offer sacrifices, in other manner, and place, then after the Law, was lawful. To this the rejoinder answereth, 1. that that which jacob did, was not unlawful by the moral Law. But he is mistaken; not distinguishing betwixt the moral Law forbidding religious Ceremenies of mere human appointment, and allowing the same derived from Divine inspiration. So Tertullian (de Idol. cap. 5.) answereth him that defended Images by the brazen Serpent: Idem Deus, qui lege ●etuit similitudinem fieri, extraordinario praecepto, serpentis ●imilitudinem indixit. Si eundem Deum observas, habes le●em ejus. Imitare tu Mosem, ne facias adversus legem, simu●achrum aliquid, nisi & tibi Deus jusserit. 1. e. The same God which in his Law forbade images, did extraordinarily command the image of a Serpent. If thou wilt obey that God, thou hast his law. Imitate thou Moses, not making any image (contrary to the Law) except God command thee. So all our Divines in answer of Papists, objecting this & such like examples for will-worship) refer these do to Divine revelation or instinct. Among these (for this cause) ● reckon D. jackson: who in his Original, pag. 332. giveth us this Catholic remedy and rule, seriously to be considered. Such actions as have been managed by God's Spirit, suggested by secret instinct, or extracted by extraordinary and special occasions, are then only lawful in others, when they are begotten by like occasions, or brought forth by like impulsions.  
5. To Host 2.16.17. (where the very name of Baal seemeth to be forbidden, because it had been given unto Idols) the Defend. answered (saith the Rej.) implicitly, i. e. so as I have now answered to all that he hath brought about this fourth Argument. But he undertaketh, by a little change of words, to make that answer satisfactory. For this end, he allegeth first, that the word Baal, in religious use and application, was originaly, o● from the first use of it, evil: because before Moses was borne, the great and common Idol of the Gentiles was marke● out by it, as by a proper name. But 1. If the civil use of this word was originaly good, that is sufficient to our purpose. For our Argument speaketh only generally o● good originals and beginnings. 2. If this word Baal did originaly signify Lord, Master, Husband, (as it is generaly taken) then by the Rej. his interpretation, it did originaly signify a religious relation. For he holdeth every sign of a servants duty for conscience sake, to be a mystical sign of a spiritual duty: pag. 314. And is not every sign of a Lords, Masters, or Husband's duty, or state, for conscience sake, of the same nature? 3. There is some quaestion among the learned, whether Baal was derived from King Bel, or King Bells name from Baal? The most probable opinion is the later: as Sir Walter Raughly showeth lib. 1. c. 10. sect. 6. because Bel, Beel, or Baal, was as much to say as God. And Arias Montanus, in Host 2. saith it signifieth Numen, or the chief sovereign power, whatsoever it be, without restraint to this or that Idol. Now if this be so, what more evil was there in the first use of the name Baal, then of God?  
6. In the next place, the Rej. undertaketh to prove, that all religious use of this word Baal, in application to God, is not forbidden; but only as it might further ●he practise, or bear the appearance of gross Idolatry. In which answer, if he doth not distinguish gross Idolatry from slight; nor hath any mental reservation, about appearance, nor yet taketh might further, otherwise then ●he words sound, he saith nothing but that which we ●ot only grant, but also make our plea. To this end ●e allegeth the use of it in Is. 54.5. jer. 31.33. Nah. 1.2. ●o which I answer 1. The Lord, in this place of Host did ●ot speak of every time, but of that day. 2. He did not ●orbid himself to use this or that term, at his pleasure, ●ut men. 3. The word Baal Is. 54. jer. 31. seemeth to be used in an allusion only reproving, and upbraiding the idolatry of the people, which had followed Baal; as ●●ewing that what they had sought for in Baal, was to ●e found only in jehovah. Otherwise it may be answered, that the word appellative is used, without any reflection unto the proper. And Nah. 1. it is no more gi●en to jehovah, than the name Idol is given to men, whē●n worthy teachers are called Idol-shepheards; or then ●he name jehovah is given to dumb creatures, when ●hey are called jehovah jireh Gen. 22. jehovah Nissi, Ex. 17. ●ehovah shammah, Ezech. 48.  
7. He bringeth four interpretations of the place: of which, the first only (as he saith) may serve our turn ●n any part. But the first, third, and fourth, are in di●ers Interpreters conjoined. And there is scarce any grave Interpreter, which doth not gather so much from the context, as we require. See jerom, Arias Montanus, Oecolampadius, Calvin, Zanchie, Tremelius, junius. Sir W. Raughly, himself, in the forenoted place, observeth the sum: Although the name of Baal be justly to be used toward God; yet in respect that the same was given to Idols, God both hated it, and forbade it. And it is not credible, that so many, and such Divines, should make a collection, which hath no foundation in their intrepretation of the text.   

SECT. 4. Concerning the equity of the Commandments formerly mentioned; etc.  
1. THe third proof (saith the Replier) in the Abrigement standeth thus: The equity of these Commandemen is thus set down in Scriptures: 1. The detestation which our jealous God bearreth unto all instruments and tokens of Idolatry, Exod. 20.5.6. Deut. 7. 25.26. 2. That we cannot be said sincerely to have repent of Idolatry, etc. except we be ashamed of, and cast away the instruments and monuments of it. 1. Chron. 33.15. Is. 1.29. and 2.20. and 3●. 22.2. Cor. 7.11. See Calvin in Deut. serm. 52. Eph. 86. 3. that we shall be in danger to be corrupted. Ex. 34. 1●. 15. Deut. 7. 25.26 judg. 2.13. Gal. 2.5.4. We shall harden Idolaters. Ezech. 16.54. 1. Cor. 6.10. 5. There is more danger in Popish Ceremonies, because the Pope is Antichrist, and we converse more with Papists, then with other Idolaters. Now of all these reasons, and allega●ions, the Def. answereth directly to nothing, but only to those words: See Calvin. The Rej. doth not deny, but the proof was such as hath been said: neither could he say, that the Def. had answered to any thing, but See Calvin.  
Yet 1. he goeth about (by many words) to persuade ●he Reader, that here was no fault. To this end he speaketh of a Mark sh●t●●t, and hit by the Def. of the Def. his professed method (to profess a full answer unto all ob●ected, and answer what he pleased to object to himself) of perverse and injurious dealing, that he should be told of this truth; of welts, guards, and gallant shows, and garnish only, in so many reasons, and Scriptures: What ail you? (saith he) What mean you? To all this, I answer nothing. 2. He himself undertaketh to answer all. To this therefore I will attend, according to the skill I have.  
2. His general answer is, that these five reasons of equity, do not prove, that we are bound unto all and the very same ways of repressing Idolatry, etc. which the jews were bound to. This we confess, as the Rej. testifieth, neither could they, upon that supposition, be called five reasons of equity only, but of rigour. And what a kind of answering is this; to say, reasons do not prove that which they were not brought to prove? The question is, whether they do not prove, that it is contrary to God's Word to use (much more to command the use of) such Ceremonies in the worship of God, as man hath devized, if they be notoriously known, to have been of old, and still to be abused unto Idolatry, by the Papists, especially if the same be now of no necessary use in the Church? This was the opppsition, for proof whereof, these five reasons of equity were brought. And for this we have all our Divines that confound Popish Images, out of the selfsame places of Scripture, as Vrsine on the second Commandment, Polanus, Syntag. lib. 9 cap. 26. and whom not?  
His answer in particular, is first, to Exod. 20.5.6. Deut. 7.25.36. Isai. 1.29. and 30.32. that these places speak o● Idols themselves, or their garnish, not of indifferent Ceremonies. But 1. these places were not alleged against indifferent Ceremonies; but against Ceremonious instruments and tokens of Idolatry, not necessary unto true worship, 2. If they make against the use, or urging of those things which are either Idols, or Idols garnish (as is confessed) it is sufficient. For the Cross is an Idol, and both Cross▪ and Surplice, are the Garnish of Idols.  
4. Some of these places (saith the rejoinder) a●● grossly mistaken, misalleged, and abused. as Isai. 1.29. an● 2.20. where confusion, and not Godly shame for sin is spoke● of: Ezech. 16.54. not speaking of hardening others: 1. Cor. 8.10. speaking of a thing in itself evil: Exod. 34.12. an● Deut. 7.4. speaking of marriage and league with Heathens and Gal. 2.5. not respecting Ceremonies abused. To the first, I answer, 1. that the shame and confusion judicial which is brought upon Idolaters, is because they are not ashamed unto repentance. 2. All those of whom the Prophet speaketh, were not judicially confounded, but penitentially ashamed. jer. 31.19. Ezech. 16.54. should have been joined to the former allegations, as speaking of men's shame in themselves, not of hardening others. 1. Cor. 8 10. condemneth embolding others to sin, by eating things offered to Idols, though it were otherwise lawful, as appeareth, 1. Cor. 10.29. And a question may ●e made, whether it had been more unlawful, to eat ●uch things in the Idols Temple, then to take from ●hence things notoriously known to be such, and eat ●hem in Christian Congregations, at Love-feasts? Exo. ●4. 12. Deut. 7.4. speak not only of a civil, but also of ● religious league, such as should hinder them from brea●ing down their Altars, Images, Groaves, etc. as Iuni●s (in his Anal.) noteth, and the words immediately following show. Gal. 2.5. placing danger in conformity to ●ewish Ceremonies, doth insinuate as much (at the ●east) in conformity to Idolaters.  
5. The rejoinder addeth, that Isai. 1.29. and jude 23. confute our Assertion: because men may pray in Gardens; and 〈◊〉 garment spotted with the flesh, being washed, might be used. ●nd such confutations the rejoinder aboundeth with. ●ut we can distinguish betwixt God's good necessary ●reatures, and man's inventions of Idolatrous abuse, and ●nnecessary use.  
Yet Gardens might not be used by the jews, for their ceremonial solemn worship. Neither is every washing 〈◊〉 polluted garment sufficient to make it fitting for an ●onest man, that hath other clothes to put on. The wa●●ing of a Cross, is like the washing of a piece of clay, or ●f a Leopard's spots.  
6. Now Sir (saith the rejoined.) You have your will. ●he third proof is examined, and found to be light, facing, ●o be repent of, as having abused men. Bate an acequoth ●oulton: The whole proof is not examined. Nothing is said to the substance of the reasons, but only to the testimonies, which yet are not found to be leight, facing, abusive, etc. And nothing at all is said to the fifth reason: Seeing the Pope is revealed to be that great Antichrist, 2. Thes. 2. Apoc. 17. and his Idolatry troubleth the Church, at this day, more than any other, and our people converse more with Papists, then with any other Idolater, there is more danger, in retaining the Ceremonies and relics of Popery, then of any other Idolatry whatsoever: Leu. 18.3.  

See Calvin.  
7. Calvin was alleged in his 52. Sermon on Deut. speaking thus: If we have any drop of good zeal in us, it must needs vex and grieve us, to see the marks and signs of Idolatry: and that we must to the utmost of our power, deface them. The rejoinder answereth, that he spoke this of proper instruments and monuments of Idolatry; and namely of Images. Which we willingly grant except he mean by proper such as never any beside Idolaters, either before, since, or at the same time, did use. And we add, that the Cross is more than a proper instrument of Idolatry: because it is an Idol: Neither hath either the Defend. or rejoined. denied, as yet, that it is an Idol. We add also, that mystical Ceremonies, are (in calvin's phrase) Images, either living, such as God's institutions, or dead, as men's inventions. Inst. lib. 8. cap. 11. sect. 13. Add lastly, that seeing the Def. and Rej. have admitted historical Images, as of the same nature with other mystical Ceremonies (in the former Chapter) it is too late now to distinguish their natures.  
8. A second place of Calvin, is out of epist. 87. where he warneth the L. Protector of England, that nothing upon pretence must be tolerated in the Church, which came either from Satan, or from Antichrist. To this the Rej. (calling for all Calvin) answereth, that Calvin in that Epistle, speaketh against precise extremities about Ceremonies: and that he professedly intended rather to exempt our Ceremonies from those he condemneth: as appeareth by his judgement of the Service-booke in Q. Mary's time, the heads whereof were sent unto him from Franckfort, by M. Knox, and M. Whittingam, not one whit bettered (as the Rej. saith he dare say) & out of his Epist. to Bull. an. 1551. etc. Now 1. because he will have all Calvin, he shall have enough of Calvin.  
Thus therefore he writeth unto the L. Protecteur, I come to the other head about abolishing and plucking up by the very roots ●buses and corruptions, 
Veni● ad capu● alterum, de abolendis & evellendis radicitus abusibus & corruptelis, quas invexit Satan superioribus seculis in Dei ordinationem Constat Christianisimi Papatus plane esse nothium & adulterinum. Quar● si all illa voragine plibē educere est animus, exemplo Apostoli utendum est▪ 1. Cor, 11 jude colligenda generalis doctrina: cum de legit●ma reformati●ne, & qu● Deo accepta sit, agitu●, a● ipsum purum Dei verbum redeundum nobis esse. Quot enim supererunt mixturae ex bominum ingenio pralatae, totidem exstabunt pollutiones, quae homines distrahant a recto corum usuquae Dominus in corum ●alutem instituerat. Proinde dum istiusmodi sentina ex parte tantum exhauritur, res suo loco verò restituta dici non potest, ubi Christianismus larvatus pro syncero & nativo deprehenditur. Atque illud a me ideo dicitur, quod multo● long aliter judicare intelligam, tolerandos nempe esse abusus, neque attingendos, dummodo crassissimae corruptelae sublatae dici pos●●t. Atqui ex opposito, i●sa experientia edocuit, quam sertilis sit mendaciorum seges ●umanum ingenium, ut v●l minut●tis granis cons●ersum, in altissimum cumulum assurga, uti totum natu●a eo ferri constat. Long vero a●ia est rati● quam tradit Scriptura David de Idolis agens, ne ipsorum quidem nominis se recordaturum testatur, ut estendat, quam illa sibi omnibus modis detestanda judicet. Ab omni Satanae fermento quam longissime pedem re●eramus. Quid enim illae Cerementae fuerunt, quam totidem lenocinia, quae miseras animas. Ad malum perducerent, uti ad ip●as illaqu●andas omnino positae erant? jam si de cautione agitur (this is to our Defend. and Rejoin a cu●e) monebuntur homines, scilicet, ne ad illas nunc impingant. Quis tamen non videt obdura●i ipsos nihil ominus ni●il ut infelici illa cautione obtmeri possit Quare si quid istiusmodi intactum relinquetur, certi●simum erit g●avio●i● obfirmationis in malum somentum, idemque velamen oppositum, ne syncera doctrina quae propener●tur, adm●tat●● ut par est.  which the Devil in the ages past hath brought into God's ordnance. It is evident that the Christianity or religion of Popery is bastardly and false. Wherefore if we resolve to bring the people out of that gulf, we must follow the Apostles example 1. Cor. 11. From whence is generally ta●ght: that when men would reform as th●y aught to do and acceptably to God, they must then betake themselves to the pure word of God. For look how many mixtures (which man's brain hath hatched) do remain; so many pollutions are there which distract men from the right use of those things which the Lord had appointed for their Salvation. Wherefore while such a sink as that, is but in part pumped out, things cannot be said to be as they should be, specially when religion appears rather masked, then sincere and with open face, which I therefore note because I perceive many now adays of another judgement; as if petty abuses were to be let alone, as long as grosser matters be remooved. Whereas contrari-weise experience itself showeth what a fertile soil and fruitful seed-plot of lies, man's invention is, that being but thin sown (as it were) with lesser grains, groweth to such a heap as if his nature did intent nothing else. Now the Scripture is far different from this. When David speaks of Idols, he professeth their names should not go in or out at the doors of his lips, to show extreme detestation. Let us remove our foot as far as possibly we can from all the leaven of Satan. For what were all thos● Ceremonies but so many whorish enticements to lead s●ely souls unto mischief▪ yea even snares to catch them in? But if we talk that the people may be warned (forsooth) lest they stumble, yet notwithstanding who doth not behold men hardened by them? So little doth that warning avail to any purpose. Therefore if any such thing b● left untouched, it will be but the foment and fuel of greater mischief, and a very blind set up to hinder sincere Doctrine from all entrance as were meet.  
Then follow the words which the rejoinder citeth for all Calvin. Let any understanding Reader judge now of calvin's judgement: if we require any more praecise rigour than Calvin did not only wish, but also contend, for, and that with such Arguments, as no De●ender or rejoinder will ever answer? 2. Whereas he saith that he dare say Mr. Knox and Whittingam sent the heads of the Service-booke not one whit bettered, insinuating that they made the worst they could of it, quoting the Discourse of Frani●so ●t troubles, it is as much as to say, he dare deny, that which those good men said, and proved (by repraesenting their writing) concerning their own fact, without any reason. Surely their conclusion was this: Other things not so much shame, as pity, compelleth us to keep close: etc.  
Note (saith the Author of that Discourse) that the description is very favourably put down. If you confer it with the Book, and the usage of the same in many Churches of this Realm▪ you can confess no less. And thereof you may gather, what M. Calvin would have written, if they had noted all the abuses of the same. Beside the Letter itself (written by M.K. and M. Wh. unto Calvin) is to be seen & read, in that Discourse; where mention is made of the Surplice, Kneeling, and Cross; But none of Confirmation, Offerings, women's Purification, and such other things as the rejoinder would have Calvin only to have respected▪  
3. For calvin's Epistles to Bullinger, 1551. they were two: and in the first, epist. 120. he excuseth only as tolerable in extremity, the Cornered cap, and Rochet: and what is this to our Ceremonies using and urging? In the second epist. 121. he exhorteth the Protector, to help Ho●per, standing even against those fopperies, What can the rejoinder glean from hence. 3. As for that the rejoinder addeth, that Calv. Instit. lib 4. cap. 17. sect. 37. (for Easter day was handled before) professedly alloweth our Kneeling, it is nothing so. For he speaketh only against the Papists kneeling unto the Host in Procession; and for aggravation of that Idolatry, saith▪ that in the Supper itself, we may kneel to Christ. There is not one word of such kneelinge as ours is. There is no Nonconformist, which refuseth to kneel unto Christ, in the celebration of the Lords Supper.  
9 But Calvin (saith the Def.) hath these words: that in labouring to remove such things as may seem to nourish Idolatry, we must take heed of being too superstitious, i● urging too vehemently things in their own nature indifferent. To which there needeth no answer, than this: we assent to those words, without any exception. After Calvin, the Replier made mention of Martyr, Gryncu●, Wolphius, Vrsinus, Machabeus, Zanchius, Simlerus, Z●pperus, Fulke, and the Authors of our Homilies, as quoted i● the Abrigement (pag. 24.) to the same purpose. Bu● the rejoinder thought not them worth the answering in special: and therefore I must leave them to considention only. To the rest of this Section I answer nothing but, Nihil dicit.    

SECT. 5. Concerning daniel's abstinence.  
Here nothing is handled but daniel's example, Dan. 1.8. Neither doth the rejoinder add any thing to the Defendant, but only, that daniel's forbearance of the King's meat, was grounded on special ceremonial injunctions of God, and not upon our moral rule, that the abuse had made the use unlawful; nor was this a Ceremony in God's worship. To which I answer 1. that our argument is also grounded on the equity of Ceremonial injunctions, and that equity is our moral rule.  
2. It must needs be, that if good meats (not otherwise unclean) were unlawful unto Daniel, than it was because they were defiled by Idolatry: which is all that this place was alleged for.  
3. If this was not a Ceremony of God's worship, the Argument is so much the stronger: because all Christians know, that whatsoever is unlawful out of God's worship, the same (not being by God appropriated to his worship) is much more unlawful in it.   

SECT. 6. Concerning Hezekias his breaking down the brazen Serpent.  
1. THis example is so pregnant, that it hath by all sorts of Divines been used and improved to so much as our Proposition doth require from it. The Superstitious Authors of the Canon-law, could not shut their eyes wholly against this light. For so D. Abbot (Def. of Mr. Perk. part. 1. pag. 168.) translateth that law, Dist. 63. cap. Quia. If our Predecessors have done some things which at that time might be without fault, and afterwards be turned to error and superstition; we are taught by Hezekias breaking the brazen Serpent, that the Posterity may abolish the same, without any delay, and with great authority. And the same Doctor Abbot confesseth, the force of this consequence from Hezekias his example, to make against such private use of the Cross, now, as Constantine, and the ancient Christians had of it▪ What then but the time, did hinder that good and learned man, from seeing that it maketh much more against the public use of the same Cross in Baptism? I never yet could meet with that Papist, which denied the consequence: The brazen Serpent (having been Gods own ordinance) was for Idolatrous abuse, to be abolished. Therefore human inventions, for like abuse, much more. Yet the Def. and Rej. deny it. With what reason, shall appear●.  
2. The Def. gave five reasons for Hezekias his abolishing the Serpent. To which it was replied, that no man doubteth, but Hezekias had reasons, more than five, for that he did: and that the like may be alleged for abolishing of our Ceremonies. This last (saith the Rej.) should have been showed. So it is (say I) in the following dispute.  
Let them (addeth the Replier) be abolished by public authority, and I will undertake, reasons to justify the action done, will easily be acknowledged, even of those that now can see none to persuade unto the doing of it. Like enough; (answereth the Rej.) and well enough: because it is lawful, and just to abolish them as inconvenient. Now let this be well noted. In the general answer to this Argument, it was pleaded (pag. 406.) that Ceremonies abused to Idolatry are to be abolished, if they be not conveniently necessary. Hear our Ceremonies so abused, are confessed to be such, as that, if they were once abolished by public authority, reasons could easily be found to prove them justly abolished as inconvenient. So that nothing but public authority, doth make them justifiable, or free from such inconvenience as deserveth and requireth the abolishing of them. And who can conceive such a virtue in public authority, as to make that morally convenient which before was inconvenient? or to make reasons forceable, for justifying an action done; which are not forceable for justifying the same, as to be done? Our cause by this confession, wanteth nothing but one Fiat, or act of public authority, to make it justifiable; so fare at least, as concerneth this question: whether the Ceremonies are to be abolished or no?  
3. Because the Def. did make this one ground of denying our consequence from Hezekias' zeal against the monuments of Idolatry, that He did not abolish the Idols which Solomon suffered to be set up in favour of his strange wives; because they were (at that time) neglected Idols. It was replied, that it may well be thought, they were destroyed by Hezekiah, and set up again before the time of josiah. This the Rej. calleth rashness to be repent of: because it is said (2. Reg. 23.13.) that Io●iah destroyed those high places, which Solomon had set up. And was it such a rashness, to say that it may be thought so? the phrase is more modest than theirs, who peremptorily affirm those Idols to have been neglected until after Hezekias' time; when the Scripture testifieth plainly, that Ahaz, 
Existimamus etiam, vivo Salomone, omnem illam Daemonum officinam disruptam fuisse, dilaceratam, atque disperditam. Videnturque referendae illa statuae, & luci, & ara, & reliqua idololatria monumenta (a Reg. 23.13.) ad Manassem, & Ammonem (qui excitaverant illa in eodem loco, & supra eadem fundamenta) non ad Salomonem, ante annot 250.  Hezechias his father, worshipped Mol●ch (which was one of those Idols) by making his son to pass thorough the fire; and was so madly given to superstition, that he sacrificed under every green tree. 2. Reg. 16. Nay less was said, than some learned have with great probability affirmed: namely, that these Idols with their appurtenanceces were first defaced by Solomon himself, after his repentance; and being restored after by Idolaters, were again defaced. Salianus (in his Annals add an, 3309.) saith thus: We think also that while Solomon lived, that whole shop of devils was broken up and ruined. And withal, the statues, the groves, and altars, as also the rest of idolatrous monuments 2. King. 23.13. to have reference to Manasses and Ammon (who had set them up in the same place, and upon the same foundation) and not to Solomon, who died 250. years before. 
250. extinctum. Incredibile dictu est. tantum scandalum ab Asa, josaphato, joiada, cum lat è idololatriam disperderent, in oculis ipsis positum, non vid●sse, aut non ausos attingere, & ad annum 3406. Mirum profecto si Idola illa post tercentoes 50. annos subsisterens, quae Salomon ipse poenitens, & caeteri Reges boni sustulissent. Vtique dicendum videtur, ab impijs Regibus extructa suisse ejusdem generis fana, & Idola quae ●lim Salomon in ijsdem locis extruxerat: ut illud quae aedificaveret Solomon, fit idem ac si dixisset, qualia aedificaverat.  It is incredible to speak that when Asa, josaphat, and Ichoiada did fare and near destroy idolatry, they notwithstanding suffered a skandall so apparent. And to the year 3406. it were very strange if those Idols after 350. years, should yet remain, the which Solomon after his repentance, and other good Kings had abolished. So that it is probable that such like temples and Idols were repaired, and bui●t up again by other succeeding ungodly Kings, which Solomon in former time had made: that that which Solomon builded should be all one with such like as he had builded.  
Where he showeth by diverse instances, both out of Scripture, and out of common speech; how that word which, doth not always note the same singular substance; therein confuting all the ground that the Rej. had for censuring the Repl. of rashness to be repent of. This sentence is the more also to be favoured; because according to the other, which our Def. and Rej. maintain, it will be very hard to answer that objection against Solomon's repentance, which Rabanus on 2. Reg. 23. groundeth on that superstition: Solomon never truly repent of his idolatry: for if he had manifested fruits worthy repentance, he would have taken order with those Idols, which he had set up by removing them, and (being so wise a man) never have left them to stand for stumbling blocks to fools, as if what he had erroneously devised, had been well and wisely done. 
Solomon de admisso idololatriae scelere, nunquaem perfecte poenituit. ' Nam si fructus poenitentiae dignos faceret, satageret ante omnia, ut Idola quae aedificaverat, tollerentur & non in scandalum stu●torum, quae ipse cum fuisset sapientissimus, erronea secerat, quasi sapienter a● recte sacta relinqueret.  Beside all this, it is not credible, that the same individual Temples stood by jerusalem from Solomon's time, to josias; if it were but for this, that the Assyrians came even unto the gates of jerusalem, spoiling and breaking down all costly buildings, (such as Solomon's Temples were) not sparing▪ but deriding the gods of Nations. 2. Reg. 18.  
4. It was added by the Replier that those Idols should have been destroyed, (though they had been for the time, neglected) because that evil for which josu destroyed them aught as well to have been prevented, as corrected. To this the rejoinder answereth 1 that this is not true, except Hezekia had suspected that evil. And who will say, that there is no cause to suspect evil of an Idol, though it be for a time neglected? Or can any man think, that if Israelites had neglected them, no Sidonian, Moabite, or Ammonite, gave occasion of any evil to be suspected by those Idols? The Spanish and French Papists (to say nothing of English) when they, in passing by the Cross in Cheapside, do reverence unto it, give they not cause to suspect, some evil to cleave unto it? 2. The same means (saith the rejoinder) are not always requisite for praevention, which must be used for recovery. Yes truly, about Idols (if we judge out of the Scripture) the very same means. Burn then (saith the rejoined.) all your Popish bockes, lest they fall into the hands of Popelings to abuse them. So will I certainly, if you can show me, that they must be burned when popelings have had them in their hands, and abused them which here you grant concerning these Idols.  
5. Zanchius was cited by the Defend. to prove, that this abolishing is not the universal remedy for all abuses of Ceremonies (he meaneth) unto Idolatry. And because the Replier could not find the place, we are by ●he rejoinder directed to the later edition, pag. 678. where I find these words: This rule is to be observed: that ●hings grown to abuse & defiled by superstition, 
Tenenda est haec. regula: Quae in abusum venerunt, & superstitionibus ●ontaminata fuerunt, sisiat adiaphora, tolli●a prorsus possunt, & sape etta● debent.  if they be indifferent may, yea oftentimes ought, to be taken away. Hear (I hope) is nothing against our proposition. And yet the Def. hath nothing else to catch at, nothing else (I say) but ●hose words: they may be removed, as signifying, that ●hey may also not be removed: As if every thing that may ●e removed, may also not be removed! The rejoinder adds, that he admitteth of some Feast-days, as tolerable. I ●●ant, he speaketh something favourable of them: but therein, he neither speaketh to our quaestion directly, nor showeth how that which he saith may be accorded with ●is own rule. But pag. 800. (saith the rejoinder) he ●estrayneth the consequence to things manifestly Idolatrous, not to indifferent Rites. So do we also: But the ●ejoynder as it seemeth, maketh salomon's Idols, (if ●hey be for a time neglected) indifferent rites, which ●anchie never did. N●y Zanchie pag. 649. from this example of Hezekia, reproveth those that keep in secret ●he monuments of Superstition, though out of Church's. True (saith the rejoinder) but betwixt such Monuments, and indifferent Ceremonies, he distinguisheth. And ●o do we, in some sense: but that things otherwise indifferent, may by becoming monuments, prove unlawful, Zanchie never denied. To Zanchie, were added (in the Abrigement, pag. 24.) as witnesses of our consequence from Hezekias his example, Augustine, Calvin, Martyr, Wolphius, Lavater, Sadeel, jewel, Bilson, Fulke, Rainolds, Andrues, and Perkins. To all these it was unseasonable (saith the rejoinder) to answer at full, in this place. We must therefore wait (though in vain) for a place which will seem seasonable.  
6. The Defender in fine, noted two disparities betwixt the brazen Serpent, and our Ceremonies: 1. That the Idolatry of the jews about that was public, general, and in the same Church; which is not so with our Ceremonies. 2. That there was no other means to cure the Idolatry of those times; as now there is. To the former it was answered 1. that these circumstances are not rendered as reasons of abolishing the brazen serpent, in the Text, but invented by the Def. True (saith the Rej.) yet any man may conceive that they might be reasons. But for generality, I cannot conceive how it can be proved: and the public abuse, though it might be a reason, yet not such a one, as that with it, abolishing should be used, or suspended. But our Ceremonies (addeth the Rej.) must in comparison be likened to the brazen Serpent used well, at jerusalem; which ought not to have been abolished, for such another in relation to that, set up at Bethel, and made an Idol. Wherein he mistaketh much, For first our Ceremonies were never good, or well used. Calvin is allowed of by the Def. and Rej. for his moderation about them. Let him therefore speak: I answer the turncoat, What is there in the Papacy unlike the brazen Serpent, except only the original? Epist. 265. The Popish Ceremonies are naught from the beginning. 
Resp. ad Versipellem. Quid in Papatu non simile serpenti aneo, prater originem? Epist. 265. Ceremoniae Papales à suo principio vitiosa sunt.  2. The Papists did not take these Ceremonies from us, but we from them. 3. It may be very well questioned, whether the serpent at jerusalem, considered as no way commanded of God, should not have been abolished, if the ten Tribes should have taken occasion by it of Idolatry? It was answered 2. that private idolatry is also to be remooved, as well as public. That cannot be the facto, saith the rejoinder. Yet thus fare it may be very well de facto, that nothing be used in public, which is known to nourish idolatry in private. It was answered 3. That all these circumstances did more than agree to our Ceremonies, in the beginning of our reformation. To this it is rejoined 1. that our Ceremonies were never the object of gross idolatry: which he would not have said, if he had thought of the Cross, or that the proper means of idolatry are as well to be abolished, as the objects. The 2. rejoinder is, that though they ought to have been remooved; in the beginning of reformation, yet now not: which is as if a debtor should plead, that he owed indeed so much money to his creditor long ago, but now (though it hath been every year called for) he is quit by deferring the payment. Sure (saith the Repl.) our Ceremonies are not grown better since the reformation, by any good they have done. That is not here considered (answereth the rejoinder) but if they be not grown to less abuse? As if less superstition, with much mischief, were not enough to cashier such Ceremonies as do no good!  
To the second disparity, it was replied, that this is the very quaestion, whether any other means be sufficient to cure the disease of human Ceremonies idolatrously abused, beside abolishing? This (saith the Rej.) you make a quaestion of. And was not the Defend. disputing against us? what reason then had he, to make ou● quaestion an argument, or answer against us? It was replied also, that experience ha●h showed the disease of our Ceremonies is not cured, in the Dominions of our Hezekia. Yet (saith the Rej.) the means (without abolishing) may be sufficient, if they were well applied, that is, given and received. As if the same means would not have been in like manner sufficient in Hezekias' time, against the Idolatry of the Serpent, if they had been well applied i e. given, and received! Herein certainly is no disparity.  

A piece of a Comparison, betwixt the Primitive, & the present English Church.  
1. Because the Def. 3. or 4. times, repeated, and urged, (as much making for his cause) that our Church is so truly reform, that it doth most lively express the face, & full body of her Primitive Mother-Churche; the Repl. therefore at last, was forced to say something to this; especially in this place, where it is quaestioned, if we will allow it to be called a reformed Church. He answered therefore in general, that in the main points of doctrine, and the grossest superstitions, our Church is reform; but in regard of Ecclesiastical government, and some Ceremonies, it is not. To this it is rejoined, 1. That by face and body, was meant only doctrine and religion, not government, or Ceremonies. The Defend. therefore understood this term, as Cardinal Perone; and the Replier as D. Andrues, who in the beginning of his answer, hath these words: Points of faith seem rather to pertain to the inward parts, then to the face. It is the Agend (of the Church, ●e should have held him to. In that is the face of the Church, etc. After this, the rejoinder making all the Primitive Church, that was within diverse hundreds of years af●er the Apostles age, out of the Centurie-writers, and others, gathereth a catalogue of errors and defects, in doctrine, and observances, which by little and little, began in those times; and thence concludeth, that our doctrine is purer than it was in the Primitive Church, and also some observances. Now 1. this extension of the Primitive Church is taken without leave. 2. Those errors of doctrine may no more be attributed to the Primitive Church, than the errors of Mr. Montague, and others like him (who are neither few in number, nor mean for power, as things go) may be to the English Church, 3. In the other matters of Ecclesiastical Policy, and Ceremonies, we hold that for which the rejoinder formerly objected unto us, as a spirit of singular singularity, pag. 384. and now confesseth to be true; namely, that the Apostolical purity began presently after to be corrupted, and so proceeded in defection more and more. Yet all this doth not hinder, but diverse corruptions may be found among us, which were not known in the first primitive ages. Nay let it be marked well, how strange an assertion is made up by this reckoning of the Rejoinders! In Hezekias' time (saith the Defendant) the idolatry about the Serpent, could not be cured but by abolishing the Serpent: but in our most truly reform Church, which doth most lively express the face and full body of her Primitive Mother-Church, this disease would be found curable without any such extremity. The meaning is according to the rejoinder his interpretation: the disease of idolatry is more easily cured, in that Church, which doth lively express the face, and full body, of those Churches, which were infected with many errors, and declining in many things, to superstition, then in Hezekias' Church, most purely at that time reform. Surely the Rej. in a great part of his gloss, forgot his text: otherwise he would never have in this manner confuted it.   

Cathedral music with Organs.  
2. THe first question was, If the Primitive Church had such chanting Idol-service, as is in out Cathedral Churches? The rejoinder after some words spent about singing, (about which he bringeth not the least resemblance of that in question, until the fourth age after Christ) excepteth first, that Organall music was gods ordinance in the old Testament, and that not significant, or typical; and therefore is sinfully call●d Idol-service. 2. That all men whose hearts are not averse, by distraction, stupidity, or prejudice, feel such music to work much upon their affections. To this I say 1. that his denying of Organall music to have been significant or typical, is without reason, and against the current of our Divines; taken (as it may seem) out of Bellarmine de missa. lib. 2. cap. 15.) who useth this evasion against those words of P. Martyr: Musical organs pertain to the jewish Ceremony, and agree no more to us, than Circumcision. So that we may neglect it, and take him as saying, that nothing which was ordained in the old Testament (no not sacrificing of beasts) is now an Idol-service. 2. For that, and the other, both together, it is fit the rejoinder should be put in mind how many, and what kind of men, he accuseth of distraction, stupidity, or prejudice!  
1. Thomas Aquinas (in whose time this faction was not in general request, 
Instrumenta musica non assumit Ecclesia in divinas laudes, ne videatur judaizare: Musica instrumenta magis animum movent ad delectationem, quam ut per ea forractur bona dypositio. In et Test. usus erat taiium instrumentorum, tum-tum quia aliquid figurabant Operosam quandam, & theatricam musi●am in sac●as a●es induximus, tumultuosum diversarum vocum garritum, qualem non opinor in Graecorum, out Rom morum theatris unquam auditumsuisse. In hunc usum, magnu sala●ijs aluntur puororum greges, quorum omnis aet as in perdiscendus hujusmodi garnitibus consumitur, tantus sumptibus oneratur Ecclesia, ob rem pestiseram, etc.  much less in the Primitive) in 22. q. 91. a. 2.4. opposeth thus: The Church useth no music for divine praises, lest it should seem to Indaize, and answereth thus: Musical instruments do more stir up the mind to delight, then frame it to a right disposition. In the old Testament there was some need of them, both, etc. and also because they did figure out something. Erasmus, in 1. Cor. 14. saith thus: We have brought a tedious and player-like music into the Church, a tumultuous noise of many voices, such as I think was not heard among the theatres of Grecians or Romans. For which purpose, whole flocks of boys are maintained at great charges, whose age also is all spent in learning such gibble gabble. At such cost is the Church ●or a pestiferous thing, etc.  
It is evident that that some Ecclesiastical chanting and roar in our Temples (scarce also understood of the Priests themselves) is a most foolish and vain abuse, 
Zuinglius, Act. Disp. 2. pag. 100 Ecclesiasticum ittum cantum, & templorum boatus, ab ipsis quoque sacerdotibus non intellectos, abusum stultum, & inanem, ●●●pietatis verae temoram pernitiosissimam esse constat. Calvin in Psalm 23 Mihi d●bium non est, quin totum illud musicae genus, pars fuerít legalis padagogia. In solemni Dei cultu, nihilo 〈◊〉 ad canendas Deì laud●s congruere arbitror, musica instrumenta, quam si quis suffitus, lucernas, & similes legis 〈◊〉 bras in usum revocet. Vltra progredi, quam docemur, 1. Cor. 14. impiam pervicaciam esse dico.  and a most pernicious let to piety. I make no question but all that kind of music was a part of the legal pedagogy. In the solemn worship of God, I do not judge it more suitable, then if we should recall the incense, tapers, and other shadows of the Law, into use. I say again, to go beyond what we are taught, is most wicked pervicacy.  
It would be too tedious, if I should reckon up all that have assented to these. I will add only the two and thirty grave learned men, which were chosen in King Edward's days, to reform Ecclesiastical laws, and observances they judged this law fitting, 
De divinis officijs cap. 5. Vibratam illam & operosam musicam, qua figurata dicitur aufetri plac●t.  It likes us well to have this tedious kind of music taken away. Certainly these were neither distracted, nor stupid men: whence their prejudice came, let the rejoinder himself judge.   

Chancelours, Commissaries, and Officials.  
3. The second question was about these children of the earth, dealing with the keys of Christ's Heavenly Kingdom, whether they can be found in the face, or body of the Primitive Church? The Rej. 1. answereth plainly and roundly, No. Yet these human creatures, are those that keep most misrule among poor Christian men and Ministers also, in Ecclesiastical censures, of suspension, and excommunication, with intolerable exactions. That assertion therefore of the Defend. that the Church of England doth most lively express the face and full body of her Primitive Mother-Church, is in one great part of it, dashed by the rejoinder his No. 2. The rejoined, addeth, nor did any Presbyters execute any Church censures, without leave or consent of their Bishops, or unpreaching Elders at all, execute any censures of the Church. Now 〈◊〉 this is nothing to the purpose, but a mere diversion, ●hat something might seem to be said beside No. 2. For ●he first, I answer with junius in Bel. Cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. ●4. an. 27. Censures are in common to be acted by the Presbytery: so that as the other Presbyters did not act them without the consent of the chief Presbyter, or Bishop, ●o neither could any Bishop do it without them, of and ●y himself. That Bishops afterward dared so to do, it was tyrannidis indignae, mere tyranny. 3. For the confutation of the second, I propound a remarkable place in ●rigen, against Celsus lib. 3. extant also in his Philocalia, collected by Gregory Naz. and Basil, set forth in greek ●nd latin, by Tarinus: were cap. 18. Unto Celsus, objecting that Christian teachers sought for simple foolish auditor's, Origen answereth, that Christian teachers did ●irst discern and try their auditors; and of the approo●ed, they had two orders, 
Nonnulli praepositi sunt, que in vitam & mores ●orum qui admittuntur exquiran●s ut qui turpia committunt, ij● communi coetu interdicant, qu● ver●ab istis abhorrent, ex animo complexi, meliores quotidie redda●●.  one of beginners (that were catechised) and another of those which had made further progress. And among these latter (distinct from teacher's) he relateth thus: Some are appointed who are to ●ook to the life and mann●rs of such as are admitted, that they which do aught unseemly, may, as need shall require, be excluded the Congregation, and they which do otherwise, may ●e cherished, and dai●y grow better. This is the translation of Tarinus. The rest of the rejoinder to this question hath nothing in it but words.   

Pompous Bishops with sole power of Ordination and Excommunication.  
4. The quaestion is if any such were in the Primitive Church? The rejoinder 1. answereth concerning Pomp, that Peace and beneficency of Princes brought in this difference of outward state. But all difference of outward estate was not meant by Pomp. For so 〈◊〉 Ministers, that have convenient means for a libe●●● kind of life, with hospitality, should be pompous. W● are not so simple, as to account the Pastor of Sutton Col●●feild, (as such) pompous. There is certainly a pomp●●● that doth not agree to a Minister of the Gospel: as th● pompous state of a Baron, or Earl (which the Defende● himself, at his third flight, unto Durrham, is risen to that requireth many idle attendants, for no other us● but only for Comportment, & Luster of state; that whic● must have so much time spent in bridling of the Bishop's horses, as the ancient B b. took to preach dive●● sermons in, as M. Hooper speaketh; that which make● a poor man afraid to speak unto his Minister, without such trembling, as Majesty breedeth; that which woul● make it ridiculous, for a mean man to desire a visitation of him, for himself, his wife, or children, in sickness or other perplexity; that which requireth a Chaplains not only to do other duties of religion for him, bu● even to give thankes at his table, and that standing, whi●● he sitteth; that (to omit other characters) which maketh all his do Lordlike, by way of Commandment: I will not here speak of, draw an excommunication against him; take him Pursuivant; jailor, see to your prisoner; as being notorious in diverse of them: but only note one example, out of mine own experience, which many others can parallel by ●heirs: I w●s once, & but once (I thank God) before a Bishop: and being presented unto him, by the chief Magistrates of ●n Incorporation, for to be preacher in their town; the lowly man first asked them, how they durst choose a preacher, without his consent? You (said he) are to receyve the preacher that I appoint you. For I am your Pastor, though he never fed them. And then, turning to me, how durst you (said he) preach in my Diocese, without my leave? So that without any other reason, but mere Lordship, the whole Incorporation, and I, were dimissed, to wait his pleasure: which I (for my part) have now done this twenty year, and more. If this kind of Pomp were in the Primitive Church, or if it be not in ours, the Replier may be blamed for mentioning Pomp in his Quaere.  
2. Concerning Ordination, the Rej. his answer is, that the Bishop do●th it not (regularly) all alone. What is this to sole power of doing it? If an Irish or Welsh Bishop, ordaineth one at London in his chamber, or in some Chapel, and admitteth him that commended the person to him, for to join with him, for fashion sake, in the gesture of hands-imposing, be he of what place or Diocese soever, in whom is the po●er o● Ordination? If the Bishop of London, ordaineth a minister at large, and biddeth his Chaplain, or Chaplains, do so much as add their hands to the business, isthere power in the Chaplain, more than in any other, that by chance may be present? Power of Ordination is not given (by our Laws) to individua vaga, that is to say, Vagrant men, of whom the Law taketh no notice, such as were wont to be called Hedge-Priests, but to authorized Prelates. These are toys, to mock the Church (if not God) with. Such do were never heard of in that Church which deserveth the title of Primitive. Of Excommunication, the same answer is given; and so the same answer may serve. 
johannes Hone, Legum Doctor, Offi●ialu, &c omnibus & singulis Rectoribus etc. Cum nos rite & legitime procedentes, omnes & singulos, quor●m nominae subscribuntur, etc. excommunicando● fore decree verimus; cumque discretus vir, M Roulandus Allen, Presbyter, eos d●m ex officio nostro mero excommunicaverit in scriptu: vobu igitur committimus, etc. ut palam denuncietis etc. Datum sub figillo Officialitatis nostra, die tali, anno tali.  Let this only be added, that therein, the Bishop hath such absolute power, that he may derive the same to his Chancelours, Commissaries, Officials, & such like Underlings, to be dispensed by them, even unto the commanding of God's Ministers for to denounce their Censures, without any discerning what equity there is in the cause, and what assistance of Ministers is required, appeareth by this style: john Hone, Dr. of Law official etc. to all Rectors, etc. For as much as we (proceeding rightly and lawfully) have adjudged all and every one, whose names are under-written to be excommunicated; and since the discreet Mr. Roland Allen Priest, hath excommunicated them, by our mere office in writing; we do therefore commit to you etc. to denounce openly, etc. given under the Seal of our Officiality, such a day, and such a year. If any footsteps of such an approved power could be showed in the Primitive Bishops, all Christians might merveyl at so sudden and monstrous a defection. But both Defend. and rejoined. know, that it is a relic of Popedom.   

Calling of Ministers, without express consent of the Congregations over which they are set.  
5. The quaestion was whether any such tingh was in the Primitive Church? The rejoinder his answer is affirmative; that it seems there was such a thing: because ●●. It is said only of the Apostles, that they ordained Elders ●o the Churches, Act. 14.23. and Titus, Tit. 1.5. appointed ●he Ministers. 2. Sometime Ministers were chosen by prophecy; and sometime by lot. 3. The people's consent was not held ●f divine necessity. For the grave Council of Laodicea, Can. ●3. restrained the people from choice of their Ministers. Beside, ●he people of this Land have given their implicit consent in Parliament, to such as the Patrons and Bishops call: And if ●hey do their parts, it is as well, and sometime better, then if ●hey were chosen by the people. Finally, God hath not forbidden our manner of calling Ministers, nor commanded the other. Where 1. let it be marked, that the quaestion was only of ●he people's consent; concerning which the rejoinder ●n all these words, answereth just nothing. 2. The first place he bringeth against the people's election, Act. 14.23. is the chief place, which Protestants use to bring for it; as Bellarmine (de Clericis. lib. 1. cap. 7.) observeth of it. 
Hoc Argumentum ●ex Act. 14 est pr●cipuum sundamentum Illyrici, calvin's, Kemni●ij, & aliorum.  This argument is the chief foundation of Illyri●us, Calvin, Chemnitius, and uthers. Of Bellarmine's answer, the rejoinder makes an Argument, against our Divines, who have confuted that answer, and so sufficiently answered his Argument, long before he framed it: which yet he taketh no knowledge of, but nakedly propoundeth it, as if this were the first time of beating it off the stage. It is (saith he) only said of the Apostles, & not of the Churches, that they did ord●yn Elders. Act. 14.23. So (say I) it is only said of the Apostles, and not of the Churches, in the very same verse, that they did pray and f●st: doth it follow from hence, that the Churches had no hand, part or consent, in prayer and fasting? If not, than neither doth the only mentioning of the Apostles in creating Presbyters, exclude the people's formal choice, much less their consent. If any man desires large and full clearing of the place, he may find it in I●nius his Notes on Bellarmine, Contr. 5. lib. 1. cap. 7. annot. 59.63.64. where the Conclusion is, that Bellarmine doth in this argument nugari, nothing but trifle, disjoining things that ought to be conjoined, as if there were a contradiction betwixt these two Propositions: The Apostles ordained; the Churches ordained. If the rejoinder would have brought a fitting example, he should have showed us, that Paul, or Barnabas, being at jerusalem, ordained a Minister, and sent him to Antioch, Iconium or Lystra, signifying by letters, that such a man was appointed their Pastor, though they never knew, or heard of him before. For that had been something like unto the practice of a Bishop, who upon the Patron's praesentation, whersoever he be, sendeth his Minister from the place, or Palace of his residence, unto a Congregation 20.30. or 40. miles of; which poor despized People, must be content, with tolling of a Bell, as sufficient notice given of their Minister's fitness, and their necessity to acknowledge the same. 3. In the second place Tit. 1.5. whereas our translation hath, that Titus was to ordain Ministers, the rejoinder turneth ordaining into appointing, and I may better turn it into setting, or placing. Now (which soever translation be admitted) the Rejoy. ●is argument is lighter than a feather, except it be supposed that Titus could not effect that Ministers should be in every Church of Crete, neither by, nor with the Church's consent: which is too absurd a proposition for ●ny reasonable man to father. Take the Rej his translation in ordinary rigour; Our King doth appoint Bishops; and yet they are not placed in their Seats, without some kind of consent and election of others. And yet I hope the Rej. himself will not say, that Titus took so much upon him, as this cometh to.  
4. As for choosing Ministers by Prophecy, that was very extraordinary, and therefore hath no place in the question of ordinary calling. Yet 1. Prophecy did no less require the concurrence of the Church's consent, in an ordinary Minister, than it did the Presbyteries ordination in Timothy's person. 1. Tim. 4.14. It was only an extraordinary cause of that consent, which otherwise should have been grounded on the persons qualification. Prophesy also or Vision did sometime follow the Church's election, as in Celerinus, of whom Cyprian (Epist. 34. ed. Goulart.) recordeth: 
Cum consentire dubitaret Ecclesiae, in visione, per noctem, compulsus est, no negaret.  When he wavered about consenting to the Church, by a vision of the night he was forced to assent.  
5. As for election by lot, I do not think any example can be given of it, wherein the Church's election of diverse persons betwixt whom the lot should design, with their consent, did not concur.  
6. As for the Primitive Church's tenet of Divine authority, nothing can be proved out of the Council of Laodicea, which was after julian's time. The Synod of Africa (Epist. 68 Cypr. ed. Goul.) doth inform us thus: The people itself hath power both to choose worthy Priests, and to refuse unworthy ones. The which also we see to come from Divine authority. 
Plebs ips● maxime habet potestatem vel aligendi dignos sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi. Quod & ipsum videmus de Divina autheritate descendere, etc.  Yet Calvin answereth, that even that Laodicean Council did not restrain from election, but only from disorderly electing, by themselves. And is therein learnedly seconded against Bellarmine's rejoinder, by junius, in Bell. Cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. 7.  
7. As for implicit consent in Parliament, it maketh nothing to the question. And yet it cannot be proved, that every thing decreed by Parliaments, have the Churches implicit consent. For then the Church did implicitly consent unto all the alterations of religion, in King Henry's, King Edward's, Q. Maries, and Q. Elizabeth's days, how opposite soever they were one to another, neither can it be showed lawful, for the Churches of Christ, to leave their privileges which Christ hath given them, to the pleasure of any Parliament.  
8. To say, that the Patrons and Bishops sending without the Church's consent, is as good, or better than the Churches free consent, well ordered, and directed; is all one as to say, it is as good, or better, that Women should be married without their consent, then with it.  
9 As for the final answer, I refer the Reader partly to that already said, and partly to D. Ames his answer unto Bellarmine, tom. 2. lib. 3. cap. 3.   

Ministers going to law for their places.  
6. The question is, if this was known in the Primitive Church? It is rejoined 1. that Bishops were often inquestion at Synods, about their title to their places, which was as much. But 1. This was not in the Apostles time. 2. Questioning before Synods, about Ecclesiastical affairs, is of Ecclesiastical nature; going to law, not so. In Synods all things ought to be determined by God's Word: at the King's Bench, and Assizes, the judges pronounce sentence by man's law. Yet the good ancient Bishops, were so fare from seeking a title to their places, by Synodical judgement, that they withdrew themselves, as being afraid to have such a title put upon them, either by Churches or Synods: examples of which modesty, we have even in declining times, Basil, Gregory etc. A law we find also (Cod. de Epist. & Cler.) mentioning the same disposition: 
Tantum ab ambitu debet esse sepositus Antistes, ut quaeratur congedus, rogatus, recedat, invitatus, effugiat: sola illis suffragetur necesittas excusandi. Profecto enim indignus est sacerdotio, nisi ordinatus fuerit invitus.  The Prelate ought to be so fare from ambition, that nothing but compulsion should draw him, though he be desired, let him give back, and when invited, let him shift, etc. For certainly he is unworthy the office of Priesthood, unless he be ordained unwillingly. Certainly, these men would never have sought those places by course of law, which they hardly accepted, being obtruded upon them. 2. The rejoinder saith, Lawing about places ariseth upon the title of Patronage, a civil inheritance. Whereas the question is not from whence it ariseth, but if it appeared in the face of the Primitive Mother-Church? This answer is as much as to say, our Church hath a special wound, or sore in her face, which the Primitive Church had not; and therefore must have a plaster upon it now, in those times unknown: that is, our face doth not lively represent that face, which is the question. Beside, if the lawing be necessary, about the Patrons civil title, what hath the Minister to do with it, except ambition or covetousness, doth cause him to take other men's business upon him, for his own advantage?   

Pluralists, Nonresidents, Dumb-Ministers.  
7. About these, the Rejond. confesseth that they are the sore of our Church, but not allowed, or tolerated, further than Mr. Hooker showeth. Now 1. If they be sores, being also in the face, that is, our chief eminent, Convocation men, bearing them in their foreheads, surely they must needs does figure the Primitive face. 2. Though I have no more leisure to seek and confute Mr. Hooker's mitigations, than the rejoined. had to allege them; yet I dare say, if the Stues be tolerated, and allowed at Rome, th●se sores are tolerated, and allowed in England, they are as well known; more publicly professed; they are practised in the Bishop's Palaces; and not only the Court of Faculties, but most Bishops do gain by them. But (saith the Rej.) If you can tell us the Certain and safe remedy of this sore, I am persuaded the Church will thank you. But I am neither so persuaded of the Convocation-Church, not yet that the rejoinder himself is so persuaded Men do not usually give thankes, for that which formerly they did not desire, and if this Church had desired a remedy, the Convocation-men would long since have begun (according to their skill and power) with themselves, their Chaplains, the Benefices in their gifts, etc. They would also have harkened unto Parliament-remedies of wise and careful Physicians, which have been often prescribed, prepared, tendered, & almost applied, but by the Convocation-men, refused, and opposed, as the world knoweth, and the Rej. is not ignorant of it. In the clouse of this question, the Rej. insinuateth, and (as half ashamed) only insinuateth a secret distinction, betwixt carelesse-Non residents, and another kind, of them that are careful: the former of which he affirmeth to have been often condemned, though never remooved. Of which distinction, as being left obscure, I cannot speak so much as I muse. Only this: Careful Nonresidents seem to be such as have great care to get some pretence in Court, University, or some great man's house, for absenting themselves from their charges (which God hath laid upon them, if they be lawfully called) and some care to provide a tolerable Curate, for supplying their places. Now these the Rej. seemeth to excuse, for which they are more beholding to him, than the Churches are, upon whose spoils they live, and aspiring by them unto higher places. And as for the careless Nonresidents, how cometh it to pass, that non conformity can as easily be remooved, as condemned; and such condemned felons as these, be so long reprived, after their condemnation? Certainly, if they were as great enemies to the Bishop's kingdom, as they are to Christ's, a quicker dispatch would have been made of them.   

Simony.  
8. Of this, it was asked, if it were so ordinary either in the Primitive Church, or (almost) in the Popish, as it is in England? Hear the rejoined. venteth a proverb, that almost saveth many a lie; adding, that the Papists faces are washed with fair water, and foul water cast upon us: and then telleth of a Canon imposing an oath for prevention of Simony: and not only the guilty man looseth his place, but the Patron his title, for that time. Now though all this be nothing to the Primitive Church's face, yet it is not so to be passed over. For (to begin with the last) 1. The course taken against Simony, which he speaketh of, is no Canon of the Convocation house, but a Parliament-law. Canons (I hope) do not deprive Patroness of their title, which they have by civil inheritance, as the rejoinder told us even now. 2. This oath imposed (if it be generally urged) doth make our English Simony worse than that which is found among Papists, as adding perjury unto it. 3. Because the Rej. will not take the considerate limitation of almost, in other sense, then as if it were the cover of a lie, I am content it be left out, and then desire him to prove the assertion a lie. If he cannot, it had been sufficient for him (who so familiarly accuseth others of scurrility) to have denied that which was said, putting us to prove it. And prove it we can (so fare as vices of that nature use to be proved) by the general voice, even of conformable men. Doctor Andrew's (long since) in a latin Sermon before the Convocation, told them enough, after his playing fashion: They give out, 
Non solum nos minoritas, vel pecuniâ, vel pejori conditione, Rectorias nostras paciscimur, sed & yet Majoritas, sic Cathedras vestras, vel pacuniarum summis, vel Ecclesiarum spolijs, foede canponari vulgò dictitant Quo morbo male iamdiu & habet, & andit Ecclesia nostra.  that not only we Minorites do with money, or more basely purchase our Parsonages, but also you Majorities do either with great sums of money, or with the spoils of the Churches, unworthily hukster your Cathedral places, of which disease our Church hath long been sick, and for which it hath long been ill spoken of: Did his fere, or almost all save a lie? Ifit did then, now it hath not so much to save. For many conformable men, will almost (if I may use that word with good leave) swear, that nothing hath hindered them all their days, from Benefices, and kept them in Curateships, but only the general abuse of Simony. Every Page, and Lackey, at the Court, and many Scriviners, can tell, how much this and that Bishop, or Deane, gave to such or such a Buckingham; and how much the said Bishop received from his under Officers, and other, by him promoted. Neither is all Simony in buying of Benefices, and Bishoprickes. Selling of Visitations (which is an usual practice of our Prelates) and such like tricks are in the same nature in the fourth degree. 4. As for washing the Papists faces with fair water, the rejoinder may as well say, that he washed Sodoms face with fair water, who said, that Israel, and judah, had justified Sodom in her abominations.   

Profane contemners of Religion, members of the Church.  
9 The question was, if so many such, were members of any Primitive Church? This the rejoinder doth not affirm: but denieth any members of our Church to contemn professedly our Religion. Which I leave to the judgement of every Reader; if he doth not know some in England, who contemn Religion? I would to God, the rejoinder were (in this point) on the true part, and and the Replier on the false. But when the practice of Religion is derided on stages, and that derision applauded by so many spectators, when those that make conscience of sin, be they never so conformable, are scorned by so many, as Puritans; when in all Pulpits that are possessed of good Preachers, warning is ordinarily given, of scoffers and scorners at Religion: I think the Rej. will not find so many assenting to this negation, as he shall to the point of Conformity. His meaning is such, that by the same reason, it may be said, there is no professed contemner of all Christian Religion, among the Papists, nor of all Religion, among the Turks.   

Carnal proceed in Spiritual Courts.  
10. The quaestion was, if such courses were in the Primitive Church? The rejoinder confesseth no. But (saith he for excuse) they are not instituted, nor allowed by our Church. The confession I accept: the excuse cannot be excused. Are not those courses instituted, or allowed, which are every day practised, in the Bishops, Chancelours, Commissaries, and Officials Courts? Is it not the Church that practiseth these things? Doth the Church neither institute, nor allow that which it continually practiseth? The rejoinder in his Definition of a Ceremony, confoundeth Institution and Observation: now, constant observation is without any institution. Is our Church a Medea, in professing, she alloweth better things, and professedly practiseth worse; meliora video, pro●oque; deteriora sequor? If this be true, what need any man make any conscience of those Excommunications, which sent from our Spiritual Courts, fly about the whole land, to fetch in money? the Church doth not allow them. It is no scurrility (I hope) to repeat that which D. Andrues preached to the Convocation-house: The Church-Censures now adays do only touch the purse. 
Censurae Ecclesia, solam jam crumenam pulsant. Malefici, ubs stipem persolverint, dimittuntur impuniti. Stipem si nulli numereut, si nummus in promptu non est, tum vero disringitur in eos mucro Epis●opalis: confestim, uno ictu abscinduntur ab Ecclesia, Sathama traduntur, publicani, ethnici, anathema denun●ia●tur. Ridiculis in rebus, idque in optimum quemque volitant bruta fulmina, & soli metuenda crumena.  Evil doers when they have paid their fee return scot-free. If no money then have at the offenders with the Episcopal sword; praesently one blow they are cut off from the Church delivered over unto Satan, proclaimed Publicans, Heathens, Anathema. For the most ridiculous things, and against every good man, these brutish thunderbolts do fly up and down, and only to be feared of the purse.   

Taking of money, for Ordination, Citations, Absolutions, Change of Paenance, etc.  
11. Concerning any show of these abuses, in the Primitive Church, our rejoinder hath nothing to say▪ He turneth himself therefore to deny, or defend them, 〈◊〉 our Church, so well as he can. 1. No man with ●● (saith he) may take money for Ordination. To which I answer, if may be understood of a lawful may, I think it i● true, not only of our Church, but also of Rome, as may be gathered out of the fift Session at Trent. But such mays are kept in the pocket, both there, and here, whe● the contrary may, de facto, appeareth publicly in the face and forehead. If any one Minister be ordained, o● instituted, without giving of money, a hundred other may wonder at him, and the Star or Planet, that was then over the place. 2. As for Citations, and Absolutions▪ they (saith the rejoinder) are things of industry, necessarily to be recorded, and therefore money may be taken for them. As if there were more industry in Absolution, then in Ordination, in Baptism, or any other Ecclesiastical Act! o●ther were more necessity of recording Absolution, than Ordination, or Baptism! And if there were such a difference, or if all these required industry in recording of them, I hope the revenues, and incoming of our Bishops may suffice for that industry, without new exactions of money. 3. He affirmeth Commutation, or Panance to be grounded on Exod. 21.29.30. where it is written, that the price of an Ox, or Bull, may be taken for he head: and it is allowed (addeth the rejoinder) by ●. Aims, Cas. Consc. lib. 5. cap. 54. num. 48. where he ●●yth, that the party condemned to pay twenty pound fine, may lawfully pay it, before it be required, to escape the extorting ●f forty pound, or a greater mischief. But if either this, or ●hat, make any thing for changing the public confession of a scandalous sin, into paying of money; I leave (with this whole comparison o● faces) as the Rejoyn●er doth, to the jury of discreet, unpartial, and honest ●en.    

SECT. 7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20. Counsels, and Ancient Writers.  
THese testimonies were as illustrations briefly brought in of the Abrigers: but largely ranked by the Defender into so many sections, as 〈◊〉 the main burden did lie upon them. The Replier ●●erfore conjoined them in brief: and so will I not pas●●ng upon the rejoinder his many words; who saith 〈◊〉. That in the Abrigement, they fill seven whole pages: ●hen as these answered by the Defend. in 14. Sections, make in the Abrigement, little more than one page. 〈◊〉. He desireth us also to help their dulness, who cannot distinguish, betwixt testimonies, and proofs. To which, ●hough it be but skornfully propounded of them that accuse us of dull Sophistry, cap. 2. sect. 11. I answer, that common use of speech doth show a difference, betwixt some testimonies or witnesses, and proofs. For all good Christians are said to give witness unto God and his truth, but not properly to prove either God, or his Word.  
2. Out of a Carthaginian Synod, two things were alleged: 1. that certain Altars in high ways, erecte● in memory of Martyrs, should be abolished. 2. Tha● all relics, and monuments of Idolatry should be utterly destroyed. In the first, the Replier confessed, that there is nothing express to our purpose: because those Altar are noted which are destitute of Martyr's relics. Ye● (saith he) there was as good reason, for abolishing other as them. No (answereth the rejoinder) because by th●s● Altars destitute of relics, the Church was mocked. And s● was the Church mocked (say I) by those which had relics in them: not only because they had no certain rule of discerning true relics from false; but also, because they were by such means induced, to place a special holiness in those places, and led-on to the invocation of Saints departed.  
The second place is expounded by the Defend. an● rejoined. only of Idols and immediate instruments of Idolatry: which cannot be true, except all places groves an● green trees (there mentioned) which had served to the use of notorious Idolatry, were immediate instruments. And if that were so, why not, or were not once ou● Ceremonies as immediate? Because (saith the rejoined, they were rather subjects of superstition. Which is a new nothing. For subjects often are all one with objects, and ma●y objects of superstition are Idols. Places were rather subjects (distinct from objects) than Images, such as our Cross is. The sum is (●ayth the rejoinder) that synod in the former Canon, reform and continued a hu●an Ceremony notoriously abused to superstition: and in the ●ater, were zealous against all monuments of idolatry. Zealous indeed they were against known Idolatry: but ●hey did not discern all the superstitious and idolatrous ●eedes, which at that time were springing up among ●hem, in immoderate and unwarrantable honouring of ●aints. As for their reformation of Altars with relics, 〈◊〉 was no more, then diverse Popish Synods have professed to do. But this I would have marked, that Altars ●ith Relics honoured as they were in those days, are now with the rejoinder accounted good religious Ceremonies.  
3. A council of Braca, or some other (it is all one) forbade Christians to deck their houses, etc. in such ●aner, and at such time as Idolaters did, that is saith the ●ef. and Rej. at the same time, in the same place, and man●er. This the Replier accepted: and assumeth, that ours ●iffer not in these circumstances, but in opinion only.  
The rejoinder here first rejoineth, that this Canon ●s to be understood so, as if it had said, we must not keep the festivall-dayes of Pagans, with them, as they do: but may ●eepe in a Christian manner unto God, the same days, which ●hey observed impiously to the service of the Devil. Now let this be understood, for me (though his marginal quotations prove it not) in his sense, Chrysost. hom. 1. de Laz. speaking of no more Christian observing that day, than the day following. Hesternum diem, etc. A●e it●que & hodie, etc. And more ancient testimonies may be brought even against sending of Newyeares' gifts, at tha● time (Tert●ll. de Idol. cap. 14.) Let this (I say) be granted: yet the allegation is strong to our purpose, except it can be showed, that our Ceremonies have no mo●● agreement with the Papists, then preaching and praying upon New-year's day, hath with the Pagans idolatrous luxury, upon the same day; or that they have not th●● proportion unto Popish Ceremonies, which bay leave● and green bows used of Christians would then have ha● to Pagans bay-leaves, and green bows.  
After this, the Rej. taketh great pains in a large digression, that our Ceremonies differ from the Papists Ceremonies in time, place, person, and not in opinion only. Whic● is very little to the purpose except lawfulness and unla●fulnesse do depend on that difference of time, place, an● person. For the Replier did here respect those passages, wherein the Defendant flieth only to opinion fo● succour, in differencing our Ceremonies from Popisme that ours may be lawful, though the Papists be unlawful: as cap. 2. sect. 6. Yet ●ee in short what the Rej. ha●● found out.  

Surplice.  
1. It must (saith the Rej.) among Papists be hallowed or consecrated. But this is nothing to time, place, and person: neither is consecration of Surplices more unlawful, then of Altars, Churches, and Churchyards.  
2. Among Papists, no act of ministerial service may be lawfully performed without it, except the mass. This is not ●rue in either part. For they preach without Surplices though diverse in England hold them on in the Pulpit) ●nd the Masse-garment of linen, Pontifical surplice; ●nd many times put over the Surplice. So the rejoined. himself testifieth in his third difference: which therefore answereth itself, and their practice of putting on more magnifical vestures, at high Masses, or high places, either upon that, or without that, is sufficiently practised, according to our Canons, in Cathedral Church's, Copes.  
4. They in Popery pin a number of mystical significations upon the parts of it. But this pertaineth to opinion, not to ●ime, place or person: and containeth no difference, save only in number.   

Crossing.  
1. The Minister (saith the rejoinder) with us, may not cross himself, the people, or other things. Now though this be nothing to the purpose, yet I would fain know, out of what Canon, he fetcheth this may not with us? And if there were any such, upon what reason it is grounded, that will not take our crossing of the baptised person, by the nose?  
2. With us, the child may not be crossed before Baptism, nor after, with Chrisme-oyle. But of that same may not before, I ask as before. And as for crossing with oil, I would be informed, what religious difference there is, betwixt dry Crosses, and oil, as G. Parisiensis distinguisheth them?  
3. The Cross is so used with us, that it neither addeth virtue to the Sacrament, nor capacity of grace to the child. No more it is among the Papists, by the judgement of many learned, as hath been showed in the first part of this writing (though this be but matter of opinion, which concerneth not the present question) See Thomas Aquinas, 3. q. 66. a. 10. But why is it used? To intimate what Baptism bindeth unto. That is, to do that by man's institution, which Baptism had done by God's appointment. Whether this be a good reason or no, I here inquire not: this I affirm; The Papists profess the same.   

Kneeling.  
1. This gesture (saith the rejoinder) may before, 〈◊〉 by occasion of any of God's ordinances, be performed lawfully to God. By occasion, I grant: but before importeth more, Might the jews kneel before the Cherubims of the Veil, as they might before the Ark? Might they kneel before the Brazen-Serpent? Might they before every Ephod? May we before every Pastor? When the Rej. hath resolved these questions, we shall further consider.  
2. The gesture of kneeling, in the act of receiving, was never any instituted Ceremony of the Church of Rome. Then the rejoinder deceived us, when in his Manuduction, pag. 30. he told us, that institution, and intended observation, are all one. For he himself confesseth, in the next page, 479. that among the Papists, the receivers of the Host, do kneel, of an ancient custom. Custom surely, ancient, and constant, hath (by all law) more in it, than every intended observation.  
3. Bellarmine and the Mass-book, mention not kneeling in the act of receiving. They mention not indeed the people's kneeling; because they make small account of their receiving, the mass being complete without it, and that being (with them) an accidental compliment of it. But they mention the Priests bowing to the Host many times, in his receiving.  
4. The Pope himself receiveth the Host standing. The Pope is a lawless man, and may do what he please, as also impose what he please upon others. But yet, in the place quoted (Sacrae Ceremoniae, lib. 2. pag. 181. Colon. 1558.) no such thing appeareth. In the page next before, I find this: The Pope boweth low, at the coming of the Sacrament, and reverently adoreth it. And one thing (worthy of observation) concerning the Pope's receiving, I find in Alexander Hales, 
Si quaratu● quare Dominus Papa sodendo communicate, potest dici, quod he fit in recordotionem quod beatus Petrus, & alij Aptstoli sedendo corpus Dom●ni in c●n● ultimo acceperunt.  (in the last words of the second part of his Tractate concerning the Mass, which is the tenth question of his fourth part) that the Pope was wont to receive sitting, in imitation of Peter and the other Apostles, Confirming that which our Defend. and rejoinder doubt of. If it be asked wherefore Sr. Pope receives sitting, it may be answered, in memory of B. Peter, and other Apostles, who ate the last Supper sitting. This may by some be imputed to the Pope's great pride, for that as it is in that book of Ceremonies which the rejoinder quoteth, 
Romanus Pontifex nemini exonino mortalium overentiam facit, assurgendo manifestè, aut caput inclinando, seu detegendo.  pag. 160. The Romish Bishop doth reverence to no man under heaven, by rising up to him, or by inclining, or uncovering his head. So it may be thought from the same principle, he doth not reverence to the Host. But I the rather assent to Alexander Hales, because I have read some where, I think it is in Hospinian de Templis, that the Pope hath no Organ-piping-musicke in his Church or Chapel. And these I account the relics of ancient simplicity, in worship, which the Pope received from the first Bishops of Rome, and regarded not to make alterations of, without advantage.  
5. The People which receive not, do reverently bow themselves. Much more therefore they that receive.  
6. True it is, the receivers do kneel, of an ancient c●stome; but only for conveniency of putting the Host into their mouths, by the Priest. The former part indeed is true. But the latter is so false, that the Lutherans themselves, who as Apes of the Papists in this part, put the Host into the receivers mouth, in like manner as they have received the custom from the Papists, 
Tarnovius de ministerio, lib. 2. cap 31. Pratermittendo hanc venerastionem Christi externam (genu flectionem scit) communicantes praesentiam Christi secundum corpus, negare, & see Calvinianis conjungere viderentur.  profess, and maintain, that they do it for adoration. By omitting this outward veneration of Christ (viz. kneeling) the people seem to deny Christ's bodily presence with the Calvinists. All these things being well considered, it will be found, that (opinion of some set aside) our Ceremonies differ not so much from Papists, as the Popish shaving of Crowns do differ from that which was in use among jews, and Gentiles, of shaving whole heads, according to Baronius his distinction, and an. 58. or then the Britons square shaving of crowns did differ from that round shaving, which Augustine the Monk, sent by Gregory, enforced upon them: wherein Pitsens a Papist, in his historical relations of England, pag. 19 doth note one part of that Controversy to have consisted: or rather (to return unto the argument of this section) the difference is (by the Rej. his plea) as if Christians should have in old time, hung out bay-bowes, unconsecrated, out of an upper-chamber, in the afternoon; when the Heathenhung them out consecrated, before noon, in their lower chamber; and that upon institution, when the Heathen did it only upon an ancient received custom. Are not these fine distances from idolatrous, and superstitious abuses?  
4. An African Council condemned certain Feasts used in memory of Martyrs, because they were drawn from the errors of the Gentiles. This the Replier affirmed to make against our Ceremonies. The rejoinder answereth 1. That this is not enough to defend the Abridgement, nor to oppose the Defendants answer. But if the Ceremonies be hereby condemned, it is all that the Abridgement sought for; and as much opposition to the Defend. as the Replier cared for. He answereth 2. That the Council doth not condemn any Feasts used by Christians, 
Illad etiam petendum (ab-Imperatoribus) ut quae contra praecepta divinae, convivia multis in locis exercentur, quae aberrero Gentili attracta sunt, etc. vetari talia i●beant.  but only the very Feasts of the Heathens. But it seemeth otherwise, so fare as I can construe these words of the Council: And this we are to seek of the Emperors, that such Feasts as are in many places contrary to God's Word, and from the errors of the Gentiles, be forbidden. I remember not any such phrase of those times, wherein Gentiles are said to draw from the errors of Gentiles. They did certainly traduce Feasts unto Christians, finding them too ready for to draw such things from them. They were not Heathens, that are spoken of, in the third Council of Toledo, cap. 22. The people that should attend divine Service, give themselves to unseemly dance. 
Fopule qui debens off●cia divina attendere, saltationibus turpibus invigilant, etc.  Hospinian (de Orig. Fest.) after Beat. Rhenanus, in Ter●ul. de Coron mil. speaking of these, and such other Feasts, declareth the truth in these words: The old Bishops were wont when they could not call men from the superstitions of the Heathens by the preaching of the Word, to seek at least to do it by observing their holy days, with their own worship. But this was to drive out one nail with another, no way to take off the Superstition. Albeit then the beginning of these Solemnities were tolerable at first, yet at last they grew to such a heap of superstitions, that they became the fountain and beginning of most horrible things. 
Voluere veter●s Episcopi, quum ipsi pradicatione verbi non possunt homines à superstitionibus Gentilium avocare, saltem hac ratione mitigare, & in fuam religionem transferre voluere, sui● Sanctis sosdem dies & ritus consecrando. fuit aut●m hoc clavum clavo ●rudere, superstitionem non ●ollere. Licet igitur principia hujusmodi solemnitatum tolerabilia primo fuerunt, adm●xti●tamen palarim superstitionibus, tandem fons & origo horribilium errorum, & superstitionum fu●run●.  Yet suppose the meaning to be of Heathen Feasts, the reason notwithstanding (drawn from the errors of the Gentiles) pertaineth to Christians, except Christians may draw from the error of Gentiles, though Gentiles may not. In the 3. place the Rej. undertaketh to prove, that the Council did establish those Feasts of Martyr's: because the petition made for abolishing Heathen Feasts, was to provide for the due and free observation of the Martyr's Feasts. Whereupon he concludeth, that the Church may lawfully make use of an human Ceremony, for her good; though the same kind of Ceremony, have been notoriously abused, by, and to Idolatry. And in the parting, he giveth us gentle thankes for these Witnesses. Now 1. for his thankes, the matter is not so much worth. We can afford him (without any damage to our cause) ten times as many witnesses, who in their practice have confuted that, which sometime in their doctrine they have taught concerning Ceremonies. 2. I will grant him also, that it was not the in●ention of that Council, wholly to abolish the Celebration of Martyr's birth or death-days. Yet those Feast (Convivia) which were used at them, in imitation of the Heathen, they did (in all probability) labour to abolish. For Augustine, who was then alive, and is likely to have had a hand in the Decree, did wish them abolished. This appears every where in his writings: As Epist. 64. and ●19. And great reason there was for that, and more also. For the superstition, and luxury of them was intolerable. Those luxurious banquets (saith he▪ Epist. 64.) are supposed of the sorry people to be as well the solace of the dead as ●he honour of Martyrs, whosoever carry their meats thither which the better sort of Christians do not and almost all the World over is neglected) yet whosoever doth that will have ●hen sanctified by the merits of the Martyrs. 
Luxuriosa convivia in comiteriis, non solum honore● Martyrum, a carnal● & imperita pl●bo credi solons, sed etiam solatia mortuorum. de Civit. lib. 8. cae. 27. Queunqu● epula● suas ●o deferunt (quod quidem a melioribus Christianis non fit, & in plerisque terrarum ●ulla est talis consuetudo▪) tamen quienuqu● id faciunt, sanctificari ca● volunt per m●rita Martyrum.  And as for ●he Celebrations themselves, they were partly used by Christians, as the same Augustine saith (cont. Faustum.) For the Prayers and merits-sake of the Martyrs. If the Rejoinder holdeth this a due observation of a human Ceremony, and so teacheth, we have no cause to thank him for it.  
The Papists confess in deed, that there is no example of such Feasts in Scripture, much less precept: but yet they will hardly grant them to be human. 
Vt meritis Martyrum consocientur, atque orationibus adjuventur.  Baron. ad ●n. 58. We grant them to be human: but the common doctrine of Protestants deny them to have been duly observed at the least in that time, & in that manner which Augustine declareth, it being not only without example or precept of Scripture, but also directly against the rules of it.  
D. Abbot (Def. of Perk. pag. 886.) saith more, namely, that Offerings yearly made for the dead, and for birth-days, were first brought in by the Haeretick Montanus, who made gain of them.  
5. Tertullian (out of Coron. milit.) was cited in the Abr. thus: We may give nothing to the service of an Idol; nor borrow any thing from it. If it be against religion, to sit at table in an Idols temple; what is it, to be seen in the habit of an Idol. The Defender answered, he spoke of habits then dedicated and appointed unto the service of Idols: but our Ministers are not urged, to reverence the Masspriests brazen Idol, or to put on the very same Romish Surplice, now used at their Mass, even therefore, because it is Popish. Of this the Replier proveth, that this sameness is vainly alleged, and less than nothing. The rejoinder for succour, saith that this individual sameness was a straggling soldier, and confesseth it to be taken prisoner. But in an answer grounded on dissimilitude, where the same quality is affirmed of one thing, and denied of another, if that quality be straggling, in either part, and so taken prisoner, the whole answer must needs be held captive. And this captive soldier may easily be taught to fight against him from whom he was taken; as once (by report) it was in this manner: A Minister in Qeen. El. her days, was urged by his Ordinary to wear the Surplice, who after other delays, alleged, that the Surplice proffered him to put on, was the very same that the Masse-Priest was wont to sacrifice in: the Ordinary admitting that excuse, commanded another to be made: which being done, when it was brought him in the Church, he took it up, and spoke thus to those present: Good people, the Bishop himself confessed, that the former massing Surplice, was not to be worn by a Minister of the Gospel; and judge you if this be not as like that, as one egg to another? let this therefore go after the other: and so he justly c●st it away.  
Yet let us see what other soldiers the rejoinder can find in this squadron, not straggling and taken? There are words set down (saith he) in a different letter: dedicated and appointed. As if a different cassok did save a soldier from straggling! The business dependeth on him that weareth the cassok: and who was that soldier in the Defender his answer? or what was the thing dedicated and appointed, but the same individual habit? if other, than first show the congruity of the Defender his dissimilitude; and then show also, that other Crosses, and Surplices are not dedicated and appointed unto the service of Idols, by Papists. The Defender also (addeth the Rej.) adds, that the comparison betwixt Papists, and Pagans is not altogether so equal. He said in deed, that he would hereafter show such a thing: but with soldiers promised, or threatened only, I never knew any serious combat fought.  
After this, the rejoinder allegeth, that it cannot be said of these our Ceremonies, (as Tertullian said of the habits he opposed) that they were dedicated and appointed to the service of an Idol, from the first, and never used by any godly men. But first, this can be no good explication of those words: we may borrow nothing from an Idol: i. e. nothing which hath not been used by some godlyman. Secondly, he saith not, that no godly man had ever used Crowns. Thirdly, Every old usage of godly men, doth not lessen the Idolatry of it. For then sacrificing of Oxen, should now be less Idolatry, then of unclean Beasts. After these skirmishes, the rejoinder finding that there was no holding of ground with such soldiers as the Defender had mustered, presseth new▪ at his own charges. And first he bringeth in one persuasion, that Tertullia's clear and professed judgement, was directly against our assertion, and for conformity: because he saith▪ Finaly those things agree to our, 
●Ea d●mum nostra & superiorum usibus, & Dei rebus, & ipsi Christo compotisse, quae ●●eras utilitates, & certa subsidia, & honesty solatia, necessaris necessitatibus vita humana pro●ura●  and the use of others above us, and to the things of God, and to Christ himself, which indeed are profitable to the life of man. Meaning the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, Fire, Earth, and such like good creatures of God. If this be against us, than we are also against ourselves. For never any Nonconformist, in England, or (as I think) in the World, dreamt (no not in an ague) any thing to the contrary. And that this may directly make for Conformity, the rejoinder must show, how our Ceremonies are mere profitable helps unto the necessity of man's life? In the next place he maketh use of Diversion, alleging that Tertullian brought other arguments withal, against the Garland. But we keep our standing upon the argument of borrowing from the service of Idols: let others shift for themselves.  
Thirdly, he adjoineth Accusation, that Tertl●ian distempered; in bitter contention, and factious opposition, wrote ●hat b●oke against the Church: quoting for it, Renatus, or ●as I understand him) Rhenanus, and Doctor Abbot. But neither of these can help. For Rhenanus in the Argument of that book (de Coron. mil.) defendeth Tertul●●an, about the Garland; and showeth him to have main●●ed the same sentence in his Apollogie, which was his Master piece, written without distemper, and not equalled by the best tempered writing extant, of the same kind. doctor Abbot. speaketh sharply of Tertullian, for his maintaining of ceremonial traditions; wherein he was to ●e blamed: but not for his general rule of not borrowing 〈◊〉 the service of Idols: whereas the Defendant and Rejoinder allow those traditions, as appeareth in this Rejoinder, pag, 493. and oppose this rule. And it is most ●●rtaine, that Tertullian did not receive any distemper, or ●●ctious disposition from Montanus, against Ceremonies ●●used to Idolatry. For Montanus brought in the blood 〈◊〉 Children into the Supper, but about the Cross he did ●n the judgement of Doctor Abbot, and all our best divines.  
I have somewhat merrily answered, in this passage, ●y occasion of the Rej. his mentioning of a straggling soldier: if any man will accuse me therefore, 
Congruit & veritats ridere, quia latans de emulu suis ludere, quia socura est. Curandum plane, ne rifus ejus rideatur, si su●rit ìndignus. Caeterum ubicunque dignus r●sus, officium est.  of this or ●●at fault, as the rejoinder doth the Replier, upon like ●ccasion, Tertullian, whose cause I plead, shall make ●●y Apology: It will agree to truth to laugh, because it is ●f a pleasant disposition; and to sport with her competitors, ●●cause it is secure, and fears not the walls of her Bulwark. only this would be regarded, that our laughter be not unworthy lest it be laughed at, but if it be worthy, it may be a duty.  
6. Another place Tertullian (de oratione, cap. 11. & 12.) was objected, where he saith, that Christians might not wash their hands (for a Ceremony) or lay aside their cloaks, before prayer; nor sit upon their beds, after prayer; because the Heathen used to do so. The Def. his first answer being that these Ceremonies were not condemned merely for resemblance with Idolatry, but for opinion of necessity; it was replied, that Tertullian speaketh plainly: therefore it d●servethto be proved in us, because it is observed in the service of an Idol. To which the Rej. opposeth nothing, but that the Heathens might use their Idolatrous Ceremonies with opinion of necessity. Let it be so: yet Christians may be reproved for mere likeness unto them, though either they have not the same opinion, or the consideration of that opinion set apart. Merely doth not always signify only; nor can it so stand in the Def. his answer. For then thus he should speak: not only for resemblance, but (without any also) for opinion. If he did mean so, we say on the contrary, not only for opinion, but also for resemblance. So fare as I can understand the word merely for, it noteth not more, then is implied in Tertullias therefore it deserveth. A deserving cause is merely a cause, or else malefactors are not punished merely for their evil deserts. In the former testimony, out of Tertullian, pag. 484. the Rej. translated meras utilitates, any commodious use. If mere commodities, be all one with any commodities, then merely for resemblance is any thing at all for resemblance: and so the Def. denieth Tertullian to have condemned those Ceremonies he speaketh against, any thing at all for resemblance with Idolatry; which yet Tertullian doth as plainly speak, as ever he spoke any thing at all.  
B. jewel (said the Replier) doth urge these Testimonies of Tertullian, merely in regard of resemblance: of others it is not needful to speak. The Rej. answereth 1. that jewel doth not urge these Testimonies of Tertullian. But it is to be seen in his Def. Apol. par. 3. cap. 5. div. 1. how he citeth Tertullian de Coron. mil. and the Idol. with which the rejoinder will not deny, this (de Orat) to consent. 2. He citeth them (addeth the Rej.) not for unlawfulness, but for inconveniency of resembling Idolaters. Concerning this distinction, enough hath been said in the first part. Yet this here is worthy of observation; that both the Def. and Rej. in the first section of this fourth chapter, confessed, that human Ceremonies abused to Idolatry, are therefore unlawful, except they be of convenient necessity, as the rejoinder speaketh, pag. 406. What reason then had jewel, or hath the rejoinder in his name, to confess such Ceremonies inconvenient, and yet make them lawful? But that jewel understood Tertullian, to speak against such Ceremonies, as unlawful, it appeareth out of these his words: Tertullian disputes sharply therein, that a Christian may not wear a lawrell-crowne, and that for no ot●er cause, but because the Gentiles did so. 
Acriter in eam partem disputat Tertullianus, non licere homini Christiano, ceronam lauram gestare, idqu● non aliunde, nisi ob id modo, quia idem facere solebant Ethni●●.  I have only the latin edition at hand; and therefore quote it. But either the interpreter failed much, or else jewel expressly ●pake there of unlawfulness (non licere) and not of other inconveniency. The rejoinder his next answer dependeth only on that which was formerly confuted, namely, that merely is only.  
The Replier added, that it doth not appear out of Tertullian, that he respected opinion of necessity and efficacy, in these Ceremonies. For which, he is charged by the rejoinder, with offence, against men, simple, and learned, as also against God himself. And why all this? Because (forsooth) Tertullian saith, that such washings and cleansings, as many superstitiously affect, against every prayer, are not true; but those which we have in Christ, and in purification of the heart. But this is no sufficient ground for so deep an accusation. For if now one should admonish a Nonresident, who sendeth a reading Curate, to supply his place, in these words: This is not true fulfilling of your Ministry; but those personal offices, which are in Scripture enjoined; and the meaning of these words being questioned, one should deny, that by them it was implied, that the said Nonresident held it necessary for him, in conscience, to be absent, and send such a Curate for supply; would any man accuse the denier of offending against God and man? It was further observed by the Replier, that the washing condemned by Tertullian, had relation to Christ's delivering by Pilate, after washing of his hands, and so like unto our sign of the Cross, in regard of the original signification and use of it. The rejoined. answereth many words: but to the purpose (beside repetitions) he saith, that those washers did believe Pilate to have been cleansed by his washing, and so themselves by theirs, from guilt of sin. And this he gathereth from Tertullia's confutation: We adore Christ, and not deliver him: we should abhor the example of him that did deliver him. But out of these words no such collection can be made; any more than some like invention out of these: we adore Christ, and not crucify him: we should abhor the example of them that did crucify him, and left a Cross in the place, for a sign and memorial that he was crucified. That washing was a sign immediately of Pilat's washing, and so of Christ's delivering: our Cross is immediately a sign of Pilat's Cross, and so of our Saviour's crucifying. This is the likeness which the Replier truly noted.  
Concerning the Ceremony of Dossing cloaks, before prayer, the Defender put it off to opinion of necessity; because Tertullian in condemning it, hath these words: si sic oporteret, i. e. if it must be. It was replied, that our Prelates say also of our Ceremonies, sic oportet. i.e. It must be so, and yet disclaim absolute necessity. But (answereth the rejoined.) they held an internal simple necessity of conscience; not external only for order sake, as our Prelates do. Of this distinction, see the first part of this Suit. The collection of this opinion, from Tertullia's scoff; nisi si qui putant, except there be any so foolish as to have such an opinion is so palpably vain, that any man may see, he durst not impute that opinion unto those washers he spoke against; but only showeth, that from their practice, such a fond and absurd opinion, which themselves would condemn, might perhaps by some be collected, Tertullian spoke, as we now speak. If Crossing ought to be used in Baptism, the Apostles in their doctrine concerning baptising would have made some mention of it: except perhaps some think, that they did not then know, or cared not to use, the right or best way of signifying Christian valour, and constancy, in fight under Christ's banner.  
In oppsition to that which was alleged for Tertullia's respect unto opinion of necessity, and efficacy, in condemning those Ceremonies, it was replied, that he condemneth them only (that is, if they had but this fault alone) that they were empty observations, 
Vacua observationes, quibus vanitas merito exprobranda est, siquidem sine ullius aut Dominici, aut Apostolici praecepta authoritate fiunt. Mujusmodi enim, non religioni, sed superstitioni deputantur, affectata, & co. acta, & curiosi potius quam rationalis officij, certevel 〈◊〉 coercenda, quod Gentilibus ad. ●quent.  and to be worthily upbraided with vanity, as being done without any warrant from Christ or his Apostles. For such things serve not to religion, but to superstition, and are affected, and forced, and rather overcurious, than any thing rational at all, and even therefore to be restrained, they do so suit the Gentiles. Hear the rejoinder after a little touch upon the particle only, now expounded, answereth, that this was because of a● opinion of necessity, which is properly superstition: because the same Tertullian (de Coron. mil.) alloweth sundry human significant Ceremonies, held as free, and used for instruction. In which answer, the first part is manifestly false; if Tertullias own words may be heard: those Ceremonies are supervacuous and vain, which are used without any authority of Divine or Apostolical command, and are to be accounted superstitious: and even therefore to be repressed, because they make us (in some sort) like the Gentiles. The second part, which containeth a reason, is void of all truth. For 1. Tertullian did not account those Ceremonies human, but of Apostolical though unwritten tradition: Traditio auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, & fides observatrix. 2. For freedom, to allege this, is clean contrary to Tertullia's intention: because he went about to prove the necessity of abstaining from the Lawral-Croune, by the necessity of observing these unwritten traditions. 3. For instruction, I would be informed, what instruction there was, in Crossing, at every step, 
Adomnem progressum, atque prometum, ad omnem aditum, & exitum, ad vestitum, & calceatum, ad lavacra, ad mensas, ad lumina, ad subilia, & ad sedilia?  and going forward and at every turn, at clothing one's self, at washing, at bed, at board etc. 4. D. Abbot (whose judgement of Tertullian, the rejoinder commendeth, pag. 485.) in that very place which he commendeth (Def. Perk. pag. 883.884. etc.) saith plainly, that Tertullian defended those traditions against the Church; that therein he contradicted himself; and that those traditions were partly heathenish and haeretical devises. About Tertullian, nothing material followeth.  
7. Melchiades decreed, that no Christian should fast on the Lord's day, or friday, because it was a known custom of Pagans, to fast on those days.  
The rejoinder 1. saith one answer was, the incongruity of fasting unto the Lord's day. But this not being fetched out of Melchiades, the Replier justly passed by, and so will I, though enough may be said against it, as the Reader may see in the Altar of Damascus, pag. 669. etc. 2. He telleth us also of another answer, by a distinction, betwixt a light Ceremony, and a sacred solemnity. But this neither is in Melchiades, nor holdeth congruity either with Scripture, forbidding symbolising with Idolaters in light Ceremonies; nor with itself, the light Ceremony being sacred, and also a solemnity. 3. The rejoinder addeth out of his own store, that the prohibition was only of open and solemn fasting, not appointed by the Church. Which is as wretched an evasion, as the former: because the quaestion is of open and solemn Ceremonies; and Melchiades disallowed that any Church should appoint it, in condemning the thing without any distinction, or limitation, for a reason, that layeth more fault upon the Churches, if they should appoint it, then upon private persons, if they should observe it without appointment. For he groundeth his condemnation upon 2. Cor. 6. What concord hath Christ with Belial? What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? May the Temple of God have agreement with Idols, in Ceremonies, if the Church appoint so? 4. The rejoinder addeth a note out of a later Council, being a jury of twelve Bishops, wherein other phrases are used. Much good might it do them that can make any thing of it.  
The passage being thus cleared, let us now come to that which the Replier took for the Def. his only answer: Melchiades for bad fasting at the same time with Pagans, because they lived in the same Country, at the same time, and place. This (said the Replier) could not make the difference▪ because so little a distance may be betwixt one Country, and another, that it can bring up no difference of moment. The rejoinder answereth 1. that it was a reason of inconvenience only. But Melchiades said out of 2. Cor. 6. that it was to make the Temple of God agree with Idols. Is that only inconvenient, and not unlawful? And if it were nothing but inconveniency, was it not confessed, in the beginning of this Chapter, that Ceremonies Idolatrously abused, if they be not of convenient necessity, are unlawful? If this be so, then much more unlawful are they, if they be inconvenient. He addeth 2. that some place & time may make a difference: which the Replier denied not; but only said, that every distance of Country (such as is betwixt Dover and Calise, is not sufficient.  
8. Ambrose taught Monica, Augustine's mother, to leave bringing of Wine and Cakes to Church, because it had a show of conformity with the Gentiles funeral-feasts. The Defender answered, that it was an act of sacrificing, etc. as Bellarmine doth, the Sanctor. Beat. lib. 1. cap. 14. Nay saith the rejoinder Bellarmine neither so answered, nor had occasion so to answer. But if he had considered, that the Defender maketh this fact of Monicas, to be a sacrifice, derived from the Collyridian heretics; and that Bellarmine there answereth to the argument taken out of Epiphanius, against those Collyridians', as may appear by comparison of cap. 11. in the end; and that in the objection, there is no mention of sacrificing, but Bellarmin answereth by covert of that term; he would have forborn this censure.  
It was also pronounced an incredible thing, that Augustine's religious mother, should then sacrifice to a creature, which the Papists now will nor profess to do. To this the rejoinder is, that the Defender never said Monica did sacrifice. Consider therefore his words, reprinted by the rejoinder pag. 501. The act (objected) was sacrificing: You compare our Ceremonies, with Ceremonies of sacrificing. Did we object an act as comparative to our Ceremonies, any act, beside that of Monica? Certainly no. If therefore the act objected & compared, were a sacrifice, then Monicas act must needs in the Defender his account, be sacrificing.  
The other passages depend upon the difference now touched, until that answer of the Replier cometh in: Neither Ambrose, nor Augustine, nor Monica, his mother, regarded any thing in condemning that act, but only, lest any occasion should be given to intemperate ones of filling themselves beyond measure; and because these funeral rites as it were resembled the Superstition of the Gentiles. 
Ne ulla oc●asio ingurgitandi se, daretur eb●iosis: & quia illa quasi parentalia, superstitioni Gentilium ossont similuna.  The rejoinder here 1. denieth that Ambrose, Augustine, or Monica did condemn this act. Which is very strange; seeing Ambrose did publicly forbid it, by the rejoinder his confession; Monica hearing the reasons, was affected with them in her conscience, to forbear it; and Augustin applandeth them both. Yet the rejoinder hath reason's for his denial, such as they be: 1. Augustine saith his Mother's intention was good. 2. It was usual in Africa. 3. He thought that his Mother would not have been so taken-off from that custom by any beside Ambrose. 4. Ambrose did only restrain Monicas private devotion, as having publicly forbidden that manner, for a double inconveniency, not for unlawfulness.  
Now the first of these reason's import, that Augustin condemned nothing that was done of a good intention. The second implieth, that he condemned nothing that was usual in Africa. The third supposeth, that Christians are not more easily drawn from unlawful customs, by one man, then by another. The fourth contradicteth first itself, conjoining the restraining only of private devotion, with public forbidding; and secondly, the Defender and Replier who (in the beginning of this chapter) confess Ceremonies Idolatrously abused, to become unlawful, except they be of convenient necessity; and so much more, if they have a double inconveniency in them. The rest of this section doth only jar upon the same strings.  
9 To a grave sentence of August. (Hom. 6. de verb. Dom. in Matth.) If you ask how the Pagans may be won, enlightened, called▪ leave all their solemnities, and forsake their toys. The Defendant answered, that those solemnities and toys, are not to be used together with Pagans. The rejoinder addeth, that Augustine meaneth feasting with Idolaters, in the Temples of Idols, which could not be used apart from Idolaters. Suppose it were so: yet the question remaineth, whether using such toys of theirs apart, as may be used apart, make more for their conversion, or for their hardening, according to Augustine's judgement? But it is not so as the rejoinder imagineth. For 1. Augustine spoke of them, which were present at feasts, made at the solemnity of the Genius or Patron of Carthage, whom those Christians, he reproveth, denied to be an Idol. 2. All the Citizens of Carthage could not celebrate that feast in one Temple. 3. It doth not appear, that the Patron had any proper Temple. 4. The Citizens being parted into diverse places of feasting, why might not the Christians that would keep that feast, have one place apart? 5. Suppose the Christians had taken some part of the Banquet, or made one like it, and carried it into their own Temple, to use it there, with another opinion than the Heathen had; would Augustine have allowed it; 6. The case was at Carthage, as it was in Popish times, with the Company of Smiths at London, who after some worship done to their Patron, Dunstan, had a Feast in their Hall. Now if some Protestants refusing to be at their worship in Dunstan's Church should yet have been at their Feast in the Hall. I would know, whether they had more symbolised with Papists, in the worship of Dunstan, than our Conformists do in the worship of the Cross?  
That which is after added by the rejoinder out of other places of Augustine, concern not our present question: because there Augustine considereth not any relation unto idolatrous abuse. Neither by citing one general rule of Augustine's, did we bind ourselves to follow all his counsels.  
10. Concerning the Counsels of Nice forbidding Easter to be kept on the same day with the jews Passeover, the rejoinder maketh long work, to little purpose. 1. He saith (with the Defendant) that it was not for unlawfulness. 2. He confirmeth that answer, by a story of the business, marking, that the Council said about Easter, only, It seemed good to us. 3. He excepteth against the words, as they are cited in the Abridgement. And so spendeth many good words, and phrases, not requiring any confutation. Now. 1. Concerning the words, as they are found in constantines letter's patents, they were cleared before, cap. 3. sect. 6.2. The same, or like form of words, is used in the same Council about things unlawful, though not so desperately evil, as denying the Faith. 3. The succeeding practices, and censures, do show, that unlawfulness was understood. For presently after, those which kept Easter with the jews, were accounted a sort of Heretics, styled Quartadecimani. And what ruffeling, Augustine sent into England by Gregory, made against the ancient Britons, for dissenting in that observance, after, and out of other stories, Mr. Fox doth at large relate. But for such matters, I leave them (with the Replier) to those that are skilful in human traditions; not regarding that judgement of the Rejoinders. If you be not skilful in human traditions, you may hazard yourselves and others: because I doubt not, but skill in God's word alone, is sufficient against all such hazard.  
The reasons rendered by the Defendant, for the Nicene prohibition of keeping Easter as the jews, are three: 1. Hatred of the jews. 2. Because of the jews insultations. 3. For uniformity. Of the last, it was Replied, that uniformity might have been, if all could have been drawn to the same time with the jews. Which the rejoinder confesseth to be true, if they could have been drawn thereto as well. Where 1. He taketh it for granted, that all were well drawn to the time determined; the contrary whereof appeareth, as in others, so in our ancient Britons. 2. Well or ill, that is, easily or hardly, these make no difference in uniformity, but only in the means of accomplishing the same. The other two reasons are said by the Replier, to agree unto our Ceremonies; because we are to hate the Idolatrous superstitions of the Papists, with a perfect hatred; and the Papists insult over us, for borrowing our Ceremonies from them. About this (because it could not be denied) the rejoinder spendeth many words and phrases, partly Rhetorically good, and partly Morally not good; which I leave as I found: because there is no doing with them, but in great leisure, or in idle time.  
In the conclusion, it was asked by the Replier, for what causes many other Ceremonies of the Papists were abolished, if not for these two last named? or if the same causes that abolished them, would notsweep away these, if it pleased them who have the beezoms in their hand? About this the rejoinder first, referreth the Reader to a preface set before the Service-booke, and I am contented he should seek if he can find any such reasons there. Secondly, he addeth, that we which have not the bezome in our hands, should not shuffle abroad the dust with our feet. No more do we (say I) but only keep it out of our eyes, and throats, so well as we can, giving reasons, why the Sweeper's should not thrust it upon us, nor us for it out of the doors  
11. About the Gangrene forbidding fasting upon the Lordsday, many words are spent by the rejoinder. The sum is, that such fasting is there spoken of, as was performed out of an Heretical opinion, either of necessity so to do, or of contempt of the Lordsday. But this cannot be proved. For there being diverse different editions of that Council, none of them mention opinion of necessity: and in the ordinary greek copy, there is neither contempt, nor contumacy, named, as Binius noteth. Beside, opinions and contempts, as they are inward, cannot be noted by the Church. If they were outward, in word; than not so much the fasting upon opinion, as the opinion itself, was to be condemned. If the act itself was taken for a manifestation of such an opinion, that is it which we urge As for that accusation which is laid upon the Replier, for relating the Defendant his answer, so as if he had referred the matter unto contempt of Christian profession, that is remooved by the Defendant his own words, related by the rejoinder, pag. 521. Contempt, to wit, of the Christian profession. See before, in Melchiades his decree.  
12. The Council of Bracara, forbade abstinence from flesh, for avoiding of all suspicion in consenting to the Priscillian Heretics. This (saith the rejoinder) was in respect of inexpediency only. Let it be so: yet 1. They that forbade it, held it not lawful to be commanded, as our Ceremonies are. 2. Inexpediency, or inconveniency of Ceremonies notoriously known to be Idolatrously abused, maketh them unlawful, by the Defendant and rejoinder their own confessions, in the first section of this chapter: where convenient necessity is required, to make them lawful.  
13. Thrice dipping in Baptism, was condemned, by a Council of Toledo. It was added in the Abridgement, that Gregory alleged and approved this decree: and the Replier, named Leo in stead of Gregory. Hear the rejoinder catcheth hold of the names of Gregory, and Leo, and findeth matter for many words, in the account of their lives, not agreeing to the fourth Council of Toledo, where this was decreed. Now the Replier was (through haste) mistaken, as understanding the first Council of that place, for the fourth: and the Authors of the Abridgement, or their Scribes pen, misplaced the word allegeth: because the Council doth allege Gregory, 
Te●●atur modus ille quom Gregorius primus definivit. Tolet. 4 cap. 5.  and not Gregory the Council: Let that manner be held, which Gregory the first defined. These are not straggling Soldiers, such as formerly were taken from the Defendant as the rejoinder spoke, but Soldier's boys, or Bedees', upon whom little or nothing dependeth in the bartell. Let them therefore go; or by exchange be dismissed. Gregory hath the same sentence, lib. 1. Epist. 41. and therefore approved the decree of Toledo, before it was there decreed. For real answer, it is rejoined, 1. That all things forbidden, are not condemned at unlawful. But yet (by his leave) whatsoever is forbidden lawfully, and reasonably, is held unlawful upon some reason; and therefore so fare condemned for unlawful, as it is lawfully forbidden. Certainly, in Laws, forbidding doth as well imply some unlawful evil, as commanding doth necessary good. 2. The rejoinder denyeth the Papist to make any superstitious construction of our use of the Crosse. But this is plain enough: and it cometh after to be handled, yet in this place it is enough, if they make a superstitious construction of the Cross, which we make use of, though not of our use, which the rejoinder addeth, that he might with some colour accuse the assertion of falsehood. More was not, nor needed be affirmed by the Replier, in this point. 3. He pronounceth it a male volent calumniation, that our own Canons, and Canonical Impostors make a superstitious construction of it. But this hath been proved before, especially in the second Argument, where it hath been convinced of will-worship. 4. He formeth a new proposition; and thereupon girdeth at sitting in the Lords-Supper: which is not worth the answering. All the rest of his words turn upon the lose hingel of inconveniency without any unlawfulness, now often confuted. This therefore shall suffice for this testimony; and so I end, the head of Fathers, and Counsels. For Leo's words, make not directlytothe purpose.   

Concerning Protestant Divines.  
This head was passed over by the Defendant, but the rejoinder undertaketh to clear it: wherein, either his skill, orhis confidence, must needs occasion wondering.  
1. The general Assembly of Scotland (anno. 1566.) writ thus to the Bishops of England. If Surplice, Corner-Cap, and Tippet, have been badges of Idolaters, in the very act of Idolatry, what have the Preachers of Christian liberty, and the open Rebukers of superstition, to do with the dregs of the Romish Beast? And in their Confession: We detest all the Ceremonies and false doctrine of the Romish Antichrist, added to the ministration of the true Sacraments: we detest all his vain Allegories, Rites, Signs, and Traditions, brought into the Church without, or against the Word of God. To the former testimony, the rejoinder answereth 1. That these words are not the definitive judgement of the Assembly, but only spoken as the Plea of some tender-hearted men, which suffered for refusal of those things. Now if this were so as the Rej. maketh it, yet this we may gather from thence; that the Plea of many godly ministers of England, in those days, was, that our Ceremonies are unlawful. For so it is there said: many thousands, both godly, and learned, have their consciences continually stricken, with these sentenses: what hath Christ to do with Belial? what fellowship is there betwixt darkness and light? etc. in the words formerly cited. What meant the rejoinder then, to persuade his Readers, in his Preface, and upon all occasions, that our Ceremonies were not by Non-Conformists held unlawful, but only inconvenient, until of late? If nothing else can, yet this his own (not confession, but) peremptory answer, may so convince him, that he must acknowledge his accusing of us, as dissenting therein from the first seekers of reformation, in the Ceremonies, and so the occasion of his bitter writing, is a mere conceit, built up by desire of putting some colour upon that, which, nakedly beheld, would be offensive. Observe further, that a definitive judgement, is vainly here denied, where it was never sought for. The Ministers of England did not send into Scotland, for a definitive sentence, concerning the use or abuse of things in England. Neither were they of Scotland so simple, as to take that authority of defining upon them. But for their advizing judgement, is plain enough to all that read their words with any indifferency. They were not ignorant of our English question: there were among them, that had been at Frankford, as Mr. Knox, Mr. Goodman, etc. They did not so fare forget themselves, as to send allegations in other men's names, into England, to be admitted there, which themselves did not allow of. Beside, they directly call them unprofitable vain trifles. Yea (saith the rejoinder) but they disclaim the very question; they supposed the refusers of the Ceremonies, not to damn the consciences of the users: and call them vain trifles in comparison of preaching the Gospel. They disclaim indeed professed entering into the ground of that question, as mediators use to do, but yet insinuate their judgement of it. Ceremonies may be damned, ●hough the consciences of all that use them, be not condemned. Unprofitable vain trifles, found not of comparison. Neither is there any thing in the letter, that gives ●ny inkling of such a limitation.  
To the second testimony, taken out of the Scottish Confession, the rejoinder answereth 1. that it respecteth all Ceremonies, as they were Antichrists, formally, and not all materialy. After which manner, it is easy to answer any testimony that ever was alleged. For in the Confession, there is no difference made betwixt all, and some; neither can the rejoinder give any apparent reason of his formal interpretation; and it is well known, that the ●ery material Popish Ceremonies were then detested by Mr. Knox, with those that agreed unto his direction, as ●hey also have been, ever since the Reformation, abhorred generally in Scotland, until of late, when that which one of them calleth an Altar of Damascus, came into that Country.  
The rejoinder his 2. answer is, that they of the Assembly professed, what liked them best in Scotland; not what they thought others bond to do; as appeareth by our late King james, the chief of them. But before this can stand, it must be showed, in what Synod, we detest, is taken, for we like ●ot so well in our Country; and then, how the after-interpretation of one, who was then but fifteen years old, can oversway the common interpretation of the whole Church?  
2. Oecolampadius requireth a Minister of Scaphusium (Epist. 1. lib. 1. pag. 129.) utterly to cast off all the Ceremonies of the Papists, in celebration of the Lords Supper, as those which cannot be continued, without nourishing of the superstition and impiety, whereunto they served of old. The rejoinder answereth 1. That this was not Oecolampadius his own advice, but that which some others would have had him given. But he propounding it, and only excusing himself modestly that he was slow in put on others so fare (insinuating that though he himself was so resolved, yet he durst not urge others thereto, and therefore only requireth conveniency without offence, sufficiently testifieth his allowance of that advice. And who (think you) were the Authors of that advice, but zuinglius &c▪ He 2. addeth, out of diverse Epistles, that Oecolampadius would not have all that country tie themselves in Ceremonies, to Basil, Tigure, or Bern that he hold gold●● silver, glass, or wooden vessels in administration of the Sacrament, indifferent. As if any of us were of another mind this is a mere colour of something, where nothing is to be found.  
In the third place, he showeth, how Oecolampadius, allowed of the terms of Sacrifice, Altar, and omitted no wont Ceremonies, but only the latin tongue, in reading the Epistle, and Gospel. But if the rejoinder had considered, that terms are no Ceremonies; and that Oecolampadiu● allowed and Practised this last mentioned imperfect reformation, when he was (in comparison) but a Novice in religion, before he came to Basil, he would not have so exulted in this quotation, as he doth: The Abridgers (saith he) never (I think) read Oecolampadius his Epistles. But he hath no just reason to think, but some of them had read those Epistles; unless he can show from whence else they had this testimony. I have read them long since, and remember well, that to be true which now I said. How it stood at Basil, with Popish Ceremonies, when Oecolampadius was Minister there, it appeareth out of Zuinglius, his Fellow-Minister (de Baptismo) in these words, worthy to be recited, though somewhat too large for this place: 
Luben● equidem Catabaptistu concedam & fatebor, aliqui dutilitatis, ex contentione illa, quam ipsi de Baptism● instituerunt, enatum esse. Hine enim factum est ut eae quae humanae rationis stulta superstitio add●derat (qualia sunt exorcism, sputi sausque usus, & alia hujus generis complura) in lucem protracta, ab omnibus pro vanis & inutilibus habita fint— Non infi●iamur illa à Majoribus nostris ad nos usque, & nostra tempora manavisse.— Interim tamen constat, hac divinitus institut a non esse, sed ab hominibus olim addita, quae fortasse tune, pro temporum ratione ferri poterant: eo quod, ut Israelitae olim sub●nd● Aegypti desiderio tact●, ad illius delicias respicsebant, sic qui nuper ad Christ● pertes concesserant, ad Gentilium religioxem non nihilo promptiores propensioresque erant, quae Ceremonias ●●●usmodi plures continebat.  I will easily grant the Catabaptists, and confess, that the strife which they made about Baptism, hath not been altogether without benefit: For hence it comes to pass, that those things which the foolish superstition of human reason had added thereunto (as Exorcisms, Spittings, Salt, and such like more) being brought into question, are now become vain & unprofitable in every man's judgement. We deny not but we received those things from our Fathers.— Howsoever it is evident they were not of God, but set up of man; which also it may be, (consideration had to that time) might have been borne; because that as the Israelites heretofore affected with a desire of Egypt, looked back to the delicacies thereof, so they which lately are come over to Christ, were a little propences and prone to Heathenish religion, which contained many such rites. And these, 
Has ergo Christiani homines in alium usum convertere solebant, quo sacilius pristina illa superstitione liberarentur. Sed longe prestitisset▪ si omnia ● medio sublata fu ssent & abolita, etc.  Christian m●n were wont to turn into other use, that they might in time the bett●r be freed from that superstition. But how much better had it been, if all and every of those things had been abolished at the first.  
3. Concerning Calvin, I say, as the rejoinder saith, that which is alleged out of him, hath sufficiently been handled before. As for the new addition, which the rejoinder here bringeth, as making against us (that gold and silver, come and wine, and useful meeting places, may be retained, after Idolatrous abuse of t●em) he knoweth, and all the world knoweth, it maketh nothing for such Ceremonies as ours are; nor any thing against us, who continually profess the same truth. Except he meant to abuse the Reader, I know not wherefore he should bring in such impertinent allegations.  
4. Mr. Bucer was alleged (in the Abridgement) as scarce esteeming them sincere Christians, who can abide the Ceremonies of Antichrist, or such as have affinity with his. The rejoinder opposeth other places, where he speaks for a toleration of some such Ceremonies. Neither of these allegations can be denied. What then shall we say? 
Tanto studio propagandi Evangelij flagrat Bucerus, ut qua praci pua sunt contentus impetrass●, interdum fit aequo lenior in cis concedendis, quae in nutula quidem ipse putat sed habent etiam suum pendus.  surely 1. That Pucer though he was a reverend zealous man, yet he was a man; and so showed himself sometime about Ceremonies. So Calvin observed, Epist. 13. Bucer was so zealous for the propagation of the Gospel, that contented with the main, he was sometime more remiss than was meet, in allowing petty matters as he took them, but yet for all that, they had their weight. To the same purpose he gently admonisheth Bucer himself, even concerning the matters of England, Epist. 39 This by name I commend to thee, 
Hoc tibi nominatim commendo, ut te invidiâ liberes, qua te falso gravari apud multos non ignoras, nam modijs consilijs vel authorem, vel approbatorem te simper inscribunt.  by all means to free thyself from envy, under which thou sufferest (though unjustly) among many, as thou thyself knowest. For they still tax you by middle dealing, to be either Author or Abettour. And according to this observation, we find, that Cassander, and Baldwine, writing against Calvin himself, about Ceremonies, oppose unto him every where the name of Bucer. 2 It is to be noted, that when Bucer looked simply to his Rule, he condemned all ceremonious relics of Idolatry as much as any: but in some particular perplexity, other impressions did sometime draw him to an unwilling toleration of some such relics. But then he doth it so fearfully, and with so many cautions, that any may see, it was but a suspensive sentence of toleration, extorted by a kind of necessity, not any allowance, out of constant judgement. Thus Beza in his Answer to Baldwine, who alleged Bucers' allowance of our English Ceremonies, answereth: 
Quod ad illam Anglicanam reformationem attinet, quum dicis eam ex Buceri consilio ac voluntate fuisse institutam, magnam optimo viro injuriam facis. Sunt qui fermento Antichristi conglu●inare veliut Deum & Belial, etc.  As for that English reformation, which you ascribe to Bucer you do the good man not a little wrong. To manifest this, he allegeth these words of Bucer: There be who with the leaven of Antichrist, would join together God and Belial.  
All these things considered, that which Bucer spoke against such Ceremonies, is to be taken for his judgement: and when he occasionally varied therfrom, that is to be imputed unto his good, but excessive affection.  
5. The words cited out of Musculus (loc. come. de Trad. pag. 421.422.) are: It is not fit, that those things which are rather superstitious, then religious, or have so much as a show of superstition, should be retained in the Church. God forbidden, that I should maintain any traditions, Rites, or worships, which are Popish. And I call them Popish, which either of their own nature or by abuse, do serve unto Popish impiety, superstition, and blindness: all which I am persuaded aught to be detested, as much as is possible. Now mark the rejoinder his answer: 1. He saith, Musculus showeth only what is meet, not what is unlawful. This he gathereth out of the first words: it is not fit. But first, may things not meet, be appointed, and urged, as our Ceremonies are? Secondly, Musculus speaketh of such things as he holdeth unlawful to maintain: God forbidden that I should maintain them. 1. Would he then have maintained our Ceremonies (as the Def. and Rej. do) sometime as lawful though unmeet, and sometime as meet, and of convenient necessity? Thirdly, he speaketh of such things as are to be detested as much as is possible: are they lawful? 2. The rejoinder addeth, that Musculus speaketh of such human traditions, as had been formerly under abuse, but were now reduced to another use. In which words, (if they be right printed) he maketh Musculus to speak as directly against our Ceremonies, according to his own interpretation, as the Abrigement doth. If not be left out by the Printer, than he may be convinced by those words of Musculus: so much as a show of superstition.  
But (saith he) our Ceremonies considered as Ceremonies, (otherwise then in their materials) have no outward show of Popish superstition, which consisteth only in the reason and intention of their use. As if either outward show, or outward superstition, consisted only in inward intention! Such miserable answers have at the least, an outward show of no sincere intention. His 3. answer is, that Musculus speaketh of such traditions as in their present, and public professed use were Popish. He doth not indeed exclude such out of his censure: but if he spoke only of such, what need was there, that he should so carefully interpret what he called Popish traditions? or what meant he in his description of them, to leave out present public professed use, and use such words, as every ordinary impartial Reader must needs take to be more general?  
6. P. Martyr giveth for a Rule, to the Ministers of Poland, that such order in the administration of Sacraments, is to be kept, as differeth most from the toys and Ceremonies of Papists. It is an excellent Rule (saith the rejoinder) but he said not, that human Ceremonies abused unto superstition, in Popery, are now unlawful for us to use. As if he that saith, we ought to keep that order which differeth most from Popish toys and Ceremonies, did not say, we ought n●t to use Popish Ceremonies! He speaketh (without quaestion) of an internal aught, or sic oportet, which the rejoinder (pag. 492.) confesseth to bind the conscience.  
The same P. Martyr saith: Certainly, if we did from the heart hate superstition, we would do our endeavour, clean to put out and deface all the footsteps, and monuments thereof. He spoke this (answereth the rejoinder) when Missalattire, Altars, and Crucifixes, were as yet remaining. Now for Missal attire, I know none then remaining, which remaineth not now. Altars also have ever since remained in divers Churches, and are now (for countenance of other Ceremonies) coming up again where they were abolished, with an Idolatrous addition of bowing unto them. Crucifixes will soon follow, and that by good right, if the Defender and Rejo. their grounds be good. For the doctrine being changed, and the materials only of Popish Crucifixes remaining, what can be said, to make them simply unlawful? And for their conveniency, who may judge of that, but those that have authority of praescribing and imposing matters of order and decency? But to let that pass, P. Martyr spoke of that time, when he supposed the doctrine reform; and manifestly riseth in his discourse, from those specials, to the general to all footsteps of superstition, and not those only. But (saith the rejoinder) the same P. Martyr professeth, no separation would be made for such matters. He saith so in deed of the Surplice, pag. 1127. and so say we; especially upon the same condition, that we may be suffered to abrogate them for our own practice: Ferremus, nobis gratulando quod eas abrogaverimus. To this the rejoinder addeth divers sentences of P. Martyrs, somewhat favouring a toleration (for a time) of our Ceremonies, especially in M. Hoopers' case. To which I answer 1. that this was in perplexity, caused by the mischief of our Ceremonies, which are therefore so much the more to be hated, even that they have always bred such trouble unto good men, who should have troubles enough, 
De vestibus quas vocant sacras fateor aliquid esse du●us, & quod meipsum nonnihil perturbet: ut merer illas tam mordicus retineri.  though they were abolished. Quaestions of this kind, are to us somewhat difficult. There is somewhat more hard I confess, of those garments they call holy, & which somewhat troubleth me, that I wo●d●r they are so strictly retained. He himself refused to wear the Surplice, and that upon such ground as may move us to refuse it, as he prof●sseth: When I was at Oxford, I would never use those white garments in the Choir, though I were at that time a Canon. 
Ego cum essem Oxonij, vestibus illis albis in Choro nunquam uti volui, quamvis essem Canonicus. Mei facti ratio mihi constabat. Quod verò me movit, & adhuc movet & te sortasse movere poterit, nempe id non esse fac●endum quod ea confirmet, quae conscientia mea non probes.  ● had a reason for it. But that which moved me then and ●●ill doth move, and perhaps may justly move you, is namely; that, that is not to be d●n, which sh●ll confirm, what my conscience cannot allow of. 3. He telleth us plainly, ●hat these Ceremonies are merae Papatus reliquiae, mere Popish relics condemned by Bullinger, and that he was, upon hope of their abolishing, only tardior ad suadendum, loath to persuade unto suffering of deprivation for h●m. All these things are found in the places quoted by the rejoinder. Let any indifferent reader guess by ●hem, what was P. Martyrs judgement, in his free, and unperplexed thoughts? Certainly it was not that which ●he Defender and rejoinder have rep●aesented unto us ●or theirs; who accuse all those (beside o●her faults, many, and great) of superstition that refuse them as unlawful; they being Rites both orderly and also decent.  
7. Bezas' words are: that the footsteps of Idolatry ought not to appear in the Church, but to be utterly banished. The rejoinder answereth 1. that this toucheth not our Ceremonies, in Bezas' judgement, Epist. 12. It touched our Ceremonies in the eight Epistle of Beza; but not in his eight: what difference was there betwixt these two Epistles? Only this: in the former, he written to a Bishop, and so showeth him the foulness of our Ceremonies plainly; but in the later, he speaketh to poor Ministers, persecuted for those Ceremonies, whose great affliction, with the Church's detriment, made him to conceal some part of his judgement.  
Yet in that eight Ep. he insinuateth the same judgement of our Ceremonies: 
Qui cuperunt superstitiones co usque d●testart, ut etiam illarum vestigia ●●perint execrars, quantoperà offenduntur.  They which began to hate superstitions so far as to curse their footsteps; how greatly are they offended?  
There is yet fresh superstition of the sign of the Cross, mo●● detestable. They therefore have done wonderful well, who have once banished that rite out of the Church, whereof for ou● parts we see no good. 
Signs crucis est adhuc recens superstitio manimè execrabi●u. Rectitissimè igitur fetisse arbitramur, gus so●●el istum ●itum ex Ecclesis expularunt, cuius eti●● non videmus quae sit utilitas. Quoniam ex genius latione dum symbola accipintuur, orta est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illa detestabilis, & adhue in multorum animis baerens, me vito sublata esse vid tur.  Because by kneeling at receiving, it sprung that most abominable Bread-worship, and still cleaving to the minds of many, is worthily abolished.  
The rejoinder noteth 2. that in Bezas' judgement, many things may and must be tolerated, which are not rightly imposed. Which is true: but 1. let it be then openly confessed by the rejoinder, that our Ceremonies are not rightly imposed, before he abuse this rule. 2. Let him tell us, if approving by subscription, and use, be a mere toleration? 3. The same Beza telleth us: Toleran● quaedaem putaemus quae omninò ferri non debent. con. Westph. We think somethings may be tolerated, which altogether may not be born.  
In the 3. place, it is added by the rejoinder that Beza saith of some, that retain the Cross, they may use their own liberty. But in the next words he addeth: If they have any just Causes of retaining this sign in their Churches. So that he limiteth that liberty unto such causes as he was not privy to; 
Nos cortè cur ●llud signum nullo modo tolerenous, & plurimas, & necessarias causes hab●mus.  nay to such as they at Geneva, found to be clean contrary: As for us, we have many necessary reasons why we do no way tolerat that sign. & their causes, alleged in the 8. Epistle, were not peculiar to any time or place, but pertain as well to England, as to Geneva. So that this was but to stop a Papists mouth, with using of gentle words, and suppositions concerning our unwarrantable course. Of the surplice he speaketh sometime more indifferently: but in the same places, he will have it not subscribed to, not defended, or rejoined for, but by all means hastened out of the Church, as a ridiculous stage-play garment, or a Fooles-coat.  
8. Many other Divines were named, as Zanchius, Pezelius, Mollerus, Zegedinus, Daneus, Machabeus, Zepperus, Wigandus, and Sadeel; but their words not cited, except only Sadeels, for avoiding of unnecessary tediousness, they all speaking to the same purpose with the former. The rejoinder hath one general answer for divers of these; that they allowed some human Feasts, which have been abused to Superstition. Now though this be no direct answer, and the Authors may in part forget their own general rule, in some particular; yet this may be further said; that they accounted not these Feast-days such kind of Ceremonies, as we speak of. This appeareth in Zepper, who put them under the head of Order, cap. 13. whereas he handleth the Cross under the head of Sacramental Ceremonies, cap. 10. In particular, 1. Daneus and Zegedinus (saith the rejoinder) speak not to our purpose. Daneus I have not at hand: but Zegedine in his tables of Baptism, calleth them Popish additions, by which Baptism is profaned. 2. Zanchies judgement hath been showed. Namely that it was contrary to all such Ceremonies.  
And this doth abundantly appear out of his Epist. to Q. Elizabeth, printed before, in English. 3. Zepper alloweth the ancient use of the Surplice. If he did, therein he should not have crossed his rule given, cap. 10. reg. 4. out of the Scriptures, at least in his opinion, except he judged the Surplice before that ancient use to have been notoriously abused unto Idolatry. But the truth is, Zepper doth but comparatively excuse a supposed ancient use of that garment, which in ancient times was not known, but as a civil habit, usual in hot countries. 4. Wigandus (saith the rejoinder) was Illyricus his associate in the furious opposition of the Surplice. Whereas the truth is, Illyricus himself did not furiously oppose, but use the Surplice, as Calvin testifieth, Epist. 117.  
5. Sadeels words are: We reject whatsoever remaineth in the Church of Rome, which came either from jews, or Pagans. The rejoinder answereth, that Sadeel showeth what Ceremonies the Refor. Churches of France did reject; but not what were necessarily to be rejected of all Churches: He useth also the limitation of jewish and Paganish Ceremonies. But he clean mistaketh Sadeels meaning: jewish and Paganish, are no words of limitation, but of explication by way of reason. Our use of his testimony is 1. thus: Whatsoever Ceremonies they of France have rejected, are in Sadeels judgement jewish or Heathenish, which can have no lawful use in God's worship. But the Churches of France have rejected our Ceremonies in controversy. Ergo. 2. Thus: If jewish and Heathenish Ceremonies are to be rejected; then Popish also, they being in their nature, or kind, jewish, and having evermore been notoriously abused unto Popish Idolatry.  
9 M. Rogers, Martyr, in King Edward's days, would not consent to conformity in Cap, and Tippet, unless the Papists might be constrained to wear upon their sleeves a Chalice and Host. True (answereth the rejoinder 1.) but other good Martyrs did. Therefore (say I) not they, but M. Rogers was alleged. Yet beside zealous Hooper, with whom after Ridly and others agreed, Heavenly M. Bradford might have been added, who in his letters to Erkinald Rawlins, calleth forked caps, and tippers, Antichristian pelse and baggage. He 2. answereth, that the quaestion was for inconveniency, not unlawfulness. But he knoweth well, that M. Hooper, and so (in all likelihood) M. Rogers stood upon such inconveniency, as in their learning was unlawfulness.  
His 3. and 4. answer is of different intentions, in the same materials. But this was in King Edward's days, by all professed: and yet M. Rogers and such could not see it sufficient. 5. M. Rogers would (saith the rejoinder) allow the same things with some mark of difference. Not allow, but tolerate; not upon every mark of difference, but such as he knew would never be consented unto; that is, not at all.  
10. Public injunctions were wont to forbid all Monuments of Superstition; and the Canons 1571. did forbid the grey Amice, and all other garments defiled with like superstition. Therefore (saith the rejoinder 1.) ●hey did not take our Ceremonies for such Monuments. But that is nothing to the Proposition: Neither yet maketh it much to the Assumption of this Argument, what these or those did then take our Ceremonies to be. What they are in deed, we shall see in the Assumption. He 2. allegeth, that the Su●plice was none of the Missal garments, as the Amice. But first Bellarmine, whom the rejoinder made (of late) the Canon of Missal garments, maketh no more mention of the Amice, then of the Surplice. Durandus, or G. Minatensis, Rational. lib. 3. cap. 1. saith, In some things about the Altar they must use the Surplice. 
Superpelliceo in quibuslibet servitius Altaris uti debent.  Steven Mephem. cap Linteam. No clarck may be suffered about the Service of the Altar, unless he have the Surplice on at Mass. 
Nullus Clericus permistatur in of ficio Altaris, nisi indutus superpellecio, tempore quo Missarum solemnia peraguntur.  3. The rejoinder addeth, that it is a strong imagination, to think that the very Injunctions, and Canons of this Church, could prove her to judge her own impositions unlawful. Which if he meant of formal particular judgement, it is his own weak imagination; if of general and virtual judging, there is neither strongness, nor strangeness in it: because this Church hath no privilege that way above other Churches, of which none were ever found nor can be, imposing any thing unlawful, which did not profess that truth, who●e contents did prove that unlawful imposition to be unlawful. D. Morton hath plentifully showed so much of the Popish Church, as the rejoinder will not deny.  
11. B. jewel was cited, as approving Tertullia's judgement concerning the unlawfulness of Garlands, though not evil of themselves, because they had appearance of evil. Well (saith the rejoinder) than they were not evil in themselves, by abuse. That is, abuse did not make them evil, before they were abused. which is true. But ●f B. jewel allowed Tertullia's judgement (as the Rej. granteth) by the abuse they became evil, and unlawful. Appearance of that which is evil in itself, is evil in itself: but the abuse was evil in itself, and the after use was an appearance of that abuse, in jewels judgement. Ergo. It was also alleged out of jewels Ap. c. 2. div. 9 that the Papists had so misused sundry Ceremonies, that we may not longer continue them without great conscience. The rejoinder answereth, 1. That this was spoken of other Ceremonies, not of those in quaestion. 2. That jewel was a Bishop, and used Episcopal garments. 3. That upon his deathbed, he professed, that he would not grieve any of his brethren, who were of contrary opinion, concerning the Ceremonies. Now 1. If other Ceremonies (among which yet holy Garments were objected by Harding, in that place) may by abuse, become unlawful, what privilege hath the Cross, as much abused as any? 2. As jewel was a Bishop of England, so Cajetan was a Cardinal of Rome; and therefore as Cajetan condemned many Romish superstitions, in so much as when he died, he refused to be buried in a Church, as the story of his life, prefixed to his Commentaries on job testifieth, so might B. jewel condemn some superstitious Ceremonies in England. As for his wearing of Episcopal Garments, let D. Fulke answer in his Repeal of Heskins' Parliament, pag. 412. Mr. heskin's girdeth at the proclaimer (B jewel) as ●earing Aaron's garments for a Bishopric. But if the Popish Priests had no more pleasure to say Mass in their vestments, than the Proclaimer to minister in Copes, I think the common sort of Papists would have less devotion to the Masses, the● God's people have to the Communion, when it is ministered without any ceremonial attire. 3. Those words which the rejoinder allegeth out of his Godly speech, a little before his departure, make much against the rejoinder, because they show 1. That many than opposed our Ceremonies as unlawful, which the rejoinder denyeth. For how else could they more dislike them then Bishop jewel himself, who held them (by the rejoinder his confession) very inconvenient? 2. That B. jewel would not grieve or prejudice those that were so minded, which our Defendant and rejoinder labour to do with all the strength they have, and all the advantage they can catch hold on. jewel durst not have called them Superstition brethren, factious and exorbitant men, etc. Moreover, two faults are committed by the rejoinder, in reciting those words of jewel: one, that he leaveth out the word padagogia, wherein he accused our Ceremonies as belonging to the infancy of the jewish Church: and the other, that he took no knowledge of the following words, wherein he accuseth the Pope as the fountain of those evils, 
Istorum malorum capi●s, qui contendi causas & occasiones subministravis & vel●t ossa canibus objecit.  which gave cause and occasion of strife, and as it were thre● bones to the dogs. Where he maketh our Ceremonies relics of Popery, and cause of dissension. Add unto this, that in his Epistle to Q. Elizabeth, before the Defence of his Apollogie, he prayeth to God, that she might live to abolish all groves and high places, in England and it will appear how lawful our Ceremonies were in the judgement of that good learned man, as well in his life time, as at the hour of his death.  
12. B. Pilkinton said, that it is our fault generally, ●hat we differ no more from the Papists, in all our ministry. True (answereth the rejoinder) but he thought not ●hese things to be simply unlawful. As if B. Pilkington had ●earned, and taught a distribution of faults in religion, some unlawful, and some lawful faults! It is a new distinction coined since his time.  
13. B. Westphaling (with Augustine) peremptorily affirmeth, that jewish Ceremonies cannot be used, no not with an intent differing from that of the jews, with out danger of damnation. We allow this (answereth the rejoinder) because God hath repealed them; and to use them ●ere to call the coming of Christ into question. And is it so great a sin, to use jewish Ceremonies, without a ●ewish intent? How then durst the Defendant and Rej. pag. 285. affirm, that to use some jewish rite (even Circumcision itself) without a jewish opinion, is not damnable? In one, or both of these places, they much forgot themselves. And they that disallow of a jewish Ceremony, used without a jewish opinion, how can they allow of a Popish Ceremony, in any use?  
14. D. Bilson, alloweth in reformed Churches, that they can by no means digest one dram of Popish Ceremonies. It was well spoken (answereth the rejoinder) in defence of those Churches which had cast off all the Ceremonies of the Papists, for the consequence sake; but prooveth not, that all Churches are bound to do so; or that this Bishop thought so, who used and urged these Ceremontes'. Where he would persuade us 1. That our Church can (lawfully) do that, which Reformed Churches cannot by any means do. 2. That whereas Reformed Churches regard the evil consequence of such Ceremonies, ours need not. 3. That Doctor Bilson Warden of Winchester, either did write otherwise then he thought, or else changed his thoughts, when he was risen to be Bishop of Winchester. The judgement of these conjectures I leave to the understanding Reader. We urge only his plain words: V●leant quantum valere-pessint.  
15. To Doctor Humphrey, the rejoinder had nothing to oppose, but that afterwards he did wear the Surplice. Now the truth of this dependeth on the Rej. his hearsay, so fare as I know. Yet be it so: doth not affliction, and poverty, make many a wise man, turn a little aside out of his way? The histories of all ages testify such infirmities to have been found in many Godly and learned. And after-yeelding to the Surplice without giving any public reason for it, doth not argue that he did not formerly hold that (and constantly the other) unlawful, upon those grounds which he hath left in print, unrecalled. I do not believe that there can be so much showed under D. Humphres hand for ou● Ceremonies, as his Epistle, represented in the form Chapter, hath against them.  
16. Concerning Doctor Fulke, one sentence of his was alleged, that he which disliketh our form of service, as not differing sufficiently from the Papists, showeth his zeal in detestation of Idolatry. This (saith the rejoinder) was a charitable excuse of them. The urging then, defending and rejoining, for our Ceremonies in that manner as now is used, is an uncharitable accusation not agreeable to the mind of Doctor Fulke. A second sentence of the same D. Fulke, is: We abhor whatsoever hath but a show of Popery. Therefore (concludeth the rejoinder) he did not judge our Ceremonies to have any show of Popery: Nay rather, therefore he abhorred our Ceremonies. For that of their Popish show, he doubted not, ●it appeareth out of diverse passages, in his writings: as in his Rejonder to Marshal, art. 4. Mr. Calfhill answereth well, that the Ceremony of the Cross, once taken up of good intent, being grown into so horrible abuse, is justly refused of us. And art. 5. Although the elder and better age used and received the sign of the Cross tolerably, yet considering the shameful abuse of it, it ought now, of right and conscience, to be condemned. Marshal will none of that: for (saith he) things good in their own nature, must not be taken away, or condemned, for the abuse. Very true; but who will grant him, that the sign of the Cross is good of itself? It is as much as may be borne, to grant it a thing indifferent. But (saith the rejoinder) our Ceremonies Doctor Fulke hath (of my knowledge) used and defended as lawful. Of this knowledge, for his using and defending all our Ceremonies, his writings do constrain me (at the least) to doubt. He was once so fare of from using all, that rather than he would use the Surplice, he went out of St. john's College, in Cambridge, with his pupils, and hired chambers for himself, and them, in the town: Mr. Travers is my author for this. If afterward he was bowed something by the times, unto a little use of one Ceremony, that he might in some manner, and measure, excuse: but if he had purposed to defend that, and the other Ceremonies, some footsteps of that defence would be found in his writings, as there are diverse of his opposing them. The known truth is, that many good men through the iniquity of the times, have been brought to be distressed, betwixt desire of liberty in the Ministry, and hatred of superstition; so that they have said with the Apostle, I know not which to choose; and so afterward, have given some place unto the later. To judge their persons, it is fare from us. We only make use of their free and undistressed judgement.  
17. Of D. Andrues, and Mr. Merbury, I have not to say: because their Catechisms I never saw. D. Sutliffe, though he were a Deane (as the rejoinder noteth) yet he writ in his latter time, as a Divine, not as a Cathedral man: and so he was cited. His proposition is this: All Ceremonies taken from jews and Pagans are unlawful. We only add, that Ceremonies taken from Papists, are subject to the like censure; because Popish superstition, or Idolatry, is no more lawful than the other. Of Mr. Greenham, (beside that which hath been often confuted) the rejoinder saith only, that he did not persuade men against the use of our Ceremonies; and that he was loath to be put unto the solution of that objection: wear the Surplice or preach not. In which there is nothing pertinent. For to give proportionable answers, I myself was present, when an honest Conformist persuaded another not to conform: For (said he) though I have not strength enough to stand out, yet I would not have you that have strength, for to yield. If all should yield, the truth concerning these matters would be buried, and more superstition is to be expected. This was more than not to persuade unto Conformity. And as for the second, I think the Defendant and Rej. would be loath to be put to the solution of this objection: Confess the Ceremonies to be unlawful, or lose your live, and liberties, with disgrace. Thus (saith the Rej.) I have broken thorough the army of Protestants. That is, just so, as a naked body breaketh thorough a thicket of thorns, getting more gashes, than he made steps for his passage.    

SECT. 21. Concerning the Assumption of this fourth Argument: namely, that our Ceremonies are human devises, notoriously known to have been, and still to be abused unto Idolatry and Superstition, by the Papists, and are of no necessary use in the Church.  
1. THat this was the Assumption, or second part of this Argument, no man can doubt, that readeth the Proposition, or former part, set down in the first section of this Chapter, and understandeth the process of reason. The Defendant therefore was blamed, for setting down the Assumption thus: Our Ceremonies have been Idolatrously abused by Papists. The rejoinder not willing to forsake him in any failing, allegeth 1. That the Defendant took the substance of the Assumption from the Abridgement, and others. Which might indeed have occasioned him to add some thing unto the Abridgers assumption; but in no wise to detract any thing from it: at least, not out of them and others, to patch up a false syllogism (the whole medium, or third argument, which was used in the proposition, not being repeated in the Assumption) which every pun●e in Logic can put off with a wet finger. He addeth 2. That the clause (of no necessary use) is no part of the Argument, but an exception, answered before. sect. 1. And yet see how he contradicteth himself! The Defendant answered it: but it was no part of their Argument. He answered it was a part of the Assumption: If in their exception of things necessary, they mean a convenient necessity, he denies their Assumption. pag. 406. Yet now he denieth that to be any part of the Assumption. The truth is, both the Defendant and rejoinder, were loath to meddle, (more than of necessity they must) with the convenient necessity of our Ceremonies, lest they should evidently either wrong their consciences, or betray their cause. In the 3. place, he denieth him to have omitted these words (human inventions, or devises) saying, that the Replier hath untruly added them: because neither they, nor any like them, are in the Abridgement, pag. 26. or 27. But let him, or any other, look once again upon the Abridgement, in those pages, and he shall see upon the margin, these words: All the Ceremonies in question, are human inventions, etc. After this, he accuseth the Repl. for not observing every word of the Abridgement, in repeating the Assumption: but he could show no sens● changed: let that therefore pass.  
2. The Defender his answer to the foresaid Assumption, was by the Replier thus collected: These Ceremonies are either generally, or individually, and numerally the same, that have been abused to Idolatry. If generally, than it hindereth not, but they may still be lawfully used, though they have been so abused: If individually, than it is not true, which is affirmed (in the Assumption) neither doth it follow from thence, that they must be abolished, because they have been so abused, except they be the same formally, that is, in intention and opinion of those that impose & practise them. For this he is accused by the rejoinder of doing no justice, but playing a thiefs part, who changeth coats with an honest passenger. Now for this, to spare the labour of writing out again many lines, I desire the Reader to look upon the Defender his words as they are reprinted by the rejoinder himself, pag. 561. & compare them with the Replier his sum. If he can discern any difference, let the Defender be the honest man, and the Replier, what it pleaseth the rejoinder to make him. No material difference is noted by the rejoinder but only that the Defender hath not those words (if generally, than it hindereth not, but they may still be lawfully used, though they have been so abused) nor any thing which will bear such a collection. To which I oppose those words of the Def. If you take it in the generality, then cannot you justify any one of your Ceremonies, belonging to Order and Decency. For they have been some way abused. Was it not his meaning, to say, that as other Ceremonies of Order, so these in quaestion, if they be only generally the same with those that have been abused, may be justified, that is, lawfully used? Let the Defender hold his own coat: then he cannot so easily escape, without being discerned, as the rejoinder by changing, would have him. Certainly the Replier did not the evishly take his coat from him nor had he any cause to wish either it to himself, or his to the Defender for any advantage that he might get by that change.  
3. Against the foresaid answer, it was opposed, that by this means, any kind of Popish, jewish, or Heathenish Ceremony, may come in, so there be new particulars, and a new intention used. To which it is rejoined, that though they be not excluded, upon that sole point, of having been abused, yet they may, upon other just exceptions, be shut out. But the rejoinder should have showed those just exceptions, which remain, after the particular matter, and the evil intention be removed. For according to the Defender and rejoinder their grounds, I cannot guess, what they should be. The rejoinder mentioneth dumb, dark, numerous, burdensome, incorrigible, foolish, ridiculous Ceremonies. But all these exceptions have been discussed before: where we have showed that all these virtues are found in our Ceremonies, as well as in Popish, beside numerousness, which in this place cannot be applied to the purpose: because the inference was of any kind, not of any number. Dumbness in deed is denied to be in significant Ceremonies: but what is there among the Popish Ceremonies, which is not made by Durand of Mystical signification? It is not dark, what men say our Cross doth signify: but how ●t can lawfully signify any such thing, is very dark, etc.  
4. While the Replier was going on in confutation of the Defender his answer, namely, that in Ceremonies abused to Idolatry, those are not forbidden, which are generally the same, but only the same individuals; the rejoined. ●inding that undefensible, out of courtesy, as he saith, set●eth up another answer, which he calleth a Fair Mark; ●amely, that sometime, when the particulars or individuals, ●hich have been prostituted to Idolatry, may not lawfully be used; yet others of the like kind, may be lawfully used with lawful intentions. But this is little courtesy, or fair dealing, when the Repliers arrow was shot, and stuck in ●he Defender his White, cliving the very Peg of it; to set ●p another Mark, and then accuse the shooter, that his arrow doth not stick in this Mark, set up after the shot was made. Beside, this concerneth not our Assumption, which should be the rejoinder his Mark: because there is nothing in it of human Ceremonies, not necessary.  
5. It was replied also, that by the Defender his rule by parity of reason) it might be gathered, that of Ceremonies instituted by Christ, those only are commanded, which he did sanctify in particular. No: (saith ●he rejoinder) because in institution of the Sacraments, ●her was ordained a continuance in the like kind. Do this. And was there not also, in the prohibition of Ceremonies human, Idolatrously abused, ordained a continuance in the like kind, in those words, Deut. 12. thou ●halt not do so to the Lord thy God?  
6. From the same rule, the Replier said, it may be concluded, that no Popish Ceremonies are jewish, or Heathenish: because they are not the same individually, or in particular. Not so neither (saith the rejoinder) because they use jewish Typicals; and others, as still in force by the jews laws; and Pagan Rites, with the like intention. But 1. The Papists do not use jewish Typicals, as types of Christ yet to come; and therefore according to the Def. and Rej. their sentence, must be excused: because they hold Circumcision itself lawful to Christians, pag. 285. 2. They do not hold any Ceremonial jewish laws to bind Christians. See Bellarmine, de justificatione, lib. 4. cap. 6. It is neither good, nor safe, to accuse any beyond their deserts. 3. Likeness of intention, betwixt Pagans and Papists, is such as admitteth much dislikenesse. And such likeness there is betwixt our Ceremonies, and Popish.  
7. It was inquired, whether the Scripture, forbidding conformity with Heathen Idolaters, in shaving of heads, and cutting of beards, did mean the same heads and beards only? No: (answereth the rejoinder) because the like in kind was forbidden. And this is that which the Replier sought. For then by proportionable equity, Ceremonies like in kind to Idolaters, are forbidden to Christians, at this day, and not the same particulars only.  
8. Because the Defendant objected, that all circumstances of Order and Decency have been abused to Idolatry; the rejoinder noted, that this is one advantage he maketh of leaving out of our Assumption, those limitations: Ceremonies devised by man, of no necessary use: because Circumstances of Order, and Decency, are necessary in their kind, and not mere devises of men; Bellarmine himself being judge, the effect. Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 29. Upon this the rejoinder having little reason to oppose thereto, after some repetition of confuted shifts, cometh on with a current of words, like a flood from the hills, after a great rain, which carrieth much mud with it. For after some rolling of Circumstances in their particulars, with adding of diverse, neither mere circumstances, nor allowed by us, as he supposeth (which make nothing to the purpose) this muddy stuff is found in the valley: The matter comes to this issue: you a●e the godly men; other reformed Churches are the Churches of Christ, All other men are Carnal, Time-servers, Formalists, that have no conscience, no sincerity, no godly wisdom, no zeal; you are the only men. I cannot devise, what occasion he had of this extraordinary passion, but that he was angry, to see he could not confront reason with reason. In his could blood, I dare say, he will recall these words of distemper, which cannot be fastened upon us, and therefore rebound upon him from whose violence they proceeded.  
With more show of reason, he addeth, that for necessity in the kind, a Surplice in the kind of a garment; the Cross, in the kind of admonition to profess the faith; and kneeling, in the kind of a reverend gesture, are as necessary, as any circumstance of Order, and Decency. But this comparison hath been largely confuted in the first part of this Writing, in the head of Ceremonies, etc. Hear, it shall suffice to note, that time, place, and such like circumstances, are so manifestly necessary in their kind, that the particulars may be deduced from them, by particular considerations, without any institution: but no man can deduce our Ceremonies from those kinds named. Man's will is the only reason, of them; as Gods will is the only reason of Ceremonies truly divine by institution. No man can conclude thus: we must every where have some garment, and therefore in England, a Surplice. We must always in Baptism, have some admonition to profess the faith; and therefore in England a Crosse. We must use reverend gestures in receiving the holy Communion; and therefore in England we must kneel in the act of receiving. But we may conclude thus: We must have a fit place to meet in; and this place is generally fittest for our Congregation: therefore we must have this. We must have a convenient time to meet in; and this hour is generally most convenient for our Congregation: therefore this. The Monks may as well conclude: We must have some garments: therefore we must in one order have black; in another, white; in a third, black over white, or white over black; in a fourth, grey; a fifth, party coloured; in some, all woollen; in some, all linen; &c. ad infinitum; as well (I say) every whit, as the rejoinder can conclude from a garment to a Surplice; from admonition, to the sign of a Cross; or from reverence in a table-gesture, to kneeling.  
To Bellarmine, the rejoinder answereth, that he speaketh of natural Ceremonies. Which is true: but are not these contained under the generality of the Defendant his words: there is no gesture, or circumstance of worship, which hath not been abused? And as for other circumstances, which are called civil, many of them admit only of such variety, as nature doth lead unto, by occasion of this or that determination, common to religion with other affairs.  
9 That our Ceremonies are not individually, or singularly the same which Papists have solemnly abused, the Replier said, it is no marvel: because it is impossible to carry the same particular sign of the Cross, from the Fonte, to the Church door; or to keep it being so long as it is in making. That is therefore no great mystery. The rejoinder answereth nothing to this, save only that he descanteth upon the term mystery.  
10. It was added (as an overplus, not for necessity of the Argument) that as it seemeth, Papists do give divine honour unto the sign of the Cross, as it is used among us: because they ascribe divine operation un●o it, as it was used by jews, Heathens, and julian the Apostata. Bell, de effect. Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 31. and they do not account us worse than them. The rejoinder opposeth 1. That the Papists honour not the Lords Supper in our hands. The difference is, that unto that Sacrament, they require a right-ordained Priest; but not so to the Crosse. 2. He answereth, that they ascribe this divine operation unto it, only when there is an intention of such an operation, in him that maketh the Crosse. Be it so: the Patroness of our crossing, defend that use which the Cross had among the Fathers, who allowed that intention, as Bellarmine (in the place now cited) showeth. And how shall the inward intention of them be discerned?  
This at the least seemeth to follow, that as for uncertainty of the Priest's intention, diverse Papists worship the Host, only upon condition, if it be changed into the body, by the Priest's intention; so they must ascribe divine honour unto our Crosses, upon the like condition of such an intention, as was in the Fathers.  
11. About material formal sameness, the Replier refused to dispute: that was (saith the rejoinder) because if he had, he must either have opposed all learning and common sense, or else have yielded to the Defendant, that change of essential form maketh the same material to become another thing; as in the changing of water into wine. But 1. with consent of all common sense, we may say, that our Cross differeth not so from the Popish Cross as the wine did from water, joh. 2. 2. It were no opposition to all learning (whatsoever Aristole teacheth) if one should say, that not the form only, but also the matter was in a great part changed, when water was turned into wine. 3. Opinion, and intention, is not the essential form of a ceremonial Crosse. For one and the same ceremonial Cross, is used by Papists, to diverse intentions, as to represent a Mystery, to cure diseases, to drive away devils, etc. Bellarmine in the forecited place. And opinion belongeth to the efficient or making cause, not to the form. 4. The very making of a Cross▪ in such a manner, or with such circumstances, as put upon it a relation to religion, maketh both matter and form of that Ceremony: and so after idolatrously abused, carrieth with it at least a show of an Idolatrous Ceremony. But this show the Rej. referreth unto the fifth chapter: and here opposeth only, that likeness and sameness are not one. Which is true of individual or singular sameness, not otherwise: for those things are like which have one and the same quality. But he himself will not say, that only the same individual or particular Ceremonies, which Idolaters abuse, are forbidden to us. He hath hitherto in all this section declined the defence of that absurdity. This quidity therefore is not to the purpose.  
12. It was added by the Replier, that we have no intention, or opinion, in the use of the Cross, but the Papists have the same (though they have others more) and therefore there is some formal sameness in their Cross and ours. To this the rejoined. in many words, answereth nothing, but that this reply stifles itself: because, if we have not all the same opinions, which they have, than they have not the same with us. But it doth not follow of positive opinions, concerning the Cross itself. For we may want some of their opinions, and yet they have all that we have, the same. Doth not he that knoweth most, of this or that, know the same thing with him that knoweth little, though he knoweth more?  
13. Another odd reason was framed by the Repl. thus: If this doth make a Ceremony not the same, that men have not altogether the same opinion of it; then among the Papists, there are as many kind of Ceremonies, Crosses, Surplices, as there are diversities of opinions, about their nature and use; which no man will say. Yes (saith the the rejoinder) I will say it of Ceremonies: and he that shall deny this, must lay aside both learning, and conscience, not knowing what to say. But he is too too confident, upon the ground which he is driven to by force of a contrary wind. For without laying aside of learning, and conscience, we may thus argue: If this be so, than all human Ceremonies used among the Papists, and brought in (as hitherto all have used to speak) by Popes, are not Popish. For they may be this or that Hedge-Priests Ceremonies, who hath added his opinion and institution unto them. 2. The Pope) by the same reason) cannot know, when his Ceremonies ar● observed, or omitted▪ because he cannot know all opinions and intentions of men. And the like reason holding with us, our Church must inquire into the opinions and intentions of men, before she can know, whether her Ceremonies be observed, yea, or no. I leave it then to a Convocation-consultation, if it be not necessary, that in the Bishop's Articles, the Churchwardens should be asked, upon that oath, which they usually take, and break, With what opinion, and intention, their Minister doth wear the Surplice, and use the Cross? For otherwise, it cannot be known, whether he useth the Ceremonies of the Church of England, or others of his own making? 3. When men have no opinion or intention of such Ceremonies, but only that they are necessary to stand betwixt them and deprivation, or excommunication, or other vexation (which is the case of our best Conformers) then, though they use Cross, Surplice, etc. they do not conform to the Ceremonies of our Church, but in hypocrisy, and so with great sin.  
Three wordy exceptions (he useth to call such things quarrels) the rejoinder here maketh: one that the Replier put in not altogether the same opinion, for not the same: an other, that he mentioned only opinion, whereas the Defender joined to it, intention: the third, that Crosses and Surplices, are wrought upon, as they are material. But the two later of these are now voided, by my repe●ition of the reason: and the former is the rejoinder his own interpretation, pag. 575.576. namely, if our opinion be not altogether the same, than it is not simply the same.  
14. Instance was made (by the Replier) in the Altar erected by Vriah, 2. King. 16. which was idolatrous, like that of Damascus, though for another intention.  
The rejoinder answereth 1. that this Altar was not formally the same with that of Damascus. But the formality of that Altar, containing all the idolatrousness that was in it, or belonged unto it, and that Idolatry being in part common to Urias' Altar, with that of Damaskus, it must needs be in that part the same, though not altogether. Idolatry against the second Commandment, hath some formal community with that which is against the first. He addeth 2. that if Achaz had intention of offering to false Gods, than his intention was the same with theirs at Damascus. But yet there would be found a difference of intention in Achaz, in that he intended worship both to the true God, and to those false; whereas they at Damascus were only for the false. And Urias intention might be (as it seemeth to have been) only to satisfy the King's mind, that he might keep his favour, upon which intentions, Courting Praelats use to go very fare.  
15. In the last place, it was observed by the Replier, that this answer of the Defender is the very same with that which Papists give unto our Divines, when they are accused for using of Heathenish and jewish Ceremonies. 
Licet in externo symbolo sit aliqua similitudo, absolut●●amen maximum est discrimen: nam a fine & intention sumunt externae actiones speciem suam.  Although in the outward sign there be some likeness, yet absolutely there is great difference: for outward actions take their kind from the end and intention of them. Bellarm. de effectu Sacr. l. 2. cap. 32.  
The rejoinder being angry, useth diverse sharp words, and after answereth, that this plea is unsufficient for the Papists: because they retain jewish Ceremonies to the like jewish ends; and Pagan Ceremonies to like superstitious ends: but our intentions are no way like the Papists. Bellarmin saith as much for their Ceremonies in the place noted: The rites of the Gentiles were done for the worship of Devils: but ours are for the worship of the true God: therefore there is as much difference between ours and theirs, as between Sacred, and Sacrilege; as b●twe●ne piety and impiety, as between God and Satan. jewish rites signified Christ to come ours are partly in memory of things past, and partly to signif●● the glory to come. 
Ritus Gentilium siebant ad cuitum Daemoniorum: nostri sunt ad colendum verum Deum: ideo tantum interest inter illos & nostros, quantum inter sacrum & sacrilegum: quantum inter pietatem & impietatem, & quantum inter Deum & diabolum. Ritus judaiei Christum venturum praenunciabant: vestri partim sunt in memoriam r●rum praeteritorum, partim ad significs damn gloriam suturam.  And yet our Divines cease not to accuse them of jewish and Pagan Ceremonies. In their judgement therefore, such differences cannot excuse ou● Ceremonies from being Popish.   

SECT. 22. Concerning the Cross Popish and English.  
IN this Section, there is nothing material, save only, that the rejoinder undertaketh to prove, that the Church of England hath utterly and clean taken away the Ceremony of the Cross, which was among the Papists abused: or, that wheresoever, and howsoever the sign of the Cross was a Ceremony abused in Popery, it is taken away in the Church of England.  
But because in common understanding, this is to prove day, night, and night, day, he requireth two positions to be granted him (which before have been confuted) 1. that nothing is a Ceremony properly so called, but in respect of, and in the use of it, as a Ceremony. 2. That the sign of the Cross, though it be but one kind of thing, yet is made so many several Ceremonies, as there be several uses thereof. And these things being taken for granted, he gathereth a Catalogue of many Popish abuses, which (through God's mercy) we are freed from. Yet in his very first instance, he betrayeth his cause. For he maketh it a Popish Ceremony, to sign the breast with the forehead (and so the forehead) in signification, that the mystery of the Cross is to be believed in the heart, and confessed with the mouth. This Ceremony (saith he) we have not. Yes surely we have the very same formal opinion and intention, so fare as signification cometh to. For not to be ashamed of confessing faith in Christ crucified, etc. is nothing else but to believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth, hand, and feet, the mystery of the Crosse.  
But it is not worth the while, for to consider the severals of this Catalogue. This only I would know; if we have not taken the Ceremony of the Cross from Papists, from whom we took it? The beginning of it was (so fare as appeareth by books) from the Valentinian haeretickes. The first honourable mention of using it among Christians, is in Tertullian, when (by the rejoinder his sentence) he was infected with heresy: & his use our Defender and rejoinder (I dare say) will not allow: at boards, and beds, putting on apparel, and shoes, etc. Tell us (I pray you) from what Author, or Age, this Ceremony of the Cross was taken, which now is urged upon us? I have more than a doubt, that such exception may be taken against that propagation, and such proofs for the taking away utterly of the Cross, as you have brought for the abolishing of the Papists Crosse. If it be a new Ceremony, invented in England, just at the time of Reformation, the Author of that invention should be made known: and if he can approve his Ceremony, to be grounded rightly, his name may be added in Polidor Virgil, de Inventoribus rerum.   

SECT. 23. Concerning Scripture-proofes, for human Ceremonies Idolatrously abused, and yet lawful to be used in God's worship.  
1. THe Replier his words are these: No example can the Defender find in all the book of God, for lawful reserving of Idolatrous Ceremonies, but only two; one of Gideon, jud. 6.26. and another of joshua, josh. 6.19. These words the rejoinder accuseth of dishonesty, not to be used against a Pagan. And why so? 1. Because the Defender undertook only to prove, that some Ceremonies, which have been formerly abused, are not therefore necessarily to be abolished, if they may be reduced to their indifferent use. Now by abused he meant Idolatrously abused, or else he touched not this fourth Argument, whose assumption himself repeated thus: Our Ceremonies have been Idolatrously abused. The Replier in stead of Idolatrously abused, put Idolatrous: because (as such) they are Idolatrous. And that, which is not necessarily to be abolished, may be retained: therefore the Replier (seeking brevity of speech) used the word retained. So doth Beza adv. Harchium, de Coena, speak: Non desunt, qui Pastores vellent in illis, si non origine, at c●rte usu Baaliticis v●stibus apparere. So that in this, there was no unchristian dealing.  
The rejoinder his second reason for so deep a censure, is, that the Defendant grounded not his proposition upon these two examples, but from the equity of the precept of God, unto these two men. The Defendant indeed said, that his proof was by the general equity of God's Law; and then bringeth these two examples. Wherein he was spared, that nothing was opposed to his gathering of generally equity of the Law, from two examples, which (according to his interpretation) are manifestly beside, and in some sort, against the Law. But if his proof was from the equity of two special precepts, those specials are examples: and the Defendant his words are of one of gideon's acts: Which example we have propounded, to prove, etc. And the rejoinder himself, in this same page, calleth the other act of Gideon, an Instance, in the same sense: I believe the jews gathered their rule from this instance: and pag. 591. he calleth that which is alleged of Gideon, and the other of I●shua, two instances. In all this charge therefore of unchristian dealing, there is not found any fault at all. But it is too common with the Rej. when he cannot reasonably rejoin, to break out into angry words.  
2. Of gideon's example, the Defendant himself (said the Replier) confesseth, that it was by special command from God: and that it is not every way imitable. The rejoinder 1. affirmeth this to have been the Def. his objection, rather than his confession. Be it so: His objection therefore answereth itself; and toucheth not our Argument, which did not conclude any thing unlawful that is by God specially commanded, but only showeth what is ordinary unlawful by the general rule of his Word. He 2. telleth us, that the jews hold it lawful to make use of the wood of a tree, under which an Idol hath been placed. And so do we hold it lawful to make use (for a fire in cold weather) of the wood of an Idol; which is more, I believe (addeth the Rej.) they gathered the rule from this instance. If they did gather any special rule of ordinary use from hence, it was when the Veil was over their eyes. For there is a general rule, in the light of nature, to the contrary: Qu●d ex concessione speciali factum est, non debet trahi in consequentiam. The Def. therefore did not well to imitate them in his blind gathering. 3. He citeth out of P. Martyr, that God herein shows, that the usurpation of an Idol, doth not dispossess him of his Lordship over all things, but that they may be turned to his service. But P. Martyr doth manifest his meaning to be, that such things may not so be turned to God's service, without God's special appointment.  
For (answering the general Law which maketh to the contrary) he saith: 
Leges hu●●●modi nobis, no● sibi ipsi Deus posuit Qan●obr●m, rebus dedir●tis Idolis ad sua iosius holocausta uti poorest. Minime li●●isset, nisi D●minus pr●copisse●.  God made such Laws as these for us, and not for himself. Wherefore he could use things dedicate to Idols, unto his own burnt offerings. So Pelicanus: It was in no wise lawf●ll, unless God had enjoined it. 4. For that which was mentioned of a not imitable example, that spoke the Defendant (saith the rejoinder) only of gideon's sacrificing under an Oak. Which is true: but the reason of this imitablenesse, is the same in both of gideon's acts: justly therefore, both were taken as confessed not imitable.  
3. Of joshua 6.19. it was added by the Replier, that there is no mention made of things, (much less Ceremonies) appropriated unto Idolatry; and that in probability, the vessels there spoken of, were melted, and only the metal brought into the Lord's treasury. The Rej. opposeth 1. That some of this treasury (in all likelihood) was appropriated to Idols. Be it so: for that some there was a double answer given, God special command; and that it was melted, or passed thorough the fire. But here the Rej. answereth 1. That it doth not appear, they were to be melted. As if the Defendant his Argument did prove well his proposition (as he saith it doth) if confutation of it doth not appear in the text he allegeth! surely proofs should be fetched from that which at lest appeareth, and not from that whose contrary doth not appear. But it doth appear, that this was the order appointed for such things, Numb. 31.22.23. and from thence Interpreters gather so much of these things, joshua, 6. So Tostatus, They did melt all metals that could be melted, 
Omnia mesalla liquifactibilia liquifiebant, conflabantur igne, & converteban. 〈◊〉 in massam.  they were melted by fire, and turned into the mass. 2. If this be granted (saith the rejoinder) melting did not make them other things. Yes surely by the Defend. his Learning brought to illuminate our judgements (as he speaketh pag. 562. in this Rej.) be sound, namely, only form giveth the being to every thing, as natural; to natural; artificial, unto artificial; ceremonial, unto Ceremonial. For by this reason, melting of the vessels, made them cease to be the same things either artificial, or ceremonial. And hereby the Def. his instance falleth to the ground: as not proving any Ceremonies abused unto Idolatry, to have been by joshua retained.  
4. Out of the former premises, the Replier concluded that the Defendant had wretched penury of Scripture proofs, for retaining of human unnecessary Ceremonies, notoriously known to have been, and be abused unto Idolatry. This was his meaning, according to the state of the question. Hear the rejoinder first opposeth, that two instances from the holy Scripture, rightly taken, are proof enough. Which is very true: but that same rightly tak●n, was here wanting, as hath been sufficiently declared.  
In the second place, to supply the Defendant his penury, the rejoinder bringeth abundance of instances, out of his old store. 1. Kneeling, bowing, prostrating, lifting up of the eyes, and of the hands, shouting, and dancing for joy. But these we absolutely deny to be human inventions. The Rej. knew this: and therefore by prevention, replieth: to say these are not human inventions, because they partly spring out of natural light, is as much as to say, they are not, because th●y are human inventions: for what are human inventions, but such as spring out of natural light? What? the Cross, and Surplice; the Cornerd-Cap, and tippet; the Bishops' Rochet, and Cope; with a thousand such like; which whoesoever will equal, or (in regard of naturalness and wilful invention) liken unto l●fting up of eyes and hands, etc. in prayer, must for that time, lay aside right natural invention, and judgement. I think it would trouble all the Graduates in England to find out that natural light, from whence Bachelors of Art, Masters of Art, Bachelors and Doctors of Divinity received their several kinds of Hoods; even as much as to find out light of nature, for all the several habits of Monks. But (saith the rejoinder) all came from natural light, better or worse, more or less agitated. Just as men's long hair, and women's short, which nature itself teacheth to be uncomely (according to the Apostles light) came from the light of nature. It is natural to a child, for to suck the dug; and after to put the hand to the mouth; and after to creep or go: Is it like natural to sound a certain distinct sound upon a Trumpet? to dance a certain Round, or Galliard, after every Fiddle? It is natural for a child to signify his discerning of those that it is used to, by some such sound as Dad and Mam: but not to make Verses in a certain number.  
After these, the Rej. instanceth in sitting, or lying along, leaning on the left side; covering of the head and face, in worship; dividing of a beast in covenant-making; erecting of Altars upon hills; erecting of religious monuments; Trophies of victory, in Temples; set days for solemn worship; wine and victuals for mourners; Marriage feasts, etc. But in all these, he was so set upon number, that he clean forgot weight, and pertinency to the question in hand. For the question is of Scripture-proofes, for such Ceremonies, as man hath devised, without necessary use, in the worshop of God, notoriously known to have been, and be abused unto Idolatry. For there is not one of these instances, which doth agree to this question. 1. It cannot be proved out of Scripture, that sitting, or lying, was a lawful religious Ceremony, appropriated unto God's worship. The Rej. his proofs are only from superstitious Rabbins; who are no more witnesses of true lawful Ceremonies, for the old Testament, than Papists are for the new. 2. As for vailing and covering the head and face, in worship, I know not out of what place of Scripture it can be proved a religious Ceremony, except (perhaps) from 1. Corinth. 11.4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered dishonoureth his head. He quoteth Jerome on Eze. 44. Where these words are found: 
Non rasis capitibus, ficut sacerdotes cultoresqus Ifidis atqu● Serapis debemus esse. juxta Septuaginta Interpretes, discimus in tantum capillos demittendos, ut operta sit cutis. Vel certe sacerdotes semper operire capita sua debent, juxta illud Virgilianum: Purpureo velare comas adopertus amictu. Sed hac violenta interpretatio est.  We must not have our heads shaved as the Priests and worshippers of Isis and Serapis had. According to the seven●y Interpreters, we learn that our hair is to be suffered to grow out so long, that the skin be covered, and appear not naked. Or verily that the Priests must always cover their heads, according to that of Virgil, Purpureo velare comas, etc.  
But this is a violent interpretation. Will this help the rejoinder? He quoteth also P. Martyr, on 1. King. 19.13. where he saith, that Moses and Elias, not being able to endure the glory of Extraordinary apparitions, covered their faces; adding, that some think they did it of modesty; which he doth not reject, will this help?  
3. For dividing of beasts, in covenant-making, he bringeth Gen. 15. and jer. 34. But in the first place, it is manifest, that God did immediately, and extraordinarily appoint it; and that in such a manner, as can never be showed in any idolatrous use among Heathens, much less before Abraham's time. In the second, there seemeth only to be an allusion of phrase: because in all the solemn Covenants which we read of in the History of the jews, made, or renewed, we never find any mention of this manner; though circumstances of fare less moment are recorded distinctly. But if it was a real act, it is most likely, that the question then in hand, being about the freedom of Abraham's Children, which belonged to that Covenant confirmed unto Abraham, Gen. 15. they were by the Prophet directed, to use the same kind of sacrifice. Howsoever, it cannot be proved a mere human Ceremony: nor yet a mere Ceremony: because it was a sacrifice, as all grant. Beside, to ground so large a conclusion upon one dark phrase, is fit for the Patrons of Purgatory (who allege therefore, trial by fire, and baptising for the dead) then for the rejoinder.  
6. Erecting of Altars, was not in use after the Law, by the Rej. his own confession. Before, it was no more a human Ceremony, then sacrificing was.  
7. Of Monuments and s●t days of solemnity, enough hath been said in the third Argument. For Trophies, brought into God's house, Colias sword is produced: which was no Ceremony of worship. For then David would not have taken it away, for civil use; as he did, 1. Sam. 21.  
8. Mourning and Marriage feasts, have no show of religious Ceremonies. junius in deed (in his notes on Deut. 26.14.) calleth some cost about the dead, religious but in his Analysis of the same place, he expoundeth himself, to mean religiosum, humanum, aut superstitiosum. And religious is often used for all offices of strict obligation.  
Notwithstanding all this weakness, and wrinesse of these instances, the Rej. doth so triumph in them, that he doubteth not to pronounce them enough to confute four Arguments of the Abridgement. But such confutations are like his, who said he would confute a great part of Bellarmine, with one word: Bellarmine thou liest.   

SECT. 24. Concerning ancient Fathers.  
1. THe Replier beginneth thus: I had thought verily, that the Def. would have brought some pregnant testimonies out of the Fathers, though he could find none in the holy Scriptures. Then belike (saith the Rej.) you knew that there might pregnant testimonies be brought out of them. And so it is: 
Licuit quae apud Gentes superstitioso cultu impid agerentur, eadem expiata sacto ritu, ad pietatem transfer, ut majori Diaboli contumelia, quibus ipse col● voluerit, Christus ab omnibus honoraretur. Eâ licentiâ, qua Deorum delubra in Ecclesias Christianorum sun● laudabiliter commutata, alij quoque ritus Gentilium à nobis, benedictionibus expiati, divino sunt cultui consecrati.  though their doctrine, in general, were against such Ceremonies, yet from their practice, so pregnant testimony may be brought for diverse superstitious Ceremonies, that the Church ruth the pregnancy of them unto this day. Baronius, ad an. 44. in the end, bringeth many examples; and from them concludeth: It was lawful to apply those things which the Gentiles had abused in superstitious worship, and purged from uncleanness by holy worship unto pious uses, that Christ to the greater dishonour of Satan, might be honoured with those things wherewith Satan himself sought to be worshipped. By the same reason whereby the Temples of the Heathenish gods were laudably turned into the Churches of Christians, other rites also of the Gentiles cleansed by our prayers, are rightly turned to holy use. And add an. 58. about the middle, he hath, upon the same examples, these words: What wonder is it, if holy Bishops did consent, that those wont customs of the Gentiles, from which it was impossible to draw them utterly, even after they were professed Christians, should be changed into the worship of God? Venerable antiquity changed superstition into religion, and brought to pass that what was spent upon Idols, should be carefully converted into the worship of God. 
Quid mirum fi●inolitas apud Gentiles consuctudines, à quibus not, quamvis Christiani effecti essent, penitus divelli impossibile videretur, easdem in Dei cultum transferri, san●ct fimi Episcop● concesserunt? Venetanda antiqui●as superstitionem in religinem conversit, effecitque ut quod impendebatur Idolis, provide in Dei cultum converteretur. Sylva quaedam judaicarum & Gentilium Cer●moniarum paulatim agrum Domini occupavit.  From hence it came, as Polidore de Invent. in the preface, saith, that A vast forest of jewish Ceremonies, did by little and little, invade and possess the Lords field.  
A true reason, and censure also of these practices, is given by Doctor jackson (Original of unbelief, Section, 4. chapter, 23.) in these words: To outstrip our adversaries in their own policies, or to use means abused by others, to a better end, is a resolution so plausible to worldly wisdom (which of all other fruits of the flesh, i● for the most part, the hardliest, and last renounced) that almost no sect or profession in any age, but in the issue mightily overreached or entangled themselves, by too much seeking to circumvent or go beyond others.  
A notable example we have of this policy, in Gregory's direction unto Augustine the Monk, then in England, lib. 9 ep. 71. which was, that sacrificing of Oxen with feasting, in the Idol Temples, should be turned into slaying of Oxen for fasting about those Temples, made Christian by holy-water.  
2. In that which the Replier collected out of the Defender his allegations, it is confessed, there is little or nothing to the purpose. The rejoinder therefore, accusing the Replier, for picking the Defender his purse, undertaketh to restore it unto him again, by making this new collection: 1. If the celebrity of the Feast of Easter was held by many to be lawfully kept on the same day which the jews superstitiously (as then) observed. 2. If they, avoiding Pagan Fasts, and Feasts, did freely institute other. 3. If superstitious habits were lawfully retained. 4. If Circumcision, after it became a mere human Ceremony, was lawfully used: Then the ancient Fathers and Churches were of opinion, that godly men may lawfully use some Human Ceremonies, abused by others. But this is a mere empty purse (not worth the picking) which the rejoinder sticketh into the Defender his pocket; as his own. For 1. It hath not in it our quaestion, of Ceremonies devised by man, not necessary, notoriously known to have been abused unto Idolatry, or superstition. 2. In the first instance there is only many noted, from whence cannot be concluded, in a kind of generality, the Fathers and Church's opinion. 3. Easter was by them that kept it, not held as a mere human invention, but as Apostolical tradition, as all know. 4. Easter was not invented by men, but only by men superstitiously continued. 5. The second Argument stifles itself. For if they so carefully avoided Pagan Fasts, and Feasts, though they might have pleased many professed Christians, and drawn on other by retaining of them, it seemeth, they held them unlawful, because of the Idolatry wherewith they had been defiled. 6. We absolutely deny, with all Divines, that Circumcision, after the Date of it, was fully expired, which was in the Apostles time, was ever lawfully used as a religious Ceremony. 7. Concerning Ceremonious habits, the Defender bringeth no proof at all. The rejoinder 1. allegeth Tertullian, de Corona mil. as allowing the use of a white linen garment, he meaneth for a Ceremony: whereas Tertullian only showeth, that our Saviour did lawfully use a linen towel, in washing his Disciples feet, joh. 13. notwithstanding linen garments had been abused to Idolatry.  
In the 2. place, he referreth us to B. jewel his Defence, for our bellyful of instances. And it is true, that godly learned man (par. 3. cap. 5. div. 1.) allegeth diverse instances, and Authorities: neither would he have omitted that of Tertullian, if he had esteemed it. But (because it is necessary) I will set down the examination of them, which I find in certain papers of Mr. Brightman (one Author of the Abrigement) neither ungodly, nor unlearned; whereby it shall appear, that they do not so fill our Bellies, but that we can well digest them.  
The learning of it, will answer for the length, to every studious Reader.  

M. BRIGHTMEN ANSWER TO B. JEWELS ALLEGATIONS, FOR THE antiquity OF DIstinct Ceremonious apparel used by Ministers in their Ministration.  
JUSTINE MARTYR preached the word of God in a Philosopher's habit, which was his ordinary garment, such as our students at University and Inns of Court wear, no Surplice nor any such ministering attire. But concerning the Bishop's brooch, which M. jewel saith john the Evangelist did wear, as if he had been a Bishop of the jews, I take it, it was no material brooch, but a figurative speech only. For Polycrates describing john first by the singular love our Lord bore him, in whose bosom he leaned at his last supper, then of the great holiness wherein this noble disciple excelled, he contented not himself to declare the same properly, but allegorically said of him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [which was the Priest that carried the brooch,] not that he ever used any such thing, but that he expressed by his holy conversation the force of that [Sanctitas jehovae] written in that golden plate, which the high Priest carried in his bonnet. For shall we think john was a Priest, neither of Aaron's family, nor of the tribe of Levi? or were the holy things of the Temple not so much as to be seen by the people of the jews at jerusalem, now exposed to the view of the Gentiles at Ephesus? Would the jews have borne this profaning of their holiest mystery, by a man of another tribe, among the heathen, and by a Christian? Besides, the Apostles by common consent had decreed the legal cerem. should not be used by the Christians. Act. 15. And Paul taught Circumcising to be falling from the grace of Christ. Gal. 5.2, Would john then bring a Ceremony of the Levitical Preisthoode into the Church? D. Fulke was not of that judgement that the words in Eusebius are to be taken literaly, but by that figurative allusion already remembered; Rhem. test. Apoc. 1. sect. 7. This figurative speech therefore should not have been turned into a material brooch, much less into a long Priests garment, as the Rhemists do, who have battered out this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and shaped it into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Apoc. 1.13. These words than make nothing for any garment at all.  
Augustine's indifferency what apparel be worn, is only of that in common life, not in Ecclesiastical and administering function. 
Nihil sanò pertinet ad istam Civitatem quo habitu v●l more vivendi, (si non est contra divi●ia praecepta, istam sidera qua pervenitur ad Deum) quisque sectetur. Vnde ipsos quoque Philosophe●s quando Christiani fiunt, non habitum vel consuetudinem vi●tus, quae nihil impedit Religionem, sed falsa dogmat● mutare compellit.  Truly it nothing perteines to that city, what habit or fashion any one followeth, so it be not against the word, and that faith whereby we come to God. Whence it never Compelled the very Philosophers when they became Christians to change their garments or manner of diet, but only to lay aside their false opinions. De civet. lib. 19 c. 19 As for proper administering apparel he speaketh not one word of it, neither do I find there was any in his tyme.  
I had not Hilary to consider his words, but the spoils of the Gentiles in persons, places, learning and such other things, may be many ways divided to the ornament of the Church, without borrowing any Ceremony from them, to be used in the service of God. For this is not to spoil them as the Israelites did the Egyptians, who had the word of God for their warrant, but as Achan did jericho, fu●l dear to his cost, and of the whole host of Israel. josh. 7.  
Hierom hath the words you cite, lib. 1. adv. Pelag. pag. 416. much urged by Bellarmine and the Papists for their apparel, and no less vehemently pressed by our men, for ours, but duly considered, without ca●se. The Candida vestis Hierome speaks of, was no peculiar garment of the Ministers, but the ordinary clothing of the common people, 
Eumque cum esset reus, noque barbor● desi ●sse radi, noque non candida vesto uti, neque fuisse solito cultu reorum. primò in vesto candida visi sunt,] [vesta sordida sumpea, principum domos circum ire, etc.] Liv. decad 5. lib. 5. pag. 254. [candidati, coronatique] Sueton. Aug. c. 99 [visa quondam pro conci●●● pullatorum turba.] [N● quis pullatorum media cavea sedaret.] Sueton. Aug. c. 40.44.  in former time generally used by all, and daily, but afterwards only by those of the better sort, and upon Festival days. So Aulius Gellius writeth of Africanus: That when he was guilty, neither was his beard shaved, nor his white garment off, nor was he of the common attire of the guilty. The Ambassadors of Rhodes coming to Rome, were first seen in white, but finding things contrary to their expectation, they were forced presently with a viler garment to compass the houses of Princes. Liv. decad. ●. lib. 5. pag. 254. Yea, the very mariners and passengers in a ship of Egypt, seeing Augustus to pass by, shown themselves in white, and crowned. The same Augustus was angry when he saw a company in mourning, and thereupon made a law, That none should sit among the mourners. From thence grew a difference among the Citizens, not heard of in former ages, whereby some were called Candidate, some Pullati: Candidati, not such as sued for offices, as in times past, but the Citizers of better rank: Pullati, the lowest of the people, and the vulgar multitude: 

Si famulum tuum libertate mutavetii, & vestis albae nitore, & aurei annuli honore, & Patroni nomine, ac tribu mensaque honoratur. de resut. carnis. Aderant quidem impij candidis & magnificu vestibus celebrantes festum sui intoritus, solus autem Indes atris indutus vestibus.  
Vnde adjungis gloriam vestium & ornamentorum Deo esse contrariam.  
Quae sunt rogo inimicitiae contra Deum, si tunicam habuero mundiorem?  
Cavete Clerici cavete Monechi, Viduae, & Virgins: periclitamini nisi surdidas vos atque pannosas vu●gus aspexerit. Tac●o de hom●nibus saculi, quibus aperte bellum indicitur, & inimicitiae contra Deum, si prec●o●● atque nitentibus utantur ex●●ijs.   both, from the colour of their garments which they used. Tertullian saith of the manumitted servants (who upon their first infranchising appeared in their gowns, that is, the common vesture of the Citizens) If thy servant be free and honoured with the brightness of the white garment, & the grace of the gold ring, and the name of a Patron, & with the tribe and table. Yea the Papists themselves (as Baronius) allege to this purpose [Simeon Metaphrastes] in the acts of [Indeses and Domna,] where it is said of the multitude, Some wicked ones were present in white and magnificent garments, celebrating the feast of their own ruin, but Indeses only was in black. And of Honofrius [qui alba induit vestimenta] least he should be discovered to be a Christian put on white. For the devoater Christians began to take themselves to darker colours, as more modest and decent, especially after the Monks once began to grow in credit. 2. It is plain out of Hierome himself, that [Candida vestis] was no garment belonging to the Minister a●one in divine service, but an honest, decent▪ and cleanly vesture, opposed to a foul, sluttish, and ragged habit. For the Pelagians condemned glorious garments, as he there saith, Whence you add, the show of garments, and ornaments is contrary to God. In confutation whereof he demandeth, But wherein is that against God, if I have a cleaner garment? And then presently after the words you cite▪ Look to it O Clarks, take heed O Monks, Widows, and Virgins: you are in danger, unless the people see you in foul apparel. I say nothing of Secular, against whom war is proclaimed, and enmity against God, if they use fine apparel. By which it is evident, he defended comely, honest attire, such as was common to Monks, Widows, Virgins, [& homines saeculi] not proper to any office of the Minister. So in Eccl. 9.8. expounding what [Candida vestimenta] be, he saith, 
Cave ne quando pollutu vestibus induatis, populus quippe peccator in vestibus suscis luxisse describitur, Tu autem induere lucem, & non maledictionem, etc.  Beware thou put not on at any time polluted garments, because sinners have mourned in obscure garments, but put thou on the light, and not cursing. If [Candida vestimenta] should be only Ministers apparel, than Solomon's exhortation is only to Ministers, and they are the men he willeth to be merry, and always to have on their Surplices, not only in their Ministereall duty. In his precepts to Nepotian he adviseth, 
Vestes pullat aque devita ut candidas: Ornatus, ut sordes pari modo fugiendae sunt: quia alterum delicias, alterum gloriam redolet.  Avoid sad garments as well as white, Ornaments, as well as Spots, one savoureth of delights, the other of too much glory. Would he have willed him to avoid white garments in common life, (for make it a Ministerial garment, and then you have Hieroms' counsel against it) had they not been usual? In divine service therefore, the Ministers used the white garment of the people, but in ordinary life, Hierome thought a meaner clothing fitting, and so some devoter, as Nepotian, and such like practised, though others differed nothing in their attire from the Laity. 3. There was no set Ministering garment in Hieromes' time, and therefore [Candida vestis] was no such. For Coelestinus, who was not Bishop till after Hieroms' death, writeth thus to the French Bishops concerning apparel in divine service, among whom this superstition began to spring, 
Discernendi ● plebe vel cateris sumus doctrina, non veste, conversatione, non habitu, mentis puritate non cultu. Nam si studere incipi amus novitati, traditum nobis à Patribus ordinem calcabimus, ut lo●um supervacuis superstitionibus faciamus. Ru●es ergo Fidelium mentes ad talia non debemus inducere Decendi enim potius sunt quam illudendi. N●c imponandum est corum oculu, s●d mentibus insundendo praecepta sunt.  We are to be distinguished from the common sort by doctrine and not by garment, by conversation, and not habit; by the purity of mind, not by apparel. For if we study innovation, we tread that which our Fathers delivered us under foot, to make way for idle superstitions. Wherefore, the weak minds of the Faithful must not be led to such things, they mst rather be instructed then played withal. We must not blind their eyes, but help their minds with wholesome precepts.  
I know Marianus Victorius, in that Nepotian when he died, be queathed his garment to Hierome, which he had used in the ministry of Christ, Hierom, ad Heliod. de morte Nepotian. As also out of that forementioned place against the Pelagians, thinks he hath found their Albe, Planet, Camissa, Casula, and I know not what. But N●potians garment was no other than what ●ath been showed, only as he was a man hum●le▪ and of modest, and meanest attire in ordinary life, so in matters of his Ministry, he was fine, neat, and magnificent; [Solicitus si niteret Altar, si parietes absque inligine, si pavimenta tersa, etc.] and therefore no doubt in that action arraying himself without any note of p●ide after the best mann●r of the people, he might well b●queathe that garment to Hierome, who had i● been never so mean would have esteemed it for the donours' sak●. But observe, Nepotians' ministering garment was non● of the Church goods, but provided at his own cost. It is objected also that Stephanus bishop of Rome in Cyprians time, ordained peculiar ministering garments, as it is recorded by Polyd. de Invent. lib. 6. c. 12. and by Issidor. writing de Stephano. Unto which you may add Gratian if you will, de consecrat. dist. 1. Vestimenta Ecclesiae. But though Stephanus flourished before Antichrist was hatched, yet he is too young to be a lawful Author of any such garments.  
Besides who seethe not, by that alleged out of Celestine 160. years at least after Stephen, that decree of Stephen to be a mere forgery? was it a Novelty to bring in any such apparel in Caelestínes' time, and yet had prescription of such antiquity? But the [Century writers] have discovered the forgery by many arguments, that I marvel any man of learning should seek any strength from such a rotten foundation.  
Hierome is also alleged in Ezech. 44. 
Per qua discinius, non quotidianu & quibustibet, & usu v●ta communis, poliutu vestibus nos ingredi debere insancta sanctorum, sed nounda conscientia & mundis vestibus tener● Domini Sacram●nta.  By which we learn to enter the holy of holyes, not with common and defiled garments, but to hold the Sacraments in a clean Conscience and garments unpolluted.  
Where first he interpreteth the garments to be a clean conscience. And secondly that he requireth for the outward garments, is only they be clean without any note of difference between the Minister's garment and the peoples.  
So a little after, Divine Religion hath one habit in the Ministry, and another for ordinary use. 
Religio divine●, alterum habitum habet in Ministorio terum in usu veràque communs.   
To admit these words spoken not of the Priests in the Temple, but of Christian Ministers, this [alter habitus] was a better garment for the time of public duty, as Nepotian had, not any differing attire from that of the assembly. Thus much for Hi●rome. 
Hac est dignitas vo●tra, ha● stabilitas, hac corona non quia tunicam indut● candidissim●m per Ecclesiam ambulasis.   
chrysostom when he saith, [This is your dignity, stability▪ crown, not that you walk through the Church in a white coat. Hom. 83. in Mat. necessarily requireth the same interpretation. For this most white coat was no other than the better sort of people did usually wear, as well in other Countries, as at Rome, as hath been showed by the Ambassadors of Rhodes, and the shipmen of Egypt. Only the Bishops in humility thought it too sumptuous for daily use, and reserved it for the time of their public function.  
And therefore Sisninius a Novatian Bishop; living in Constantinople at the same time with chrysostom, and clothing himself not only in his Ministry, but for his ordinary raiment, in white, was demanded by one, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. where it is to be observed, 
Socrat. lib. 6.23.  It was an unwonted garment in ordinary use for a Bishop, no● for other men: and unwonted in ordinary use, not in divine use, in which the Bishop was allowed without any grudge, such dignity of apparall as was then received by men of best place.  
That of chrysostom hom. 6. ad popul. Antioch. is [palea.] I have troubled you with many words, but the truth is so overswayed with prejudice, that to my poor power I would disburden it a little if I can.    

SECT. 25.26.27.28. Concerning the Defender his Reasons.  
1. THe Def. his first reason (by the rejoinder his interpretation) is, that by our assertion, the Church shall lose a part of her Christian liberty: because if she may not use human Ceremonies a●used unto Idolatry and superstition, she may use none at all. Now 1. The Replier granted the conclusion, being understood of human significant Ceremonies. And thereto the Rej. opposeth nothing, but that there is the same reason of all other Ceremonies; and that one Did●clave doth not grant this of sitting at the Lords Supper, though he confess it to be a human significant Ceremony. But both these answers are void of truth. For Circumstances of Order and Decency▪ which are sometime called Ceremonies, and here understood, are neither mere human institutions, nor unnecessary (which is part of the quaestion) but commanded of God, as often hath been showed. Neither doth Didoclave any where confess Sitting at the Lords Supper, to be a human Ceremony. 2. It seemeth very strange to me, that appointing & using of human significant unnecessary Ceremonies, notoriously known to have been, and be abused unto Idolatry, should be fetched from Christian Liberty.  
I have considered what is spoken of Christian liberty, in the Scripture, and what I could find written of it by Divines: and thereout observed much against these Ceremonies (as is alleged in the sixth general Argument, which the rejoinder was not hasty to come unto, in eight or nine years) but nothing either for their imposing, or their using.  
The rejoinder meaneth by the Church (in England) the Convocation house; and by Christian liberty, their licentiousness, in Abridging Gods people of that liberty which Christ hath left unto them. So that, as in some parts of Germany, and Polonia, the Noble men stand mightily for the Liberty of their Country; And yet when the course of things is well weighed, that liberty is only licence for them to oppress the common people, or Boors; whom they keep under as slaves, or little better; whose goods they take from them upon every slight praetence; whose lives (in some places) can scarce satisfy them for the life of a stag, if they shoot one, spoiling their corn, even so, this Christian liberty is only for our Convocation-house to oppress the Congregations of Christ, as they do.  
2. The Defender his second reason, was such, as the Repl. could find no conclusion in, but that somethings abused, may afterward be rightly used: which he granted. The rejoinder addeth, that his reason did conclude this of some human Ceremonies, from the Law of shadows. He said in deed, among other instances, that a Man or Woman, legally unclean, might he legally cleansed or purged. And can he conclude from Men and Women, to human unnecessary Ceremonies? He may as well conclude, that because in a fretting leprosy, the leprous man's head may not be cut off, nor his body burned; therefore his infected garments were not to be burnt, nor the hair of his head and beard cut off.  
The Replier also granted that Surplices might be turned into under garments for poor people; and wooden Crosses given them for firing.  
The rejoinder answereth 1. that this is no use of Ceremonies, as Ceremonies. As if he himself did alway speak formally!  
The sentence immediately going before, was of things abused: And so this addition was of those things which are made Ceremonies. Yet if that be true, which the rejoinder affirmed pag. 570. that a Surplice, as a Ceremony, is in the kind of a Garment, than it must needs follow, that this Ceremony may be given to the poor for a garment.  
And if he fly to Use as necessary to make a Ceremony, as he doth in his Definition of a Ceremony, it may be as well quaestioned, whether a Shirt be a garment out of use when it is off a man's body? For a garment is a Ceremony, by the rejoinder his Definition. And so it may be quaestioned, whether any Shirt, or other Garment was made, or washed, when no man had it on? His 2. answer, that M. Parker calleth them Devils, and jarring on the same string, would fright men from burning of Idols, as he did in Germany, who when men were burning of wooden Idols, bored a hole in one, into which he stopped some gunpowder; so that the Idol being in the stove to burn, the gunpowder broke the stove together with the windows of the room, in pieces; and that was imputed by some to the Idol, or Saint, and by others, to the Devil. But (saith the rejoinder) from hence it followeth, that th●re is a change of Law: because the jews might not convert the matter of Idols to their private use. And so much we grant; urging only the equity of those Laws. Then (addeth he) the Abrigement hath abused the World, in alleging those Laws, as binding Christians now, as much as they did the jews. But with this outcry no man will be troubled, that noteth how they are to be understood only according to their quaestion, of human unnecessary Ceremonies, as they are such. For the Second Commandment doth bind us as much as it did the jews; and so the equity of particular Laws, as they illustrate the contents of that Commandment, bind us as much, though not in every other particular to so much, as they did the jews. The sum is; those laws bind us as much from all religious use of human unnecessary Ceremonies, used or abused in Idolatry, as they did the jews.  
3. In the 27. Sect. the Replier could find no show of reason, beside mere affirmations. The rejoinder findeth this Argument: If two other ways of reforming Ceremonies, beside Abolition, may be used; then abolition is not the only way. But two other ways, (namely changing or correcting) may be used. Ergo.  
To this show of reason, the answer is easy: 1. If those two other ways be understood as partial and insufficient, than the Proposition is false: if as sufficient by themselves, without abolition, than I deny absolutely the Assumption, as being a mere affirmation of that which is in quaestion, according to the Repliers observation.  
2. Either this is understood of all Ceremonies abused, or only of some? If of all, our Reformation is to be blamed, which hath used abolition without any necessity. If of some only, the Defender ought to have told us, which they are, or by what mark we may know them? And omitting this, he saith neither Argumentation, nor certain affirmation in this Section.  
4. The last Reason is, because Popery and Popish Rites are not to be esteemed of equal abomination with Paganism, and Paganish Rites. The rejoinder bringeth it to this: that the Idolatry of Papists, and Pagans, considered in themselves are not like. The Replier answered, that though this were true every way (as it is not) yet in this they may agree, that both alike are to be detested and abandoned. You speak monsters (answereth the rejoinder) because, if they be not alike detestable, they are not alike to be detested: and Abandoning hath no degrees. But 1. The substance of this assertion was wont to be accounted no Monster. For D. Fulke (rejoinder to Bristol, pag. 288.) maketh open profession of it, not only in his own name, but of other Divines: This we say; that Popish Images, although they be not the same that were the Images of the Heathen, yet they are as abominable Idols, as theirs; and the worshipping of them, as much to be abhorred of all true Christians, as the worshipping of the Images of the Gentiles.  
2. When the Replier spoke of like detestation, he did not mean to equal the balance unto a hair, or hal●e an Ace; but according to usual speech. Herbs hot in the fourth degree, are said to be alike hot, though there may be found some difference. Wilful disobedience is said to be as the sin of Witchcraft; and stubbornness as Idolatry, 1. Sam. 15.  
Yet there may some difference of degree be found betwixt these sins. Monsters therefore here was too excessive a word.  
3. Abandoning I take to be all one with putting or casting away: and one thing may be cast into the bottom of a pond, when another is cast into the bottom of the Sea. It hath therefore degrees.  
To the Repliers assertion, that we are by the Scriptures warned to fly as well, and as fare, from Popish, as from Paganish Idolatry, the rejoinder (with some litigation about Rev. 18.) consenteth: but addeth that it is not necessary to fly from every human (he should have added unnecessary) Ceremony, which either Papists or Pagans have Idolatrously abused. Now this is the main quaestion of this whole chapter: and therefore not here to be discussed. Only this: the Defender in this Section, founding himself upon a disparity betwixt Popish and Paganish Idolatry, seemeth to grant, that if they were equal, than we were to fly from the Ceremonies abused in Popish Idolatry: and this grant the rejoinder doth not well to recall.  
The Replier not being willing to spend time about the comparison betwixt Popish, and Paganish Idolatry, referred the Defendant to the Abridgement, and Mr. Parker. Hereupon the rejoinder taketh upon him to answer what is found in them, about this comparison. In which discourse, because many things before answered are repeated, to ease myself, and the Reader, of tedious labour, I will only note the main grounds of his answers, pertaining directly to that comparison, and then set down some plain testimonies of our divines about it; because he partly denieth, and partly shifteth off Mr. Parker's quotations. His principal ground of answer is, that the Papists do not sin against the first Commandment, in worshipping a false God; but against the second only, in worshipping the true God, in a fa●se manner. This he produceth (pag. 618,) as Doctor Ames his judgement: 
Gentes in Idolis creaturas celeb●nts, ●●dem se●e modo, que Pontifici. S●c enim respondent, apud Aug in Psal. 9●. Non colimus lapidem, non mala Daemonia: Angelos quos dicitis i●sos & nos c●limus, Virtutes Dei magni. Ministeria Dei magni. Et Maximus Madan●ensis; apud cunde● Aug Ep. 43. Ecquidem unum esse Deum quis tam dement, tam ment captus, ut neget esse certissimum? Hu●us nos virtutes, ●er mundanum opus diffusas, multis vocabulu invocamus.  this he repeateth, pag. 624. and 630. But this is not so. For the wiser of the Heathen, knew well, that there was bat one true God, Creator of all things, and the ruder of the Papists, worship Creatures, more devoutly as divine objects, than those Heathen were wont to do.  
The case is plain, and plentifully confirmed by our Divines, in every dispute against Popish Idolatry. Doctor Ames hath not one word to the contrary: but this he hath for it, Bellar. Encru. ●om. 2.238. The Gentiles worshipped the creatures in Idols, after the same manner almost that the Papists do. For so they answer upon August. in Psalm. 96. We do not worship a stone nor dev●ls: whom ye call Angels do we worship, the V●rtues of the great God, and his Ministeries. And Maximus Madaurensis, in the same Aug. 43. ep. Certainly, who is mad, or void of sense, that ●e will once doubt, whether there be more Gods then one. Now we invocate the virtues of this one God, under many names, diffused thorough the frame of the whole world.  
Another ground of the Rejoinders is, that the Popish Idolatry may be, in some respect as great a sin, but not simply so great Idolatry. pag. 622. etc. To which I answer briefly, that there are such sins accompanying Popish Idolatry, as make it as detestable, as if it were one simply. As for example; the worst of the Heathens Idolatry was, that they sacrificed men unto their Idols: and the Papists burning of so many godly Martyrs, for the maintenance and promoting of their Idolatry, may be equalled thereto, in horror of sin.  
The third ground which the rejoinder buildeth on, is, that Ahab's Baal was worse than Aaron's or jeroboam calves, etc. pag. 629. About this, Calvin shall answer, Hom. 1. de Fug. Idol. 
Quaemvis istis concedam, dissimilem diversamque esse rationam Idololatria Papistarum, atque ejus qua apud veteres Gentiles viguii, negare tamen non poterunt, Deum non minus severè prohibuisse cul●um in Bethel impi● constitutum, quam altas superstitiones omnes, quae caeteris in locis institutae celebrataeque fuerunt. Ego vero statuo atque ass●mo, eos omnes qui Deum ve●e metuunt, ac piè colu●t, eo majore at que aoerbiore odio debere & prosequi & detestari Missam, quo apertius violate & prosanat sanctam institutionem jesu Christi, quam si non tam opposita contrariaque ei extitisset.  Although I yield, that the Idolatry of the Gentiles of old, and of the Papists now, do differ, yet they cannot deny, that God did as severely forbidden that wicked worship of Bethel, as all other superstitions which were set up in other places. But I say, that all they who truly fear and worship God, aught with so much the more detestation, and bitter hatred be against the Mass (by how much the more grossly it violates, and profaneth the holy institution of Christ) then if it had not been so Diademiterly contrary to it. Calvin seemeth here to utter greater Monsters, than those were which the Replier even now was accused for.  
Unto Calvin I will add the sentences of some others, about the question: because Mr. Parker's marginal quotations are not so easily found. Beza, Epist. 1. The Papists have turned one Sacrament into that horrible Idolatry which is not heard of among the Gentiles, 
A●terum Sacramentum ●ontifi●aj●n horrend●m ilam Idolomaniam, qua ne fando quidem inter Gentes auditur, transformarunt, & ex mensa Domini mensam Damontorum conflarunt. Idem Beza, adv. Baldwin. fol. 4 ante finem. Quum ab Artolat indicessero, nulla est, sub Coelo, talis magiae & Idolomaniae species, qualis est illa Crucis signatio & adoratio. Id●m Beza, de Notu Ecclesiae, ciroa medium: Non est ulla execrabilior, in orbe terrarum, Idolomavia, quam quae fuit, & est, in Crucis adoratione. Idem Beza, adv. Ha●chiam: Coenae Domini mutata est (à Pontificijs) in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quo nunquam ullum execrabilius, neque extitit, neque poterit postea excogetari pag. 4 ante finem.  and of ●he ta●le of the Lo●d have made it the Table of Devils. When I leave Bread-worship, there is no such kind of Magical Idolatry under the Sun as that of the Cr●sse. Again, there is no greater Idolatry in the world, then that which was, and is committed in the worship of the Crosse. The Lord's Supper is changed of the Papists into that abomination, the like whereto there never was, nor can ever be devised for execrableness.  
Blessed Bradford, in his ep. to the Lady Vane, hath these words sealed with his blood: There was never thing upon the ●arth, so great, and so much an adversary to God's true service, to Christ's Death, Passion, Priesthood, Sacrifice, and Kingdom; to the Ministry of God's Word and Sacraments; to the Church of God; to Repentance, Faith, 
Adoratio Papistarum, nixa fundamento commentitia transubstantiationis, est Idololatria omnium qu● unquam fuerunt crassissima. Ora pro nobis sanctissima Dei Mappa. Quales obsecio, idololatriae sunt istae Num quid simile apud Ethnicos exiflit?  and all true godliness of life, as the Mass. Doctor Whitakers, de Sacram. pag. 582. Popish adoration built on the fiction of transubstantiation, is the foulest of all Idolatry. These testimonies concern the Mass, and the Crosse. It were easy to add others, concerning diverse particulars: as Sadeel, ad. Mon. By'r▪ Ar. 58. Pray for us most holy tablecloth or handkerchief of God What Idolatry is this? was there ever the like among the Gentiles? But for particulars, I refer the studious Reader, unto our Divines: and among them, in this point, I reckon Doctor jackson, in his Original of Unbelief, Sect. 4. Cap. 22. etc. where the title is, Of the Identity, or Equivalency of Superstition, in Rome Heathen, and Rome Christian, and cap. 38. he bringeth pregnant Instances, as among other, of Vrbanus, the Patron of pleasant Companions; Gutmanus, the Warden of puddingmakers; and of S. Christopher, and S. George, men of the Painters or Heralds making; and yet adored as Gods. Nay alloweth of Sr. David Linsey, denying any difference to be betwixt Heathenish and Romish Idolatry. I will only add the words of Hospinian, de Orig. Templ. pag. 84. 
Quod extenuant superstitiones Papisticas, prae Gentium Idosolatria, in eo puoriliter, ne quid gravius dicam, agunt. Anon corum Idolomania, a Papistis mutatinomin, 〈◊〉 est revocata?  That some go about to lessen the Idols of Papists in comparison of that which was among the Heathens, is (that I say no more) most childishly done. Is not their Idolatry plainly recalled, the names only changed?  
Yet it shall not be a miss, to give some reason of that which our Divines say. And this (for the present) is at hand: The Heathen gods (take them at the worst) were works of cunning Artificers, made of silver, gold, or some precious thing curiously wrought, sumptuously adorned, representing a Majesty. But the Papists Masse-god is made by every sacrificing Idiot, of a bready substance, by uttering of a word, without form or beauty. The Heathen knew, their Idols were not Gods: and the greatest estimation they had of them, was, a certain Divinity might lodge in them. The Papists believe their bread (or Host of starch) is very God, not by accidental residence of some Divinity in it, but as Christ himself is God. The Heathen seat their Idols in Temples, and consecrated places, to be adored. The Papists having lifted up their god, and adored him, devour him. Will any man spoil (much less eat, hark said one, how his bones cracked, when he swallowed him down) his god? saith the Prophet, Mal. 3.8. Upon such considerations Coster, a jesuite, (Enchirid. cap. 8.) confesseth, that if the substance of bread remain in the Sacrament, than the Idolatry of Papists is more intolerable, than the Egyptians was in worshipping of an Ox, or a Crocodile.  
This may suffice for the 28. Section: but that the Rej. will needs have us take notice of some sharp phrases, and sentences he passeth upon us. To pass by therefore his prescribing of Hellebore, for Mr. Parker (which in us he would call skurrility, if it were spoken of a Prelate, though in all intellectuals, and morals, much inferior to M. Parker) to omit (I say) this, and such like single reproaches, he gathereth a bundle together, pag. 628.  
The first is, that we have wrought the faithful Servants of Christ, out of the love and estimation of many. By Faithful servants of Christ, he must needs mean Conformists, as they are Conformists; and that Generally: for if he except any kind of them, they will cast upon him that imputation, which he layeth upon us: you say unto other men; stand a loof off; we are more holy, or more faithful than you, etc. Now 1. let any man consider, if it be any faithfulness to Christ, to observe and urge those religious Ceremonies, which he never commanded, but rather forbidden, as hath been proved? 2. Those which are in other things faithful, we go not about to work out of the love and estimation of others, but them out of the love and estimation of unfaithful conformity. May not a man speak against Non residency, if some honest man be come to it? But it becometh not the Rej. to speak of bringing Christ's servants out of love and estimation with many; while he writeth in defence of those courses, which have brought thousands of them out of house and home, into so extreme misery, as our Prelates could possibly bring any, and more than they bring the servants of Antichrist into.  
The second is, that we have brought the public prayers into contempt. Because (forsooth) we would have public prayers free from those contemptible fashions which are taken out of the Mass book.  
Thirdly, we have brought the preaching of the Gospel, by any conformed Ministers into disgrace. As if we did not rejoice in the preaching of the Gospel, even by Friar Paul, or Fulgentius etc. at Venice!  
Fourthly, we have brought the Sacrament to be of less esteem than the gesture. Which is the proper fault of our Prelates, and those who deny the Sacrament to all that cannot bring their consciences to kneeling, though Christ hath invited them to his Table.  
Fiftly, we question, whether it be lawful for one to marry with one that conformeth to the Laws. Now of this question I never heard any news, before the Rej. proclaimed it. It may be, that some, observing how diverse godly women, having given themselves in marriage to some Ministers, upon a great estimation of that calling, without making just difference of the persons, have warned others to use more discretion. But this I am sure of, that all Subscribers, do testify under their hands; that all who refuse to conform, may lawfully have their Baines and Marriages forbidden: because it is provided in the Service-booke, that none shall marry, except they communicate, whereto is annexed kneeling, and that none shall either communicate, or marry, except first they be Bishoped, or Confirmed.  
Sixtly, we quaestion whether it be lawful to hear a conformable Minister, if another may be heard; or safe to rely upon their Ministry? which quaestions he seemeth to invent, and teach, rather than receive from us; except, he meaneth by relying, taking all for good that they say, or do.  
Seventhly, we have appropriated the surnames of Christians, the title of Sincere, the very name of the Church, the Brethren, the Godly, unto ourselves.  
From all which slanders we are so free, that I doubt not to say (according to my conscience) that among those which live under the tyranny of the Pope, and do not utterly separate from him, through ignorance, there be many Christians, Sincere according to their knowledge, belonging to the true Catholic Church, and so to be accounted our Godly Brethren. But on the contrary part, Our Prelates, appropriating unto themselves the name of the Church of England, really proclaim us (by their extreme hostile courses) to be fare from the account of their Christian Brethren. If some time some of us, call those among the godly that consent with us, the Brethren, the Godly, etc. the rejoinder should not have excepted against it, at least in this roll of accusations, in the first front whereof, he styleth and surnameth Conformists, the Faithful Servants of Christ.   

SECT. 29.30. Concerning our Confessions, and Practices.  
IN the 29. Section, only Calvin, Martyr, and Zepperus, are brought in as witnessing something against us. But their judgements have been so declared before, that it would be a tedious repetition, to insist on them again.  
In the 30. or last Section, a contradiction being sought-for in vain, betwixt our conclusi●ns, and our confessions and practices, the Replier thought it sufficient to dispatch all briefly, in a few questions, to which the rejoinder answers; but so, as he bringeth little or nothing that requireth a new confutation.  
The first question was about Temples, Bells, Table-cloths (objected by the Defendant) whether they have such Idolatry put upon them by Papists, as the Cross hath? The rejoinder answereth 1. that if they have as much as the Surplice, that will serve the turn. It would indeed, in part; though nor in whole. But that cannot be proved. His second answer is, that such a Cross as ours is, was never abused at all in Popery. Which is a Metaphysical conceit, sufficiently before confuted. His third is, that Temples and Bells, were as well abused. But the question was of such Idolatry. His fourth is, that the white linen Altar cloth was as much abused as the Surplice.  
But the quaestion was of the Crosse. And 2. The Papists Altar-cloath, differeth much from the Tablecloth which we allow of.  
2. The second was, if the Defender his own heart did not tell him, that there is a civil use of the things forenamed; which cannot be imagined of the Cross? The rejoinder granteth a civil use of Bells; though not of Churches, or Communion tablecloths: Adding, that there may be a civil use of some Crosses, though not of Transient Grosses (such as ours) and also of Wafers. But he attended neither to those words of the Replier: If his own heart do not tell him; nor to those: such things. For his bringing-in first of terms, which involve the use together with the things, and that use also immediate, which is but mediate, in Churches, and Communion table clothes; with his contrary changing of such Crosses as ours, into some Crosses, and Wafer-Gods into Waf●r-seales for letters, declare both. Concerning the difference, enough hath been said in the first part of this Fresh-suit, in the head of Ceremonies.  
3. The third was, what Superstition was in the mere signification, given by Durandus unto Bells, and Bell-ropes, which is not to be found in our Cross and Surplice? The rejoinder here answereth nothing; but only noteth many more superstitious significations to have been then conceited, of divers things, and also of Bells, than we have in our Ceremonies. But the quaestion was only of the weight, not the number of superstitious significations.  
4. The 4. was, whether the Pagans use of Bay-leaves (objected by the Defender) about 1000 years past, doth cast such a reflection upon our civil use of Bay-leaves, as Popish Superstition doth upon our Ceremonies? The rejoinder his answer consisteth only in words; save that he aequalleth the Countries (of Papists) to those of ancient unknowen Heathens; the time (before or after Baptism) unto a 1000 year's distance; the place (crown of the head and forehead) unto farre-removed and unknowen Lands. Here again he neglected that item of the Repliers: If his own heart doth not tell him?  
5. The fift was, what sense the Defender had, to find fault with us, for not altering the situation of Churches? Nay (saith the rejoinder) what face have you, to say, that he did find fault with you, for not doing it? Surely the plain country face, of taking the Defend. his words, as they stand in your rejoinder, pag. 645. Nor do you alter the Situation of your Churches, and Chancels toward the East.  
6. The 6. was, if it be all one, to call a Ship, by the name of Castor and Pollux (Act. 28.11.) and to use a religious Ceremony, in God's worship, taken from those Idols? No, saith the rejoinder. Which is enough to show the vanity of the Defender in comparing the names of Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, unto Ceremonies taken from Popery.  
7. The 7. was, whether it be one thing, to change Copes into Cushions, and to use a Masse-vestiment, in God's worship? The rejoinder saith nothing worth the repeating.  
8. The last quaestion was, if it be not a kind of slander, to say, that the Church of Geneva imposeth a round Wafer-cake, like the Papists, to be used in the Lord's Supper. And if it be not a wide leap, to bring in the practice of Geneva, for an instance of the Nonconformists practice, in England? The rejoinder answereth 1. Yes, it is a slander to impute unto Geneva a round Wafer-cake, like the Papists: but addeth, that the Defender did not so. If he doth not, what mean those words of his: albeit the Church of Geneva is not ignorant, what the round Wafer among the Papists did signify? Or what consequence made the Defender from Genevas Wafer-cake, to Ceremonies abused unto Idolatry, if the Geneva Wafer-cake be not like unto the Papists?  
In the second place, the rejoinder confesseth, that the bread used at Geneva, is a large square Cake, which is broken in sundry parcels, unto the Communicants: and yet he addeth, that it is a Wafer-Cake, as thin, as thin may be. Where it is something, that he confesseth their bread not to be like the Papists, neither in extensive quantity, nor yet in Form and Figure. But yet I am persuaded, he wrongeth that Church, in making their Cakes as thin as the Papists Host. For the Papists Host is a starchie or scummie crust, distinct from cibarius panis, bread fitting for food, by our Divines censure of it: And it is not credible, that the Church of Geneva should retain such a gross corruption. But (saith the rejoinder) you allow their Ceremony of Wafer-bread. Nothing less. We never read, nor heard from them, that they made any Wafer fashion a Religious significant Ceremony. This Wafer was first baked in England. And if they did, they are old enough, let them answer for themselves.  
But (addeth he) even unleavened bread hath been abused. Neither allow we of any Ceremonious leaving out of leaven: nor can it be proved of the Geneva Church. As for that which was added by the Replier, of custom herein praevayling against Farells, Calvins, and Virets advise; it is confessed by the rejoinder that these Divines had brought-in a custom of using common bread; but after some knaves working upon the relics of the former custom, brought in unleavened bread: which is enough for to confirm that which the Replier spoke (as the rejoinder saith) at random.  
To the second part of the quaestion: whether it be nor a wide leap, to bring in the Practice of Geneva, for an Instance of the Non-Conformists practice in England? The rejoinder answereth, that it is an abuse, unruly lightness, eagerness after squibs, and scorns, which wrought the Replier out of his gears: All this it pleaseth him to lay upon this one phrase (a wide leap) a little after he had commended Hellebore unto M. Parker, with many such Drugs unto others. And what is the cause? Forsooth, because this Geneva Wafer-cake was given as an instance of our Confessions, and not of our Practice. But this is as wide, as if it had been confessed to belong to our Practice. For no such Confession of ours can be showed. It had been fitting to object nothing unto us as Confessed, but that which we have either in practice, or in writing allowed. Neither in deed was it the Defender his meaning to make all the rest of his instances our Practices, and this only our Confession: but he stumbled upon this in the end, as a thing that must have some place among his objections; because it had been objected by others: and the rejoinder having begun his book with the accusation of Scurrility, finding him to be taken, had no other way, but with this show of a distinction, to vent some salt phrases, like unto that, Vt ultima primis consentirent. 1. e. That both ends might agree.    

A POSTSCRIPT.  
SOme Reader may inquire whence came this new writing about Ceremonies? And he may please to be informed, that after the Abrigement was printed, a great silence followed in England, about these matters (as if enough had been said on both sides) until D. Morton, then B. of Chester, not thinking it honest, to silence Ministers, for Ceremonies, before some answer was given unto their reasons they stood upon) undertook with great confidence to give a full Answer to all which was objected.  
This answer being printed, was diverse years neglected, as containing little or nothing that had not formerly been confuted.  
But afterward (when silence was interpreted in such sense, as if it had been a yielding consent) it was by some thought fitting, that a brief Reply should be opposed.  
This the Bishop thought not worthy of his own rejoinder; but was contented to put it off unto D. Burges, as a friend to him, engaged in the cause, and wanting neither will, nor wit, nor words, nor credit.  
And he went about it, with all his might. But finding more rubs in the way, than he had thought of, after he had spent about nine years, in rejoining to that which was written in some four weeks, by Special Command (procured he knoweth by whom) was compelled to thrust forth his imperfect wo●ke, full of such passionate stuff, as (it may be) upon more deliberation, he himself would have recalled.  
Upon these out-cries, it was necessary to speakagaine for a good cause, lest diffamation should praevayl against it.  
But what good (will some say) can be expected from this writing, when the cause appeareth desperately Surely little or none for the public: Because in our Bishop's courses, Will, and Power, have justled out Reason.  
But yet God's word is not bound. And if we must needs be oppressed by them, is it not worth a little ink and paper, to demonstrate, that it is in a good cause?  
By this means, our consciences are justified; our afflictions made more tolerable; our oppressors though more angered, yet must of necessity be less insulting; and our names shall suffer less, though our bodies and outward estate endure more: and Posterity shall not say, that (for our own ease) we betrayed the cause, by leaving it more praejudiced to them, than we received it from our Forefathers.  
FINIS.    


AN ADDITION Of the two last reasons of the former reply, unto whi●h, no answer hath, as yet, been rejoined.  
THE REPLYER Being not only willing, but desirous, (for the manifestation of the truth) that the Rejoiner, should try his strength to the utmost.   

CHAP. V.  

Sect. I. ad X.  
THe Authors of the Abridgement framed a strong Argument against our Ceremonies from the rules of Ceremonies prescribed in the Word, P. 43. etc. with this Argument when the Defendant was not able to grappell, as it stood in the parts combined, he thought good to sever some parcels of it, and try what he could say to them apart. Thus out of this one Argument he hath taken that which he calleth our first: and out of the same he hath made up this fift: and yet he hath quite le●t out a great part of the sinews wherewith that one reason is knit together in the Abridgement.  
The argument is taken from the scandal or offence which the imposing and using of these ceremonies do bring unto diverse sorts of men.  
The Defendant here maketh great flourishing in nine whole Sections, defining, deviding, and subdividing a scandal, as if he would make all clear before him: but at the end of all this preparation, he maketh no application of these Rules unto the matter in hand at all: but only, telleth his Reader, Pag. 154. That these divisions and subdivisions will expedite all difficulties, so that out of them he may collect the true and false sense of Scriptures alleged. It were sufficient therefore either to deny this power to be in his divisions: or else to set down as many other subdivisions of scandal (which were easy to do) and then tell him that these will expedite the controversy, and that from them he may collect the errors of his answer. But I will notwithstanding briefly show my opinion concerning some of these dictates.  
The definition which he only alloweth of as accurate is▪ that a scandal is a wilful offence against Christians, in provoking of them unto any damnable error or sin, by any sensible external means: Sect. 1. Wherein notwithstanding many faults may be found. For 1. every scandal is not wilful, except the word be taken more largely then use of speech will allow. 2. Every scandal is not against Christians. 3. A scandal is not only by provoking to sin, but also in hindering from good. 4. What doth he mean to put in the word damnable? the occasioning of any sin, sufficeth to make up a scandal.  
Among his subdivisions, the first thing I except against is, Section 5. where he distinguisheth so betwixt persons and causes, either determined or undetermined, that in matters determined by the Church (as he teacheth) obedience is to be given without respect of scandal: and only in matters undetermined there is a charitable consideration to be had of other men's consciences. This is a new and a tickle point of Divinity, touching the tenderest part of our spirits, even our consciences, and other men's also. It ought therefore either not to have been propounded, or else to be well confirmed either with testimonies, or with reasons drawn out of Scripture. But alas the Def. thrusteth it upon us without any such warrant. The peace of the Church (saith he) is to be preferred before the grievance, i. e. scandal of any sort of men. As if the peace of the Church did not more consist in avoiding of scandals, then in observing of humane Ceremonies: it is not the peace of God which is broken by a charitable care of avoiding offences, but by rushing into them.  
A scandal in the nature of it is spiritual murder. Now suppose a Superior should command a thing in itself indifferent, whereupon murder were like to follow, as to run a horse, or a cart, in a certain way, at a certain time, when it may be unwitting to the commander, little children were playing in the way, would any man's conscience serve him to do it?  
Avoiding of scandal is a main duty of charity. May Superiors at their pleasure appoint how fare I shall show my charity towards my brother's soul? Then surely an inferior earthly court may cross the determinations of the high Court of Heaven.  
The superiors have no power given them for destruction, but only for aedification. If therefore they command scandals, they go beyond their commission: neither are we tied therein to do as they bid, but as they should bid.  
If determination by superiors were sufficient to take away the sin of a scandal. Then they do very ill that they do not (so far as is possible) determine all things indifferent, that so no danger may be left in giving of offence by the use of them. Then the Church of Rome is to be praised in that she hath determined of so many indifferents; then Paul with the other Apostles might have spared a great deal of labour in admonishing the Churches how they should avoid offences about some indifferent things. A fare shorter way had been either to determine the matter finally, or else to have given order that the Churches should among themselves determine it at home.  
But say that the Archbishop of Corinth (for now I suppose such a one) had called his Convocation, and with consent of his Clergy had determined that men might, and for testifying of liberty should, at a certain time eat of such and such meats which men formerly doubted of: would not yet the Apostle have given the same direction he did? would not good Christians still have had care of their brother's consciences? Can the determination of a superior be a sufficient plea at the bar of God's judgement seat, for a man that by virtue or force thereof alone, hath done any action that his conscience telleth him will scandalise his brother?  
Lastly, I would fain know whether those superiors do not give a great scandal, which take upon them determinately to impose unnecessary rites which they know many good men will be scandalised by?  
The second notorious flaw which I find in the Defendant his subdivisions, is sect. 9 where he granteth that much indulgence indeed is to be used in things indifferent towards weak persons, whose infirmity proceedeth only from simple ignorance: but that only till such time as the doctrine concerning such things have been sufficiently declared: because a scandal doth always presuppose a mere weakness for want of due means of knowledge. For 1. Paul had sufficiently declared that it was lawful for him to take wages, yet he would not, 1. Cor. 9 he had given sufficient reasons for the lawfulness of eating all kind of meats, yet he abstained, and so counselled others, for fear of scandal, Rom. 14. 1. Cor. 9.2. There can be no certain set time for all sorts of men when they are sufficiently taught. 3. Who is this Def. that he dare judge so many of his fellow servants, that in such indifferencies as our ceremonies are held to be, they take offence not upon weakness, but upon presumption? 4. What authority have our Prelates to obtrude unnecessary Ceremonies upon the Church, which must be declared before they can be used? Is it fit that the people should be troubled with the declaration of men's inventions, when they are hardly brought to hear willingly the main things of the Gospel? 5. Is it not more agreeable to the wisdom of God, Exo. 21.33. to fill up the pit, then to set one by for to warn the passengers they fall not into it? 6. There was never yet sufficient declaration of this doctrine of Ceremonies throughout England. In many places there is no preaching at all. Many preach so, that they declare nothing almost to the people but their own folly. Many are ashamed, or at least unwilling to declare unto the people men's devices. Many declare them so corruptly that the scandal thereby is not removed but increased. And among those that go about with some good mind to declare this kind of doctrine, there is almost as great variety of declarations as there is of declarers: while some will have them significant some not: some say they are good and profitable to edification, and others condemning them as altogether unfit, declare them to be tolerable for avoiding of a greater mischief: Some will have them only civil, and others Ecclesiastical: some excuse all but the cross, and some extol the cross above all. Are not such declarations (think you) likely to inform well the consciences of poor men who doubt more whom they should take for a good Declarer, than they did at the first of the things themselves?   

SECT. X.  
AMong the instances of scandal arising from the Ceremonies, that which in the Abridgement hath the third place is set first by the Def. viz. that the superstitious Papist will be hardened in the liking of his abominable Religion, from which he seethe we borrow our ceremonies, and increase in his hope of the full restoring of it again. To this the Def. answereth, that our rites are not the ceremonies of Papists, because they are purged from superstition. But 1. that they are not purged from all superstition hath sufficiently been declared before. 2. This plea of transubstantiating of Ceremonies by the breath of our Convocation, is a mere shift, contrary not only to the language of all our Divines, and to that which every man's senses do tell him, but also to the public profession of the Church of England, in the preface to our service-book, as it is cited by him, pag. 127. For there we are told, 1. that an abatement is made of the excess of Popish Ceremonies: All therefore are not abolished, but some remain. And which be they, if these in quaestion be not? 2. That some of the old Ceremonies do remain. What sense can be given of these words, if our Ceremonies be not the same with those which were of old among the Papists? if it were meant of old ceremonies not used among the Papists, than they do not remain, nor are retained, but restored. 3. That none are devised anew: therefore they must needs be taken from the Papists, or from the Fathers: but of the Father's surplice or kneeling at the communion, no instance can be given: and as for the cross, the Def. himself will not defend, I think, all that use which the Fathers put it to. 3. The Papists own words do sufficiently manifest how they are hardened by the imposition and use of our ceremonies. For as it is showed in the Abridgement p. 25. they seek to justifye their superstition by this, that we have borrowed our ceremonies from them. And some of them thence conclude (as there is showed) that our Governors like well of their superstition Beside Gretser, a principal jesuit saith, that in these ceremonies our Ministers are as Apes of Popish Priests, Apol. pro Gregor. 7. pag. 8. and in his defence, tom. 2. lib. 4. cap. 16. saith, that our Convocation house in imposing these Ceremonies, do cross the judgement of our best Divines. Lastly, the respect of that Popish superstition wherewith our people were then generally infected, was the chief, if not the only cause why these ceremonies were retained by our first Reformers. See more of this in M. Parker, p. 2. c. 6. sect. 10.   

SECT. XI.  
THe second instance is, that the profane will draw many arguments hence to b●●sse himself in his contempt of all Religion. The Defen. a●keth, from whence? I answer, from hence: 1. that Religious rites are invented by men, and appointed to be used in God's worship, even after the same manner that God's Ordinances are, or at least were of old: 2. That trifles are urged, to the increasing of contention: 3. that many place such holiness in these things which they know to be men's devises: 4. that other ceremonies are cried down, as if they were against Religion, which yet are every way as good as these: 5. that religious men are more molested for th●se toys, than they are for their profaneness.   

SECT. XII.  
THe third instance of scandal is in weak brethren, who will be drawn to yield unto the ceremonies against their consciences, or else doubtingly: and some also will grow to dislike some Ministers for these things, and so be hindered from profiting by their ministry. To this the Def. answereth in many words: but the sum of all he saith is, that these are not weak brethren, because they have been diligently catechised by Non-conformists. But 1. the Corinthians no doubt were diligently catechised: & yet there were many weak among them. 2. The Def. I hope taketh order (or else he may be ashamed) that all his Diocese be diligently catechised; yet I think he will not say but there are many weak souls in that circuit: 3. The Catechisers he speaketh of have had enough to do, to teach the people the main points of Religion, as for instructing them concerning the lawfulness of humane ceremonies, they left that to those that impose them, or to their servants: 4. After long teaching & sufficient knowledge, there may be still a weakness in regard of some things, through many circumstances required unto strength, beside bare knowledge. Lastly, we confess, that (upon supposition that the Def. his doctrine be found in these points) we are yet weak in these points, as we are also in some other, wherein our adversaries are so strong, that they can bear many Churches and such like things, upon their shoulders, without feeling any burden of them, which we cannot. See M. Park. cap. 6. sect. 18.   

SECT. XIII.  
THe fourth instance is thus set down in the Abridgement, pag. 50. As there is danger in the use of these ceremonies in all Congregations, so especially if they shall be brought back again unto those, where they have been long out of use, In this case Calvin, Brentius, Bucer, Hemingius, Beza, Grinaeus and other great Divines esteem them wicked and unlawful.  
To all this the Def. giveth no answer: but only taketh occasion to make a frothy comparison betwixt the laws and power of particular Congregations, and the whole Convocation house. Which because it neither pertaineth to the present purpose, nor containeth any thing of moment, I leave as I found: though it may be easily proved, that many particular Congregations can tell better what is fitting for their edification in some things, than all our Nationall Convocation. Nay, I dare boldly say, there is no Town of note in all England, but twelve men may be chosen out of, which would find out Canons more to the edification of all the Congregations in England, than those are, which B. Bancro●t with his Clergy, concluded.   

SECT. XIIII.  
A Fift instance, or rather an enlargement of the former is, in respect of the Ministers who have formerly refused the ceremonies, for whereas the Minister is bound to lead his people forward unto perfection, and to provide by all good means, that his ministry be not despised: by this means he shall draw them back again unto the liking of superstition: or at least not to dislike it so much as they have done, and give them evident occasion to b●ame his Ministry, and to call in quaestion the truth of all his doctrine.  
Here the Defen. cometh upon them with open mouth, avouching peremptorily, that this is a false, presumptuous, irreligious, partial, and pernicious pretence: and all this he will prove. If he can, we shall the easilyer bear these great words. But why is it false? forsooth, because most of the Non-conformists have once subscribed: the contradicting of which subscription is no less a matter of discredit then returning unto conformity. What kind of proof is this? because they were subject to another discredit, therefore this is no discredit. Beside it doth not appear, nor is likely that most of these Ministers did ever absolutely subscribe: neither is it likely; because it is well known how easy and how ordinary it was in Queen Elizabeth's days, to enter into the Ministry without passing under that gallows. If the most had, yet how would this prove it a false pretence in the rest? If all had done so, yet this was no act of their Ministry, nor known it may be to their people, and therefore the crossing of it did not so directly tend to the discrediting of their Ministry, as the crossing of their public doctrine. Lastly, that which is done before a man be settled in the Ministry at one time, without any great deliberation, is not of such note as that which a man hath long professed and persuaded by reasons taken from the word of God. By all this it appeareth, that this first accusation of jalshood was rather an adventure as the Def. himself calleth it, than a grounded assertion.  
He did but adventure neither to call the same plea presumptuous. For he can find no other reason to bear up this charge withal then, that they seem to arrogate to themselves a prerogative proper to the Apostles. How can this be I wonder, seeing they follow herein the direction of the Apostle himself, Tit. 2.15. Let no man despise thee. What this prerogative is, he doth not plainly tell us: but compriseth it in two places of Scripture, 1. Cor. 15. Gal. 2.18. the first whereof is nothing at all to the purpose. For the Apostle doth not say as the Def. maketh him, If we be found false witnesses, then is your faith in vain: but if Christ be not risen; then are we false witnesses, and your faith is vain: Which also any preacher of the Gospel may say without falsehood or presumption to his people. The second place, If I build again that which I have destroyed, I make myself a prevaricator, is appliable to any Minister that hath taught the truth against Popish superstition. This very doctrine M. Perkins gathereth out of the words. Proculcavimus sup●rstitionem Papisticam etc. I hope the Def. doth not think he may build up any superstition, and not be accounted therefore a prevaricator: if he do; or though he do not, let him consider where the presumption lieth.  
But why irreligious? because it is persisting in an error, for the preservation of their own credit. But 1. who taught the Def. to make that which is in quaestion the ground of an accusation in dispute. First, let him prove that it is an error, before he take it so for granted, that upon that ground he will challenge men's reasons as irreligious. 2. It is not their credit, but the credit of their Ministry which they speak of. 3. Is it such an irreligious thing, to desire that certain ceremonies may not be imposed upon them, lest their Ministry be by that means prejudiced?  
Why partial? because men should rather yield to conformity for the credit of the Church: i. e. for the credit of the Convocation house. Alas, the credit which a great part of that generation doth seek for, is that they may rejoice in our flesh. But suppose they meant sincerely: would the Def, have men discredit and prejudice their Ministry, to bring some credit unto other men's decrees? Or doth the forbearing of some ceremonies bring such discredit to the Authorizers of them? surely than they are more for the honour of mortal men, then for the honour of God. For God's honour and worship is no ways prejudiced by their absence.  
The last charge is pernicious. And here many words are used to give countenance unto that one. The main ground is, Woe to me if I preach not the Gospel; and Simon lovest thou me? then feed my sheep. Whereupon he gathereth, that it is a pernicious thing for a Minister to put himself unto silence. But 1. what is this to the quaestion of discrediting one's Ministry? 2. Although we were most worthy to have these remembrances out of Scripture rubbed upon us yet the Prelates are altogether unworthy and unfit to do it. Let any man conceive with himself B. Bancroft, or any other in the end of the Convocation, after all the Canons were concluded, coming forth as Prolocutor, and speaking thus to the Ministers assembled together before him. Men and brethren, the reverend fathers of this Convocation, as th●y always meditate on the law of God, and every part of it, both day and night: so especially do they lay to heart those passages of holy Writ which properly concern their office: as woe unto me if I preach not the Gospel: and Simon lovest thou me? feed my sheep. Out of th●se considerations, being carried with a fervent zeal both of preaching themselves in their several places, & also of procuring more faithful Preachers, & more fruitful preaching throughout the land, they have ●ver and above the institutions of Christ, appointed certain ceremonies strictly to be observed of every Minister: so that whosoever shall hereafter upon any pretence refuse to observe the same, they shall be esteemed factious, schismatical, disorderly, exorbitant men, and for that cause by their ordinary suspended and deprived. Now for the preventing of such a mischief● your tender mother would have you to understand by my mouth, that if any man be thrust out of the Ministry for not yeeld●ng to these constitutions, howsoever they may seem un●o him such as the Church cannot lawfully appoint, nor he observe, yet is he author of his own silencing: and therefore you must all be exhorted to consider w●ll of those parcels of Scripture which have so much prevailed with your careful mother. Woe is me if I preach not the Gospel: Simon lovest thou me? feed my sheep.  
Would not he that heard such a speech as this from a Prelate be forced to call for a basin? and after he had recovered himself he might well give answer in these words. I hear the word of a deceitful tongue. Behold thou art called a Bishop and gl●riest in that title: thou persuadest t●y self, thou art a chief guide and father of the Church, thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that sayest it is a woeful thing not to preach the Gospel, dost thou neither preach Christ faithfully, nor suffer those that would? Darest thou by thine own authority, and for t●ine own pleasure, hinder so many able men from preaching? thou that professest the flock must be fed, dost thou thrust o●t feeders, and keep in starvers? Therefore thou art inexcusable, O Prelate, whosoever thou art, that condemnest another for that whereof thou art both beginning and ending.  
Thirdly, the Apostles woe, 1. Cor. 9 belongeth to negligent, slothful, and careless ministers properly, such as our Prelates know where to find enough, who y●t neither feel nor fear that woe from the Bishops which m●ny faithful preachers are wrapped-in from time to time.  
Fourthly, the Apostle doth not pronounce any woe for not preaching, where imprisonment do●h hinder. Now he whose conscience is against the ceremonies, or doubteth of them, is spiritually imprisoned, so that he cannot by using of them, make his way to the pulpit.  
Fiftly, it is a mere jest, though a bitter one, to say, that we leave our ministeries: when we do all that our consciences will suffer us to do, for the holding of our places: and when we have done all that, depart against our wills with sorrow. Non discedit a station, qui cedit invitus. See M. Parker, p. 1. c. 4. s. 14.  
But the Defendant undertaketh to prove, that the cause of silencing is not in the Bishops that suspend and deprive us, but in ourselves. He is as it seemeth, a great adventurer: For he cometh forth upon this piece of service with flying colours: Know you well what you s●y (saith he) when you lay the cause of your silencing upon the Bishops? Yes surely, very well. For a cause is that which bringeth force or virtue to the being of another thing.  
Now the first virtue (or rather vice) which tendeth to silencing of Ministers in this case, is in the Bishop's canons: they therefore are the first cause. The second virtue is in the Bishops and their officers, which are executioners of those unconscionable canons: they therefore are the secondary cause. Nonconformity hath no virtue in it of it own nature, nor by God's ordinance, to bring forth such an effect as the silencing of God's Ministers is: though it be made an occasion by the perverseness of our Prelates. I know well what I say: and will make it good against the Defendants vain pretences. The case standeth thus (saith he) Titus (it had been more proper to say Diotrephes) the Bishop doth deprive Titius a factious and schismatical minister, that he may place Sempronius a peaceable and discreet man, in his stead. In this proceeding, the intendment of Titus is not absolutely to deprive Titius, as he is a Minister, but as he was factious: yet so only respectively, that Titius being deprived, he may constitute Sempronius: for the charge of a Bishop is not determinate to appoint precisely this minister: but indefinite, to ordain a minister, so that the course of God's plough is still preserved and continued. But as for Titius, who will rather be silenced then conform, it is evident, that the cause of his silencing being his own refractariness, which is only personal & proper to himself, and yet hath no faculty in himself to appoint or admit of a successor: he may be said to have properly caused his own suspension and deprivation.  
This case needeth no long demurring on: for there is not one sentence in all the length of it, which doth not smell, without any uncasing, 1. are all those factious and schismatical men, that refuse to conform? was Hooper such a kind of man? was Peter Martyr, and M. Perkins such, when one at Oxford, and the other at Cambridge, refused to wear the Surplice? was Mr. Goodman, Mr. Deering, Mr. More, Mr. Rogers, and such like heavenly men, the lights & glory of our churches, were all these factious and schismatical? In the presence of God it is well known they were not. But our Prelates have this prerogative, they may dubb whom they please factious and schismatical, & after that, there is no redemption, they must be such, be they otherwise never so full of all grace.  
2. Are all peaceable discreet men, which are placed in the deprived ministers stead? For the best of them, they are still as great eyesores to our Bishops almost as the other: because they reprove a great deal of Episcopal darkness, by their practices. For the rest, the congregations over whom they are set, cannot find it, the voice of all the country is otherwise for many of them; yet according to the Prelates measure, who meat (as it seemeth) the virtues and vices of a minister by certain ceremonies of their own imposing, it cannot be denied, but the most of them are very peaceable and discreet: Even so as many of the Bishops themselves were known to be afore they were Bishops, and show themselves to be still: for, Episcopatus plures accepit, quam fecit bonos.  
3. What sense can this have, The Bishop depriveth Titius respectively, that he may constitute Sempronius? Doth he know beforehand whom he shall constitute? then there is gross legerdemain, betwixt him, and that Sempronius. For with what conscience can one seek and the other assign the place of him that is in possession? This is but some time in those benefices which are fatter, and whose patrons are more foolish. Ordinarily. the vilest minister that is to be found, may succeed in the place of him that is deprived, for aught the Bishop knoweth, or for aught he can do, except he will endure a quare impedit, which in case of moral unworthiness, hath scarce been ever heard of.  
4. The charge which he saith our Bishops have of appointing Ministers, I wonder from whence they have it, or by what conveyance. They say that they themselves are the proper pastors of all the parishes in their Diocese. It is well, if they have an ubiquitary faculty, and will, to perform the office of pastors to so great a people: but who made them such? Christ & his Apostles never knew of ordinary pastors, having charge of so many Churches. But suppose they did, by whom doth Christ call one of our Bishops? By the King's congedelier, the Chapiters' nominal election, or by the Archbishop's consecration? There is none of these that can bear the trial of Scripture, nor of the Primitive Church's example?  
5. Is the Bishop's power of appointing a minister no ways determinate to this or that minister? then it seemeth his mere will determineth of the particular person, without any just reason. For if there be certain causes or reasons which the Bishop is bound to follow in designing of this or that minister, rather than another, then is the Bishop determinate. The Council of Nice itself determined the authority even of patriarchs in this case: viz. that the Elders should first nominate fit men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: secondly, that the people should elect or choose out of that number, per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: & thirdly, that the Bishop should confirm the elected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socrat. l. x. p. 177. What exorbitant power is this than which our Bishops do nowadays challenge unto themselves? All Classical Divines do consent to that which junius setteth down, Conc. 5. l. 2. c. 6. n. 73. that no Bishop can send or appoint a Minister, sine certa ac justa ecclesiae postulatione, without the certain fore-choyce of the Church: Id enim esset obtrudere, non mittere, for that were to obtrude him, not to send him.  
6. How is the course of God's plough preserved, when for the most part the succeeding Minister is thrust upon the people against their wills, and so pernicious contentions arise, of which the Bishop is cause procreant and conservant, by depriving the people of their minister, and obtruding his own minister upon them, and upholding him in all those courses whereby he grieveth the poor people.  
7. As the Minister hath no faculty in himself to appoint a successor, so hath not the Bishop neither of himself, and by himself.  
Thus much for the Defendant his case. Whereas he addeth, that Beza and Mr. Cartwright determined with him in case of the Surplice. I answer 1. they did not so for the cross. 2. they did not so for subscription to either. 3. they did not so but by way of toleration, requiring also that men did speak against the imposing of the Surplice. 4. Beza was not throughly acquainted with the state of our Church. Mr. Cartwright (as I have been certainly informed by his own son) recalled that passage of his book, and desired that his revoking of it might be made known.  

I thought good, overseeing the Press, to confirm the Author's report, by a more particular relation which I have received from a person of good credit, set down in writ as followeth.  
MR. Cartwright being beyond the seas, in printing the rest of his 2. Reply, werein that indulgence is, sent to the Ministers of England who sought reformation with him, for their opinion of the use of the Surplice in case of deprivation: 22. of whom met thereabout: of whom 19 jointly agreed that it was simply unlawful in any case, but the other three said otherwise; wherefore it was agreed by all, that each part should write their opinion, and their reasons to him, which they did: but the letter of the nineteen miscarried, and that of the other three was delivered, which he taking as the letter of the whole, supposed their joint consent had been, that the loss of the ministry altered the case of the unlawfulness, & so that they were all against him; whereupon be mistrusting his own judgement, and being much perplexed thereabout, suffered himself to be swayed unto what is there written: but afterward understanding the right, he was much more perplexed; yea (as he said) more than ever he was, in that to the great prejudice of the truth, he had suffered his conscience to be so defiled▪ which was forbidden, 1. Cor. 8.7. which he bartily sorrowed to many, professing that if he again put pen to paper about that subject, he would clear the cause, and blame himself, praying them to signify the same freely in the mean time, the which they did, so that it ever since hath been currant among all his friends, and constantly affirmed by them to all on due occasions, and particularly affirmed to M. Sprint by a Gentleman in the presence of one Nobleman, two Gentlemen, 27. Ministers, and many professors, in his course, in the scanning his book then about to be printed diverse years before it was printed, sundry also of those ministers avouched the same, some on their own knowledge, others upon undoubted testimony, which yet is ready to be avouched in due case of need, and should now be expressed, were not the naming of the avouchers dangerous unto them, and so not to be done without their knowledge, which now cannot be.  
For the point itself, when a man doth but stand in doubt betwixt using the ceremonies, and suffering of deprivation, it must needs be more safe, patiently to suffer himself to be thrust from his ministry, then to retain it and offend his conscience by using the Ceremonies. For to be restrained by authority from his lawful function, because he will not yield to the doing of that which to him is sin, is no more sin in the sufferer, then to surcease his public preaching whilst he is held in prison, where he wanteth occasion. Thus the use of that is avoided, which he disalloweth, and the blame of leaving his standing, is theirs who cast him from thence, and not his. So no sin is committed ei●her in the use of that he disalloweth, or in sustaining deprivation. But to hold his place, and to practise against conscience, is to commit one great sin at the least.  
Thus having examined the Defend. his adventurous charges of false, presumptuous, irreligious, partial, and pernicious, I find them all to be but rash words of distemper.    

SECT. XV.  
IN the last place, the Defendant bringeth forth to answer the words of the Apostle, 1. Thess. 5.22. Abstain from all appearance of evil. But as this argument is not found at all in that page of the Abridgement which he citeth, so in the words or sense which he setteth down, I dare say it is not used either of them, or any other against the ceremonies. Yet let us hear his answer. The Apostle speaketh (saith he) of the opinions of private men. But 1. what warrant hath he to restrain a general precept, when the universality of it agreeth wit● the law? Abstain from all appearance, saith the Apostle: i. e. saith the Def. from some private opinions. 2. Why must appearance of evil be needs understood of opinions only? two or three interpreters indeed do understand it of doctrine most properly: but the most otherwise; and the word translated appearance, signifying rather an object of seeing then of hearing, leads us rather to the eye, as in actions, gesturs, garments, then to the ear in doctrines. 3. For that which he addeth of private men's opinions, there is no circumstance of the text, nor any reason or authority that doth warrant such a gloss.   

SECT. XVII.  
AMong his accusations wherein he chargeth us with manifold scandals, the first is, that some weak ones by occasion of these differences, stand amazed, and so become more remiss in profession or religion. Where 1. it is to be observed, that when we spoke of weake-ones sect. 12. it was put off with this pretence, that they were such as we had catechised. Now then, who are these weak-ones? I hope the Bishops provide that people of their Dioceses are well catechised: whence then is this weakness. 2. Differences in matters of circumstance are not wont to breed scandal, until some authority enjoin uniformity, as we may see in the primitive Churches. 3. If differences be the occasion of this scandal, surely those that differ from us, may as well be accused therefore, as we that differ from them, especially when we urge nothing of ours upon them, but they impose their own devices upon us, and so are causes of the differences. 4. The amazement which some have, wondering what will be the event of differences, is no damnable error, which by the Def. is required to a scandal, sect. 1. And if they grow remiss in religion upon it, that is their sin. I am sure zeal against superstition, and for pure and undefiled worship, hath no fitness in it to work remissness in religion: but urging of humane devices in God's worship, tendeth directly thither.   

SECT. XVIII.  
THe second charge of scandal, is in respect of the Separatists. Where 1. I ask, if Gaius had made a separation from the Church wherein Diotrephes lived, whether the Apostle john had been cause of that scandal, because he condemned his abuse of excommunication, joh. 3.9.10. 2. If any separate from churches where Images are retained, who is the cause, they that dislike of Images, or they that retain them? 3. The dislike of Ceremonies is not the chief cause for which separation is made: but the intolerable abuses which are in Ecclesiastical Courts, by which it cometh to pass, that many poor men being troubled at the first for a small thing, afterward are driven to fly the country: and flying with a hatred of such courses, are ready to receive that impression which is most opposite unto them. The thing itself is plain enough to all indifferent men, that Ecclesiastical corruptions urged and obtruded, are the proper occasion of separation.   

SECT. XIX. XX.  
IN the next place the Papists are alleged as persons offended by Nonconformity, because they a●e utterly unperswadeable to ent●r into a Church where all ancient rites are professedly rejected. But 1. the refusing of conformity by the Ministers, do not, I hope, make these ancient rites (much less all) to be professedly rejected by our Church, For than we may plead the profession of our mother as well as the Defendant: which he I am sure will not grant. 2. This assertion which is given as a reason, is evidently false. For in Scotland, France, the Low countries, and such like Churches, where none of these ceremonies are retained, the power of God's word (which doth not depend on humane Ceremonies (is as effectual to the conversion of Papists, as in England. 3. How doth this agree with that which the Defendant hath so often told us, that our ceremonies are not the same with the Papists Ceremonies: and that the Papists have no great conceit of our ceremonies, cap. 2. sect. 11. 4. If our contentions about these things be a scandal to the Papist, let them look to it that cast these apples of contention into the Church, under the pretence of peace and uniformity. 5. One minister without conformity, as old M. Mids●y of Ratsdell, who was after silenced for his labour, hath converted more Papists then any (I might say then all) of the Bishops in England, with all his Ceremonial observations. 6. It is well known that there are fare more Papists and Popishly affected in those places where ceremonies are most observed, then where they have been difused. 7. It is answered in the Abridgement, pag. 47.48. that ceremonies are not for the aedification of the Papists, but for the hardening of them. And that Papists are not so much to be respected as brethren. To the latter of which words, the Defendant replieth with a descant upon the term brethren, sect. 20. but saith nothing at all to the purpose. 8. What manner of converts they are usually who are addicted to humane ceremonies, we may see in the Archbishop of Spalleto, and such others.   

SECT. XXI.  
THe greatest scandal of all (saith the Defend.) is against the Church. Now this Non-conformists are made guilty of two ways: 1. comparatively in this section, & then absolutely in the next. The comparative accusation is, that we for avoiding of offence towards our brethren, grievously offend our mother, in that wherein we own obedience unto her. Where 1. the quaestion is taken for granted, for we deny that we own obedience in the ceremonies to any man or society of men. 2. If our mother be somewhat angry, that is not presently a scandal by his definition, sect. 1. but when she is provoked to a mortal error. Now what mortal error do we provoke the Church to? Our desire and scope is, that the Ceremonies should be either wholly removed, or else left free to use or disuse: this is no mortal error, I hope. The event by accident is the silencing, depriving excluding, and molesting of us for Nonconformity: This indeed is a great error and sin of the Prelates: but as was formerly showed, the beginning of it is in their irregular Canons, and the ending of it, in the cruel executions. 3. By applying ourselves to the will of the Prelates in these Ceremonies, we should, though not anger, yet greatly scandalise them, by confirming them in a sin of making their own will a rule to the Churches, even in mystical ceremonies of superstitious worship, contrary to their and our daily prayer, Thy will be done. 4. The convocation doth not carry herself like a mother toward us: neither do we acknowledge any such honour to belong unto it. As for the faithful congregations of England, the greatest part of them would willingly be rid of these burdens.  
The rest of this Section is nothing pertinent: yet two things may be noted in it. 1. An error that the number of jewish Proselytes was great, and the converted Gentiles few, Act. 15. 2. A gross assertion, that after the doctrine of Indifferency in eating of meats, was made public by the Church, then to have sought by abstaining to avoid the offence of some, had been to the prejudice of Christian liberty, and to the scandal of the Church.  
The other accusation of contempt, is only objected Sect. 2●. and varnished over with a few glozing words Sect. 23. and therefore may well be answered with contempt. But he that will see a full refutation of this, let him read Mr. Parker chap. 5. sect. 11.12. I am weary of wrestling with the wind: yet one unworthy and unchristian taunt I cannot pass by, that he upbraideth the Ministers with, living upon voluntary contribution, and fear of offending their maintainers. For 1. when as he confesseth, he hath no windows to look into men's consciences by, what rule of religion will permit him to cast upon his brethren such a suspicion contrary to their profession, of practising and speaking against their consciences for gaining of a poor contribution? Is there not fare more cause to think, that great live, and worldly honours (one of the choicest darts that Satan hath in his quiver, and therefore tried against our Saviour himself when all other failed, Mat. 4.8, 9) is it not more likely I say that these promotions bear more sway in the minds of our great Prelates, than a poor supply of necessaries with others? 2. Nei●her all, nor the most part of them against whom he w●iteth did live upon contributions. Though they need not have been ashamed thereof if they had: seeing not only the primitive Pastors did so, but even in our time, Mr. Perkins and other such lights of our Church, have with that kind of life done more good than all our Cathedral men with their great revenues. 3. Who are the cause that many are forced to live upon contribution? have not the Loiterers of Cathedral Churches engrossed a great part of that maintenance whereby labouring Preachers should be maintained? Do not our Pluralists and Nonresidents carry away the fa● of the greatest live, & leave scarce a Servingman's wages to their Curates; so that either they must be supplied by contribution, or else by begging? Nay, do not the people in diverse places take it for a great courtesy at the Nonresidents hands, if he will take his Tithes and suffer them to procure and maintain to themselves an honest minister in his place? have not our honourable Parliament offered to provide some competent maintenance for the Ministers, if the Clergy would forbear their sinful excesses? 4. Why should the Ministers depend so much upon contribution, if they had such accommodative consciences, as this Def. surmiseth of them? Some of them with serving the time, and the addition of Simony, might come to be Bishops: and the rest might be preferred by their means to some certain incoming.    

CHAP. VI  

Sect. III.  
NOw we are come to the sixth and last general Argument, viz. that the imposition of these ceremonies is opposite unto Christian liberty. Here the Def. observeth first, that the state of this quaestion is about liberty from the necessary observation of such things as are in their own nature indifferent. This (saith he) the Objector implieth. But I answer, the Objector doth not imply it: he speaketh of ceremonies lawfully appointed by man, that these are to be used as things indifferent. Neither if one private Obj. had granted it, ought it therefore to be set, down as the received state of the quaestion, seeing the Abridgement, which in the defence is chief opposed, doth every where deny the cerem. to be in their own nature indifferent. But let that pass and examine his resolution. There be two kinds of necessities incident unto humane precepts and ordinances, in the case of indifferency: one is necessity of obedience to the commandment, which cannot properly prejudice Christian liberty: the other is doctrinal necessity: when any of those properties which are essential unto divine ordinances are attributed unto a humane constitution: as 1. immediately to bind the conscience: 2. to be a necessary means to salvation: 3. to hold it altogether unalterable by the authority of man: this is a presumption and prevarication, not only against Christian liberty, but also against the sovereignty of God himself. But 1. what meaneth this new distinction betwixt necessity doctrinal and obediential? doctrinal before pag. 3. was opposed unto ceremonial: now unto obediential: both without logic, or sound reason. 2. He should have told us what kind of necessity obediential he meaneth: for Bellar. de pont. rom. l. 4. c. 17. useth the same pretence of obedience, and allegeth the same places of Scripture for it: and yet is confuted by junius, Whitakers, and our Divines. 3. If there be doctrinal necessity, in all those humane constitutions, which have properties attributed unto them essential unto divine ordinances, than our ceremonies in controversy not only have such a mystical signification attributed unto them as is proper unto Divine Ordinances; but also that they are imposed as parts of God's worship. 4. For the three properties, which the Def. mentioneth, they are such as Papists in imposing of their ceremonies (which yet by the judgement of all our Divines deprive men of Christian liberty) do disclaim. As for immediate binding of men's consciences; no learned Papist useth such a phrase. Azorius a jesuit instit. mor. part 1. lib. 5. cap. 6. saith expressly, that humane laws do not bind, direct, proxime, & pierce: directly, immediately, & of themselves. Bellarmine also, de Rom. pont. l. 4. cap. 20. ad arg. 9 saith as much: Leges humanae non obligant sub poena mortis, nisi quatenus violatione legis humanae offenditur Deus, i. e. they do not immediately bind men's consciences. For necessity to salvation, the same Bellarmine de verb. non script. c. 11. saith plainly, That those things which are simply necessary unto salvation are set down in Scripture; and that the rest are not simply necessary. And it is plain enough that they do not hold them altogether unalterable by that authority which brought them in: for beside, that no reasonable man can deny so manifest a truth, they have altered many ancient Rites, as all the learned know. So that the Defendant his distinction is proved nothing else but a confusion, common to him with the Papists, to our ceremonies and theirs.   

SECT. IU V.  
IN the 4. Section, the Def. objecteth to himself under the name of the Abridgement, the words of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 7.35. This I speak to your profit, not that I might cast a snare upon you, showing that the imposition of necessity upon things indifferent, is a very snare of men's consciences. Now though these words are not in the Abridgement, yet because as D. Whitakers saith, the pont. cap. 4. qu. 7. aureus hic locus est, nostrae libertatis vindex: This is a golden charter of liberty: therefore it is worthy of due consideration. The sum of the Def. his answer is, that to impose a necessity where God hath left a liberty, is indeed a snare: but this necessity is not taught in our Church. I answer it is taught in our church (now a days) that ecclesiastical canons do bind men's consciences. It is taught in our church that man's will is a sufficient reason for these Canons about Cer. It is taught in our church, that Sacraments may not be administered, or God publicly served without these cerem: that Ministers called and allowed of God, for these ceremonies must be silenced; that they are to be excommunicated ipso facto, and accursed which oppose themselves unto them. It is taught also, that though a man doubteth in his conscience of the lawfulness of them, though evident scandal will follow upon the using of them, yet they may not be omitted. If this be not necessity enough to ensnare a man's conscience, I know not what then is.  
In the fift Section two places are objected out of the Abridgement, viz. Gal. 5.1. Col. 2.20. and one of them after a fashion answered. The first answer is, that the Apostle there speaketh only of jewish rites, which is Bellarmine's answer just, de eff. sacr. c. 32. loquitur Paulus de servitute judaica, qua servierant illi sub antiqua lege. The second answer is, that the Apostles meaning was of such an observation of these ceremonies as had an opinion of necessity, overthrowing the new Testament, and establishing the old. So Bellarmin. ibid. Illi cum circumcidi vellent, excidebant à gratia Christi, & simul obligabant fe ad omnem legem servandam: quod prorsus erat redire ad statum veteris testam●nti. We on the other side with Danaeus against tha● place of Bell. say, generale est Pauli dictum & praeceptum: the words are general, belonging to all parts of Christian liberty, though principally there applied to one.  
Now the servitude from which Christ hath made us free is not only in those things which the Def. speaketh of, but also as jun. cont. 3. l. 4. c. 17. n. 19 & 21. showeth in subjection of our consciences unto elements of man's appointing, Gal 4.10. and unto the will of men, 1. Cor. 7.23. which place Beza well noteth, is to be understood of superstitions which some do foolishly call indifferent things. It is not only therefore a freedom from jewish Ceremonies, but also and even therefore as D. Whitakers gathereth from all humane ceremonies that bind or press our consciences, Whit. de rom. pont. q. 7. c. 3. ad 5. But it is in vain for me to allege our Divines in this quaestion: the Abridgement allegeth divers, whom the Def. would not vouchsafe an answer.  
One thing here the Def. noteth, that in the Abridgement mystical and carnal are unsoundly confounded. But I say, this is unsoundly collected: for these two are joined together there only in respect of jewish worship, and that which imitate●h it: And therefore it is to no end to instance in the Sacraments instituted by Christ, of clear signification, and accompanied with the promise and lively working of the Spirit. The same poor instance hath Bellarmine de cult. l. 3. c. 7. for significant ceremonies.  
But it savoureth of the flesh (saith the Def.) to call our ceremonies carnal. Why so I pray? the jewish ceremonies deserved that name, you yourself say, even when they were in force: and surely ours devised by man, abused by idolaters, without necessary use, destitute of all promise and spirit, are fare more worthy to be called carnal, than Gods own Ordinances. Those were only carnal because in comparison they were external, heavy, dull things: but ours are more heavy and dull, and beside they are sinfully carnal, as hath been proved.  
But what soundness doth this savour of, that the Def. saith generally of the jewish Ceremonies, they signified first and primarily outward and carnal promises, shadowing heavenly things only under a second veil? I will not exagitat this assertion, because it is in the by.   

SECT. VI  
HEre an objection is feigned out of the Abridgement pag. 34. I say feigned, because there is none such found in the place quoted. That which is there spoken concerning other Popish ceremonies, is a sixth proof of the second Argument, distinct from the fift, whereto that of Christian liberty doth belong. That also is handled by the Def. c. 3. l. 7. and there maintained against him. So that this might well be omitted. Yet because there is some force in the consequence, let us hear his Defence. The objection which he frameth is this: If these Ceremonies do not take away our Christian liberty, and in snare the consciences of men, by their imposition: how shall not the Popish Ceremonies be excusable, and free from accusation in this behalf? His answer is, that Popish Ceremonies do infringe Christian liberty, both in regard of their nature, and also in regard of their number. And of both these M. Calvin giveth witness. I answer 1. for the nature, it hath been showed before, that a multitute of Popish Ceremonies have no other nature & necessity allowed unto them by the learned Papists, then ours have by the Defendant himself. See for this Bellarmine de effect. sacr. c. 30. That which Mr. Calvin saith of this point is true, notwithstanding in regard of the conceit which is commonly among the simple Papists, fostered by unlearned Monks, Friars, and other Priests, for filthy lucre sake. 2. The comparisons which Mr. Calvin use, viz. That it is held among the Papists a greater wickedness to omit auricular Confession, then to live impiously: eat flesh on fasting days, then to live in fornication; to work on Saints holy days, then to act mischief, etc. These he gathereth principally from that practice of the Papists, whereby they punish more severely the breach of their Ceremonies then of Gods Law. Now this is not only practised by our Prelates, but also maintained by this Defendant, chap. 2. sect. 12. with such fair pretence, as the Papists may well use for the Defense of their practice. 3. As for the multitude of Ceremonies among the Papists, that maketh their bondage greater than ours; but doth it make ours none at all? Besides, when a few mystical humane Ceremonies are admitted, the gate is set open for a multitude: even until the Convocation will say there be too many. For Bellarmine himself will grant that Ceremonies are not to be multiplied over much. Fatemur Ceremonias non esse nimis multiplicandas. de effsacr. c. 30. but what is too much, that must be left to to the judgement of the Church or Convocation, saith he, and the Defendant both.   

SECT. VII. VIII. IX. X.  
IN all these Sections, the Def. goeth about to teach us the doctrine which concerneth binding of men's consciences. In the first his conclusion is good and sound, God therefore and not man doth properly and directly bind the conscience of man. It is sufficient therefore to note that it is an improper phrase to say that men's laws do bind men's consciences, in respect that God commandeth to obey the just laws of men: for so, as Gerson observeth, the Physician's praescripts should also bind a ●ick man's conscience, in respect of Gods will, whereby a sick man is tied to follow the good and wholesome counsel of his Physician.  
In the 8. Section two of our Divines are brought-in to prove that men are bound in conscience to observe the just laws of Magistrates, which none of us ever doubted of.  
The 9 Section is spent in proving, that Ecclesiastical laws have as great force in respect of conscience as politic. Which if it be granted, yet nothing can from thence be concluded for the advantage of ceremonies unlawfully imposed. But 1. it is diligently to be observed, that the Church hath no commission for to make any laws properly so called: as I have formerly showed in cap. 1. sect. 16.2. The common received opinion of all our Divines is contrary to that which the Defendant here saith: as may be seen in Bellarmine de Pont. Rom. l. 4. c. 15. and junius, Whitakers, with the rest, who writing against B●llarmine do not deny but defend that which he saith, Lutherani & Calvinistae omnes docent. 3. The interrogatories which the Defendant ministereth unto us in this case doth not prove his Assertion. For the Church is a Society, but not complete, if it be considered as not comprehending Christ the Head and only Law maker of it. Breach of peace is not a sin against an Ecclesiastical, but a divine law. Obedience is to be yielded unto lawful Ecclesiastical Governors, when they bring the charge of Christ whose Ministers they are. See Dr. Whitakers de Pont. Rom. cont. 4. q. 7. c. 2. ad 12. The King's stamp, but with an act of Parliament maketh a law in England. As for Apostolical constitution (to which our canons are as like as Apples are to Oysters) the same answer which Doctor Whithakers', count 4. q. 7. c. 2. ad 5. with other of our Divines giveth to Bellarmine, may serve for our Defendant.  
In the 10. Sect. he setteth down nothing but that which he knoweth we all grant.   

SECT. XI.  
AGainst the Accusation of contempt, there was (as it seemeth) alleged by M. Nic. that by the same reason that Nonconformity is contempt; bowling, disusing of caps, & such habits prescribed should be contempt. Hear the Defendant first bringeth diverse interpretation out of the Casualists: and then taketh one for granted without rendering of any reason, that he may by it excuse bowling and disuse of caps. But what if we take hold of another interpretation, esteeming the obligation by the intent of the Lawmakers, which was against Popish recusancy of our Communion-booke, and not against refusal of some few ceremonies contained therein? I speak now of the Statute Law, not of lawless canons. Or what if we should stand upon that interpretation, which fetcheth the obligation from the weight of the matter imposed, which in our ceremonies is very little? Some of these I am ●ure the Bishops must fly, if they will defend their disuse of the Crosiers slaffe, which they are bound by our laws as well to use, as the Ministers are surplusses.  
But all this is needless, because there can be no contempt in a conscionable forbearance of unlawful impositions; such as the ceremonies are sufficiently proved to be.   

SECT. XII.  
HEre certain Divines are brought in witnessing, 1. that superstitions do deprive men of Christian liberty: which we deny not, but take their testimonies as making against our ceremonies: because as I have formerly shown some of these superstitious opinions are inseparable from the imposing and using of them. 2. That Christian liberty doth not consist in the use or disuse of things indifferent: which we also willingly grant. But I would have the Defendant remember, that all freedom is not in the mind & conscience. For where the mind is free, the body may be bound; else Christians should not taste so much of this world's misery as they do. Now Christ hath left unto us not only an inward liberty of mind and conscience, but also an outward freedom of our bodies and outward man, from such bodily rites in his worship as have not his stamp upon them, and his Spirit and blessing promised unto them. Of this the Defendant saith nothing at all.   

Sect. XIII. XIIII.  
COncerning the profession of our Church so often brought in, enough hath been said before, now it sufficeth to answer, that no profession whatsoever can make humane significant Ceremonies in God's worship agree with Christian liberty.  
As for superstition, which the Defendant doth now the second time most ridiculously object, I have answered in the beginning of this Confutation. Now only I note: 1. how loosely he describeth that superstition which he calleth affirmative: as if no man could use any thing superstitiously, except he did hold, that without it the faith of Christianity, or the true worship of God could not possible consist. Never was there such a description given by any man that considered what he said.  
2. How manfully he concludeth our negative superstition, upon this ground, that Christ hath left these ceremonies free, which is the main quaestion betwixt him and us.  
3. How he misreporteth our opinion, in saying absolutely that we hold a Surplice to have unholiness and pollution in it: whereas we hold that it is only made more unfit for God's service than it was before through idolatrous abuse: but yet unto other uses it may be applied.  
4. That in stead of Scripture, he bringeth forth the universal practice of men in the Church: which yet hath been formerly also refuted.  
5. That he can find no Divine that calleth opposing of Ceremonies superstition, but only M. Calvin in one place speaking rhetorically, as he useth to do, and not intending any definition or distribution of that vice.  
6. How he corrupteth P. Martyrs words, to have some colour for a new accusation. P. Martyr taking there upon him the person of an adversary unto Hoopers' opinion (with whom notwithstanding afterward he consented, and recalled the counsel which then he gave, as appeareth pag. 1125.) saith that if we should refuse all things that the Papists used, we should bring the church into servitude: which assertion is most true, because the Papists abused many necessary things, even Christ's own Ordinances, the observing of which is liberty. Now the Def. would have that precisely understood, and that in the rigour of every word concerning the Surplice.  
I have here subjoined apart an Epistle of Zanchius, who otherways was somewhat favourable to Bishops: wherein the Reader may see his judgement concerning superstitious garments.  

To the most renowned Queen ELYZABETH, Defendresse of the Christian Religion, and most mighty Queen of England, France and Ireland, H. Zanchius sendeth greeting.  
MOST gracious & most Christian Queen, we have not without great grief understood, that the fire of contention about certain garments, which we thought had been quenched long agone, is now again to the incredible offence of the godly, as it were raised from hell, and kindled a fresh in your Majesty's Kingdom, and that the occasion of this fire is, because your most gracious Majesty being persuaded by some, otherwise great men, and carried with a zeal (but certainly not according to knowledge) to retain unity in religion, hath now more than ever before resolved and decreed, yea doth will and command that all 
† Zanchius it is like was misinformed, for Bishops have been the chief devisers and advisers.  Bishops and Ministers of the Churches shall in divine service put on the white and linen garments which the Popish Priests use now in Popery; yea that it is to be feared, lest this fire be so kindled, and cast its flame so fare and wide, that all the Churches of that most large and mighty kingdom, to the perpetual disgrace of your most renowned Majesty, be set on a flaming fire: seeing the most part of the Bishops, men greatly renowned for all kind of learning and godliness, had rather leave their office and place in the Church, then against their own conscience, admit of such garments, or at the least signs of Idolatry and Popish superstition, and so defile themselves wi●h them, and give offence to the weak by their example. Now what other thing will this be, then by retaining of these garments, to destroy the whole body of the Church? For without doubt that is Satan's intent, by casting a seed of dissensions amongst the Bishops. And that he aimed at the infancy of the Church, by stirring up discord between the East and West Churches, about the Passover and other Ceremonies of that kind. Therefore Irenaeus Bishop of Lions, had just cause in his Epistle sent out of France to Rome, sharply to reprove Victor the Pope of Rome, because he out of a kind of zeal, but not according to knowledge, was minded to excommunicate all the Churches of Asia, because they celebrated not the Passeover just at the same time, as they at Rome did. For this was nothing but by an unseasonable desire to retain the same Ceremonies in all Churches to rent and tear a pieces the unity of the Churches. I therefore so soon as I heard that so great a ruin hanged over the Church of Christ in that kingdom, presently, in respect of that duty which I own to the Church of Christ, to your gracious Majesty, and to that whole kingdom, intended to write thither, and to try by my uttermost endeavour whether so great a mischief might possibly be withstood: some that fear Christ, and wish well to your Majesty, exhorting me to the performance of this duty. But when I had scarcely begun to think of this course, behold our most illustrious Prince commanded me to do it, which command of his did not only spur me on, who of mine own accord was already running, but laid a necessity of writing upon me. Wherefore this my boldness will seem the less strange unto your gracious Majesty, seeing my writing proceedeth not so much from mine own will and counsel of friends, as from the commandment of my most Noble Prince, who is one of your gracious Majesty's special friends. Now I thought I should do a matter very worth the pains taking, if first I should humbly admonish your most famous Majesty what your duty is in this cause: and secondly, if as your humble suppliant I should beseech you for our Lord jesus Christ's sake, to perform the same. I beseech your gracious Majesty to take this my writing in good part, for it proceedeth from a Christian love toward the Church, and from an especial reverend respect that I bear to your most gracious Majesty. The Lord knoweth all things. Now to the matter in hand.  
Whereas the Apostle writing to Timothy, commandeth that prayers be made for Kings, and all other that be in authority, and saith, that the end wherefore they be ordained, is, that we may lead a peaceable and quiet life in all (that is, perfect) godliness and honesty, he teacheth plainly enough what is the duty of Godly Kings and Princes, namely, that they take care, and bring to pass, that first & above all things, true religion, and the true worship of God, where it is banished, be restored, and being restored, be kept pure: all things which smell of impiety being fare removed. Secondly, that men may live honestly and holily, all kinds of uncleannesses being abandoned. Lastly, that public peace & holy friendship be maintained among the subjects, all occasions of contentions being, as much as possible may be, taken out of the way.  
As the Apostle teacheth manifestly, as we have seen, so all learned men who be of sound judgement concerning the Magistrates office, do with one consent affirm, that these be the three chief parts of the office of the Prince, and of every godly Magistrate. Which thing being so, I see not how your gracious Majesty can with good conscience, propound again the garments in question, and other things of that kind, smelling as yet of Popish superstition, and once banished out of the Churches, to the consciences of the Bishops 
* Paul's Bishops he meaneth, or else as I said before, he is misinformed.  to be taken on again, and so propound them that you should compel them by your commandment to receive them again. For first, this is quite contrary to the first and chief part of the Prince's office. For if the Magistrate ought to have a chief care, that the worship of God be kept pure and without mixture; and if for this cause all things are to be abandoned which may any way either by themselves, or by accident defile this worship: and therefore all things are to be called back as much as may be, to the rule of God, and to the former and Apostolical, and so the more pure and simple form of religion: Finally, if as the Apostle commandeth, we be to abstain, not only from all evil, but also from all appearance of evil; to what end, I beseech you most renowned and most godly Queen, should those things be brought again into the Church of God, by the Prince's commandment, which be contrary to the purity of the Apostolical worship, which smell of Popish superstition, which be neither available to the aedification of the godly, nor to order, nor for ornament, except that which is whorish: which lastly, can bring no profit, but on the contrary, many evils to the Church? It is out of all doubt, that by this law concerning apparel, all godly men will be offended, but the wicked will laugh in their sleeve, and hereby be put in hope to get many more things: as for those of the middle sort, that is, such as be newly converted and turned from ungodliness to godliness, and be not as yet well grounded, they will be in great danger, and if we speak according to man's judgement, they will rather look back to the old superstition, to which by nature we are inclined, then fix and fasten their eyes upon true religion. And therefore this is a decree which will bring no avancement at all to godliness, but may much further ungodliness. For though these garments be not evil and unclean of and by themselves, that is, of their own nature, yet because of the former and late abuse, they are not altogether free from uncleanness. Certainly it cannot be denied, but that they will at the least, give occasions of many evils and very grievous superstitions. Now the very occasions also of evils are to be shunned. To what end then should these be thrust upon the Church, from whom no profit can be hoped, very much evil may come? for this is to tempt God. Your famous Majesty may well remember, that not without cause it was written; He that toucheth pitch, shall be defiled with it: that the Apostle had reason to command, that we should purge out the old leaven, that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. And that Hosea did not foolishly reprove the jews, because they translated and brought a young graft (of superstitions) out of Israel into their own garden, that is, the true Church. We ought, most religious Queen, to have nothing at all to do with the Papists in matter of religion, save in those things which they have common with the Apostles. Why, I beseech you, were some kings, otherwise godly, reproved and blamed in the Scriptures, that they had not taken away Churches or Temples for divine service in the mountains, which were built by holy Fathers ere the building of the Temple, in which the Lord was wont to be worshipped? Surely, because the Temple being now builded and ordained for divine service, God would not have any footsteps of any other chapel at all to be extant. Therefore also when once the kingdom of Christ was manifested, the Ceremonies and garments of Aaron ought not any more to take place. For this cause the Apostles were upon good ground careful▪ that after Christ's ascension, they should so be taken away, that no relics of them remained. And if they took them away holily, unholily have the Papists called them back again. Now whether is the better to ●ollow the godly simplicity of the Apostles, or the ungodly pomp of the Papists, who is ignorant? This recalling of such Popish garments, your gracious Majesty may believe me, will be a greater evil, then peradventure it may be seen, even to very wise men at the first blush: For me thinks I see and hear the Monks crying out with very loud voices in the Pulpits, both confirming their followers in their ungodly religion, by the example of your gracious Majesty, and also saying, What? doth not even the Queen of England also, a most learned and a most prudent Princess, begin by little and little to come back to the religion of the holy church of Rome, the most holy and sacred vestments of the Clergy men being taken on again? we are to be in good hope that the day will come, wherein she will at length, though now they be thought to be dead, recall also all the other Rites and Sacraments of the holy Church of Rome. These and such like words, no doubt, most prudent Queen, the Monks and jesuites will use in the Pulpits. For they take all occasions to confirm their superstitions. Therefore to recall these stinking garments, and other rubbish of the Popish Church into the Church of Christ at this time, what is it but to give the Papists an occasion, and the best that may be, to confirm and harden themselves and theirs in their superstitions, and also to help them in this business? But let us hear what the Prophet said to jehosaphat King of juda, when he helped Ahab; Darest thou help the wicked, and love those who hate the Lord? For this thing the wrath of the Lord is upon thee. And what other thing will this be, than even to call back the weak from the study of pure Religion, and to give them a privy warning to look back, and return into Egypt? It is an easy matter for us weak men, who of our own nature are prone to superstition, to slide back to impiety. Therefore occasions of sliding back to ungodliness, aught to be taken away, and at no hand to be given. And what else, I pray you, meant God in forbidding to plpw with an Ox, and an Ass, to sow the same field with divers kinds of seeds, and to wear a garment woven of linen and woollen together? It is an odious & detestable thing with God, that the same field of the Lord should be tilled by ungodly & godly Bishops together; If in the same Church Popish Doctrine be taught with the Doctrine of the Gospel: Finally, if Sacraments, Ceremonies, and Rites, partly Apostolic, and partly Popish, be used, and the Church be clothed with them as with a garment of linsey-wolsey. For what agreement hath light with darkness? And therefore those things which be not of God, but f●om them who have defiled God's worship, are utterly to be cast away, which the Lord himself commanded to be done, when he charged utterly to destroy all things which appertained to those who should give us counsel to follow strange Gods, and to burn their garments, and all their stuff with fire in the midst of the street, to show our detestation of such Seducers, & that they might be an execrable thing to the Lord. And who knoweth not that these garments are a part of the household stuff of that Romish Seducer? There shall cleave nothing of the execrable thing, saith he, to thy hand, that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of his wrath, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn to thy Fathers, etc. Wherefore to bring these garments, seeing they be household stuff of Antichrist, into the Church of Christ, what is it else then to provoke God to anger, and to kindle his fury against us? Certain it is, that he who is a true friend of Christ, will never seek to have the ornaments of Antichrist in his own house, and much less will he suffer them in the Temple of Christ. For who can endure the arms of his enemy in his own house, and specially in the chiefest room of the same? And if God will have a thing destroyed and abolished, who are we that we dare build it up again. But it is God's will that after the death of Christ all garments of Aaron and Levi should be abolished: and he hath plainly enough manifested every where, that in these our days he would have all ungodly and vain cerem., pomps, deceits, and paintings of the Papists driven away by the shining brightness of the Gospel: because these things have no power in them to kindle and increase godliness, but greatly avail to the quenching of the same. Neither verily can I see to what other end these garments tend, then in very deed (that I may now come unto the second head) to defile and disgrace the fair face; nay, the whole body of the Church of England reform according to the 
† Untrue, o● misinformed.  Gospel; as if the chaste and honest daughter of a King should be attired with those very garments wherewith some famous and notable whore used to be adorned, and when she were so clothed, were commanded to go abroad in the streets. Now who can allow or judge this to be tolerable. Wherefore though for no other, yet for this very cause, such garments ought not to be thrust upon the Church of Christ, because that harlot of Rome hath abused, and doth still at this day abuse them (though in their own nature they be not evil) to evil, and to cover her fornications, or rather to entice men to commit fornication. For all these pomps, and Popish ceremonies are nothing else but whorish paintings invented and devised for this end, that men might thereby be alured to spiritual fornication. Is it not therefore a filthy and dishonest thing, to have these in the Church of Christ? If the brazen serpent, which had been ordained of God, and that for the wholesome use of the Israelites, was taken away by godly King Ezekias, because the Israelites had abused it contrary to the word of God: and if Ezekias be highly commended for this so doing, because he had turned that Serpent into ashes, and commanded them to be cast into the running water, that there might never be any print or sign of it extant any more; how much more than are these unclean garments to be banished out of the Church of God, seeing the Apostles never used them, but the whore of Rome hath used them in her Idolatrous worship, and to seduce men? For it is a very dishonest thing, that such things as are of themselves indifferent, and have been long used to the despite and dishonour of God, should be retained in the Church of God, to the hazard of the salvation of godly men. And much less that kind of garments, which is nothing but an invention of men, or rather of the Devil himself, devised to seduce the simple ones: We all know what praise those commonwealths deserve, which make good laws that the subjects shall not wear outlandish and strange apparel, nor bring it into the commonwealths, because it is a corruption of good and honest manners, and of the commonwealths themselves.  
How then can that counsel which is given to your Majesty, be commended, to wit, that garments unknown to the Christian world in that time of the Apostles, and Apostolical men, should be brought into the Church of Christ. And if an outlandish kind of attire be not tolerated in well-governed commonwealths, how much less are Idolatrous, and heathenish garments to be borne with in the Church, where God is to be worshipped in spirit and truth, and where he would have few and very simple Ceremonies? Also if God established by his Law, that a woman may not put on a man's apparel, nor a man a woman's, the one being so well of itself dishonest, and contrary to nature as the other: Why then should godly Bishops, 
† Still misinformed.  and the servants of Christ be clothed, or rather shamed and deformed with the garments of godless Priests, and slaves of Antichrist? Why should we not rather, as we be of a diverse religion from them, so also be discerned from them, at least in the performance of such duties as belong unto God's worship, by outward signs, such as garments be? Verily this was Gods will, and he required of his people, that it should be discerned from the profane Gentiles, as by other things, so also by a diverse sort of apparel, and so should profess by this public sign, that it would have nothing to do with the Gentiles.  
And why should not we do the same? Are we not the people of God? abides not the equity of the same commandment? And if the word honest be derived of honour, what honour will it be for the church of Christ to have Bishops attired and disguised with Popish visors in the administration of the Gospel and Sacraments, so as they shall rather be derided then be reverenced any whit by the people? And what commendation shall it be for your gracious Majesty in true Churches, and among true believers, that you permit such trifles to be called back into your Church? Therefore it standeth not with honesty, that holy 
† Still misinformed.  Bishops be compelled to receive such visors, neither is it indeed a matter worthy of honour and praise, neither deserveth it the name of virtue. For if your Majesty should command that all English men▪ leaving that ancient and very grave and comely attire, should wear Turkey coats, or a soldier's weed, as it is called: who would ever approve this decree as honest? And it is much less praiseworthy, if godly Bishops be enjoined, laying aside, or at least changing the honest and ancient apparel, which the Apostles wore, to wit, that common and grave habit, to put on the ridiculous & execrable or accursed garment of godless Mass-priests.  
Now concerning the third part of the Prince's duty, there is nothing fit to trouble the public peace of the Church than this counsel. For every novelty, especially in religion, either by itself, if it be evil, disturbs and troubles a good peace, or if it be good, gives occasion of trouble by accident, by causing contention between evil and good men. But as in things which be good of themselves, of which nature the reformation of the Churches according to the will of God is, we are not to care for the troubling of that ungodly peace, th●t is of the world (for Christ came not by his Gospel to keep such a peace, but rather to take it away, & to send a sword) so assuredly, by the urging of things indifferent, to trouble the peace of Churches, and to cause strife between good men and bad, yea between godly men themselves, is so wicked, that it can by no means be defended, so that Ireneus had just cause to reprove Victor Bishop of Rome, for this cause, as hath been said afore. For it must needs be, that at such times the Churches be rend in pieces, than which thing, what is more hurtful? Many exemples in the histories of the Church prove this which I say. How many and how great troubles arose in the Primitive Church, between those who beside the Gospel urged also circumcision and the law, and between those who upon good ground rejected them? And how great evils would this dissension have brought to the Church of Christ, had not the Apostles betime withstood them by that council gathered together at jerusalem, by a lawful examination and discussing of the cause by manifest testimonies of the Scriptures, and by sound reasons? If your gracious Majesty (as you ought) desire both to be and to seem Apostolic, then imitate the Apostles in this matter. Neither lay and impose this yoke upon the necks of Christ's Disciples yourself, nor suffer it to be imposed by others. But if you see that the Bishops disagree about this matter among themselves, assemble a Synod, and cause this controversy to be examined by the Scriptures. And then look what shall be proved by plain testimonies, and strong reasons, propound that to be observed by all., and command by your decree, that that be observed, and so take disagreement out of the Church. For your gracious Majesty ought to be very careful, that there be no innovation in religion, but according to the word of God. By this means shall a true peace, concord & unity of the Churches be preserved. But if the proceeding be otherwise, what other thing will it be, then to take away unity, and to trouble the Christian peace? And this I may not pass over with silence, that by this novelty of the business, not only the public peace shall be troubled in that kingdom, but also many elsewhere out of that kingdom will have occasion given them to raise new contentions in Churches, and that to the great hindrance of godliness, and the more slow proceeding of the Gospel. For all men know, that the most part of all the Churches, who have fallen from the Bishop of Rome, for the Gospel's sake, do not only want, but also abhor those garments, and that there be some Churches, though few in comparison of the former, which do as yet retain those garments invented in Popery, as they very stiffly retain some other things also, because the reformers of those Churches, otherwise worthy men, and very faithful servants of Christ, durst not at the first (neither judged they it expedient) utterly abolish all Popish things. But as the common manner is, every man likes his own best. Now I call those things a man's own, not so much which every man hath invented, as those beside, which every man chooseth to himself, receiveth, retaineth, and pursueth, though they be invented to his hand by others. But if there be also annexed the examples of other men, they be more and more hardened in them, and are not only hardened, but also do their uttermost endeavour by word and writing, to draw all the rest to be of their mind? Therefore we easily see what the issue will be, if your gracious Majesty admit of that counsel which some do give you, to take on apparel, and other more Popish things beside. For some men, who be not well occupied, being stirred up by the example of your Majesty, will write books and disperse them throughout all Germany, of these things which they call indifferent, to wit, that it is lawful to admit of them, nay that they be altogether to be retained, that Papists may be the less estranged and alienated from us, and so we may come the nearer to concord and agreement. As if forsooth the Papists, though we for peace sake admitted of all those things, would ever amend their Doctrine, and banish out of their churches, or at any hand lay down their false and godless decrees, manifest and abominable superstitions and idolatries: and there will be some who will answer such books once dispersed. So of this English fire there will rise a a new burning flame in Germany and France, on which hot coals the Papists as so many Smiths a forging, will sprinkle cold water to make the flame the more vehement. And is not this a goodly benefit? Who therefore doth not see that this counsel tends to the troubling of all Churches.  
To conclude, that golden saying of a certain learned man is very true and certain, and approved by long experience, that indifferent things, that is, the question about indifferent things, is that golden apple of contention. So much shall suffice to have spoken of the troubling of public peace; what should I say of the consciences of private believers? It is manifest, that they are greatly troubled with this commandment, to put on these linen garments. For they do so greatly complain, that their lamenting voices and groans do reach unto, and are heard in Germany. Now how grievous and distasteful an offence it is to trouble the consciences of the godly, the holy Scripture showeth: partly when it commandeth that we make not the holy Spirit sad, neither offend the weak ones; partly when it threatneth grievous punishments against those who fear not to do these things: partly also when it propoundeth the examples of the Saints, and specially of Paul, who speaks thus: If meat offend my brother, I'll eat no flesh while the world standeth, that I may not offend my brother. For in those words he giveth a general rule, by his example, taken out of the doctrine of Christ, to wit, that no indifferent thing is to be admitted and yielded unto, much less to be urged upon others, and least of all to be commended by decree: if in the admitting, urging, and commanding of it, the minds of good men, and consciences of the faithful be offended; for a tender conscience, which feareth God, is a thing most precious and acceptable to God. How therefore can that counsel be approved, which would have a law established and proclaimed by the Princes command for the use of garments to be used by Ministers in the ministry. For (to speak many things in few words) if such garments be to be propounded to the faithful, they are to be propounded either as indifferent, or as necessary: if the later, we do ungodlily, because we make those things necessary, which Christ would have to be free: If the former, then are they to be left free to the Churches. But by commanding and compelling, we make things that be free and indifferent, to be necessary, and so fall into the same trespass. Moreover, either they be ordained of God by Moses, or they be delivered by Christ God manifested in the flesh, or they be ordained by the holy Ghost working and speaking in the Apostles, or they are of men, either godly or wicked. Those Ceremonies & levitical garments, which were ordained of God by Moses, ought all of them to have an end after the death of Christ, as the Scriptures show plainly, especially the Epistles of Paul to the Coloss. and Hebr. therefore they cannot be revoked and called back without the transgression of Gods will. It cannot be said that Christ taught them, because there is no word extant to that end, but rather he taught plainly oftentimes, that all Moses his Ceremonies were ended. And the same I affirm concerning the Apostles. It remains therefore that they be said to be of men. If they be from godly men, than were they ordained of them, either to edification, or for order and comeliness. But they avail not to edification, that is, to further comeliness, but rather tend to the overthrow of it, as we saw before; neither for any good order, but rather they tend to disorder, for there is a confusion of godly & wicked Bishops, whereas it is meet and equal, that one of them be discerned from another, even by their garments also. Neither do they make Christ's spouse comely, as we shown a little before. Therefore we ought not to yield unto them. And such things as have been invented by men, void of God's Spirit, do nothing appertain to us. Lastly, the Apostles used not these garments. For we have no authentic testimony. Now the church is to be fashioned after the rule of that Apostolical Church in Ceremonies and garments, as well as in Doctrine. What do we then with these garments in the Church? By whose authority can they be approved? What profit or wholesome use can the Christian people have by them? But on the contrary we have showed that godliness is weakened by them, the pure worship of God is violated, Popish superstition is by little and little called back, the godly be offended, the wicked be confirmed and hardened in their ungodlinesses; the weak in faith are brought into hazard of their salvation; there are occasions of many evils given; Monks and other Popish preachers are hereby helped to confirm their followers in their superstition; the wrath of God is provoked against us; those things which God would have to be destroyed, are hereby builded again by us; the whole face of the Church is defiled and disgraced: there is a foul sin committed against honest and good laws forbidding the putting on of strange & outlandish garments: and so the whole Church is dishonoured, Besides the public peace of the Church, yea of many churches is troubled: one Bishop is set against another, the consciences of the godly are troubled, and the minds of good men are offended, God's spirit is made sad in them, and this apple of contention is cast, as it were, upon the table of the Gods.  
Now seeing the matter stands thus, most gracious Queen, not only I, but all my fellow-ministers, and all the godly prostrate before you, entreat your Majesty, and for jesus Christ's sake, whom we are persuaded you love from your heart, we humbly beseech your Majesty not to embrace that counsel aforesaid, neither to give ear to such counsellors. For these counsels (most godly Queen) are not for the good of that your church and kingdom, nor for the honour of your Majesty, seeing they neither serve to the increase of godliness, nor to the retaining of the honesty of the Church, neither to the preservation of public peace, but rather very greatly weaken all these good things, 
In making 3 sorts o● officers afterwards Bishops, Seniors, or Elders and Deacons, he m●st take the word Bishop in the scri●tu●● 〈◊〉, as 〈…〉.  which your Princely Majesty ought chief to stand for. Let your Majesty rather bend all your thoughts, authority and power hereunto, that first and above all you may have Bishops, who be truly godly, and well exercised in the holy Scriptures, as by the blessing of God you have very many, and that you make much of, and give ear to them. Secondly, that you be careful that with all diligence they may discharge their office, watching over the flock, teach sound doctrine, confute heresies, drive away Wolves, keep every man in his own calling, and exhort and stir up every man to lead a life beseeming a Christian. The Elders also and Deacons, are to be admonished, that every one be diligent in his own office, and if need be, they are to be compelled by your gracious Majesty's authority, that neither the former by their sleeping and winking at the misdemeanours of the flock, suffer the reines to be loosed to all licentiousness, and to the lusts of the flesh; neither that the later, by reason of their immoderate care for their own private businesses, neglect the poor people of the Church, and omit such other things as belong to their office. For these three sorts of men be the very sinews of the Church, upon whom the salvation or destruction of the Church doth chief depend. Furthermore, your gracious Majesty ought to use great care and diligence, that the Universities, and in them good and godly teachers, be well looked to, cherished, liberally maintained and preserved, for these are as the mothers, and nurses of the Churches, in which and by which those are to be fashioned, borne, brought up and adorned, who being fit, may be called from time to time to rule and govern the Churches. Last of all, such things as cannot be corrected and amended by the word and discipline of the Church, as it is necessary, that according to God's word they be cut off and taken away by the sword of the Magistrate, so your gracious Majesty is to take care of them: as adulteries, blasphemies, and other capital crimes of that sort. For God hath given the Magistrate the sword for this end, that ungodly seducers, filthy knaves, and unquiet men being restained, the rest may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. This is the matter (most gracious Queen) whereon you are to spend your thoughts, hereabout are your counsels to be occupied, here is all your strength to be showed, namely, that (to end in a word) we all denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, may live soberly, justly, and godlily in this present world. For this is the true and fairest garment of all other. For which every man ought to take care, to wit, that having put off the old man with his works, we put on the new man, that is, our Lord jesus Christ, neither are there any other true ornaments which become Christian Bishops, besides those which the Apostle hath laid down in his writings to Tim. and Tit. A Bishop must be unreprovable, the husband of one wife, watching, sober, modest, harbourous, apt to teach, not given to wine, no striker, nor given to filthy lucre, but gentle, no fighter, not covetous, one that can rule his house honestly, having children under obedience in all honesty, not froward, not angry, righteous, holy, etc. For garments and ornaments of Aaron's high Priest, were types of these true ornaments; those were the shadows, these be the body. Wherefore let those be gone, and let these abide still. And then at length shall we have the whole Church, and so the Bishops rightly and truly apparelled.  
Once again I humbly beseech your gracious Majesty, that thinking no more of those outward garments, you will mind and consider how these true and spiritual ornaments may be retained, put upon, and kept in the Churches. And as I said in the beginning, that according to your gracious Majesty's clemency, you will be pleased to pardon my boldness in writing. Our Lord jesus Christ long preserve your gracious Majesty safe and sound to us, and to the whole Church. From Heydelberg. 10. Septemb. 1571.     
FINIS.