A REPLY TO D R. MORTONS' GENERAL DEFENCE OF THREE NOCENT CEREMONIES. viz.  
The Surplice, Cross in Baptism, and kneeling at the receiving of the sacramental elements of Bread and Wine.  
Printed in year 1622.   

THE PREFACE.  
SIR,  
HOwsoever there be many unknown motives which lead men in these days unto conformity, yet those which are openly professed, may be referred either unto M. Sprints way, who confesseth the ceremonies to be imposed contrary unto the rules of God's word, and yet contendeth that they are to be used in case of deprivation: Or else to D. Mortons' way, who avoucheth the said ceremonies to be agreeable unto the rules of God's word, and therefore s●ch as aught to be observed simply. Now he that considereth well of the ma●ter, shall find that there is no ground for the conscience to rest on in either of these ways. As for M. Sprint, (to speak nothing of his misalledging very many authors) he hath but three main arguments: and to all three he hath given sufficient answer himself. His first argument is taken from the doctrine and practice of the Apostles about the jewish ceremonies. Now all the force of this reason doth depend upon that parity or equality which is supposed to be betwixt our ceremonies and the jewish, our ministers warrant and the Apostles: so that if this parity faileth, the whole argument falleth. Yet M. Sprint himself confesseth, pag. 250. 256. that those jewish ceremonies were not every way so evil as ours are: neither doth or dare he say, that ministers now have such particular warrant for conformity, as the Apostles had for applying themselves a little while unto some of the jewish ceremonies.  
His second reason is, that a lesser duty must yield unto a greater. Now this case by his own confession p. 30. doth not hold so, as that a man should do a thing formally, simply, and in nature evil, for any good. Now he knoweth, as appeareth p. 45. that the ceremonies in controversy are esteemed such by most of these that now oppose them. So that this reason can be of no force with them.  
His third reason is, because refusal of conformity in case of deprivation, tendeth to condemn in a manner all true Churches which have taught and practised otherwise. He meaneth by condemning, accusing of error. Now M. Sprint himself doth thus condemn all or the most of the Churches which he allegeth to have practised such ceremonies. For in confessing our ceremonies to be inconvenient, scandalous, evil, such as the urging of them cannot be justified, and yet affirming that almost all Churches have appointed and used such, even out of the case of deprivation or such like necessity, doth he not plainly accuse all those Churches of error? These things considered, I thought is needless to spend much time in examining M. Sprints book any further. But according to your desire, I will show you mine opinion in brief concerning the chief passages which are in Thomas chester's, or as he was wont to be called, Doctor Mortons' Defence of three ceremonies, commonly used in our Churches, which I do the more willingly undertake, because diverse things are therein handled of singular use in divinity, whereof I profess myself a Student, though in the ministry I cannot find a settled station. But before I come to the Defence itself, first, I would fain understand the reason why three Ceremonies are only defended, seeing there be many three of those things which stay many godly men from subscription and conformity, as is to be seen even in that abridgement which this Defender doth chiefly oppose? Is it because our best Prelates have only a care to persuade if it may be, those that are in the ministry, to that conformity which is most of all noted, not regarding in the mean time, what becometh of so many godly learned young men, who not only for these, but for diverse other corruptions also, are forced to turn away from the ministry, whereunto their education, gifts and hearts did carry them, while many lewd fellows, the chief spots and blots of our congregations, do possess their places.  
I would know also what the reason should be, that the innocence only of these ceremonies is defended? Is this all that is required in ceremonies forcibly obtruded upon ministers and people, even to the silencing, excommunicating, and utter undoing of many hundreds? Is this all, I say, that is required, that such ceremonies be in some sense innocent, or not hurtful? surely not scripture only, and sound reason, but common sense will look for some good necessary use in such ceremonies, and not innocence alone.  
And than what is the sense (trow you) in which these ceremonies may be called Innocent? when Calvin (whom the Defender calleth an honourable witness) would devise a charitable title for them, he styles them tolerabiles incptiae, viz. tolerable fooleries, or fopperies, Epist. 200. & 206. When he speaketh more out of judgement, he not only calleth them frivoulous and unprofitable, but saith plainly that their proper name is hurtful, noxious, or nocent, clean contrary to this Defendants language. Surely one of these writers, not differing only, but flatly opposing and contradicting the other, must needs be far wide.  
Innocent indeed these ceremonies may be called in regard of their materials, and the fashions also which they have in their natural being: for the cloth of a Surpless and the fashion of it is innocent, and so are all the idols of Papists and Heathens very innocent: so that this is no praise. But if we look at the use whereunto they have been applied, and wherein they have been a long time employed, I may truly say by the devil, not only among the Papists, but even in our Churches, to the breeding of dissension and distraction among brethron, to quenching of many, and many a burning shining light, to the grieving and unsettling of so many good souls, and to the advancing of the Kingdom of darkeness: If these things I say be considered, than it is more than manifest, that this licking them over with a fair word will make them no more innocent indeed then Pilat's hands were when they were washed. The fashion of a Surplice natural or artificial in another use, as if a Porter or Baker wear such a garment is indifferent.  
If it shall be said, that notwithstanding these accidental abuses, yet the ceremonies are innocent in their own nature and use: I answer, first, they having no necessary use otherways, and these being the ordinary effects which have followed on them, there is no rule of Logic much less of zeal that will allow the Defendant simply to call them innocent. 2 It is a shame for our Prelates to talk of the ceremonies innocence, when they cannot defend their own innocence in obtruding and urging of them. They are wont to say, the practice and manner of urging we will not defend, but the lawfulness or innocence of the things themselves. Indeed for a private man to stand upon such terms is tolerable: but for the Prelates, whose hands are chief in this trespass, to cover their own guiltiness under figleaved innocence of three ceremonies, is too too gross. If Thomas or D. Morton in times past had pleaded for the ceremonies innocence, it might have been well interpreted: but for Thomas Chester, Thomas Lichfild, or any that bears a Cathedral name, to write of the innocence of three ceremonies, passing by three hundred foul nocencies which are plainly to be seen in the Prelates urging and managing of these ceremonies, this is somewhat like as if Samson when he had sent Foxes with firebrands in their tails among the corn, should then have written unto the owners of that corn a long letter concerning the innocence of Foxes and Firebrands.  
Thirdly and lastly, it is sufficiently proved, and shall (by God's grace) be further maintained against this Defendant, that these three ceremonies are not innocent or lawful in their ●se.  
This I had to say concerning the Title. Now before I come to the book itself, some few things are to be questioned in the Epistles, which are three, according to the number of the ceremonies defended. In the first Epistle to the Marquis, ● I would willingly learn, what that Church is, which is the mother of the Non-conformists? it must of necessity be either the faithful Congregations which are in England, collectively considered: or else the Hierarchy, consisting of Archbishops, Bishops and their Officers. If the ●ormer ●●here understood, than this Defence is begun with a Slander. For neither is the Nonconformist an adversary impugning those Congregations, nor do they defame their religious worship, nor infringe their wholesome liberty, nor contemn their just authority: but of all these things are the Prelates manifestly guilty. For they in their Lordly humours, do scorn and defame the most religious people as Puritans: they hinder the people from hearing of Sermons in another parish, though they have none, or worse than none at home: they are enemies to that preaching whereby the godly people find themselves most edified: they enslave both Minister and people, not only to themselves, but even to their Chancellors, Commissaries, officials, and such like officers of their own making, to whom not Christ only, but all the Primitive Church saith plainly, Depart from me I know you not: they deny any authority at all to be either in the Congregations, or in their Ministers, except it be a little of courtesy from the Ordinary. These things are so well known, that they need no proof.  
If by the Church here be meant the Hierarhie, than we profess plainly we acknowledge no such mother. She is a Step-dams, usurping this title and authority, without all warrant from God our Father. She is a creature of man's making, and may more lawfully be removed when it pleaseth man, than ever she was by him erected.  
Secondly, I marvel with what conscience this man can spend a great part of his Epistle in stirring up a Courtier unto the opposing of. Non-conformists? As if this were a great point of admirable wisdom and zeal, as he calleth it: and the Courtiers such, as stood in most need of instigations to the zeal of Formality, being otherwise for substance such as they should be.  
thirdly, what agreement is there in this Argument, to conjure a man by the obligation of his Baptism, to stand for the defence of certain ceremonies? was he baptised into the faith of the cermonies? or is he bound to maintain every ceremony which men have brought into that Church where he was baptised? If he were conjured by his Bishoping to such things as these, there would be more reason in the consequence.  
fourthly, what need is there that great men should be called to aid and assist the Prelates against Non-conformists? have they not power enough in their own hands? can they not at their own pleasure suspend, deprive, excommunicate, & what almost they please? Do they not tread these poor men under their feet? Is it because that the Prelates cannot yet sufficiently prevail against them in the consciences of men, and therefore call for further help in vain? Or is the meaning, that such men should be helped unto great Bishoprickes, as are most Zealous against Non-conformists? If this be the matter, I dare say the Petition shall be granted, and yet the Petitioner, except he make great progress in this eagerness, will hardly get beyond Lichfild, at least not to Canterbury.  
In the second Epistle to the Non-conformists, many things are jumbled together, which afterward must be examined, but here cannot. For this Epistle taketh the whole book for unanswerable, and therefore should rather have been set at the end then at the beginning: only one ridiculous piece of Rhetoric is to be touched, wherein (forsooth) the Non-conformists above all their other faults wherewith they are usually charged and loaded, are now as it were lovingly entreated to acknowledge themselves guilty of superstition. The reason is rendered, because there is a negative superstition, the formal cause whereof is the forbearing and forbidding of things lawful as unholy and profane: and the Non-conformists have such negative opinions, as kneel not, cross not, wear not, etc.  
All this is nothing else but a trick of prevention usual with crafty men, who choose to lay that upon their adversaries which they know more properly to belong unto themselves. But I would that this Defendant, or rather Accusant, had given us some plain reason of his new opinion, there is no definition of superstition, properly so called, that will father this conclusion. The Schoolmen do with one consent place superstition in a kind of excess of Religion's worship, Thom. 2. 2. q. 92. art. 1, from whom in this point our Divines do not descent. Now though this excess do seem sometims to consist in a negation, yet 〈◊〉 excess or error in negation, is never called by any author that ever writ (I dare say) superstition, when he meaneth to speak properly, except that very negation, abstinence or forbearing be held as a special worship. Now in the Non-conformists there is no such thing to be found: they do not abstain from these Ceremonies, but as they do from other unlawful corruptions. Suppose they err, yet every erroneous denial of things lawful is not superstition.  
The Defendant therefore here being overhastie to charge his adversaries, considered not well what weapon he choose. But if he had well remembered what is said of superstition, not only by our Divines, but even by some of the Papists themselves, he would have forborn to make mention of this word. For our Divines, let honourable Calvin speak, Iust. l. 1 c. 12. s. 1 Ind mihi videtur dicta superstitio, quod modo & praescripta ratione non contenta supervacuam rerum congeriem accumulet. Papists thus. Superstitio est (saith Azorius Inst. mor. l. 9 c. 11) cum quis Deo cultu● tribuit inanem & vanum, scil. commentitia & futili aliqua caeremonia eum venerando, vel cum quis Deum honorat falsis vanis, & frivolis ceremoniis, id est, As Swarez doth in a manner interpret it, quando honor Dei in iis rebus ponitur, quibus revera non colitur, ut in caeremoni●s superfluis, & ad salutem animae nihil conferentibus. If this touch not the Defendant, I would desire him to peruse what Mr. Parker hath written concerning the superstition of the Cross, and give some answer to the same, before he threaten any more such kindness as this is upon the Nonconformists.  
Another thing also is by a figure of praetermition insinuated in this Epistle, not unworthy consideration, viz. that many Parliaments and Convocations have established these rites. To this I answer, 1 the Prelates in such matters as these, have no respect unto the authority of Parliaments. For they frame Canons, urge and excute them without the consent of any Parliament, nay flatly against them. For so we read in the Records of that worthy Parliament which was ann: 1610. Among the Canons late made by the Clergy of England in their Convocation, it was thought that some of their Canon's did extend to charge the bodies, lands, and goods of the subjects of the Realm, further than was lawful and meet. We therefore made a good law to make voide such Canons as do charge the bodies, lands, and goods of the subjects, unless that the same canons were confirmed by Parliament. 2 The Defendant cannot bring forth one Act of Parliament now in force, that doth allow of Subscriptions and Conformity to be urged as now it is by the Prelates. This appeareth by the judgement of the foresaid Parliament in those words of their petition, where they complain, That divers painful and learned Pastors that have long traveled in the work of the Ministry, with good fruit and blessing of their labours, who were ever ready to perform the legal Subscription, appointed by the Statute of 13 Eliz. which only concerneth the Confession of the true Christian Faith, and doctrine of the Sacraments, yet for not conforming in some points of Ceremonies, and refusing the Subscription directed by the late Canons, have been removed from their Ecclesiastical livings, being their freehold, and debarred from all means of maintenance, to the great grief of sundry well-affected Subjects. 3 It is well known that the Prelates themselves in their proceedings about these matters, do so far violate the Statutes of Parliament, that they are by law subject unto a Praemunire.  
Now as for Convocations, not to dispute here what manner of Synods they be, 1 It is well known that they consist now of a Faction, and that in memory of man, they never concluded any thing for the common good of the Church more than by others was better done to their hands: but much evil hath come from among them, and more would but that many times their commission serveth not but only to give Subsidies, and then to tell the clock. 2 They are servile to those on whom they depend, and tyrannical over the poor that are subject unto them: 3 there are very few that have place in them which are not gross offenders against the most ancient Canons. As for example, it was observed that in that Convocation which established and revived these corruptions, of 300 or 400, there were not above twice three, which were not, or had not been gross Nonresidents or Pluralists. D. Morton himself, in a Latin Sermon had before a Convocation some 8 years since, described well the most part of them (though he did not speak distinctly of the number) to be unsavoury salt. For he gave us three notes whereby corrupt Ministers in England might be discerned. 1 That they studied chiefly and stuffed their Sermons with Friars and jesuits: 2 that they sought occasions to disgrace Calvin: and 3 that if any neighbour Minister be more diligent and conscionable than they, they brand him strait with the name of Puritan. These notes are well known to agree unto most of our convocated Prelates. 4 The authority of this Convocation either against or without consent of Parliament, is not to be regarded, much less against the Scriptures.  
In the Epistle to the Reader, this only I would inquire of, what is the reason, that seeing he choose to himself for Chief Opposites, the Lincolnshire Ministers, he doth not deal with all their Arguments, nor the twentieth part of their Allegations, but only with such as he thought fittest for his purpose? Of this I will not say all. But this I may not omit, that considering he knew how much hath been said against the Ceremonies by them and others, especially by M. Parker, which he never attempted to answer, neither he, nor others for him, had any cause to triumph in this book, as in a complete Defense.   

A Reply to Doctor MORTONS' GENERAL DEFENCE OF THREE Nocent Ceremonies.  

CAP. I.  

SECT. II.  
WHATSOEVER is objected in this Section for the all-sufficiency or perfect fullness of the Scripture, I will take for granted, because nothing is denied by the Defendant. It is granted therefore at the first entrance, that the Scripture condemneth whatsoever is done, not only against the warrant and direction of the Word, but also that which is done beside it.   

SECT. III.  
BUT that which before the Defendant durst not deny, now he cometh to oppose in the proofs of it: Which is a strange course, in him especially that professeth a distinct logical proceeding.  
In the propounding of our confirmation, I note two things once here in the beginning for all following occasions to be marked, 1 this Defendant doth us wrong in distributing our confirmations into those which are taken from Scriptures, and those that are from the Fathers, and those that are from Protestant Divines: as if these were in our estimation of the same kind. Whereas we profess that we ascribe no force unto any testimony of man, as if it were a proof, but only bring such allegations in as illustrations in regard of our adversaries perverse prejudice. 2 He wrongeth us likewise in that difference which he insinuateth betwixt the Fathers and our Divines, calling their testimonies judgements, and the other only Confessions: we acknowledge no such imparity. If this were nothing but idle rhetoric in the Defendant, it may be passed by.  
In the answer brought to Heb. 3 2, we have this distinction given us: some points concerning religion are doctrinal, and some merely ceremonial. The former are sufficiently revealed in Scripture: but the latter are left to the liberty of the Church. But 1 why is that denied here by a distinction, which passed without denial or distinction in the former section? 2 what kind of distinction is this, which doth not distinguish of any term which is in the objection? 3 the Defendant should have done well to have explained and confirmed his distinction. For doctrinal opposed to ceremonial in the formal signification of these words, I never heard of before that I remember: and sure I am no sound reason will allow. Ceremonial is opposed to Moral, and sometime to substantial; but to doctrinal it cannot properly, because there is ceremonial doctrine as well as moral or substantial. 4 To which of these points will the Def refer the Hierarchy of Bishops? or are they no points of Religion? For the negative part of this answer, that ceremonial points of Religion are not revealed in the Scripture, but left to the liberty of the Church: it is too too nakedly set down for to bear any colour of truth with it. For 1 was this true before the coming of Christ? then all the ceremonial law is Apocryphal. 2 is this true universally (as it is here set down) in the new Testament? then water in baptism, and bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, are no ceremonial points of Religion. 3 the caution that is given Deut. 4. 2 and such like, did they not contain in them ceremonial points of Religion? then it was lawful for the jews, to add, detract, and alter the ceremonies according to their pleasure; and doth not that law bind us as well as the jews? then we do the Papists wrong, in putting them to so much trouble as we do in finding out shifts to avoid the dint which such places give them.  
But to leave this misshapen distinction: An answer is given at length to the place alleged out of Heb. 3. 2 concerning the comparison betwixt Christ and Moses: sect. 4 5.   

SECT. FOUR  
IN this Section comparison is made betwixt Christ and Moses in real faithfulness, as he calleth it. But this sufficeth not to lose the knot. For Moses was faithful in all the house of God, and Christ was not inferior, but in all parts of his office Prophetical concerning all points of Religion, was no doubt as faithful as Moses.   

SECT. V.  
HEre the Defendant can find nothing to bring out of Scripure for Christ's faithfulness in ritual ordinances, but as Moses appointed ceremonies, so Christ removed them. Is not this a proper explication of Scripture, to interpret a similitude by a dissimilitude? The Scripture maketh Christ like unto Moses: this Defendant expoundeth the likeness to be in this, that Christ pulled down that which Moses had set up.  
Out of M. Calvin, Instit. lib. 4. c. 10. S. 30. he taketh upon him to decide this question. But he should have dealt more plainly, and according to the scope of his author, if he had cited Bellarmine de pont. l. 4. c. 17. where the same words are according to his meaning. For in that place of Calvin there is nothing at all which without gross aequivocation will serve the Defendants purpose: For calvin's meaning was nothing less than to teach that Christ had given liberty unto men for to prescribe at their discretion mystical signs in the Church: but only to dispose of such circumstances as in their kind are necessary, but in particular determination do vary. He instanceth in the next section in the circumstance of time, what hour the congregation should meet: in the place, how large, or in what fashion the Church should be built: in mere order, what Psalms should be sung at one time, and what another time. These and such like circumstances of order and comeliness, equally necessary in civil and religious actions are understood by Calvin: not significant ceremonies, proper unto religious worship, such as ours are now in controversy. This allegation therefore borroweth all the show it hath from the ambiguous meaning of the word ceremonies.  
The same deceit is in the known case which the Defendant adjoineth to calvin's words. For if by Rites he meaneth such circumstances of order and decency, as were before mentioned, than I grant all he saith: but if by Rites he meaneth ceremonies properly of religious nature, use, and signification, such as the cross in baptism, and surplice are known to be, than there is no reason in his speech. For 1. there is no necessity that in any nation the Churches should have any religious ceremony of spiritual signification, beside those which Christ hath appointed to all: and if the Defendant can show any such necessity, than I would desire him also to show by what rules, and for what cause these religious ceremonies imposed upon us in England, are fitter for us, or tend more to our edification, than other ceremonies would, or then they would in any other nation under heaven. Except both these positions be proved, the words of this section are all but wind: and proved I am sure they never were nor will be.   

SECT. VI VII.  
THe second place of Scripture handled by the defendant, is 2. Sam. 7. 7. Where I cannot but marvel why so resolute a disputer would pass by in silence, Deu. 4. 2. & 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. Leu. 10. 12. all which places are alleged by the Lincolnshire ministers (against whom he professeth principally to write) & choose this place which they bring in after the former. Was there not a cause? But to take him as we find him, he professeth plainly, that it was lawful for David without special warrant to build a house unto God: and in this he is so peremptory, that he condemneth the contrary opinion of notable precipitancy, and presumeth to make this example a ground of confutation against his adversaries, disputing as he pedantically speaketh first by extortion, and then by retortion out of this place. But if his extortion be mere torting and torturing of the text, we need not fear his retortion.  
Now that the purpose of David was partly condemned, appeareth plainly, 1. because it was prohibited, as here the Defendant in his answer expressly granteth. 2. Because as honourable M. Calvi● well observeth on Act. 7. 46. It was not lawful for man to choose a place for God's Name & Ark, but it was to be placed in that place which God himself should show, as Moses doth often admonish. Neither dared David himself bring the Ark into the threshing floor of Arauna, until the Lord by an Angel from heaven had witnessed unto him that that was the place chosen by himself, 2. Sam. 24. 11. 3. Because it cannot be absolutely excused from some mixture of rashness with zeal, that he should resolve absolutely to build an house unto God, before he knew either what manner of house God would have built, or when, or by whom: seeing without the especial direction and assistance of God's spirit, nothing of this kind could be well done. How could David have built a house, except the Lord had filled with the spirit of wisdom Bezaliel and Aboliab, or some such?  
The Arguments brought by the Defendant for the contrary opinion are nothing worth. 1. Nathan (saith he) had allowed the purpose of David, v. 3. But judicious junius answereth (in his notes upon that place) that so Samuel out of humane infirmity, said that Eliab was the man whom God would have king, 1. Sam. 16. 7. 2. God calleth Da●id his servant, which he never doth in reproof. Which is not true, though the reproof be for a thing simply evil: as is plainly to be seen Isa. 1. 3, ●er. 2. 13. and in many such places, where my people is as much as my servant. But the very word Servant also is twice thus used in one verse, Isa. 42. 19 much less when the affection is good in the general, and blemished only by some circumstance. For then why may not a good title be given as an allowance of that which is good, and yet the evil be at the same time reproved? so many learned divines do interpret that of the Midwives, Exod. 1. 19 20. 21. Moses was reproved and brought to his grave for a sin, and yet when his death is recorded, it is said that Moses the servant of the Lord died, Deut. ult. The Churches are sharply reproved Rev. 2. & 3. and yet are styled by the name of Churches, and golden Candlesticks: and their ministers who are chiefly reproved are called Stars. 3. there is another reason rendered by Solomon of this restraint. 1. Reg. 5. 3. 4. But the Defendant should mark that one reason doth not exclude another. In this place of Samuel two reasons are rendered, as Tremelius and junius note, the second of which is taken (as he saith) from the example of David's ancestors, who never undertaken any such thing, because they knew the calling of God was to be expected. 4. God himself commended this purpose of David. 1. King. 8. 17. As if the same affection may not in diverse respects be both commended and condemned. But this evasion of Mr. Hy. 1 pass over, saith the Defender, as childish and absurd. And why so I pray? 1. Because God himself did interpret this affection for a deed. 2. He did note this deed as special, saying in both respects, thou didst well, that it was in thy heart. In which words if there be any consequence, or good sense, than not only Mr. Hy. his evasion, but logic itself is childish and absurd.   

SECT. VIII. IX. X. XI.  
IN these passages two places of Scripture are objected, under the name of Mr. High: but I verily think Mr. Hylas hath some wrong done him in the matter. Howsoever, I will not undertake to maintain that these places are fitly alleged and urged: though by proportion the force of the argument used in those places (who required these things at your hands) is strong against our ceremonies. We will not imitate D. Cary now Bishop of Exeter, that proved the Surplice by the armour of light, Rom. 13. 12. nor them that prove kneeling at the communion, and at the word jesus, out of the bowing of the knee of all creatures, Phil. 2. 10. nor those that fetch the cross out of the letter Tau. Eze. 9 4. Neither need the Defender please himself in this, that by some places of Scripture the ceremonies are not condemned: it is enough if they were condemned but by one only testimony of Scripture, or by one sound argument drawn out of Scripture, though no more could be brought. But what kind of dealing is this, for him that professeth a confutation principally of the Lincoln shire Ministers, to pass by diverse texts of Scripture alleged by them, and to bring forth other of an uncertain author, never publicly propounded in any of our writings?   

SECT. XII.  
THe last place of Scripture handled in this Argument, is Yer. 7. 31. the force of which, as it pertaineth to the purpose in hand, is in the last words, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. The reason lieth thus (to take honourable calvin's interpretation upon the place) seeing God under this title only condemneth that which the jews did, because he had not commanded it them: therefore no other reason need be sought for the confutation of superstition, then that they are not by commandment from God. Now the Defendant answereth, that this was a thing forbidden, and in that sense was said not to be commanded. What is this to the purpose? therein lieth the strength of our argument: that not to command in things that pertain to worship, is all one with forbidding. But you collect (saith he) that this was not against, but only besides the word. It is not our collection but his own vain conceit. Our argument is drawn from the form of speech here used. See Mr. Cartwright in his Reply p. 48. fully clearing this point. When I read this objection first (saith he) I wondered that in distinguishing beside the word and against it, you simbolized so well with Bell●rmine, in his distinction of mortal and venial sin. He was as it seemeth, in a wondering humour. But 1. why doth he not wonder not only at our late Divines, but at chrysostom also, as symbolising with Bellarmine, when he in Gal. 1. 8. doth so distinguish betwixt teaching contrary to the Gospel, and beside the Gospel? Why doth he not wondringly also accuse junius for symbolising with Bellarmine, while he refuteth Bellarmine by this distinction, contr. 3. l. 4. c. 17. an. 10? it were easy, if needful, to produce other honourable partners in this fault: but we need no other than persuaders to subscription, who have drawn diverse into this net, by telling them, that though the things they stand upon be beside the word, yet they are not contrary thereunto, and that only is affirmed by subscribers. 2. We are not the authors of this distinction, but they which thereby excuse humane inventions in God's worship. We are constrained to follow and ferret them in their own holes. See Mr Cartwr. Repl. p 36. 3 yet if need were, there might be showed though not a real, yet a rational distinction betwixt these two. 4. The Defendants answer doth expressly herein symbolise with Bellarnine de Pout. l 4. c. 19  
For the other allegations of Scripture quoted in the Abridgement for confirmation of the same truth with the former, the Defendant referreth us to Chap. 2. Sect. 2. 3. 4. 5. where only one of them is touched.   

SECT. XIII.  
TO many testimonies alleged out of the Fathers, answer is given, 1. That they speak not of things only beside the Scripture, but of things contrary: which answer is again repeated under the form of a distinction betwixt Scriptura negans, and negata. 2. They speak not of ceremonies, but of doctrines.  
To which the reply is easy: 1. our meaning is mistaken, I fear, wilfully, when we are made authors of an opposite distinction betwixt beside and against in this case. It sufficeth us that beside in points of religion, be all one with against. 2 Though those general sayings be applied to doctrines in most of the places alleged, yet that hindereth not, but▪ the truth of them may be taken so generally, as to include also religious ceremonies. A particular or proper conclusion may be drawn from a general proposition, and yet the proposition remain general still in the largest extent that it is capable of.   

SECT. XIIII.  
TO the testimony of Tertullian de Cor. c. 2. That is prohibited which is not permitted, two things are likewise answered, 1. that it maketh not against our ceremonies, for they are permitted: which is nothing else but a mere shift. For Tertullia's meaning must needs be of other permission than the Defendant can challenge to our ceremonies, though he beg the question: otherwise there should be no sense in his words. 2. he saith, We may blush to speak of Tertullian in this case: because he professeth traditions in the same book. To which I answer: that then all our writers may blush who allege many things out of the fathers which they in other places gainsay. 2. We blush not to make use of truth where we find it, though error follow it at the heels; rather let our Idolisers of the Father's blush, when they see their shame. Yet of this answer we shall have occasion to make use hereafter.   

SECT. XV.  
IN this Section answer is made to some allegations brought out of Protestant Writers (not unto all which the Abridgement citeth for the perfection of the Scriptures) where 1. the Defendant answereth for himself, that his meaning was not of matters merely ceremonial. And so, say I, the meaning of our argument was not of such mere ceremonies as the Defendant here describeth in the end of this Section, if he mean by mere ceremonies mere order and decency: but our ceremonies are of another nature, because they have doctrine or teaching in them, and therefore are doctrinal, as he pleaseth to speak, or mixed, 2. confessing that in one place he speaketh of ceremonies, he limiteth his speech to such ceremonies as are made essential parts of a sacrament, as Milk in stead of Wine: sopping in of bread into the cup, and wring in of the grape; these ceremonies he accounteth doctrinal. But here I would fain hear a good reason, why sopping of the bread into the cup is more doctrinal, or more against the word, than the cross in baptism. Bread and Wine were ordained by Christ to a holy use in the Church: so is not the cross: sopping hath some agreement with reason: crossing hath none; sopping was used by Christ himself the same night, and at the same table where the sacrament was appointed: crossing was never used by Christ or his Apostles. In sopping there is no new material sign appointed, but a new fashion only of using the old: in crossing a new sign is obtruded. So that sopping seemeth to be better than crossing. If opinion of necessary use doth put a difference: our men can easily conclude in the Convocation house, that it is not the opinion of the Church of England, and then all will be well. If sopping seem to be a part of the sacrament: crossing when it is done in the very act of sprinkling, (as many times it is) maketh as much show of bearing a part in baptism. But what if out of the Lords Supper, a little before, or a little after, while the prayers are making which belong to the Supper, there should be appointed such a sopping to be used of all that communicate for mystical signification, I would know of the Defendant whether this were allowable or no by his doctrinal distinction? If not, why should he show more favour to the cross?  
In excusing of B. jewel, and D. Whitakers, nothing is said by the Defendant, which hath not formerly been confuted.  
Now it might be here expected, that the Defendant should have said something concerning those general rules which God hath set down in his word for the direction of the Church in rites and orders Ecclesiastical, mentioned by the Lincolne-shire Ministers in this argument, p. 44. But neither here, nor in any other place of this book, doth the Defendant so much as endeavour to show that our ceremonies are needful and profitable for the edification of the people, by the more comely and orderly performance of that service which he hath expressly prescribed in his word. This is a main matter urged in the Abridgement, without which the ceremonies cannot be innocent in their use: and all that the Defendant hath hitherto endeavoured to answer is in the Abridgement brought in to other end then to prove that no ceremonies are to be brought into the Church without those conditions: and yet for all this, our ceremonies in this chief point are left destitute of all defence. If therefore all were granted which the Defendants argumonts or answers in this book maintain, yet the ceremonies will be found nocent, and to be rejected, if it be but for their unprofitableness, according to that of Basil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

SECT. XVI.  
THE Defendant here undertaketh to prove, that God in the scriptures hath granted a general licence or authority to all Churches, to ordain any ceremonies that may be fit for the better serving of God. But what if this were granted? what is it to the purpose? what maketh it for our ceremonies in controversy, except he can show that they are fit for the better serving of God? Now this he no where undertaketh to prove, nor dare, I think, profess so much in writing, without many unwarrantable limitations.  
The only scripture he bringeth is, 1. Cor. 14. 26. 40. concerning order and decency, a place much profaned by the patrons of our ceremonies, as shall be showed. This place is used (saith he) by Fathers and all Divines, for one and the same conclusion. It is much used, I grant, and as much abused. But 1. it is not used by all Divines, to prove the institution of such ceremonies as ours lawful. For they are much mistaken which think our ceremonies to be mere matters of order: and as for decency, they have been often proved to be far from it: which of itself to every indifferent eye is more than apparent. 2. it is not used to this purpose by any that have authority sufficient to persuade us that it will bear such a conclusion, except they will show us by what Logic they form their consequence, which the Defendant is not able to do for them. 3. This scripture being rightly understood, doth not only not justify such ceremonies as ours, but plainly condemneth them. For the manifesting of which assertion, because it may seem strange to those ears that are accustomed to other sounds, I will here distinctly set down an argument drawn out of these words, against such ceremonies as ours are.  
All that is left unto the Church's liberty in things pertaining unto God's worship, is to order them in comely manner. This is manifestly collected out of the place in question: so the Defendant seemeth to grant, so P. Martyr vnderstandeth it, as is to be seen in his commentary upon 1 Sam. 14. which judgement of his is cited and approved by D. Whitaker de Pont p. 841. & 844. confirmed also by junius against Bell. cont. 3. l. 4. c. 16. n. 86. 87. etc. 17. n. 9 10. 12. 13. where he showeth that Christ is the only lawgiver that appointeth things in his Church: and that he hath appointed all that are requisite: and that the Church maketh no laws (properly so called) to appoint any new things to be used, but only canons, orders, directions, ordering in seemly manner those things which Christ hath appointed: and that if she addeth any thing of her own, she doth decline. The reason is, because unto her is committed no authority of appointing new things, but a ministry to observe and do such things which Christ hath appointed. vide etiam jun. de transl. imper. l. 1. c. 2. n. 26. 27. 31. This is also confirmed by sound reason, both in respect of the wisdom required in all lawmakers, & perfectly found in Christ, and also in regard of the nature of such institutions. For the former reason teacheth, (as Aristotle showeth Rhet. 1. 3.) that all which possibly may, should be appointed in the law by the giver of it, and nothing left unto the ministerial judges, but that which must needs be left, as matters of fact, etc. Now in the worship of God, all but particular circumstances of order, may easily be appointed (as in very deed they were) by our lawgiver Christ. As for the nature of such institutions, that doth also require so much: for whatsoever is above civility therein, if it be not a circumstance of order, it is worship, and therefore invented by man, unlawful will-worship. For whatsoever is used or acted by him that worshippeth God, in that act, it must needs be either grounded on civil humane considerations, and therefore civility: or an act and means of worship, and therefore worship: or the ordering and manner of disposing those acts & means, and therefore lawful, if lawfully and fitly applied: or else, at the least, idle and vain, and therefore to be avoided, according to that of Basil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: A fifth cannot be given. By all this it may appear, that the authority of the Church is not to appoint what she will, no not of things in their own nature indifferent, and say they be in order, or for order: but only to order those things which God hath appointed.  
Thus far the proposition, or first part of my syllogism: the assumption followeth.  
But to appoint & 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 which are formerly instituted. This appeareth 1. by the notation which is given of the word itself, which both in greek & latin is taken from the ranking of soldiers in certain bounds & limits of time & place. Dicebant enim militibus tribuni, hactenus tibi licet, hic consists, eô progrediere, huc revertere, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, inde ordo Scalig. and 2 by the definitions which are given thereof, by Philosophers and Divines. Tull. off. lib. 1 eadem vis videtur ordinis & collocationis. Ordinem definiunt compositionem rerum aptis & accommodatis locis. Locum autem actionis, opportunitatem dicunt esse temporis. Aug. de civet. lib. 15 cap. 13 order is the disposition which fit places to things equal and unequal, id est, when things are handsomely ranked, some to go before, and some to follow, as P. Martyr expoundeth it, loc. come. cl. 4 c. 5.  
3 The same also is confirmed by our Divines, who usually giving instances of order, do infist in time, place, and such like circumstances, making a difference betwixt mystical ceremonies and order, many times condemning the one, and allowing the other: as the divines of France and the low Countries, in their observations on the Harmony of Confessions Sect. 17 Beza Ep. 8. jun. in Bell. append. tract. de cultu imaginum c. 7 n. 12 13 14.  
4 By the context of the Chapter, viz. 1 Cor. 14. it plainly appeareth, that order is opposed to that confusion spoken of v. 33, and therefore importeth nothing but that peaceable proceeding whereby they that should speak, speak one by one, and the rest attend, etc. v. 30 31. So Basil expoundeth it, showing order to consist in sorting of persons, some to this, and some to that according to their office, and in determining of time and place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: p. 459. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and p. 530. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Lastly, neither Luk. 1 8, neither in any place of Scripture doth the word order import any more than hath been said.  
As for comeliness, that is nothing but the seemliness of order. For as P. Martyr saith in 1 Cor. 11: it is such a tempering of actions as whereby they may more fitly attain their end. Otherwhere it may contain that natural or civil handsomeness, which is spoken of ch. 11 13, as it doth ch. 12 23, and so includeth all that which is grounded on civility, as a fair cloth and cup for the communion, a fair and firm vessel for baptism: but not the appointing of new mystical ceremonies, for then such ceremonies were here commanded to all Churches, which the Def. I think will not say: and then the Apostolic Assemblies should have worshipped God uncomelily.  
Thus we have both proposition and assumption of our Argument against the ceremonies confirmed out of this place, which the Defendant choose as the only place that could be brought for them. Now I hope we may add the Conclusion.  
Therefore to appoint and use the ceremonies as we do, is not left to the liberty of the Church, i. e. it is unlawful.   

SECT. XVII.  
COncerning the Fathers we are told out of Zanchius, that they had always some universal ceremonies, as certain feast days, not appointed by God. To this we answer, 1 If this always be taken in the largest extent, to signify from the beginning, we cannot believe the truth of this Assertion: neither can the Defend. prove it. Who can think, that presently upon the Apostles departure, their disciples should presume to be wiser then their Masters? 2 the first beginning of these feasts, was not by canonical imposition to bind men unto new ceremonies, but a voluntary accommodation in respect of the infirmity of some in the Church, or coming towards it. This appeareth by the variety which was betwixt one Church and another in observing of them; and by the testimony of Socrates, alleged and allowed by this Defend. himself, Apol. p. 2 lib. 2 c. 9 3 The mischief that came in by these observations, in that they so soon overshadowed, obscured, and justled out of doors the simplicity of the Gospel, and many ordinances of Christ, do sufficiently show, that the fathers in these things had neither direction nor blessing from God.  
But that which the ancient Churches of Christ did always maintain may not be deemed to derogate from the authority of holy Writ. If always include the Apostolical times, I grant. If otherwise, then let the Def. take to himself that which he unreasonably cast upon us before, of symbolising with Bellarmine con. l 4. c. 9 The same answer which our Divines give there, will serve here. Whereunto may be added that which M. Parker hath in his book of the Cross, p. 2 ch. 9 s. 6 and de Polit. Eccles. l. 2.   

SECT. XVIII.  
FOr Protestant Divines, Bellarmine's confession is alleged, who saith, That Protestants grant that the Apostles did ordain certain Rites and Orders, belonging to the Church, which are not set down in Scripture, cont. 1. lib. 4. cap. 3. To which I answer, 1 Rites and Orders may be ordained, though such ceremonies as ours be unlawful. And Bellarmine's meaning could not be of such Rites as our Ceremonies are, except he spoke against his conscience, for he confesseth, de cult: sanct. l. 3 cap. 7, that some of our Divines, as Brentius by name condemn such as unlawful. 2 Bellarmine craftily bringeth in this confession of our divives, that he may make them contradict themselves, as appeareth in the same place. His Confession therefore in this place is not so indifferent, as the Def. would have it: 3 our Argument is not from the Scriptures negatively against the authority of the Apostles, which was all one with that of the Scriptures, and therefore understood in our Proposition, but against the ordinary authority of the Church. Except therefore the Def. can prove either that our ceremonies were the rites brought in by the Apostles, or that our Convocation house hath the same authority which the Apostles had, this confession of Bellarmine is nothing to the purpose.   

SECT. XIX.  
HEre the Protestants themselves are brought in confessing as much as Bellarmine said of them. But the first witness Chemnitius saith nothing, but that some Ecclesiastical rites, though they have no commandment or testimony in Scripture are not to be rejected: which in the sense now often expounded, I willingly grant. Yet the Def. should not in stead of Testimony of Scripture, have put warrant of Scripture: For testimony neither in usual acception, nor yet in Chemnitius his own meaning, is so large as warrant.  
The place of Calvin hath been answered before. junius is plainly of the same mind, and so to be interpreted, so also Zanchius, Daneus and Whitaker: But because junius is styled here by the Def. with his deserved title of judicious, it will not be amiss to show his judgement fully about such additions as our ceremonies are. To name therefore one place for all at this time, because there he speaketh professedly his judgement, and bindeth it with a solemn oath, for the sincerity and impartialnesse of his conscience in that behalf: The place I mean is in his Ecclestasticus, lib. 3 cap. 5. towards the end. Where first he distinguisheth betwixt things necessary, and others not necessary in the administration of the Church: and concerning even the latter sort, he modestly, but throughly showeth how little liberty is left unto men. If any man (saith he) 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, 
junius here speaketh to our Defen. who pag. 3. calleth his ceremonies The garments of Religion.  according to the commandment of the Father, joh. 10 27) must be clad with humane traditions, which Christ doth reject ● 2 To what end he judgeth that his 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 Cyprians 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 wills in things divine. The 3 thing to be thought on it, what event always hath followed upon humane Traditions, as daily experience doth show.  
This was the judgement of judicious junius, whereby it is manifest that he favoured not our ceremonies, nor would have pleaded for them as the Def. under colour of his name.  
Because Zanchius also is brought in with his deserved Title of a profound Divine, speaking nothing to the purpose in hand, I will set down his judgement concerning this point, out of that Epistle to famous Qu. Elizabeth, where he treateth expressly of ceremonies, and of our ceremonies. Est autem Ecclesia sicut in doctrina, sic etiam in ceremoniis ad Ecclesiae Apostlicae regulam informanda. The Church must be ordered by the rule of the Apostolical Church, as well in ceremonies as in doctrine. What can be said more contrary to the Def. his distinction?   

SECT. XX.  
AT length we are come to Reason. But if this reason were sound and certain, I see no cause why it should not have had the upper hand of humane testimonies.  
1 The first reason is grounded on the Defendants fantasy merely. For it supposeth that we hold some points of Religion to be only besides the Word, and no way against it: which not only I have confuted before as a cavil, but M. Cartwright long since in his Reply, p. 56: the very words also of this argument which the Def. here opposeth do show that we hold such things condemned by the Scriptures, and therefore against the general rule of them, though only beside their particular prescription.  
2 The second reason concludeth nothing which we will not grant, in the sense formerly expressed, viz. that by those some ceremonies be meant circumstances of mere order, and by man● invention, be understood man's particular determination. Otherwise the assumption is palpably false. Beside the proposition also is untrue, if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing indifferent, be taken in such a general sense as some time it is found used in by Divines. Vide Sopingii Apologet. respon ad lib. anonym. p. 166.  
3 The third and last reason is taken from the difference of ceremonies which may and must be in the Churches of Christ. The answer is, that this difference ought to be only in determination of particular circumstances of order, for time, place, etc.   

SECT. XXI.  
THis sect. is of all other most ridiculous. For, first it supposeth every circumstance to be of the like nature with the ceremonies in controversy. Secondly, it supposeth all circumstances to be of institution. Thirdly, it supposeth contrary circumstances ceremoniously to be practised, by the same men as of institution: for otherwise the cavillation hath no show. Now all these are conceited dreams. But what if we should argue thus? 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 have rejected other ceremonies of like nature as divine as these. What divinity is in such courses?   

SECT. XXII.  
AFter all this ado about the proposition of the first argument, now we are told of an assumption out of the Abridgement, and M. Hy. viz. that these Ceremonies have no warrant from the word of God. For M. Hy. I cannot say much: But I am sure the Authors of the Abridgement have great wrong done them. Whosoever will turn to the place quoted by the Def. in the Abridgement, shall presently 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 ceremony, are unlawful. The assumption of which is, but the ceremonies in question swerve from those Rules. Now all the 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. But to pass by that, the assumption here set down is defensible enough.  
He telleth us that in general and in permissive appointment, these ceremonies are from God, and divine. A permissive appointment, I never heard of before, nor can understand how it will be excused from an implicit contradiction. But for the explaining of himself, he bringeth Calvin affirming that some constitutions of the Church founded in Scripture, may be called divine, because they are parts of that decency which God hath commanded. All which being granted, and the like saying of Vrsin, maketh nothing at all for such ceremoniess as ours are, except the Def. can prove, that they are constitutions of mere order and decency, agreeable also to the other rules prescribed: the contrary whereof hath been formerly declared. One rule of direction which he calleth equity, is here only touched, and cometh after to be handled, to which place I reserve it.  
Thus much for the maintenance of that Argument which the Def. maketh the first.    

CHAP. II.  

SECT. I.  
THIS second Argument is taken from the kind, unto which such ceremonies as ours are, do in their nature belong, viz. that they are parts of divine worship, and therefore (being man's inventions) unlawful. here the Def. comes out with a wedge as he calleth it, distinguishing betwixt proper or essential parts of God's worship, and improper or accidental. But first he should have done well to have considered the nature and measure of the thing which he would cleave, by the light of a definition. For otherwise he may spend his wedge, his beetle, and all his labour in vain.  
And so indeed he hath, as may appear by his explication of this distinction. By proper and essential parts (saith he) we understand such ceremonies, which are so necessarily required to God's service, as that the contrary thereof must needs displease him. By accidental parts (or appurtenances) such as serve only as accessory compliments, ordained for the more convenient discharge of the necessary worship of God, i. e. for decorum and edification. For 1 if all those ceremonies be essential parts of God's worship, which are such as the contrarity of them must needs displease God, then certainly all ceremonies which serve for decorum and edification must needs be essential parts of God's worship: because the contrary of decorum and edification must needs displease God in his worship. 2 What kind of wedging is this, so to distinguish the parts of God's worship, as that the accidental only, and not the essential shall serve for edification? 3 What cleaving or dissolving is this of the parts of worship, where the accidental parts are rather said to be appurtenances then parts, and yet granted to be parts? 4 What worship of God is there that is not essential? If it hath no essence of worship in it, surely it is no worship. 5 The accidental parts of worship have not so much communion with the essential, as the hair of the body (which is but an excrement) hath with the body: this the Def. expressly granteth in this Sect. and shall that which is not so much as an excrement unto the chief worship, be accounted or called a part of worship.   

SECT. III.  
FOr the proof of this, that no humane inventions are lawful parts of God's worship, the Abridgement allegeth Exod. 20 4. Deut. 12 32 Es. 1 12 Mat. 15 9 Col. 2 23, three of which are only mentioned by the Def. and two of the three only answered, or rather put of with miserable shifts? By the precepts of men Es. 29 9 are signified (saith he) such humane ordinances as were expressly contrary to the commandments of God. But 1 if here he taketh the word expressly as opposite unto pregnant consequence, as he doth p. 2 than I hope he will grant that there is the same reason of those humane inventions which are not expressly contrary. If he taketh it largely, as containing such consequence, than he saith nothing to the purpose, because in that sense all Religious worship invented by man is expressly contrary to the commandments of God. 2 Christ himself Mat. 15 9, doth interpret this very place of will-worship in general, where for brevity sake, I refer the Def. unto M. Calvin whom he calleth an honourable Witness in this controversy. He after long discourse concludeth thus, fixum ergo illud maneat, fictitios omnes cultus coram deo vanos esse: imo, teste propheta maledictos & detestabiles, i. e. This must be held for certain, that all worships invented by man are before God, vain, accursed and detestable. By adding and diminishing Deut. 12 32 is not meant (saith the Def.) addition of preservation, but addition of corruption. Where 1 the phrase is strange, by adding and diminishing is meant addition. 2 This gloss is clean contrary to the text, for the Lord chargeth that we do not add to the word, that so we may keep or preserve it Deu. 4 2 even as we keep or preserve carefully that which is committed to our trust 1 Tim. 6 20: now the Def. relleth us that some addition is the means of keeping or preservation. Card. Cajetan himself interpreteth the place far more judiciously and religiously, inhibetur additio etiam pretextu custodiendi mandata Dei, even of additions that are pretended for preservation of God's law, come. in Deu. 10. 3 He should have done well to have manifested unto us the addition of preservation by some example: for that which he talketh of the coiner pertaineth only to corruption, of which no man doubteth. 4 I would know if there be not also a diminution of preservation, as well as an addition? in the text they are joined together. 5 This pretence was the old shoeing-horne to draw on superstition into the Church, as Calvin noteth on Mat. 15 2, Legislatores ipsi non jacta●ant se novum quicquam tradere, sed tantum addere cavendi formulas, quae media essent adminicula ad servandam Dei legem, i. e. the old Masters of ceremonies pretended that they meant only to bring in additions of preservation. 6 This is Bell. answer to Calvin concerning this very point and place, de effect. sacr. l. 2 c. 32 prohibet dominus additionem corrumpentem, i. e. as the Def. translateth, an addition of corruption is forbidden. This I hope is another manner of symbolising with Bellar. then that which the Def. formerly objected to Non-conformists.   

SECT. FOUR  
HEre are two testimonies brought to confute the Non-conf. his interpretation of Scripture, whereby he would infer that all kind of will-worship is unlawful. For that is here the question and nothing else. The first Witness is Danaeus, where the consequence lieth thus, if Danaeus in one place doth apply these Scriptures to grosser will-worship than our is, than he doth not allow that they condemn all kind of will-worship; but the first is true: ergo. is not this a fair kind of reasoning: just as the Papist Gregorius de Valentia reasoneth, abominable idolatry is condemned, 1 Pet. 4. 3, therefore not all idolatry.  
The other Witness is Zanchius in Col. 2 23, where beside that the like consequence is made as before, I would desire any indifferent man to consider these words of Zanchie found in that very place. One kind of will-worship is if any new worship, whereby God is worshipped be invented and brought into the Church. For God will only be worshipped, and only with that worship which he himself hath appointed, Deut. 6 Mat. 15, also those in 1 Thes. 1 9 By an idol in general is meant whatsoever in Religion is brought in without the word of God. He that looketh upon these words of Zanchie, will scarce tell what to think of this Def▪ his audacious alleging of this Author, and the vain triumph which he groundeth upon him. He thought it seemeth that few or none would ever take the pains to examine what he said.  
In the fifth Section, there is nothing on either side but a dumb show. It shall pass for me therefore in silence.   

SECT. VI  
Here come the judgement of Protestants to be examined concerning this question, Whether all parts of Divine worship invented by man be not to be condemned? Where first the Defendant bringeth forth his wedge again, distinguishing betwixt essential, and accidental worship as before: but in other phrases; for now he telleth us, that essential worship is that wherein i● placed 〈◊〉 opinion of Justice, sanctity, efficacy, or divine necessity and accidental is any ri●e, which serveth for the more consonant and convenient discharge of that essential worship. But these are but words. For 1. worship doth not vary according to men's opinion: but consisteth in the nature of the action itself. Otherwise a man may go to Mass, conceiving a private opinion to himself, that he doth it not for justice, sanctity, efficacy, or divine necessity, but for some other cause. Or at the least a convocation house may appoint us the grossest of all the ceremonies in Popery, and set another opinion upon it▪ 2. Sanctity cannot be separated wholly from such ceremonies which are proper unto religion. i. appropriated unto religious persons, actions, and purposes only, in the solemn worship of God. For they must either be holy, or civil, or profane. But civil they are not; for then the bare omission of them would argue rudeness and incivility: nor profane, I hope, in the Def. opinion: therefore they must needs be holy. 3. There is no judicious Divine that useth to call circumstances of mere order and decency, worship. Where did the Def. ever read that a pulpit, or a table, or a fair cloth, etc. was pronounced or styled worship?  
Come we therefore to the examination of witnesses in particular. Calvin's words are, Instit. l. c. 10. sect 8. all humane constitutions, in which the worship of God is placed, are ungodly. The Def. saith, that 1. Calvin meaneth not by worship circumstances of order. Which is most true, neither was any reader so sottish, as ever took that to be his meaning. For what sense could there be in these words, all humane constitutions, in which the circumstances of order are placed? 2. He telleth us that he meaneth the inward virtue of worship, which consisteth in an opinion of holiness and justice. Where first I will not urge or grate upon the ill sound which these words have, the inward virtue of worship consisteth in an opinion. 2. How can an inward virtue be placed in an outward ceremony? 3. The proper nature of worship is not in holiness and justice, but in the honouring of God: and all external ceremonies whose proper use is the honouring of God, are external worship, as all divinity showeth. This is therefore but an idle unlearned evasion, to talk of holiness, and justice, in opinion, when the question is of worship. Calvin never thought of such toys. He amplifieth indeed his accusation against the Papists by such circumstances as those are, according as the Def. showeth: but what Logic can thence conclude, that nothing else is contained in the general rule? Calvin himself professeth the contrary, as directly as if he had undertaken to confute this defender of ceremonies. For these are his words, Epist. 259. Si probe & penitus inspicitur, quid homines tantopere solicitet ad fabricandas ceremonias, reperiemus ex hoc fonte omnes fluxisse, quia quisque novum Dei cultum fingere ausus fuerit● atqui fictitios omnes cultus non modo repudiat Deus, sed etiam severe abominatur. i. The original of all ceremonies was, that men would needs forge new worships of God: whereas God doth not only refuse such worships, but also abhorreth them.  
For Chemnitius, the Defendant telleth us that he condemneth only a ceremony which is among the Papists made necessary. But he should show two things if he would answer sound: 1 that Chemnitius doth distinguish, as he doth, of will worship, as some were lawful, and some only unlawful. 2. he should show us at the least, that there is some worship which is not necessary: for otherwise C●emnitius in condemning will-worship that is imposed as necessary, doth condemn all will-worship. Now we in our simple divinity (for so it will be accounted) conceive thus: All worship of God is that honour, duty, and reverence which the reasonable creature doth owe to the creator: and therefore cannot understand, how such a●dutie is not necessary to be performed: or how there can be a worship, which being part of this tribute, may rest in man's choice whether it shall be paid or no. Perhaps this necessity pertaineth only to the worship commanded by God: but in that which man diviseth of himself, there is more liberty, there being no reason, that voluntary service should be constrained. If this be the cause, than the worship appointed by man, is no part of his love towards God, nor any testification of it. For if it were, surely it should be necessary, seeing it is necessary to love God with all our hearts, with all our souls, and with all our strength.  
The third witness is P. Martyr, loc. come. 770. where he saith, concerning things in their own nature indifferent, that special care must be had, lest any such thing be thought to make towards the worship of God, because divine worship dependeth not on man's will, but on God's counsel. A man would think that these words are plain enough for the condemning of all will-worship. True (saith the Def.) he veri●ieth your phrase of speech, but not your sense. And why so? because (forsooth) he saith in the same place, that the Church may appoint circumstances of order: as if there were any among us that ever denied this: therefore he condemneth not the institution of accidental parts of God's worship. Let any man of sense give judgement here: P. Martyr saith, it is lawful to appoint circumstances of order, but unlawful to appoint any worship. The Def. thus: P. Martyr alloweth men to appoint circumstances of order, therefore he alloweth them to appoint some worship. If this be not as plain a contradiction as any can be framed, then (according to the proverb) let him that taught me logic, give me my money again, Reddat minam Diogenes.  
In the last place (as those which make a feast use to do) D. Morton setteth down himself. But he may be accused though for sitting down too soon: for in the Abridgm. I find Melancthon, Bullinger, Bucanus, Perkins and others invited to this meeting, who now by this hastiness of the Def. can find no place. Yet let us hear what he saith for himself. I do not (saith he) condemn all the ceremonies of Rome, but the multitude and burden of them. To which I answer, 1. the question is not here how many or how few you condemned of the Romish ceremonies: but by what reason you condemned them. He that condemneth one ceremony because it is a worship of man's devising, condemneth all worship that man deviseth: and he that condemneth a multitude in that name, condemneth one that is such, though it be alone. 2. Because I have heard men often speak in this manner of the fault that is in a multitude, I would willingly know, what certain limits and bounds are set by God's law, for the number of humane ceremonies, such as now are in controversy. If there may be three, why not four, five, six, and so forth, as many as it shall please the convocation house, or him that can when he will turn the convocation upside down? surely, if once we depart from God's institution, there will be no place to rest our foot in, but we must ever follow wind and tide, which in religion is baseness itself.   

SECT. VII.  
HEre is promised a confutation of the proposition, viz. of this assertion, all will-worship whatsoever is to be condemned, and to that purpose he bringeth forth again his Magna Charta, Let all things be done in order. But I think that plea is sufficiently confuted. In the next place he produceth or rather as the fellow said once, seduceth 2 witnesses, Vrsine and Zanchie. But believe me, when I looked upon the places which he allegeth out of them, I could not but lift up my heart unto God, and say, O Lord, how can such conceited confidence fasten on a man that regardeth either conscience or credit? How dare mortal men upon such grounds as these, obtrude the conception of their brains upon thy▪ Church's? Vrsine (saith the Def.) hath catechised them well. True: but our proud Prelates for the most part, do scorn not only that, but all other catechisms, except for fashion sake, that which beginneth with What is your name? and though I do not account this Def. in that number, yet I may safely say, that he never well considered whom or what he cited out of Vrsine. All that he bringeth, is out of the commentary on q. 96. ob. 3. & 5. as it is set down by Pareus. Now before objections be brought, it is fit and usual that the Thesis or sentence be set down against which those objections fight; and no wise man will take up an answer made to an objection, before he considereth the assertion against which that objection is made. See then what the assertion of Vrsine is: Ipsae ceremoniae (Ecclesiasticae sc. quae ab hominibus praecipiuntur) non modo cultus Dei non sunt: sedetiam conscientias non obligant, etc. the very same thing which we here maintain, viz. that no lawful ceremonies appointed by man, are the worship of God. Except therefore Ecclesiastical ceremonies be therefore the worship of God, because they be not the worship of God, the Def. had no reason to allege this place of Vrsin in this question: and so just it is in the words here alleged out of the answer to the third objection, those things which serve accidentally to the glory of God, are not the worship of God. And to the 4. obj. By these example's will-worship is not established. And to the 5. obj. Indifferent things (being done of faith) please God otherwise then the worship of God properly so called. Is it possible that any thing should be concluded from hence for will-worship? Surely no: and therefore the Def. himself maketh his conclusion out of these premises, that Divine worship properly so called is that which is ordained of God. Was there any of us that ever doubted of this? is it not the proposition which this Def. undertook to confute. But in a large sense (saith he) humane ceremonies may be held to he a part of divine worship. This is that which we have heard averred before in this section. I had thought we should have seen it proved. But alas it could be no more than affirmed, and that under the shadow of a sentence whereby it is flatly condemned. Zanchie (saith he) distinguisheth the substance of worship from those things which are annexed to worship. Why so do all the Non-conformists. What then? are ceremonies worship in a large sense, because they are annexed to worship? then the sign of the cross is a sacrament because it is annexed to a sacrament.  
I wonder (saith the Def.) how such points should seem to be so raw to some of the Non-conformists. What points? those assertions which Vrsine and Zanchy express? they seem to all of us well digested axioms of Divinity: but the consequence which the Def. would draw from hence, is evidently so raw, that none but a very Ostrich can concoct it.   

SECT. IX.  
TO prove that our ceremonies are imposed and used as worship, this argument is brought: 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 w●rship, those are in their imposition and use worship, and for want of a right author, are false wor●ip: but our ceremonies are such. Ergo.  
The Def. his answer is, that this learning never saw print, as he thinketh, that the institution of God doth not alter the common nature of worship. 1. It may be that he never saw it in print: but I can witness, that Mr. William Bradshaw, a man that knew how to frame an argument in logical manner, as well as any Bishop in England, set this reason down in Print some 14 years since, in one edition (as I remember) of his treatise concerning indifferent things. But an answer to that treatise, or to this argument, was never yet seen in print, though that begging of the question be the chief ground of those invectives which are ordinarily used in Sermons and writings about these questions, viz. that they are things indifferent. This argument is also found in a treatise of the same authors, concerning Divine worship, printed 1604. 2. Though it had never seen the print before now, yet that doth not hinder, but it may be sound. For all sound reasons are not found in print. 3. There is none of our Divines that treateth of worship in general and particular, but hath for substance this learning, viz. that religious worship is that which is done to the honour of God: and if it be according to God's commandment, than it is true; if not, than it is false. The Def. cannot name one of all that ever handled the common place of worship, that hath ●ot so taught, which if it be true, than the institution of God doth not alter the common nature of worship: 1. it doth not make that worship which otherwise being used to some end, and in the same manner, without God's institution, were no worship at all.  
But God's institution (saith the Def.) doth distinguish necessary worship from indifferent, and essential from accidental. Grant all this: what can be made of it? Doth it therefore alter the common nature of worship, making that worship, which without it being used in the same manner, and to the same end, is no worship? here is no consequence at all. Beside, neither scripture, nor interpreters of Scripture, nor any good reason will allow, that there is any indifferent worship of God. Neither is it the institution of God (common to all worship) which maketh one more, and another less principal: but the nature of the thing instituted by him.  
But the offering of any coloured sheep was indifferent before the levitical law: afterward, the offering of an unspotted lamb, was necessary and essential in the worship of God. To which objection I answer, 1. This his opposition of offering any coloured sheep before the levitical law, to the offering of an unspotted lamb afterward, is vain and without ground from the law of God; seeing it doth no where appear in the Scriptures, but that it was as lawful to offer any coloured sheep after the law given as well as before. God requires by Moses, that the offerings of his people should be perfect, Levit. 1. 3. 10 etc. And this might well be notwithstanding diversity of colour. The particoloured sheep of jaakob were not imperfect, but of the perfectest sort, and that by the special direction and blessing of God, Gen. 30. 41. 42. with 31. 11. 12. God complaineth of those that offered corrupt sacrifices, torn, lame, and sick, Mal. 1. 13. 14. But for difference of colour, there is little colour or show of reason, that God gave any such charge in his law. And it is the Doctor's ignorance of the story, or want of due consideration that moved him thus to write. Secondly, suppose a lamb without spot to be forbidden, than I answer, That if any man before the commandment had offered an unspotted Lamb with the same mind that after it was to be offered with, as thinking that his sacrifice should in that respect have been the more acceptable unto God, because it was of a lamb unspotted, than the offering of such a lamb had been as essential worship before, as it was after, though it could not be so true and lawful.  
Did the Def. never read nor hear, that matter and form do usually make up the essence of things? and that in institutions which are means to an end, the respect of that end is also required to the being, but a right efficient not so? let him consider a little of the grounds of logic, or read our most logical Divines, such as Sadeel is, and he shall soon perceive the truth. or else without that labour, let him or any other of common sense tell me, if the Temple of jerusalem should have been built with all the appurtenances, and sacrifices with other observances there used, without any commandment of God, according as they were by his appointment, had there not been essential false worship erected unto God? have the Papists and Heathens no essential false worship, but only accidental? It is a shame to confute such unlearned conceits.   

SECT. X.  
HEre are many proofs conjoined under the name of M. Hy. and others: the answers to which are just such as the ceremonies be, merely formal, without essence or substance of truth.  
The first is, ceremonies are imposed to breed an opinion of holiness, as M. Hooker affirmeth, p. 61. and therefore are parts of God's worship. The consequence is not denied by the Def. not yet the antecedent directly: so that the whole argument seemeth to be granted, only the Def. saith, that Mr. Hooker did not asscribe operative holiness either by infusion or inhesion (which two terms are unreasonably by him dis-joined) but only significative, as his words import. To which I answer, 1. that as the nice distinctions which are now used in the schools of jesuits, do not help, but that Popish superstition is as gross as ever it was in practice: so this distinction of operative, infusion, inhesion, significative, doth nothing help, but the common people in many places inclined to superstition, do attribute as much holiness to some of these ceremonies, as they do to some holy ordinances of God. 2. The Patroness of our ceremonies, such as Mr. Hooker was, do attribute that holiness to the ceremonies which the Fathers did. Now that they asscribed operative holiness unto some of them, Mr. Parker hath made, plain in his book of the Cross, Part. 1. p. 77. 90 92. etc. 3. Mr. Hooker doth not here speak of reverence signified by the ceremonies, but of reverence to be signified towards them, as being things holy and worthy reverence. 4 What Mr. Hooker ascribed unto the cross, is to be seen in M. Parker, p. 91.  
The second reason is, because the ceremonies are the constitutions of a sacred Synod. The force of which argument lieth in this, that 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 ceremonies but holy: and by the 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 unto the praise of the cause. To this the Defendant giveth no real answer: only he doth affirm (contrary to the truth) that our Convocations may be called sacred, as well as the Churches of Christ Saints by calling. Whereas beside other differences, Churches are of God: our convocations are of man. Churches are gathered for the holy Worship of God: convocations (as experience showeth) for nothing less.  
The third reason is, because the ceremonies are appropriated to the acts of Religion in God's service. To this the Defendant answereth by denying the consequence, because the Pulpit cloth, the communion cup, and the place of meeting are so appropriated, and yet not essentially holy. But herein he showeth, that he doth not understand well what it is that he opposeth. For these things whereof he speaketh, are only civil, being drawn from the ordinary civil customs of men, and are of the same use out of the service of God, that they are in it: and therefore howsoever some special individuals of this kind may be appropriated unto religious acts, yet the kind is not: neither have those specials any other signification in the service of God, than they have in the service of men. These therefore are not such ceremonies as now are in question, nor so appropriated to religion.  
The fourth confirmation is from Math. 15. where such ceremonies are blamed of Christ by this reason. To this the Defendant answereth, that the act of washing is not there reproved, but the invention and opinion of an operative sanctity and holiness attributed unto it. But first, to what purpose doth he deny, that the act of washing simply considered in itself, was unlawful? was there ever any so dirty, that he would affirm such a foul fancy? Secondly, the intention and opinion of holiness is that which now our ceremonies are charged with. Therefore in that there is no difference. Thirdly, that the pharisees attributed any more operative holiness unto their washing then many amongst us do to the cross, cannot be showed out of the Text. There is not one circumstance there which may not fitly be applied to our ceremonies. Fourthly, not only Calvin upon the place, saith thate the inventing of such ceremonies was an idle vanity, even before the high opinion of religion was added unto it: but Bellarmine himself De effect sacr. lib. 2. cap. 32. confesseth that Christ reproved this ceremony in the pharisees, because it was vain and unprofitable.   

SECT. XI.  
HERE is set down a reason of Mr. Hy. to prove that our Ceremonies in their use and practice are preferred and honoured above principal parts of God's worship: because the ablest ministers that are, may not be suffered to exercise any ministry in England, except they will apply themselves to these Ceremonies. To this the Defendant answereth, that it is dull Sophistry: because by this means only an orderly and discreet Preacher is preferred before one that is factious and exorbitant.  
Now, if ever, he speaketh like an Ordinary, like a Bishop, when he sitteth in his Pontificalibus, to judge the poor according to the Laws of iniquity. It seemeth some galled place of his conscience was touched, when mention was made of silencing able and godly ministers for trifling ceremonies of man's invention. How much better were it for such men to enter into their hearts betimes, and think what answer they can give unto God for such palpable treachery? But to examine a little the reason that is in this answer; under the term of Dull Sophistry: he more than denieth the consequence of the reason: yet if it be rightly understood, all his wit will not avoid the dint of it. For 1. thus I take the meaning, which is the practice: he that is an able godly minister, if he will not use these ceremonies, may not be suffered to have place in the Ministry: but he that will use these ceremonies, though he may neither comparatively to the other, nor any thing competently by himself, be either able or godly, shall hold his place in the Ministry. Therefore these ceremonies are preferred before the main things of the Law and Gospel. 2 I take it thus: though there cannot be found able & discreet conformable Ministers enough to supply all the Parishes of England, yet many able and godly men are shut out of the Ministry because they will not conform to these ceremonies: therefore conformity to these ceremonies is preferred before the main duties of God's worship. If all the Defendants sharpness of wit can answer the bluntness of this Argument, which every Ploughman that is a good Christian doth usually make against the Prelates proceedings, than I for my part will be contented to be called dull, for from my childhood hitherto I ever took it to be unanswerable.  
The comparison of the Lord Chancellor will do him no help in this case. For that Chancellor were unworthy of his own place, who would for his own pleasure, or for the circumstance of a place, which may easily be changed, put out of commission a grave wise man, when another like unto him could not be found. Beside the case is nothing like: for in the circumstance of a place for commissioners to meet in, there can be no conscience pretended. But here offer hath been made by the Ministers thus wronged, solemnly to confirm by oath, that nothing but conscience doth keep them from conforming.  
Now for the sweet terms which it pleaseth the Def. here to use, I will desire no more, then that he would bring them back again to his own conscience, and ask that before God, 1 whether old M. Midsly of Ratsdel, who after he had laboured near 50 year in the Ministry to the conversion of thousands, was inhumanely silenced by the Bishop of Chester, were a factious and exorbitant man? and that which I say of him because he belonged to Chester, I understand of many hundreds which have in like manner been oppressed. No doubt the evil servant which is spoken of, Mat. 24 49, when he began to beat his fellow servants better than himself, called them factious and exorbitant fellows: but he with all that are like him, know better, and one day shall be constrained to give other witness. 2 I would know of the Def. also whether all or the most of them which are in the Ministry be orderly and discreet men in that religious meaning which belongeth to Ministers? This I am sure of, the voice of all the Country goeth clean otherwise. When M. Midsly, and his son after him were silenced at Ratsdel, all that country knoweth what an orderly discreet Preacher came into the place. When worthy M. Baines was silenced at Cambridge, as a factious exorbitant man, there was, beside many other unworthy Ministers, one commonly called the Vicar of hell, who was kept in, as an orderly discreet Preacher. 3 If faction and exorbitancy may be charged on them that neglect a ceremonious canon upon conscience, what name shall be found fit for the Prelates, who wilfully, without and against conscience continually live in and by the breach of many substantial, ancient and wholesome Canons? for this see M. Parker of the cross, part. 2 c. 9 s 4.   

SECT. XII.  
HEre is alleged the opinion which many people in all parts of the land have concerning our ceremonies, viz. that the Sacraments are not rightly & sufficiently administered without them. To this the Def. answereth three things, 1 That most people hold the contrary: 2 That the opinion of people in observing doth not prove the judgement of governor's in imposing: 3 that it is most likely that those people which think so are brought into that conceit by the opposition which it made against the ceremonies. But first, I would fain know of the Defendant why he passeth by in silence, not only the testimony of Chemnitius cited by the Abridgement for confirmation of this part of the assumption, but also the passages of God's word, and many of the best Divines, which are also alleged there in the proposition, and applied unto this part of the assumption by the Authors of the Abridgement? surely this is not plain dealing. Secondly, I answer that the opinion of a few may make that an action unlawful, which the opinion of many other cannot make lawful, as is to be seen 1 Cor. 10 28, if any man say unto thee. Thirdly, it doth not appear the most are otherwise minded. For the most being used unto the ceremonies, and not unto good teaching, may well be thought to have the same opinion of humane ceremonies which they have of divine. Fourthly, the Def. forgetteth what was to be proved in this place: for the question is not only whether ou● ceremonies be so imposed, but also whether they be so esteemed and observed, as appeareth in the Abridgement. Now the opinion of the people proveth I hope in what manner they are esteemed and observed. And while they are so observed, they that still impose them in those places where they are so observed, may truly be interpreted so to impose them. In actions of this kind (saith Hooker l. 5 p. 165) we are more to respect what the greatest part of men is commonly prone to conceive, than what some few men's wits may devise in construction of their particular meaning. Fiftly, the last conceit is ridiculous, that the opposing and condemning of ceremonies should make men think that the Sacraments are not sufficiently administered without them. The popish people (saith he) have no great conceit of our ceremonies. Why is it then that Gretser, and some other jesuits call our Prelates Calvino-papistae, Popish Calvinists? How is it that by these ceremonies we are borne in hand that the Papists are likely to be drawn unto communion with our Church? Whence is it that all our Church-papists are great maintainers of the ceremonies? The rest (saith he) which are not of your disciplining are not so many. O miserable outfacing of God and man● Who hath disciplined for this threescore years almost all the people of Wales? Who but the Prelates and their creatures have had the disciplining of all the Cathedral Churches in England, and all the poor Parishes that depend upon them? Who are the Discipliners of all the Nonresidents and Pluralists forlorn charges? and who of the many ten pound cures? Do these seem a few in the Def. eyes?   

SECT. XIII.  
THe omission of ceremonies is here alleged to be more sharply punished, than many great sins against the law of God, though it be without so and all and contempt. To this the Def. answereth, first by denying the consequence, viz. that if this be so, than these ceremonies are preferred before the precepts of God, and unlawful. But 1 why saith he nothing to the Churches of Germany, to Melancton, Martyr, Chemnitius, Bez●, junius, Lubbertus, Polanus, Bucanus, Pilkinton, Perkins, and the whole Clergy of England, brought in as allowing of this consequence, in the Abridgement? Are not all these worth one answer of the Defendants? 2 The reason that he giveth for punishing more severely the omission of a ceremony, then heinous sins, is frivolous. For the true peace of the Church doth more depend on the keeping of God's laws, then of observing man's inventions: especially of such things which never brought peace with them to any Church, but as fire from hell have always bred a combustion. Neither yet can the Defendant justify that which he saith of civil governments, that they lawfully at any time more severely punish that offence which is every way less, than another which is greater. Howsoever, he that hath but half an eye may see that it is but a sophistical evasion, common to our Prelates with the Papists. I will not therefore insist in this: if you please, you may see more of this matter in M. Parker of the Cross, part. 2 c. 1 s. 16 17. He answereth in the second place, That it is not omission, but contempt that is punished, ●s if 〈◊〉 Counsellor should refuse to wear 〈◊〉 L●●yers gown. But ● mere omission hath been often punished with suspension. 2 The Convocation house by their Canons have provided and appointed punishments for mere omissions. If those canons be not in all such points rigorously executed, it is either some personal good which is found in some Officers, or else mere shame. For though canons do not blush, yet the executioners have some forehead left. 3 There may be continued omission, upon other causes beside contempt, as ignorance, conscience etc. so that while the Def. so peremptorily chargeth others for slandering the Church of God, he manifestly slandereth them, which for any thing I know are as much the Church of God as the Prelates. Concerning this contempt see more in M. Parker p. 2c. 1 s. 14. As for the Lawyer's gown, it is not long enough to cover the nakedness of this answer; no though it be stretched to the length of one of our great Prelates long trains which are carried up after them. For except the Counsellor would swear that he refused on conscience, and that he could show the judgement of the best Lawyers for his opinion, condemning such a robe as unlawful, the case is not like: and if the case be so put, I account that Lawyer worthy to be turned over the bar, that could not defend himself from contempt.   

SECT. XIIII.  
IN the next place, the same thing is confirmed by the particular indignities, which peaceable, learned, godly minded men do suffer, for but declaring of their contrary judgement: as that they are accounted Puritans, Schismatics, and by canon excommunicated ipso facto, so as no Council ever censured any heresy, without liberty of appeal, which is not denied to great malefactors. Conf. at Hampton. p. 26 〈◊〉. 6 & 98. In the repeating of this Argument, I add that out of the Abridgement, which the Def. for I know not what reason, omitted. Now in his answer he neither denyeth antecedent, nor consequence, so that the judicious Reader may safely take all to be granted. Yet that he might seem to say somewhat, 1 he granteth that we have reason perhaps to wish, that some penalties were released. And have we not reason then to think the Convocation which set these penalties was nothing less than led by the spirit of God? And if the Def. can thus show his differing judgement from that Convocation in the penalties, what disorder or exorbitancy is it for another to show his differing judgement from them and him in ceremonies.  
Secondly, closely sliding by the chiefest accusation of Puritanism, which yet is most ordinary, and most impure, he saith for schism, that those which will not conform unto our ceremonies do teach the principles of Separation. To which I answer 1 That there was never yet any Prelate that confuted the opinion of Separatists any otherwise then by ralling words: whereas on the side, divers most averse from conformity have fondly confuted them. 2 Our principles do no more tend to Separation, than Saint john's rule doth, who when Diotrephes played the Dioecesan in the Church, did write unto the faithful people that they should not follow the evil which was among them, but the good, 3 loh. 11.  
Thirdly, he talketh of divers distractions in the Church, while some will hear only a conformable Minister, and some only an unconformable. But what is this to the purpose? For by this reason Conformers may as well be accused of schism as Notconformers. Again, if all did conform, there would be still the like distractions for some would only hear preaching Ministers, and some would never be present but at reading. Some would only hear godly Preachers: and some would only taste Lettuce fit for their lips. Who should then be the authors of schism?  
Fourthly, he telleth us that all Churches challenge a subscription to their orders. But 1 all Churches cannot possibly do this lawfully: because some Churches do directly contradict other in their decrees. 2 Few Churches require such a form of Subscription as ours is, though they have not the tenth part of doubts and difficulties in their forms, which we have in ours. 3 I ask again that which M Parker hath asked without an answer, that a Minister of the Gospel should be deprived for disusing Popish ceremonies, when was it ever the judgement of any man which was of note for learning, unless he were interessed in the quarrel? Calvin, Bucer, B●za, Martyr, Zanchie, and many other have given their judgement concerning those controversies: but show either any of them, or among jewel, Fulke, R●ynold, Whitakers, Perkins, or any such, that ever allowed of such tyranny. If there were any one among them of that opinion, we should have heard of him. For our Defendant dares bring in the name here of B●za himself as making for him: Notwithstanding B●za doth not only condemn our Ceremonies in plain terms, Epist▪ 8, but also in this very place which is quoted out of Ep. 24 doth cashier our ceremonies in the first words quoted by the Defendant himself, Constitutions being thu● made etc. What understandeth the Defendant by thus, or ha● ratione? Surely those conditions going before, which do as absolutely condemn our ceremonies as any argument in all the Abridgement.   

SECT. XV.  
AFter full satisfaction given to our Arguments about the point of the worship (as the Def. would have the Reader believe) he cometh to confute our Assumption. viz. the ceremonies are not esteemed, imposed, and observed as parts of God's worship. But first I would know of him, why he that talketh so much every where of their own Witnesses their own Witnesses, doth here first of all give no answer to our Witnesses, as hath been formerly showed: and then passeth by that which is alleged in the Abridg. p. 40 out of his own Witnesses, D. Covel, and D. Walks? If they be not his Witnesses, they are at least the ceremonies Witnesses: he should therefore have given some respect. But we shall have another Champion come after this Def. as it is likely, who will as little regard him. For justum est quod Spartae prodest, all is good that makes for the times.  
Secondly, whereas he hath nothing to bring for confutation of our argument, but only the judgement of the greater part of the imposers, I say, this is no way sufficient: For the question here is not only of imposing, but also of esteeming and observing.  
Thirdly, I answer to the places alleged, that it cannot be Logically concluded either from any one, or from all of them, that they are not imposed as parts of God's worship. We do not attribute any holiness or special worthiness (saith the canon) unto the garments. No more (say I) is any special holiness or worthiness to be attributed unto water: yet in baptism it hath a holy relation to holiness. The cross is not of the substance of the Sacrament. What then? it may notwithstanding be worship: except the Def. will acknowledge no worship but in the Sacrament. These ceremonies may be altered and changed: by whom? By those that appointed them. Show me any Papist that dares affirm that the Church of Rome hath not authority to alter & change the ceremonies which herself hath appointed. But the opposites do acknowledge this. Abridg. p. 53. 55. just as much as this Def. doth in this place acknowledge the same of the Church of Rome, when he saith in this very page, that Bellarmine with some other Papists seem to disclaim the necessity of ceremonies, and the placing of holiness in them. So that in all this Section there is nothing to be found but vain conceited confidence.    

CHAP. III.  

SECT. I. II.  
THE third Argument is, because all humane ceremonies, appropriated to God service, if they be ordained to teach any spiritual duty by their mystical signification, are unlawful. Concerning this, we have in the first Section a flourish of words.  
In the second Section, some thing is said of Math. 7 8 10 11. But ● what was the reason that this Confuter of the Abridgement, should pass by or put off the first and second reason or confirmation there alleged, and snatch at one place of Scripture, whi●● his but a parcel of those confirmations wherewith the second reason is backed? The first confirmation in the Abridgement is, that the second commandment forbids us to make to ourselves the likeness of any thing whatsoever for religious use: as it is understood by Bucer, Virel, Fulk, Andrew's and others. The second confirmation is, that Christ is the only Teacher of his Church, and appointer of all means whereby we should be taught and admonished of any t'holy duties. For illustration of this second reason, among twenty other allegations, something is brought out of Math. 7. Now the Def. passeth by the main reasons, and all other allegations that belongeth to them, and maketh a stand at this place of Mat. 7, which yet for substance hath once been handled before in the former Chapter. Is not this proper confuting?  
Secondly, in this very text, he toucheth not that wherein only the Abridgement groundeth their reason. For in the Abridgement, p. 32. there is nothing cited out of Mark. 7, but the 4 and 7 verses; he answereth to the 8 10 and 11 verse. What should a man say to such dealing?  
Thirdly, they say that our Saviour by this Argument (among others) condemns the jewish purifyings and ●ustifieth 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 the pollutions of the Heathen. For which interpretation of the place, they allege chrysostom, Whitakers, the Church of Wittenberg. Calvin, Virel, Zepperus, Fulk, Rainoldus and others. To all this the Def. answereth nothing, but that with a simple denial, he showeth that there were other causes why our Saviour condemned those washings: which is the very same thing which the Abridgement affirmeth, when they say, by this Argument among others, our Saviour condemned them. So that in all this Section nothing at all is said to the purpose: save that in the winding up, the Defendant accuseth those of Sadduceisme which depart so far from the pharisees: Which accusation, if it doth not touch our blessed Saviour himself, I leave to be considered by the Defendant himself. Howsoever, the mentioning of Phariseisme in this matter is idle, for the Scripture saith expressly that this ceremony was common to all the jews, Mar. 7. 3.   

SECT. III.  
THE same kind of dealing which was noted in the former Section, we meet with also in this. For, whereas in the third confirmation of this argument, the Abridgement bringeth in Augustine, the Churches of France and Flanders, Calvin, Martyr, Beza, Sadeel, Dan●us, Zepperus, Polanus, jewel, Humphrey, etc. the Defendant calleth out Augustine alone by himself, and that with a double trick. For first, he citeth but one place of Augustine which was miscited or misprinted in the Abridgement, and leaveth out the other out of Epist. 5 rightly quoted in the Abridgement: Secondly, he maketh this place to conclude the main argument, whereas in the Abridgement it illustrateth only the third confirmation of that Argument. Concerning Augustine he answereth, 1 that in the first place cited there is no such thing, which I grant to be true, but if in stead of lib. 3. cap. 35 be set lib. 2 cap. 1 than something will be found. 2 That elsewhere (not mentioning the fifth Epist. which the Abridgement quoted) Augustine saith, that all holy signs are called Sacraments: but yet it doth not follow from hence that in his opinion all such signs are Sacraments, but only in word or phrase of speech. Neither was it brought in (as he might have marked) to prove any such thing, but only to show that such signs participate part of the nature of Sacraments: and this as that use of the word Sacrament doth confirm, so that which was derived from thence, and hath been in perpetual use, viz. that such ceremonies are called Sacramentalia, Sacramentals. But neither Augustine, nor other fathers do disallow such ceremonies (saith the Defendant) and this we do not deny: if by disallowing be meant constant rejecting of such things. Yet something is to be found in their general doctrine, from which we may sound conclude against these inventions of man.   

SECT. FOUR  
But in this fourth Section, more legerdemain is used then ●n many other. For when the Def. professeth to answer the testimonies of Protestant Divines found in the Abridgement, he produceth only four, as if there were no more to be found: whereas in the same place of the Abridgement, viz. p. 33. there be many more joined to these, as before I showed by name: and to them diverse others are added p. 35. But let us hear what he can say to these four which himself hath chosen to answer. To Calvin he saith, that he speaketh only of those mystical ceremonies which are properly sacramental. And this, say I, was the very point for which this place was alleged, viz. that such significant signs are properly sacramental. Is not this then good answering? Concerning Mysticall-morall, I will speak something in the next section. Zepperus saith he) hath not a word of mystical signification. The place is lib. 1. cap. 10. where among diverse rules, he giveth this for one, that sacramental signs must signify holy things to be sealed up in the heart: from whence he concludeth as against Humane traditions, because God will not by them stir up any grace in the heart of man: so in special by this with some other rules, he concludeth against the sign of the Cross, and other such ceremonies in Baptism. Is this nothing? jewel insisteth only in sacramental signs; and such saith the Abridgement, are all that signify spiritual graces. As for Beza, he granteth him in a manner to condemn all symbolical signs. But to extenuate his credit herein, he would have the reader believe, that no other Divine doth consent with him herein. But if any man look upon the places quoted in the Abridgement, p 35. viz, Harm. Confess. part. 2 p. 229. 230. Eiusd. Sect. 17. add Saxon. Confess. obs. 1. Calv. in Es 20. & in Math. 21. 25. Perkins in Gal. 3. p. 231. he shall find that Beza is not alone in this point. Beside, Bellarmine confesseth that Brentius is of this mind, De cult. sanct: lib. 3. cap. 7. and in his 2 book De effect sacr. he joineth herein with Brentius, Calvin and Chemnitius. I will add one whom this Def. calleth worthily a judicious refuter of Bellarmine: i. junius. His words (in his animadversions upon Bell. de cultu sanct. lib. 3. c. 7. an. 12) are these; Quod si ad usum non potest quisquam instituere, profecto neque ad significationem homo legitime potest adhibere, etc. 1. Humane ceremonies cannot be lawfully used for signification without encroaching, no not in private, much less in the Church of God & public administration. There can be no blessing or consecration Ecclesiastical, without the word and prayer. Here is no word of institution: and prayer of faith there can be none, where there is no commandment nor promise of God instituting.  
To junius add Danaeus, cont. Bell. de Cult. sanct. l. 3. c. 7. It is blasphemy 〈◊〉 think, that any outward thing may be made a sign in the Church, unless it be expressly ordained in the word, and commanded by God himself to be used unto that end.   

SECT. V.  
HEre that which in the Abridgement is the third proof of a proposition, and backed with many allegations, is nakedly brought in that it may be the better mastered. Symbolyca●● signification giveth unto ceremonies a chief part of sacraments. For the clearing of this point, the Defendant distinguisheth betwixt moral signs and sacramental. Of sacramental he maketh two parts, one after the manner of a sign, and the other of a seal: then he maketh a differenc●● betwixt moral and sacramental signs, not only that sacraments do seal, which moral signs do not, but also that sacramental signs do represent a collation of grace given by God unto man; whereas moral do only notify a duty of man which in some moral virtue he oweth unto God. Then after he findeth fault with this, that signification should be called the chief point of a sacrament. Now for the first, I do not marvel that he calleth his distinctions wedges: for this is a most unhappy wedge indeed, which riveth in sunder the holy sacraments of God, and maketh way for humane inventions to creep into their place. 
〈…〉 malus con●us.  The sacraments (saith he) do signify grace conferred: and moral signs do signify a duty of man in some moral virtue. But the Scripture teacheth us that the Sacraments do also signify the duty of man towards God. For by the sacraments the whole covenant is signed and sealed betwixt God and man: so that not only Gods conferring of grace, but man's duty through grace is there professed and represented. This the name Sacrament, as it signifieth an oath or obligation, doth import, by Bellarmine's own confession: de sacram. l. 1. c. 8. This the name eucharist doth also show, in the Lord's Supper, notifying that thankfulness we owe unto God. This the words of institution do plainly testify in the Lord's Supper, Do this in remembrance of me. And I think the Def. when he considereth the matter well, will not dare to deny, but that sanctity (which he saith is signified by the Surplice) is signified in Baptism: and constancy also which he ascribeth to the cross. If he do, he may be easily confuted, by those places where the scripture speaketh of it, especially Rom. 6. throughout the chapter.  
2 Against that moral signification attributed unto humane inventions, I propound this argument, in the words of a ●overend man (whom for some reason I will not name.) To be a teacher of my understanding, and an exciter of my devotion, are such effects at require virtue inherent or assistant to those things which should be causes of them● but no sign of man's devising hath any such virtue in it, or with it: for than it must come from that word put forth in the creation, and s● things natural should have a force communicated to them of teaching supernatural: or else by God's after-institution: such we read not any but of Baptism and the Lords supper only: or by the Church's impetration. But this cannot be: for prayer obtaineth those effects of things, to which they serve by God's creation and institution: but not any creating or new conception of things to supernatural uses. For then the Church might ask that this or that creature might be made a sacrament unto her: in which case she should pray without all warrant from Gods will.  
3 If humane inventions be such moral admonishers in spiritual duties, the consciences of men without doubt are bound to subject themselves unto their admonitions; and then unto them from whom they do admonish, or by whom they are made admonishers: i. to mortal men, such as our convocation consists on. Is not this good divinity?  
4 Whatsoever is ordained in the Church as a teaching sign, that ought often to be interpreted unto the people in Sermons: for that is the teaching which must clear and perfect all teaching of signs: and should not they preach fairly in the name and words of Christ, that should expound unto the people the signification of a surplice and a cross? Would not this also be much for the edification of the people, that sometime they must hear of the moral good which the ceremonies teach: and sometime be admonished of the right meaning of our convocation house in the appointing of these ceremonies, left they turn them to moral evil in superstition: and at other times they must be instructed, how to defend these ceremonies against the opposers of them, lest otherwise they use them without faith? Surely all the Sermons which many Parishes hear, would scarce be sufficient for this doctrine of Ceremonies.  
5 I dare appeal to the eonfciences of the best conforming Christians, whether ever they found themselves truly stirred up to holiness, by the Surplice, or to constancy by the Cross? one thing I am sure of, that in some one congregation where these ceremonies have not appeared for 20 or 30 years together, there hath been more holiness and constancy of faith, then in many Cathedral Churches where they were never omitted.  
This point being cleared, there need no great answer be given to the cavil, of making signification the chief point of a sacrament.  
For if the Def. meant to deal plainly, why doth he change the words, that he may find some colour for his accusation? The Abridgement saith only, that it is a chief part: he accuseth them for saying it is the chief part: betwixt which two phrases, he knoweth how great room there is for a wedge. 2. To prove that signification is one chief part, the Abridgement allegeth Gen. 17. 11. Exod. 12. 13. Luk. 22. 19 why is no answer given to these places, if the assertion be false? 3 The Def. himself in his distinction which he bringeth here concerning a sacrament, doth allow one chief part of a sacraments nature to be signification ad modum signi. Be●●armine therefore hath as good a friend of him as of the Abridgement.  
But (saith he arguing herein against himself) if signification be a principal part of a sacrament, than all the moral signs used in the Levitical worship, should be properly deemed sacraments. Why so? because things take their denomination from the principal parts. True: but 1. as hath been observed, there is difference betwixt a principal and the principal. 2. Every thing that hath denomination from a principal part, hath not properly the same name with it. A man may in some sense be called spiritual, because his principal part is a spirit: yet he may not be properly deemed a spirit. 3. all those ceremonies which had signification in the levitical law, have this denomination from sacraments, that they are properly called Sacramental: 1. participating something of the nature of sacraments, though they be not sacraments properly so called.   

SECT. VI  
A Second objection from reason is here brought in● viz. that if ceremonies which God himself hath ordained to teach his Church by then moral signification, may not now be used: much less may any of those which man hath devised. But why doth the Def. pass by all the allegations which belong to this reason in the Abridgement, p. 33. 34. they cite to this purpose first the Council of Nice, Austin, Martyr, Bullinger, Lavater, Hospinian, Piscator, Cooper, Westphal●s, etc. And then after, Calvin, Bullinger, Hospinian, Arcularius, Virel, Bison, Reynolds, Willet, etc. And again, Calvin, Bullinger, Chemnitius, Danaeus, Hospinian, Arcularius, our book of Homilies, Humphrey, Reynolds, Willet, etc. Are all these worth no answer? at least they show, that this is no new reason divised by the Nonconformists: but the common tenant of Protestants, and the ground whereby they confute the superstition of Papists.  
Yet let us hear his answer to the reason as it is nakedly in itself considered: remembering always, that he can say nothing, but that which the Papists may as well say for many, of their ceremonies against this argument pressed upon them by our Divines.  
His first answer is, that the use of some jewish rite, without any jewish opinion, is not damnable; instancing in circumcision and Easter. Where 1. he should have told us, how a jewish rite can be used, without some part of a jewish opinion? For he himself after contendeth, that our ceremonies are not the same with the Papists, because we have not the same opinion of them which the Papists have. 2. What doth he mean by this new term domnable? I hope he doth not symbolise with the Papists in their difference of mortal sin and venial? of which fault he so vainly accused us before. If he mean by not damnable, not unlawful: then he holdeth circumcision, as it is used under Prester john, to be lawful. If he meaneth any thing else, as, that it doth not utterly destroy the being of a Church, than he speaketh some truth, but nothing at all to the purpose.  
His second answer is, that it is far more safe to invent new ceremonies, then to use those which God once apppointed, and now hath abolished: because they might engender an opinion of necessity: and so might bring in all the levitical law. Where 1. it is well he confesseth plainly, that all the jewish ceremonies are abolished: for therein he contradicteth that which he said in his former answer. 2. from hence our divines use thus to argue, Num vero veteres figurae sublat●● sunt, ut locus esset novis? num divin● sublatae sunt, ut human● succederent: i. Are divine ceremonies abolished, that humane may be erected in their place? They are the words of Doctor Whitaker, de Pontif. cont. 4. ●. 7. c. 3. and the reason is strong. For if it had been the will of God that we should have be been taught by other signs than those that are apppointed in the New● Testament, he could easily, and would surely either have chosen some of the old, or appointed some new in their places. 3. Though there may be more danger in some respect, on the one side, yet there may be more absolutely on the other. 4. 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 even in these respects, it may be questioned in whether side is greater danger.   

SECT. VII.  
THe third and last reason which the Def. could find brought against significant ceremonies, is, that this will open a gap to images, oil, spittle, and all Popish, ceremonies: all which Bellar●in● commendeth, as fit to put men in remembrance of good things, etc. To this he answereth diverse things. 1. This consequence (saith he) from some to all● is too lavish. But this consequence is of his own framing: for the consequent which the Abridgement maketh, is from the common nature of significant ceremonies, to every special, being equally considered in regard of other circumstances. Neither is there any occasion at all in the Abridgement for that ridiculous consequence which the Def. maketh from may to must▪ in his example of the King's Council.  
Secondly, It is as unreasonable (saith he) as if a Patient that hath some drugs prescribed him, should thence conclude he may taste of all. But it is as reasonable, say I, as if a Patient having some drugs prescribed unto him, should thence conclude, he may taste of any which are of the same nature, especially if the same Physician should prescribe them unto him.  
Thirdly, It is unconscionable (saith he) because there are many abuses mixed with Popish ceremonies. Which answer seemeth merely unconscionable; because it is plainly expressed in the Abridgement, that this inference doth consider the Popish ceremonies only, in regard of that signification which they have of good things.  
Fourthly, he disproveth the use of oil and spittle, because they were once used miraculously. As if the miraculous using of any thing did forbid, that it should at any time after be used for signification. Surely then the many miracles which histories do record to have been done by the Cross, must needs banish that also out of the Church.  
Fiftly, for Images, he saith, They are not to be called Popish, but only in regard of superstitious adoration. As if Cassander's image were not Popish: which is an assertion, 1. directly against all our Divines, who not only confute the Papists for adoration of their images, but also for having them in any religious use, especially in Churches; for this is the controversy betwixt Calvin and Bellarmine, de Imag. lib. 2. c. 9 wherein this Defendant taketh Bellarmine's part. Secondly, it is directly against the Homily concerning images: unto which we are bound to subscribe. Thirdly, it confirmeth the soul words of Bellarmine, who saith that the Apology of the Church of England lieth, in saying that the Council of Frankford decreed that Images should be abolished, De Concil. Auth. lib. 2. c. 8. for the only answer is that which lunius giveth in his notes upon that chapter, an. 56. He that forbiddeth Images to be worshipped, doth forbid the having of Images worshipable, especially in Churches: Which answer this Defendant doth flatly deny.  
Sixtly, for holy water, he saith, that may be accounted Christian, were it not for the operative power which is ascribed unto it in Popery. But good Protestants, I think, will rather believe Calvin, who calleth it a kind of repetition of baptism. Instit. l. 4. c. 10. sect. 20. and junius, who peremptorily affirmeth, that no humane ordination, opinion, or superstition, can make it good and profitable. in Bel. de Cul. sanct. l. 3. c. 7. At the least let it be called jewish, not Christian: for Christ will not have his name called upon such superstitious devices: neither can it, without taking in vain.  
7 Lastly, he saith, there is no reason to deprive the Church of power of ordaining significant ceremonies, because she may abuse it: wherein he saith true. But to argue from manifest abuses, against that which is called use, and yet is as like those abuses as one egg is like another, this I hope is reason.  
That which by the way is brought out of Peter Martyr, is not of any great force. For he there persuadeth that unto Hooper out of a good affection, which out of conscience he durst not do himself, though his place at Oxford did tie him unto it, as he professeth in an Epistle, p. 1127. Where also he showeth, that the chief end that moved him so to persuade Hooper, was because he hoped, that by his and such men's yielding, the ceremonies might in time be abolished: which we find to be an erroneous conjecture. But that hath much less reason in it which he addeth, viz. that the open gap of many ceremonies is now quite shut up, because our church is contented to admit of so few, and no more. For 1. we have not so much as the word of our Prelates for this nil-ultra. 2. The gap is every day made wider and wider by such defences as this is, which allow of Images themselves for some religious use. For by this means any crucifix may come in, that is not greater than the Church door. 3 They that shut up a gap upon their pleasure only, can when they please open it again.  
Now I have maintained the testimonies and reasons which this Def. could find in the Abridg, against significant ceremonies, I will add one, lest it should be forgotten, or lost: which I know not how the Def. leapt over, seeing in the Abridg, it hath deservedly the first place among all the proofs, which are brought in to this purpose. The argument stands thus in the Abridg. p. 31. The second commandment forbids us to make to ourselves the likeness of anything whatsoever, for religious use: and so is this commandment understood by Bucer, Virel, Fulk, and D. Andrew's now Bishop of Winchester. And p. 32. 33. D. Andrew's is brought in alleging this for the root of all superstition and idolatry, that men thought they could never have admonitions and helps enough to stir them up to worship God. Yet God (saith he) had given four means, viz. the word written, the word preached, the sacraments, and the book of the creatures.  
Now lest the Def. may seem to have passed over this proof as unworthy any answer, I will briefly add the grounds of it.  
1. 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.  
2. Significant ceremonies are external acts of religious worship, even as they are used to further devotion. Suarez in Thom. p. 3. ●. 65. a. 4. Bell. de effect. sacr. l. 2. c. 29. etc. 31. and therefore being invented of man, of the same nature of Images, by which and at which God is worshipped. The Def. distinction of essential & accidental worship, will help no more here, than the Papists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. God's law is not mocked with vain distinctions.  
3. The affirmative part enjoineth obedience to all the worship apppointed by God: all which was significative, Heb. 8. 5. & 10. 1. from whence it followeth, that no significant ceremonies must by man be brought into religious actions. The nature of the affirmative showeth the quality of the negative: by the circuit of the one, we may learn the compass of the other.  
4● Significant ceremonies which are by institution, must of necessity belong unto the second commandment. An accurate distinction of the commandment will easily show this. But nothing contained in the second commandment is permitted to man. For to him this commandment in regard of making, is wholly negative. Thou shalt not make to thyself, etc. Which words, as Calvin saith, Nos à carnalibus observatiunculis, quas stolida mens nostra comminisci solet, in t●tum revocant & abstrabunt.   

SECT. VIII.  
IN this passage there is nothing to be found but a noise of words crackling like thorns under a pot: Let it therefore vanish of itself.   

SECT. IX.  
HEre the Defendant undertaketh and beginneth a confutation from Scriptures of that assertion, which denieth significant ceremonies of man's institution to be lawful in God's worship. Now a man would have expected by the title, some rule of Scripture: but seeing none can be found, we must be content with examples: which notwithstanding are nothing so firm and certain as rules. Yet let us hear what examples he can bring.  
The first example is Abraham's directing of his servant to put his hand under his thigh when he did swear. It is marvel he did not begin before. Abraham. For Suarez the jesuit to prove the same point for substance, bringeth Abel's sacrifice, Noah's Altar etc. in Thom. 3. qu. 65 a 4, which serve also as much to the purpose as this example. But to the point in hand. 1 It is in all probabilty false, that Abraham appointed this ceremony. So Calvin, junius and others upon the same place, do judge, because it was a sign of subjection usual in those eastern parts.  
2 It is false also (which he faith in the second place) that swearing is the most divine service of God of all other. For the proper end of swearing is not to worship God, but to confirm a truth: though in the appealing unto a supreme Witness and judge worship is employed, and so an oath appropriated unto God as a part of his worship, not in the principal end of it, but in manner of seeking that end. This is plain by the nature of an oath.  
3 It cannot be proved, that this ceremony did teach any spiritual duty. It is most probable, that it was a common sign of subjection used in solemnities of that kind, as well out of an oath as in it, without any respect unto Christ, as with it. If the Def. never read any such thing (as he saith he did not) I cannot help that. I assent unto Calvin herein the rather, because that as imposition of hands in those parts did always signify some superiority, so this under position of hands was by proportion fit to signify subjection of inferiors.  
4 Lastly, if all this were granted, that this sign was appointed, that it was appointed in solemn worship, and that it did signify a holy thing: yet though Defendant should remember that Abraham was a Prophet, and of more authority by far in the Church of God, than our Convocation-house. So that this instance is nothing to the purpose, as, I am persuaded, Abraham's servant would swear, if he were here present, and it were needful, even in the same manner that then he did to his Master.   

SECT. X.  
Here comes in a straggling objection, as it is here alleged without any dependence, omitted in the place whereto it belongeth. I will not therefore press it in this place. Only it would be marked how little the Defendant careth what he saith, so that he say something to every thing: 1 he answereth that Papist● do commonly teach by their ceremonies some new doctrine, not warranted by Scriptures. For confutation of which, the Papists may well appeal to Durandus his Rationale, where he showeth the signification of almost all the Popish rites. Now if the Defendant can there find one signification of a hundred, which teacheth any strange doctrine not warranted by the Scriptures, I have taken my numbers amiss. 2 He saith the Papists ceremonies differ from ours in application, by their opinion of necessity and holiness. But 1 the question here is only of signification: and therefore it is out of time to talk of application: 2 the Papists do not hold their ceremonies absolutely necessary to salvation. For this Bellarmin● de verbo non scripto l 4 c. 11 denyeth of all unwritten traditions, as also Aquinas 12. qu. 147 a 4 ad 1. Neither do th●y hold them essentially necessary to the being of a Sacrament: This Aquinas with all his followers deny, p 4 qu. 66 a 10. where he saith expressly, that all signs invented●ly man are only for stirring up of devotion, and procuring of reverence to the Sacraments: which is, word for word, our English plea. 3 It doth not appear that the learned Papists have any opinion of all their significant ceremonies, which this Def. doth not maintain. For Suarez a principal jesuit in Thom. p. 3 q. 65 a 4 propoundeth only three errors as he calleth them, wherein Protestants differ from Papists concerning ceremonies in general: whereof the first is, that only those things which are written aught to be retained and used in the Church: The second is, that no outward worship of God is lawful, but only that which is appointed by God. The third and last is, that the Church hath not power of commanding and ordaining those things (he meaneth mystical ceremonies) which are necessary for the convenient celebration of the Sacraments. Now there is none of these three points wherein Swar●z and the Def● doth not jump.   

SECT. XI.  
THE next example is the day which Mordeca● and Ester appointed, Est. 9 concerning which I answer 1 it was no mystical ceremony: but a circumstance of order. When Bellarmine objecteth the same example to like purpose against the Protestants, de cult. sanct. lib. 3. c. 10. junius answereth, praeceptum fuit politicum: it was a precept of order. And some of our own Writers at home that it was appointed for a civil use, a day of rejoicing.   

SECT. XII.  
THE Feast of Dedication, ordained by julas Maccabeus is also alleged by Bellarmine de cult. sanct. li. 3 c. 5. & de Rom. pont●li. 4 c. 17 but we need not be so careful of excusing Machabeus and those times from all fault. Christ seemeth, saith he, to approve that feast, joh. 10 22, but seemeth, only, say I. It is said that Christ who had been before that time resident in jerusalem, was walking in Salomon's porch at the Feast of Dedication, when some jews came to ask him whether he was the Christ or no; doth it follow that he observed the Feast? As for Danaeus h●●re cited, it hath been showed before how well he liked of significant ceremonies ordained by man.   

SECT. XIII. XIIII.  
Here M. Cartwright is brought in as answering the former objections out of the Maccabees and Ester. But M. Cartwright p. 197, doth profess that there is as great difference betwixt these two, as is betwixt heaven and earth. And in his Confutation of the Rhemists, who urge the feast of Dedication as this Def. doth in joh. 10 22, he answereth plainly, that this Feast was unduly instituted and ungroundedly by the Maccabees. Which also he proveth by such reasons as neither the Rhemists, nor this D●f. will ever answer. Yet let us hear, what he hath chosen out of M. Cartwright to answer. The Church may appoint holy days in certain cases: but it is one thing to restrain part of the day, and another to restrain the whole day. Where 1 M. Cartwright is wronged by the Def. for he confesseth (in the places quoted) expressly, that upon some extraordinary cases the Church may restrain a whole day, as at a solemn fast. 2 He should let us see what mystical signification is in the times appointed, as he striveth to do in other significant ceremonies: if he would have a more particular answer, otherwise they are alleged here to no purpose to prove significant ceremonies.  
The other words quoted out of M. Cartwright are, that the ex●mple out of Ester is no sufficient warrant for our Holy days: 1 because our estate ought not to be so ceremonious as theirs, 2 That was done by a special direction of the spirit of God. To this the Def. answereth first, that if then when the ceremonies were so many one might be added, much more now. Which consequence were good, cae●eris par●bus, if all other things did agree: but this is that very thing which M. Cartwright denied. He answereth in the second place, that it is presumption to imagine a special direction where none can be proved. But how shall we trust this man in relating the Arguments and Answers of the Ministers in private conference, when now the second time, as it were in one breath, he so unjustly accuseth M. Cartwright as giving no reason for that he saith, whose printed book doth confute him? for so it followeth in M. Cartwright, immediately upon the words by him quoted, p. 194. This may appear by another place, where the jews changed their fasts into feasts, only by the mouth of the Lord, through the ministry of the Prophet. For further proof whereof I take the 28 ver. where it appeareth that this was an order to endure always, even as long as other feast days, which were instituted by the Lord himself: so that what abuses soever were of that feast, yet as a perpetual decree of God it ought to have remained: whereas our Churches can make no such decree, which may not upon change of time and other circumstances be altered. For the other proof hereof I take the last verse. For the Prophet contenteth not himself with that, that he had rehearsed the decree, as he doth sometime the decree of profane Kings, but addeth precisely, that as soon as ever the decree was made, it was registered in this book of Ester, which is one of the books of Canonical Scripture: declaring thereby in what esteem they had it. If it had been of no further authority than our decrees, or then a canon of one of the Counsels, it had been presumption to have brought it into the Library of the Holy Ghost.   

SECT. XV. XVI.  
IN the title of these two Sections, the Defendant promiseth an instance of a ceremonious instrument belonging unto the worship of God. But he bringeth none save the Altar of the two tribes mentioned, josh. 22 which he cannot show to have been any instrument of God's worship: so that he seemeth merely to have forgotten his title. But for the thing itself M. Parker long since p. 1 c. 2 s. 33 hath given this answer. 1 that we may better argue from the Altar of Damascus 2 King. 16 against the cross, than they can from this Altar for it. 2 that this Altar of the two Tribes, was not in state or use religious as the Cross is, which he confirmeth by the confession of B. Babington on the second Com. and by the testimony of Lavater on jos. hom. 61, 3 that in this our men say nothing which the Papists allege not for their superstitions, and the Lutherans for their images, as probably as they, Masi●● and Chitreus upon this place. To the same purpose tendeth the answer which the Def. hath set down in the name of certain Ministers. Let us here therefore his Reply. 1 He proveth the setting up of this Altar to have been humane, which no man that I know ever doubted of.  
2 He would prove that it was appointed to God's service. But alas he can bring no colour for that. It was a pattern (saith he) of the Lords altar, which was a chief● instrument of God's worship: as our cross is a resemblance of the cross of Christ. Where 1 why doth he compare the cross whereon Christ did suffer with the Lord's Altar? that cross was no more holy, than the soldiers that nailed Christ to it, or then judas, that betrayed him into their hands: and therefore the sign of that cross in respect of the resemblance which it hath to that, is no more holy than the picture of judas. 2 Is every resemblance of a holy thing holy? then every Al●house picture, which resembleth any thing belonging to the Scripture & holy uses, is also holy. 3 If any of the Tyrians which wrought under Solomon about the work of the Temple, should have procured a model of the Temple to be drawn, and carried it with him into his Country for to have showed it them for news, had that model been religious or holy? the Def. thought he had to do with such as would believe whatsoever he said.  
3 He goeth about to prove, that it was mystical signification ●eaching a spiritual duty: because that one end of it was, in respect of the present Gileadites, to teach that the Lord was God: and another in respect of their posterity, to testify their consent in the true Religion. But in all this fair show, there is scarce one word true. For 1 it doth not appear out of the text, that there was intended any use of it for the present age that then lived. The contrary appeareth plainly, vers. 27, 28 etc. The last verse cited to this purpose by the Defendant, must be interpreted as Iun●us noteth out of the 30 verse. So that even by this it is manifest that a direct help unto devotion was not sought for in the erecting of this altar. For than not only the two Tribes then living should have had use of it, but most of the other Tribes should have had reason to have imitated their example, in setting up Altars of devotion even at every three-way-leet, as crosses are wont to stand. 2 in regard of posterity, the immediate end was to testify, that though they were separated from the other Tribes by the river jordan, yet they belonged to the same people, and had right to come unto the same place of worship. Now what is this to a ceremony which hath state and immediate use in the special solemn worship of God? the use of this testifying was to procure a consent and approbation in future times among the other Tribes, that these two Tribes might be suffered to come to the Temple for to worship God there. So that neither the two Tribes, nor the other ten were stirred up by this Altar as by an instituted mystical ceremony unto worship or devotion: for as for the two Tribes, they were only to show this monument unto those which called their right into question. And the other were to consent and grant them their right. What is this to a garment of religion, or solemn religious worship?   

SECT. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI.  
THE second instance is Salomon's altar, 1 King. 8 64, wherein 1 I cannot but marvel at the addition which the Def. maketh unto the Text, when he telleth us out of the Scripture of an altar, and of a brazen Altar, built by Solomon, without special warrant: whereas in the text there is neither mention made of brass, nor of Altar, but only of sanctifying the inner part of the Court: he did not surely attend much unto that which he wisheth to another, sect. 20 in these words, I would you had leisure to look more directly upon the text alleged. But for the matter itself, it is worth the marking, to observe by this example what authority is given unto men in the worship of God by our Masters of ceremonies, not only to appoint accidental worship, but even that which is principal and most essential: that which maketh other essential worship to be holy: For what is this else, when they say man may of his own head appoint an Altar? If they say man may appoint an Altar, but not the offering upon the Altar, let them hear our Saviour's answer, Math. 23 19 Ye fools and blind, whether is greater, the offering, or the Altar that sanctifieth the offering?  
As for our answer it is the same which all our divines give unto Bellarmine: as the objection is the very same with that which Bellarmine oppose●h to Calvin, de pont. lib. 4 c. 19 1. this act of Salomon's was by special direction of God's Spirit. So D. Whitakers answereth, de pont. c. 4 qu. 7. add arg. 7 quicquid Salomon fecit, id Dei authoritate & spiritus sancti nutu fecit. So D. Su●cleife de pont. l. 4. c. 6. But from M. Nic. this answer will not be received. The Def. saith it can never be proved. But suppose an altar to have been built as the Def. will have it, and then I hope the nature of the thing doth sufficiently prove it, as before I showed: Beside Solomon had not yet declined from the right ways of his father David, who did attempt nothing about the Temple but according to the writing which he received from God, as he told Solomon 1 Chron. 28 19, Neither is it to be omitted, that Solomon at that very time when he did this thing in question, was acted and lifted up extraordinarily in communion with God: as appeareth by that divine prayer which he then made for the Dedication of the Temple, which cannot be judged but to proceed from the extraordinary direction of God's holy Spirit. Lastly, if that had not been so, yet the high Priest was at hand with Vrim and Thummim, by which when it was so easy to have special direction, who can think that Solomon would venture on such a matter as this upon his own head? But the contrary is proved (saith the Def.) because a reason is rendered in the Text which moved Solomon to do that he did. As if these two could not stand together, to do a thing upon some reason: and yet to do it upon special direction from God see Num. 36.  
A second answer is given by some of our Divines, that Solomon did this out of the equity of Moses law: so junius cont. 3. l. 4. c. 19 To this the Def. replies, that this answer overthwarts the former. Which is nothing so. For Solomon might be, and no doubt was in special manner directed to see the equity of the Law, and specially directed and authorised also to follow it. The Def. therefore is deceived in that advantage which he maketh of this answer.  
A third answer is brought in by the Def. under the name of M. Nic. viz. that God by his visible descending approved of the work of the Temple, and did authorise Solomon to do that he did. To whom the Def. wisheth more leisure, that he may look better upon the Text, where he should not find that God approved the Temple of Solomon by any visible appearance, until the sacrifice was ended. But if the Def. had had both leisure and pleasure to look better upon the text, before he had censured another, then 1 he would have seen that God appeared in the Temple before the sacrifice was either ended or begun: 1 King. 8 10 11 2 Chron. 5 13 14. 2 He should have seen also that Solomon built the brazen Altar, not of his own head, nor upon a sudden which was impossible, but by the same direction that he did all the other holy things, 2 Chron. 4. 1. 3. He would not have talked so loosely as he doth here s. 20, where no man can gather by his words, that he knoweth of any Altar appointed particularly of God, beside the Altar of incense.  
A fourth answer is, that which Daneus giveth unto Bellarmine, ●on. 3 lib. 4 c. 19, viz. that this was not a new additament for kind, but for some circumstance only; because this Court was sanctified by God, Exod. 27 & 40, and Solomon is said to sanctify because he put it to that use which was not ordinary. To this the Def. replieth nothing worth the answering: but only that he accuseth M. Nic. and so in deed the Divines formerly alleged, of unconstancy & unconsonancie: whereas the answers that have been given may very well concur all of them in one action, and one answer. The rest of his talk doth hang upon the horns of his new found brazen Altar: and there I leave it.   

SECT. XXII.  
COncerning synagogues, I answer, 1. they were no significant ceremonies about which the question now is, 2. it is most likely though that the same Prophets which erected schools, called schools of the Prophets, were the first founders of those synagogues. 3. seeing in the synagogues there was no significant ceremony of action or apparel, appointed by men, to be used in them: therefore in the Christian congregations, which in form of worship, (saving the addition of sacraments appointed by God) is altogether the same with the synagogues, there ought much less to be any.   

SECT. XXIII. XXIIII. XXV. XXVI.  
THe first example brought out of the New Testament, are the the feasts of charity, ordained (as the Def. saith) by the Apostles. To which our answer is ready, that if they were ordained by the Apostles, than they were not humane, but divine, and therefore nothing pertaining to our question. To this the Defendants reply is, that if divine be opposed unto constitutions not commanded of God, than we could not have uttered a more unlearned position: because all Divines distinguish betwixt divine, Apostolical, and Ecclesiastical traditions. All Popish Divines indeed do allow of this distinction, because it maketh for their purpose: and some of our English when they write in defence of the Hierarchy, or of the ceremonies: but so deeply to accuse those that refuse it, for want of learning, this is too magisterial For 1. that which came from the Apostles as they were Apostles, that came from the spirit of God, Act. 15. 28. 1. Cor. 7. 40. and to call that divine which hath the divine spirit of God: 1. God himself for author, what want of learning is in this? 2 junius was a Divine, and learned, yet he saith, that this distinction betwixt Divine and Apostolical traditions, is almost imaginary and superfluous in Bellcont. 1. lib. 4. c. 2. an. 6. Danaeus calleth it a childish distribution, in eund. loc. more learned divines, might easily be named, that do so allow of this distinction. And indeed, to examine it by that learning, by which distinctions are chiefly to be tried, it hath no Logic at all in it. For 1. the distinction pretended betwixt things apppointed for perpetual use, and those that may be altered upon occasion: This distinction or difference (I say) is no way contained, in the terms Divine, Apostolical 2. Some things were immediately by Christ appointed, which were not perpetual: as many things proper to the Apostles and their times. And some things apppointed by the Apostles which were to be perpetual, as the essentials of Ecclesiastical government.  
A second answer is brought in, that these feasts were abrogated by the Apostles. Then (saith the Def.) 1. they were not of divine institution. Not in that sense indeed, which meaneth by divine perpetual: but yet they might be divine, as gifts of tongues, healing, prophesying, etc. were. Then 2. (saith he) the Church may institute and abrogate as the Apostles did. The consequence is but faint: yet the consequent or thing inferred, may be granted, so that the Church keep within her bounds. Our final answer is, That these feasts of charity were not of mystical signification, nor yet merely Ecclesiastical. And indeed it is plain, that these feasts did carry no ordained signification, but that which nature herself had imprinted in their foreheads. For who knoweth not that familiar feasting of poor and rich together, is a demonstration and preservation of love, without institution? and yet this is all that the Def. can say for their signification. Neither were these feasts merely Ecclesiastical or religious, because they were used in the assemblies: for they were also used in the same manner, and to the same end, out of the assemblies. Their proper end was relief of the poor, and maintenance of brotherly love.  
Last of all, for the ordination of these feasts, it cannot be showed to have been Apostolical. Peter Martyr in 1. Cor. 11. 22. judgeth otherwise. So that in this example, the Def. can neither show mystical signification, religious ceremony, nor Ecclesiastical ordination: and yet except all these be proved, the instance maketh nothing at all unto his purpose. But that which he lacketh in weight of arguments, he strives to make up in number.   

SECT. XXVII.  
THE next instance (like the former) is the kiss of peace. To which our answer is, that it was a natural indicant sign of peace and reconciliation. But the Def. borrowing light from some oratoriall phrases of the Fathers, will prove the contrary: though it be as manifest as any thing can be, both by Scripture, and also by other histories, that it was a civil natural fashion used in those parts upon civil occasions as well as holy. Now what doth he prove? First the institution, so far as it was not commanded by Christ, was humane. This he affirmeth, but proveth not: and in his affirmation wavereth like a reed shaken with some wind. So far it was from Christ; and so far it was from man: and yet we hear not how far from either. The plain truth is, it was of no institution at all: but of natural inclination and civil custom, used long before the coming of Christ, as is to be seen every where in the old Testament, Gen. 29. 13. 1. Sam. 20. 41. etc. yet by direction or custom it received constant application unto some special acts. Secondly, he saith, it was significant, that is, it had a natural fitness to declare the inward affection of love. What is this to a signification imposed by man? it was so significant as shaking of hands: which gesture also used to be joined with it: Tunc ambo nexi ad invicem dextras damus in osculo pacis sacrae, etc. It did so signify love as the turning away of the face doth signify alienation of mind. But (saith he) it signified Christian love. As if Christian love had not in it the common nature of love, and therefore cannot be signified partly by natural signs common to love. Cleanliness in the celebration of the sacraments, is the same that it is at another feast; though in regard of that application, it may be called Christian or holy cleanliness or decency. Thirdly, he saith, it was used in time of holy worship. So no doubt was giving of the upper place unto the Elders, etc. in token of reverence: and yet it was no religious instituted sign of mystical signification: such reasons as these bewray more confidence then good consideration.   

SECT. XXVIII.  
THe third and last example which is brought out of Scripture, is, the covering and uncovering of the head at divine service, 1. Cor. 11. to which I answer as before, that it was a civil order of decency, used as well out of God's worship, as in it. But here the Def. taketh pains to make many collections, and confirm the same by diverse witnesses. Because (as he saith) this point is of some moment; though the other were of none: let us therefore briefly consider what they be.  
1. I would first learn (saith he) whether this ceremony of covering and uncovering were not significant of some good thing? I answer, that this fashion which he abusively calleth a ceremony, was significant in a general sense: that is, it did declare or argue a good thing.  
2 I would ask what thing it is that is hereby signified? I answer, subjection and superior power. But there is a relation also to God, saith the Def. I answer, there is in man's superiority, a kind of resemblance of God's soveraignite: and so there is also, as Calvin observeth, in omni principatu in all superior power: so that this maketh covering and uncovering, no more a religious significant ceremony, than the upper seat of a heathen Magistrate sitting in judgement: for by that seat is signified a superiority, in which there is some image of God's sovoraigntie. There is nothing alleged out of our Divines by the Defendant, which may not as well be applied to the judge's bench, as to this covering and uncovering. And the Apostle doth show plainly, that the veil he speaketh of, was of the same nature with long hair. So that, by the Def. reason, men's short, and woman's long hair, must be accounted religious mystical ceremonies.  
3 Our third demand (saith he) is, whether these ceremonies of covering and uncovering, were not instituted to be observed in God's public worship? I answer, it was required that they should be observed in holy Assemblies. But 1. it was not only required in God's public worship, but also as Calvin upon the place granteth, In quovis graviore coetu aut matronarum aut virorum, in any grave meeting of men and women. And instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect. 29. ne mulieres in publicum nisi velatae procedant: ●. Whensoever they go into public places. 2. It was not instituted primarily and principally for God's worship. If it were, I ask, when and by whom? Paul surely did not institute a new ceremony in this place: for v. 14. he groundeth his admonition upon nature, i. as Calvin well expoundeth it, upon a received use and ancient custom in those parts: which some through lightness began unseemly to transgress. There is nothing alleged out of Martyr or chrysostom against this answer.  
4. Fourthly (saith he) we desire to know, whether this matter were not a thing indifferent? I answer, it is indifferent in the general nature of it; yet at that time, and in that place, they sinned that did otherwise, even before Paul, or any of their overseers, gave them charge about it.  
Lastly, (saith he) it is worthy our inquiry to learn how far other Churches may be directed by this example? I answer, so far just as the Apostles rule stretcheth, 1. Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done comely.  
Now the Defendant hath a direct answer to all and every one of his demands, let him cast up his sum, and he shall find, that he hath proved just nothing. He could find but three examples in all the New Testament, which had any colour, so as they might be alleged for mystical ceremonies, appropriated to God's worship, by man's institution. The Love-feasts, the kiss of peace, and the veil of women. And yet there is not one of these three, (as any indifferent man, if he hath common sense may see by that which hath been said) that can be showed either to be of mystical signification, other than nature giveth it, nor appropriated unto God's worship more than to civil occasions, nor yet ever instituted by any man in the Church of God. Is it not a marvellous thing that men should presume so as they do to domineer in words and deeds over poor men, in such things as they can show neither precept nor pattern for in all the Scriptures.  
We will descend lower, saith the Def. And that, I assure him, is his best course: for so long as he wadeth in the pure waters of holy Scripture, he doth but strive against the stream: descending lower to humane writings, he may find the waters troubled, and so bring some fish to his net. Yet having the Scriptures on our side, we need not fear to follow him whether soever he pleaseth to lead us.   

SECT. XXIX.  
Here is alleged the universal custom of the ancient Church, even from the Apostles times for confirmation of humane mystical ceremonies in God's worship. To which I answer, 1 of the first and purest times, next after the Apostles, this cannot be proved: nor is likely, because it is not to be thought that all Churches would immediately admit of any thing which they had not received from the Apostles. 2 For the next ages it may easily be showed, that the best Writers taught many general rules concerning the perfection of Scripture, and the purity of God's worship, which cannot stand with these humane inventions: howsoever in their practice they were carried away unto other customs. 3 The infinite troubles of those times against Infidels and Heretics, about the chief grounds and main foundations of faith, would not suffer them to examine these points of less moment as they should. And in deed, they were so taken up with those conflicts, that they neglected many usual truths. So that if all should be received which the Fathers practised, neither any thing understood but by their interpretations, we should be destitute of much truth, and overcharged with the burden of humane presumptions, as Augustine complained in his time, ep. 119, 4 the Lord in justice would have Antichrist to prevail: which mystery could never have grown to any ripeness, had the worship of God been preserved sincere. That corruption begot him, and the reformation thereof must be his utter ruin. It is sufficient that the lamentable experience of fifteen hundred years hath declared unto us, what fruit of significant ceremonies brought by man into God's worship are wont to afford unto those that affect them. To fetch authority in this case, from their practice, by which hath ensued such inestimable hurt to the Church of God, is not the wisdom of the burnt child, who dreadeth the fire.   

SECT. XXX.  
OF our own Writers the Def. here opposeth unto us, Calvin junius, Chemnitius and Zepperus. Now for these, it hath been plainly manifested before, that they all with one consent condemn humane symbolical ceremonies in God's worship: and that upon good grounds out of God's word. Now therefore if any thing elsewhere hath fallen from any of them by occasion, sounding to the contrary, than we may well think that either their meaning is mistaken therein, or else they showed themselves to be men: and indeed (to say the truth) there is a little variety to be found in some of our divines concerning the point of ceremonies. But the cause thereof being marked, will make it less offensive. All our Divines, when they look into the clear crystal of the scripture, condemn plainly all devices of man in God's worship, whatsoeever: but again, some of them when they fix their eyes on the false gloss of ancient times, and consider withal how hardly men are drawn from their accustomed vanities, and what good some men may do by applying themselves somewhat to the times, then receiving another kind of impression, they seem sometime to waver in their words. This observation I thought fit to set down in general, because it may have good use in some particular places which this Def. threatens hereafter to object. But as for the places here quoted, the answer is easy.  
Calvin in the first place, disputing against the gross corruptions of the Papists, saith, he doth not contend therein about ceremonies, which he might truly say not only comparatively, but even absolutely in regard of contention with others, who did not obtrude them upon him. And so I am assured few or none would contend much about ceremonies, if they would not force them upon others.  
In the other place, he understandeth by ceremonies, such as are given us of God: as the following words show: Paucae igitur nobis divinitus datae sunt ceremoniae. What indeed he thought was to be given to the rude people in this kind, he showed sufficiently, not only by his words formerly cited, but also by his practice, in that he banished such ceremonies utterly not only out of Geneva, but also out of all Churches, which harkened unto his counsel.  
Chemnitius in regard that some ceremonies were in use where he lived, handleth them so gently as he can: and speaketh too favourably of Images: yet in other places, the truth wresteth from him and Brentius also, a right confession, as hath been alleged before.  
Zepperus meaneth only that the simple having of Images in Churches is not such impiety as doth unchurch a people.  
junius and Chemnitius in the last place, do but give a difference betwixt the Fathers and Papists use of some things. Here is nothing directly against our assertion. But if all these witnesses did speak as the Defendant would have them in these places mentioned, what were that to the cloud of testimonies which are brought forth in the Abridgement, and unanswered as yet by the Defender. His own mouth will testify that our Divines are generally on out side. For in that regard (if he speaketh with good reason) he calleth them still our own witnesses. Our own they are not, because we allege them only: for so both Fathers, and Papists, and Conformists also are alleged by us: but because they speak plainly for us. Which appeareth also the more by his silence at the most part of their speeches.   

SECT. XXXI.  
AFter much sailing in the main sea, the Defendant directeth his course (as he saith) homeward to the narrow seas, by instancing, in the practice of Non-conformists themselves. His comparison is good: for as the scriptures were too deep for him to fasten any anchor of a conforming argument in: so the practices of weak men are so full of sands and shelves, that here he can have no sure riding. The sea of Rome turned, by one of our Prelates, mare Romanum, is the best harbour of all the world for the ceremonies to arrive and rest in.  
The first example brought is the form of an oath, which is taken on a book. To which I answer, 1. That if this form of swearing can be proved to be of the same nature with the cross in baptism, etc. we will rather abandon this form to avoid the Cross, then admit of the cross for love of this. 2 I affirm, that it were much better that this form (invented by Papists, and abused not only by them, but also by many among ourselves) were abolished, as it is in other Countries not Popish, 
Mr. Fox.  then retained. Mr. W. Thorpe a Martyr, or Confessor, in King Henry the fourth his days, refused to swear upon a book, alleging chrysostom for the same opinion. 3. This form if it be worship, seemeth to be essential and necessary worship, not accidental: for no man is esteemed to have taken his corporal oath (as Lindwood affirmeth) but he that sweareth upon a book. 4. It is not our practice to make any more of touching the book, then of lifting up, of the hand, which is used in other Countries: i. to make it a sign of assent unto that which is required of us. So that I for my part would not find fault with those which sometime hold out a service-booke, or any other to touch and kiss: for it is all one whether we show our assent one way or another, so it be shown i● a decent manner. 5. This form is not used in the special solemn worship of God: but in a civil assembly, where occasionally God is called upon for confirmation of the truth. And indeed, as the Def. speaketh well, an oath is rather a cognifance or note of supreme worship, then proper and direct worship.   

SECT. XXXII.  
THe next instance is, The observation of the Lords day: which the Defendant would never have brought in as an example of a humane ceremony, if he had not either been sea-sick or else sleepy with his long sailing which he spoke of in the former section. For he taketh it for granted, that we hold the Lords day to be an institution of man, which we utterly deny: We hold, as junius answereth Bell. about this matter de cult. sanct. l. 3. c. 10. an. 33. c. 11. an. 3. it is the divine institution of Christ himself.  
By the way here he bringeth in a testimony of Zanchius, calling our Temples types and shadows of the celestial Temple. But Zanchier meaning was not to make them destinated instituted types: but only such things as by accommodation may serve fitly to put us in mind of such a matter: even as any arbitrary similitude that is fit, may be called a tide and shadow. I would the Defendant would read the very next Thesis of Zanchie to that he quoteth: there he should see, that Images, though they be not for the present worshipped, yet aught to be removed out of Churches, because they help not but hinder the worship of God. If Images, then by the Def. own former grant, mystical ceremonies of man's invention: and so mystical Churches too.   

SECT. XXXIIII.  
IN this last section, some reason is promised for a final confutation of the Non-conformists in this point; but I for my part can see none. Nothing (saith he) is properly called a ceremony, if it be altogether destitute of signification. Then (say I) away, and out of the Church with all ceremonies properly so called, of man's invention. But why hath he gone about to deceive us so often before, by confounding circumstances of order and decency with other ceremonies, & now in the winding up of all, confesseth that they cannot be properly called ceremonies? surely there is no reason in this kind of dealing, but only that which they call Sophistry.  
Calvin (saith the Def.) and some other, do accuse the Popish ceremonies because they are dumb. I answer, they accuse them also for speaking, as the scripture doth condemn Images both for being dumb, and also for teaching lies. So that lay all together which those Divines say, and you shall find that in their judgement, 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. FOUR  

SECT. I.  
THis argument in the Abridgement, p. 17. standeth thus: 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 devised, if they be notoriously known to have been of old, and still to be abused unto idolatry or superstition by the Papists, specially if the same be now of no necessary use in the Church. But our ceremonies are such: Ergo.  
The Defendants answer is very brief: he dares not absolutely deny either part of the argument. He could not find a fit distinction whereupon to ground a conditional denial with reason: he contents himself therefore to make a show of distinguishing after an unreasonable manner. For he doth not distinguish of any one term found in the argument: nor maketh the parts of his supposed distinction such as will bear any Logical sense. If (saith he) you require such ceremonies to be abolished, than we deny your Major: but if you understand indifferent things, or mean an absolute, not a convenient necessity, we deny your Assumption. If this and but if that, this form of speech, as indeed, every distinction, implieth some dissension and segregation in the parts distinguished. But here is no show of any such thing, betwixt abolishing and indifferency, or absolute necssitie. I know not what to make of such a confused distinction. It is as if one should say, If you require an establishing of the ceremonies, I deny one thing; but if you understand convevient ceremonies, I deny another thing. Such kind of speaking is nothing else but non sense, or as some use to call it, a very bull. Let this general answer therefore pass: though he saith, that in it we may see our marks, and take our aim.   

SECT. II.  
THE Abridgement beginneth the proof of the proposition thus. This may appear 1 by the second Com: which forbids all provocation unto spiritual fornication, as the seventh doth unto that which is carnal. 2 By ●●e commandment and direction God hath given as in his word, 3 By the equity and reason of these commandments. Now the Def. though he professeth a full answer to all that is objected, yet he silently passeth over the first proof out of the second Command. wholly: and in the 2 and 3 proof, where about forty places of Scripture are cited for confirmation of them, he doth not attempt to answer above 8 or 9 But let us examine his answer to these.  
Leu. 18 etc. three kind of things are forbidden, 1 incest, 2 rounding their heads and cutting their flesh for the dead, 3 sowing with divers seeds, and letting divers beasts to engender together. The first was a sin against nature: the second was a wicked custom of infidelity; the third did signify adultery: in all which our ceremonies are innocent. He answereth here only unto the places taken out of the 18 and 19 of Leu. concerning which I reply 1 that in the first place the words are general, v. 3 4: howsoever therefore in the following verses they be applied unto foul sins, yet seeing in other places of Scripture the like application is made unto ceremonies, they were therefore mentioned as the general ground, comprehending both kinds in it, and joined unto other places condemning conformity with idolaters even in matters of ceremony. 2 The second and third were no more wicked, nor yet so much in any respect among the Heathen, as our ceremonies have been among the Papists: And therefore in these, M. calvin's collection in Leu. 19 27, is sound, God would have his people to know, that they could not have his favour, except they would in all points be unlike to such, and go as far as they could from their fashions and examples, especially in those rites wherein there was any show of Religion. 3 I would demand whether, if the high Priest, with the whole Synedrion of the jews lawfully assembled, had with one consent decreed, that whereas the Lord enjoineth, Leu. 19 Ye shall not sow with divers seeds, nor cut round your heads, nor mar the tusts of your beards: this was only in regard of infidelity, and in respect of an evil signification: but seeing the things are in their nature indifferent, and that it might be convenient for them to use them, they would therefore all from thenceforth use the same, provided that none should use them upon infidelity as the heathen did, not make any evil interpretation of them: I would demand (I say) whether such a decree should ever have been lawfully made, or warrantably obeyed? I think the Def. will say no. But why? Perhaps because of the express commandment to the contrary; but doth not this commandment then respect some other reason, beside those which by this decree should be now taken away? and may we not collect a further matter from them?   

SECT. III.  
BEcause one usual evasion, much esteemed by the patroness of our ceremonies, is, that they had a good beginning: therefore the Authors of the Abridgement to stop that muse, add 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 known to have been defiled by idolatry, or abused unto it. For proof whereof they allege Leu. 26 1, and other places more. But the Def. here singleth out this one, and denyeth that the titulary pillars of the heathen (which were set up at limits of their grounds) had a good beginning. Suppose that this be true, and that the Authors of the Abridgement were mistaken in this place: is not the same thing sufficiently proved our of 2 King. 18 4, Dan. 1 8, Host 2 16 17. But yet it is more than probable, that those titular pillars, were at the first only set up for civil use: because many statues which afterward served only for worship, were at the first only for civil respects, and these had still a civil use for distinction of bounds. But Calvin collecteth, that no statue was here condemned, but that which was erected to represent God. Calvin indeed hath those words: but what kind of representation he meaneth, he showeth sufficiently before, omnes picturas quibus corrumpitur spiritualis Dei cultus: all pictures that corrupteth God's spiritual worship. And after, quaecunque nos a spiritualie●us cultu abducun●: whatsoever lead us from the spiritual worship of God.  
jacob erected a pillar for a religious monument (saith the Def.) Gen. 28, true: but not after the Law was given against it: so also he offered sacrifices, and many other things, in such sort as after the Law was not lawful.   

SECT. FOUR  
THE third proof in the Abridgement standeth thus: the equity of these commandments is thus set down in Scripture: 1 the detestation which the Lord our God being a jealous God beareth unto idolatry, and all the instruments and tokens thereof, as unto spiritual whoredom, Exod. 20 5 6, Deut. 7 25 26. 2 that we cannot be said sincerely to have repent of the idolatry or superstition whereby we or our forefathers have provoked the Lord unless we be ashamed of and cast away with detestation all the instruments and monuments of it, 2 Chron. 33 15, Es. 1 29 & 2 20 & 30 22 2 Cor. 7 11, Cal. in Deut. serm. 52 ep. 86 p. 166 167. 3 that we shall be in danger to be corrupted. Ex. 34 12 15, Deut. 7 4. 25. 26, jud. 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 allegations the Def. answereth directly to nothing, but only to those words see Calvin: and yet not to them neither as they are cited in the Abridgement. For there it is, see Calvin in his 52 serm. on Deut. and ep. 87. Now on these places the Defendants eyes would not serve to look: or at least, his heart would not suffer him to give answer, they are so pregnant. 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 uttermost of our power deface them, etc. nothing upon pretence must be tolerated in the Church, which came either from Satan or from Antichrist. Yet the Def. saith, he hath seen Calvin upon Exod. 23 & 24, and Numb. 23 and Deut. 7 12, and findeth that Calvin holdeth these precepts of destroying Altars and Groves, to bind the jews only, not Christians: and he biddeth us see Calvin on these places. Surely I have looked and could find no such thing. If there had been any thing worth the knowing, for maintenance of the ceremonies, we should have heard of the words of Calvin; whereas now Calvin is brought in expressly affirming that we may use temples which have been defiled with idols: which is nothing at all to the question of unnecessary ceremon. But if the Def. would discuss this point out of Authors, whether the laws alleged out of the old. Testament against the monuments of Idolatry, do not bind Christians, why doth he not answer to the testimonies of Calvin, Martyr, Grineus, Wolphius, Visinus, Machabeus, Zanchius, Simlerus, Zepperus, Fulk, & our book of homilies alleged to this purpose in the Abridg. p. 24.   

SECT. V.  
IN one place of Scripture yet, viz. Dan. 1 8, the Def. thinketh he hath some advantage; because Calvin interpreteth it otherwise then of ceremonial pollution. But therein the Abridgement followed that interpretation which is most generally, received: for which see junius in his Commentary upon the place. And suppose that pollution was not ceremonial or idolatrous, yet I hope the Def. will not say but if the meat had been so polluted Daniel would have abstained from it.  
Take therefore some other testimonies to prove your assertion, saith the Def. So confidently as if he knew of no testimonies which he had not answered. What can one say to him that will not take that which is thrust into his hands, and yet calleth for more, as if he could find none?   

SECT. VI  
THE last thing which the Def. will take knowledge of, as alleged out of the Scriptures, in this point, is the example of Hezekiah 2 King. 1● in breaking down the brazen Serpent. This example is so famous, that he could not omit it: yet he knoweth not well what to say unto it.  
First, he giveth five reasons for the abolishing of the brazen serpent. As if any of us doubted, but that Hezekiah had reason enough for that he did: Or, as if there could not be reasons enough alleged, and those almost the very same, for abolishing of our ceremonies. Let them 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.  
Secondly, he propoundeth, as very observable, that Hezekiah did not abolish the idols which Solomon suffered to be set up, because they were neglected. But 1 it may well be thought that those idols were destroyed by Hezekiah, and set up again before the time of josiah, as many other superstitions were. 2 It cannot be doubted but they should have been destroyed, even though they were for the time neglected: because either Hezekiah had as good cause to destroy them as josiah: or else he might have prevented that cause which josiah had: and to prevent evil, we are as well bound, as to correct it.  
Thirdly, he citeth Zanchius to prove, that this is not an universal remedy for all abuses of ceremonies. The place in Zanchie I cannot find: neither skilleth it much. I grant the conclusion, it is not a remedy for all abuses of ceremonies, viz. for such as God's appointment hath made necessary to be retained. Besides the words of Zanchie here cited by the Def. do only therefore seem to make for him, because they are not full enough against him. But in other places of the same book Zanchius judgement is plain enough, as p. 649 where from this example he reproveth those that keep the relics of superstition in some holy places; though they have removed them out of Churches. And if about this matter the Def. doth ascribe any thing to the judgement of our divines, why doth he not answer the testimonies of Augustine, Calvin, Martyr, Wolphius, Lavater, Zanchius, Sadeel, jewel, Bilson, Fulk, Rainolds, Andrews, Perkins, alleged to this purpose in the Abridgement, p. 24?  
Fourthly and lastly (which only in deed is to the purpose) the Def. would show us a disparity betwixt the idolatry of the jews, and that of the Papists. The first is, that that idolatry of the jews was done publicly, and generally, and in the bowels of the same Church: but the Papists is not so. To which I answer 1 these circumstances are not rendered as reasons of the abolishing in the text, but invented by the Def. 2 private particular idolatry is to be removed as well as public and general: 3 all these circumstances did more than agree to our ceremonies in the beginning of our reformation. And sure they are not grown better since, by any good that they have done.  
The second difference which the Def. imagineth, is that there was no other means to cure the idolatry of those times: but now there is. I answ. 1 this is the very question whether there be any other sufficient means to cure the disease of humane ceremonies idolatrously abused beside abolishing. 2 It is a vain imagination whereby this difference is confirmed, and no reason at all. In the Dominions of our Ezekias (saith the Def.) this disease would be found curable without any such extremity. But the experience of 50 or 60 years' show, that hitherto it is not cured neither in Ireland, nor Wales, to say nothing of England. Surely our Prelates are miserable Physicians, that in a disease so easy to be cured, suffer the patients to languish under their hands, unto death. Especially (saith he) in this our most truly reform Church, which doth most lively express the face and full body of her primitive mother Church. This he hath now 3 or 4 times repeated: as if he did desire to make a question of it: and here propounds it with a doubt, if you will allow. It is not sit here to make a long digression about this matter. In short therefore thus, we allow with all thankfulness, that our Church is to be called a reformed Church in regard of the main points of faith, which are purely and freely taught among us with public approbation: and also in regard that the grossest superstitions are by public authority cast out of our Assembles. But if our Ecclesiastical government be considered, and some ceremonious superstions, we deny utterly, that we have such a reformation therein, as may represent the face of the primitive Church. Let the Defendant tell us, if ever the primitive Church had such chanting idol service as is every day to be seen in our Cathedral Churches? If there were in the primitive Church Chancellors, Commissaries, Officials under the Bishops, which executed the censures of that Church? If he can show any primitive pompous Bishops that had sole authority of ordination & excommunication? If any Minister was called in the primitive Ch. without express consent of the congreg. over which he was set? if Ministers were then want to go to law for their places? if the Primitive Church ever heard of Pluralists, Nonresidents or dumb ministers? If either in primitue or else in Popish Church almost simony was ever so ordinary as it is with us? If ever so many profane men, openly known to be contemners of Religion, were members of any primitive Church, as are of ours? If ever he read of such carnal proceedings about Ecclesiastical affairs in primitive times, as are every day practised in our spirituall-courts? who took money for ordination, citation, absolution, or change of penance?  
I will not insist on these things, because they are beside our present question; but only desire the Def. to behold this face which I have described in a right glass, and see if it be the face of the pure primitive Church.   

SECT. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.  
THE testimonies of Counsels and Fathers, alleged in the Abridgement about this point, are largely ranked by the Def. into 14 Sections, as if the main burden of this Controversy did lie upon their authority: whereas in the Abridgement they are briefly mentioned as illustrations. I will therefore according to the intent of those which alleged them, consider all together.  
7. In the fifth Council of Carhage it is true, that he saith, those Altars were only expressly appointed to be abolished, which were set up without relics of Martyrs. But let the Def. show any reason, why those also were not to have the same measure which had relics of martyrs in them? Surely the Council▪ seemeth to aim at a perfect reformation: but stayed at this, because of the superstition which then prevailed among the people's as they show in that parenthesis (si fieri potest) if it may be: and in the next Canon.  
8 In the next canon (saith the Def.) they would only have immediate instruments of Idolatry then brought into public use abolished. But how doth he gather this gloss out of the Text? Or wherein doth this gloss excuse our ceremonies, especially as they were in the beginning of our reformation? and since they have mended as sour Al● doth in summer.  
9 To the decree of the Council of Bracara, forbidding men to deck their houses etc. in such manner and at such time as idolaters did, the Def. answereth nothing that hath any show of reason in it. For our ceremonies differ nothing from the Papists in place, persons, time, but only in some opinion: Now the Council there doth not forbid the opinion, but the ceremony, even to them which were of a better opinion.  
10 The Council of Africa doth give a reason why they condemned certain feasts, because, they were drawn from the errors of the Gentiles. Herein I am sure it maketh against our ceremonies.  
11 To Tertullian de Coron. the Def. saith less than nothing. For he doth not speak of the same individual habit which was used to idolatry, as the Def. vainly pretendeth: nor of that kind which was only used in idolatrous worship. For in the same book c. 13, he saith this habit of a garland was used in most base places, as plays, stews, jakes etc.  
12 The like answer is given unto Tertullian de Orat. 1 in general it is said, that Tertullian doth not condemn these ceremonies merely for resemblance with idolaters: but for opinion of efficacy and necessity: whereas the contrary is plain in Tertullian, for he saith expressly, Propterea in nobis reprehendi meretur, quod apud idola celebratur. Therefore it is to be blamed in us, because it is used before Idols: And B. jewel Def. Apol. with many other of our best Writers against the Papists do urge these testimonies of Tertullian merely in regard of resemblance. 2 In washing (saith the Def.) some did then hold an opinion of efficacy and necessity. If they did, that is nothing to the purpose; for they might be condemned in that behalf, and yet merely also for resemblance with idolaters. But no such thing appeareth in Tertullian, he telleth us plainly, that the washing before prayer was a significant sign in remembrance of Christ's delivering unto the jews by Pilate, when he had washed. Cum scrupulose percontarer, & rationem requirerem, compe●i commemorationem esse in domini deditionem, c. 11, so that I do not see but that this washing was every way like unto our sign of the cross in regard of the original signification and use of it. 3 In the ceremony of dossing cloaks before prayer, there was an opinion of necessity, because Tertullian saith, si sic oportet, if this aught to be done. As if sic oportet, aught to be done, ought always to be expounnded of an absolute necessity. Do not our Prelates now say, sic oportet, we ought to use the ceremonies, and yet disclaim this opinion of necessity? Tertullian only condemneth, Vacua observatio, vanitas, quae sine ullius dominici out apostolici praecepti authoritate fit, atque adeo superstitioni deputanda● All these agree to our ceremonies as well as to that. 4 For sitting upon beds after prayer, the opinion of necessity is only condemned by Tertullian (saith the Def.) because he inferreth, otherways we ought not to pray but sitting. But that inference is only upon an allegation out of Hermas which Tertullian opposeth to himself about the matter. Concerning the ceremony itself, the grounds of his condemnation are, perinde faciunt nationes: apud idola celebratur. So that the Defendant hath given no colourable answer unto Tertullian. Yet one thing he cannot conceal, though it be nothing to the purpose, viz. that Tertullian in that place condemneth sitting at prayer, which we bring up our Scholars unto. He might surely have concealed this, as being a shameless slander in regard of us, as all that know us can witness: and a shameful practice of our Prelates, generally in all prayers before and after Sermons, except it be when the Lords prayer is repeated: for it is well known how little respect they give unto any prayers, but only to the Lords prayer, and those that are in the Service-book.  
13 Melchiades forbade fasting at the same time with Pagans. That was (saith the Def.) because they lived in the same Country, at the same time and place Nothing else he hath to answer. And doth Country, time and place, make such a difference, that the same ceremonies in one Country, time and place, shall be Christian, and in another Paganish? What if the Countries be within half a day's sail, as France is to England, and the time be the same, as it is in our case? confess the truth, and shame the devil.  
14 Ambrose dissuaded Monica from bringing of wine and cakes to the Church. There is no proportion (saith the Def.) for that was an act of sacrificing performed by women, who are forbidden to sacrifice, as well as to preach: devised by private persons: of an idolatrous invention. The first of which answers is Bellarmine's de sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 14, but evidently false. For the Papists themselves are not so gross as to confess that they offer any proper sacrifice unto any creature whatsoever, Bellat. de sanct. beat. lib. 1 cap. 12: and shall I we think the mother of Augustine, with other religious women in those purer times to have been guilty of so great impiety? Epiphanius may call it a sacrifice in a rhetorical phrase, because it was an offering: but in disputations we must speak properly, yet Epiphanius doth call it only an offering. 2 the person or sex of a woman, maketh no difference. For Monica was not the inventor and appointer, but only the actor: and a woman may bring her offering and lay it upon the Communion table as well as a man. 3. It doth not appear that this was the invention of private persons: there have been Bishops which have fathered as good children as this was: and I do not know why such a thing, or any significant ceremony may not be lawfully used upon private devotion, if it be lawful for men to impose it. 4. If that which Monica did was Idolatrous, it is the very thing for which our ceremonies are accused. 5. Lastly, neither Ambrose, Augustine, or Monica regarded these things in condemning of that act: for the reasons are only two Ne ulla occasio ingurgitandi se daretur ebriosis: & quia illa quasi parentalia superstitioni gentilium essent simillima. The latter of which, viz. resemblance of ●igans, is that which we urge.  
15 To a grave sentence of Augustine, counselling to forsake all the toys of Pagans, if we would win them, nothing is answered but that those toys are not to be used together with Pagans, as if apart some of those toys at the least may be profitably used. Surely to return his own phrase upon him, de 'bove & efus caud●, if others will eat up the ox, this Def. will make no bones of the tail, so it be apart.  
16 The Council of Nice decreed that Christians might not keep the feast of Easter at the time, or in the manner as the jews did. Not (saith the Def.) that it was always unlawful so to do, which question I will leave to them that are skilful in human trao●tions, but 1. for hatred of the jews. 2. because of the jews insultation. 3. for uniformity. The last of these causes doth not agree: for uniformity might as well have followed, if all Christians could have been drawn to the same time with the jews. The other two agree well to our ceremonies. For we are to hate the idolatrous superstitions of the Papists with a perfect hatred. And the Papists do insult over us for this, that we have borrowed our ceremonies from them; as is to be seen in the Abridg. p. 25. where much is said to this purpose, & by the D. unanswered. And I would fain know for what causes other ceremonies of the Papists are abolished, if not these, or for such at the least as would sweep away our ceremonies in controversy, as well as them, if it pleased them that have such bezomes in their hands?  
17 The Council of Gangrene forbade fasting on the Lord's day only (saith the Def.) if it were in contempt of Christian profession. But Augustine Ep. 86. telleth us the true reason was because the heretics did reach men to do so, sacra solemnitate statuta; with religious solemnity, as the Papists now do in the Crosse. And whereas the Defen● asketh, if there be any contempt of any Christian article in our ceremonies: I answer, the cross cannot be otherwise used, then with proiudice, disgrace, and so some kind of contempt cast upon baptism.  
18 The 1 council of Bracar forbade abstinence from flesh, that Christians might show themselves to differ from Priscillianists, the Def. answer is, that the Papists do not consort with us in the same ceremonial acts as the Priscillianists did with the Catholics, at the same ordinaries & banquets. But there is no such reason rendered, or limitation set in the council, of the same ordinaries and banquets: the same ceremony only is condemned.  
19 Thrice-dipping in Baptism was condemned by a Council of Toledo, approved by Leo, because it was the custom of Heretics. This was (saith the Def.) because an heretical construction was made of it. Even so (say we) a superstitious construction is made of our cross, not only by the Papists, but by our own canons and Canonical imposers of it.  
20 Leo forbidding men to have any thing to do with heretics, meaneth it only of doctrinal conference, saith the Def. But conformity with them in their ceremonies is a greater fault (for the nature of it) then doctrinal disputing with them. Therefore the testimony holdeth, from the less to the greater.  
Thus in brief I have examined his particular answers unto our testimonies out of Counsels and Fathers. B●t one answer might have served for all, viz. that they were not brought in by the Authors of the Abridgement for to make an immediate conclusion by against our ceremonies, as the Def. in his answers evermore taketh them: but to illustrate the proposition which condemneth conformity with Idolaters in their ceremonies. And herein we have not only the Fathers, but even the Papists themselves in words many times consenting with us. Suarez. in Thom. p. 3. q. 65. maketh it one rule which the Church is to follow in appointing of ceremonies.  
Now the Def. passeth from the proposition of this argument, unto the assumption. But he should have done well to have made a little stand at the army of Protestants which are brought in as giving witness to this truth. Abridg. p. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. & 25. why had we not hear one head of Protestant Divines, as well as in the former arguments, seeing more are cited here then in them? Surely the Def. could not tell how to give a colourable answer to so many pregnant testimonies, and therefore thought good to pass them over in silence, and make his reader believe, that none were objected, because none are answered.   

SECT. XXI.  
THe Def. here meaning to say something against the assumption, setteth it down by halves, or rather by quarters. For the assumption is, Abridg. 26. 27. our ceremonies in question are humane inventions, of no necessary use, and abused to idolatry. He setteth it thus down, our ceremonies have been idolatrously abused by Papists. There is great difference, as by and by we shall see. His answer is by a distinction: 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 lawfully be used, though they have been so abused. If individually, than it is not true, which is affirmed: neither doth it follow from thence, that they must be abolished, because they have been so abused, except they be the same formally: i. in intention and opinion of those that impose and practise them: What miserable shifts is the Def. put to? he told us before, his distinctions were wedges: but this is a very picklock, made for to open the doors of Gods● Church into those ceremonies against which by the keys of God's kingdom they are straight shut up. For by this means any kind of Popish, jewish, Heathenish ceremony may come in, so there be new particulars of the same kind, and a new intention used. The first assertion is most gross, viz. that in ceremonies abused to Idolatry, those are not forbidden which are generally the same, but only the same individuals. For by the like reason, of ceremonies instituted by Christ, those only are commanded which Christ individually and numerally did sanctify: not all of the same kind. So also Papists are justified against all the charges of our divines, who accuse them for using of jewish and Heathenish ceremonies: for they are not the same individually and numerally, but only in kind with those which jews and heathens used. So the meaning of the scripture, forbidding conformity with the heathen Idolaters, should only be of using the same particular rites and ceremonies with them: as if when the cutting of their heads, & rounding of their hair like the heathen, was forbidden to the Israelites; Leu. 18. & 19 there had been danger lest the people of Israel should either get heathen men's heads, and set them upon their shoulders, or heathen men's beards, and set them upon their faces, and then put them into the forbidden fashion. It is but folly to confute largely such a beggarly assertion.  
But if (saith the Def.) the same generally be forbidden, than you cannot justify any one of your own ceremonies of order and decency. Why so? because there is no gesture or circumstance of worship which hath not been abused to Idolatry. Now he showeth plainly wherefore he set down only a piece of the assumption: for if the reader mark, that our assumption is only of ceremonies devised by man, and of no necessary use, than he shall see that this poor objection concerning circumstances of order and decency, can have no place here: for they are of necessary use in their kind, neither are they mere inventions of man, as the ceremonies are, by Bellarmine's own confession, de effect. sacr. lib. 2. c. 29. For the second, that our ceremonies are not 〈◊〉 the same which the Papists have solemnly abused to Idolatry, if this be granted, it is no marvel: for it is altogether impossible to carry the same particular sign of the cross so far as, from the font to the Church door: or to keep it in being, so long as it is in making. Hath not the Def. then found out a great subtle mystery in this distinction? yet it seemeth more true, that the Papists do give divine honour unto the same individual ceremonies which are used in England: especially to the sign of the cross as it is used among us. For Bellarmine ascribeth divine honour and operation unto the sign of the cross as it was used by heathens, by jews, by julian the Apostate, Bell●de eff. sacr. l. 2. c. 31. Though the Papists count us heretics, and I know not what, yet they esteem us not worse than Pagan's, unbelieving jews, & cursed Apostates. Seeing therefore they yield such honour to this sign as it was used by them, they cannot deny it unto our individual crosses.  
The last conceit, that our ceremonies are not formally the same with the Papists, because we have another intention and opinion of them then they, and therefore need not be abolished, is as vain as the former. For (not to dispute here of material and formal identity) 1. a very show of Idolatry must be abstained from and abolished. 2. It cannot be said simply and truly, that our intention and opinion concerning the ceremonies, is not the same with the Papists. For we have no intention or opinion in the use of the cross, or other ceremonies, but the Papists have the same; only they have some other opinions about these things which we have not. And 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 also as many kind of ceremonies, crosses, Surplices, etc. as there is diversity of opinion about their nature and use, which no man will say. 3. the Altar erected by Vria, 2. King. 16. was an idolatrous Altar, like that of Damascus, though it was for another intention. 4. the Papists do ascribe divine honour to the ceremonies used with our intention, as formerly was showed out of Bellarmine. 5. This is the Papists answer when they are accused for symbolising with Pagans and jews in their ceremonies: Licet in externo symbolo sit aliqua similitudo, absolute tamen maximum est discrimen: nam à sine & intention sumunt externae actiones speciem suam. Bell. de effect. sacr. lib. 2. c. 32.   

SECT. XXII.  
HEre, as a ground of confutation, the Def. setteth down the profession of the Church of England: which because he draws no conclusion from, it is not needful to examine, though it cannot be defended, that the most abused ceremonies are taken away (as this profession telleth us) because no one ceremony among the Papists hath been so much abused as the cross. That therefore only I would have here marked, how this profession doth confute this Defender. For he would make us believe, that none of the old ceremonies used in Popery, are retained, because they are not formally the same in respect of intention and opinion. But this profession telleth us plainly, that some of the old ceremonies do remain.   

SECT. XXIII.  
NO example can the Defendant find in all the book of God, for lawful reserving of Idolatrous ceremonies, but only two; one of Gedeon, judg. 6. 26. and another of joshua, los. 6. 19 and yet of gedeon's example, the Def. himself confesseth, that it was by special commandment from God: and that it is not every way imitable. And of joshuas, beside that it was also the express commandment of God; and that there is no mention made of things appropriated unto Idolatry, but only of goods which had been the possession of Idolaters: so that he may fetch as good an argument and better, from the Spanish Crusadoes, for the cross in baptism, then from the riches of jericho. It doth no way appear in the text, but that the vessels were first molten, and then the gold only, and the silver, brass or iron of them, brought into the tabernacle. So that by this wretched penury of Scripture proofs, it is manifest, that the warrant for retaining of humane Idolatrous ceremonies, must be fetched out of another court, then that which God holds in his holy word.   

SECT. XXIIII.  
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. But he is here also as far to seek as before: for he bringeth nothing at all worth the answering. The feast of Easter (which now the fourth time is brought upon the stage by the Def. in vain) was never generally observed at the same time with the jews, nor ever so appointed by any decree or canon of Council: if it had, yet that had been but an agreement in a circumstance of time, and the translation of it to another time, did show, they liked of no conformity of jews. There were feasts also apppointed at times differing from heretics. What Cart-rope will draw a conclusion from hence for conformity with idolaters in their ceremonies? Besides, feasts & fasts, he nameth habits, but giveth no instance or proof at all of any such thing. Circumcision, he saith, was continued under many Christian Bishops of jerusalem. But let him show that those Christian Bish. allowed of any such thing. I never heard nor read of more confident conclusions out of such beggarly premises.   

SECT. XXV.  
THe reasons had need be strong, when they come without any testimony of Scripture, and antiquity. But here the Defendant is as much forsaken of all help, as he was in the other. His first reason is, because heretics have perverted the sacraments Now he knew that the question is of humane ceremonies, not of God's holy institutions: therefore he fetcheth about, and draweth this to his purpose, by gathering from thence, that it is almost impossible to find any ceremony without exception. All which we grant, of human significant ceremonies, as he knoweth well: except therefore he be resolved to make a trade of begging the question, I know not what he should mean by this unreasonable reason.   

SECT. XXVI. XXVII.  
THe very same disease is found in his second reason: wherout he can conclude nothing, but that some things abused may afterward be rightly used; which we willingly grant: nay, it may be granted of some human ceremonies also▪ as if the Surplices of England were turned into under garments for poor people: and wooden crosses were given them for firing. But if any conclude from hence, that therefore they may have lawful state in God's worship, and there have a good use, surely his wit & words might be better used.  
In the 27 section there is no show of any reason at all, except affirmations be reasons.   

SECT. XXVIII.  
THE last reason is, because Popery and Popish rites are not to be esteemed of equal abomination with Paganism and Paganish rites. Suppose this were true every way (as it is not) yet in this they may ●agrree, that both alike are to be detested and abandoned. Nay, a lesser superstition the authors and countenances whereof are near at hand, doth call for more hasty removal, than a greater, whose authors and users are unknown. Howsoever, when the scriptures bid us fly from Idolatry, and that also particularly, from Popish Idolatries without any distinction, as from Devils, Ap. 18. a few smoothing words cannot satisfy our consciences in this, but, that we are as well and as far to fly from Popish Idolatry, as from Paganish. But if the Defendant would have throughly discussed this question, why did he not answer that which Mr. Parker hath to this purpose? p. 1. c. 1. S. 25. or that which is alleged in the Abridgement, p. 24.   

SECT. XXIX.  
OUR Witnesses can give the Defendant but small aid, being separated from scripture and reason; yet he catcheth at three, Calvin, Martyr, and Zepperus. Calvin (saith he) teacheth that there is great difference betwixt Turks and Papists, lib. de vitand superst. True, but in the same place he answereth the consequence which you would make from hence, viz. that therefore we need not fly so far from Popish superstition, as from heathen: and in the same place also he argueth from Turks to Papists. Calvin's purpose was not to condemn any thing but that which is evil in itself. True, in that discourse wherein he dealeth against those which could swallow down the mass itself: it had been no wisdom to dispute with them about Cross and Surplice. He alloweth of Temples which have been abused to Idolatry. So do we, because they are not religious ceremonies, of mystical signification, without necessary use. And is this all that can be brought out of Calvin? Then surely he doth not contradict the many sentences of condemnation which as other where, so also in that very Tractate, he passeth against Idolatrous relics.  
Zepperus is alleged as allowing of Temples, which have been abused, because they were not immediate instruments of Idolatry. So do we al●o, as before I said, for that and other causes. But altars in the same place he condemneth: which yet are retained in our Cathedral Churches, and I hope the cross being an Idol itself, had as immediate communion with Idolatry, as Zepper or any reasonable judge would require for the cashiering of it.  
As for Peter Martyr, howsoever in one epistle to Hooper, he setteth as good a colour upon the relics of Idolatry as he could, because he thought by a little yielding of Hooper and such men, the superstitions themselves might quickly be removed: yet in another Epistle, p. 1125. he giveth this peremptory sentence, Profecto si ex animo superstitiones edissemus, vel ipsa eorum vestigia omnibus modis curaremus extirpanda: 1. If we hated superstition from the heart, we would abolish all the relics of it. To the same purpose he speaketh p. 1127. where he showeth that his conscience would never suffer him to wear the Surplice, when he was Canon of Christ church in Oxford. If this were not his reason, he had some other very much a kin to this. Neither will the Defendant say hastily, I hope, that either Peter Martyr, or Hooper, were disorderderly exorbitant men in those times, fit to be displaced, that more discreet conformists might come in their places: as now he pronounceth of those that refuse to conform.   

SECT. XXX.  
WHen all fail, a contradiction must be found betwixt our conclusions, and our confessions and practices, but I assure myself, there is not any reader so simple, but if he look over this section, will presently see, that he hath not brought one example of any humane ceremony, not necessary, notoriously known▪ to have been abused unto Idolatry, that is allowed by us. Why then should I spend ink and paper in labouring to untwine such ropes of sand? Only I would ask the Defendant certain questions.  
1. If a Temple, a Bell, or a Tablecloth have such idolatry put upon them by the Papists, as the cross hath?  
2 If his own heart do not tell him, that there is a civil use of such things, which cannot be imagined of the cross?  
3 What superstition there was in the mere significations given by Durandus unto Bells, and Bell-ropes, which is not to be found in the Cross and Surplice?  
4 Whether the Pagan use of Bay-leaves which was above a thousand years past, doth cast such a reflection upon our civil use of bayleafs, as the Popish superstition doth upon our ceremonies?  
5 What sense he had to find fault with us for not altering the situation of Churches?  
6 If it be all one to call a ship by the name of Castor and Pollux, as Paul doth, Act. 28. 11. and to use a religious ceremony in God's worship, which is taken from these Idols?  
7 If it be one thing to change copes into cushions, and to use a Mass vestiment in God's worship?  
8 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, when as only unleavened bread is used, because custom in that part more prevailed, than the grave advice of Calvin, Farel, Viret, and the other excellent pastors? And if it be not a wide leap, to bring in the practice of Geneva, for an instance of the Non-conformists practice in England?  
By that time these questions be truly answered, the Defendant will have but a small harvest out of our confessions and practices.    

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 fifth: and yet he hath quite left 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 sort● of men.  
The Defendant here maketh great flourishing in nine whole Sections, defining, dividing, 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, p. 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 far 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 edification. 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 far 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 declararion 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, Ex. 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 superstitions Papist will be hardened in the liking of his abominable Religion, from which he seeth 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 p. 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 question 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 justify 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. pr● Gregor. 7 pag. 8, and in his defence, t●m. 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 that the profane will draw many arguments hence to bless himself in his contempt of all Religion. The Def. asketh, 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: 4 that religious men are more molested for these 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: and yet there were many weak among them. 2 The Def. I hope taketh order (or else he may be ashamed) that all his Dioc●ffe 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 th●m, or to their servants: 4 After long teaching and 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 sound 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. ca 6 sect. 18.   

SECT. XIII.  
THE fourth instance is thus set down in the Abridgement, pa. 50, As there is danger in the use of these ceremonies in all Congreg●tions, so especially if they sh●ll be brought back again unto those, where they have been long out of use. In this case Calvin, Brentius, B●cer, Hemingius, Beza, Grinaeus & other great Divines esteems 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 national 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. Bancroft with his Clergy, concluded.   

SECT. XIIII.  
A fifth 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 be 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 blame his Ministry, and to call in question the truth of all his doctrine.  
Here the Def. 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 fall 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 & persuaded by reasons taken from the word of God. By all this it appeareth, that this first accusation of falsehood was rather an adventure as the Def. himself calleth it, the● 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 tells 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 superstitionem 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 question 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 question 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. B●ncroft, 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 they 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 these considerations, being carried with a fervent zeal both of preaching themselves in their several places, and also of procuring more faithful Preachers, and more fruitful preaching throughout the land, they have over 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, disarderly, exorbitant men, and for that cause by their Ordinary suspended and deprived. onws 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 yielding to these constitutions, howsoever they may seem unto him such as the Church cannot lawfully appoint, nor he observe, yet he is author of his own silencing: and therefore you must all be exhorted to consider well 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 b● forced to call for for a basin? and after he had recovered himself he might well give answer in these words, I hear the words of a deceitful tongue. Behold thou art called a Bishop, and gloriest in that title: thou persuadest thyself, 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 thine own pleasure, hinder so many able men from preaching? thou that professest the flock must be fed, dost thou thrust out 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 yet neither feel nor fear that woe from the Bishops which many faithful preachers are wrapped in from time to time.  
Fourthly, the Apostle doth not pronounce any woe for not preaching, where imprisonment doth 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 Mr. 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 say (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. non-conformity 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 bemade 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 & 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 and 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 Mr. 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 and glory of our Churches, were all these factious and schismatical? In the presence of God it is well known they were were not. But our prelates have this prerogative, they may dub whom they please factious and schismatical, and 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 eye● sores 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 & 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 Sem●ronius. 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 and 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 Archbishops consecration? There is none of these that can bear the trial of scripture, nor of the Primitive Church's example?  
6 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and thirdly, that the Bishop should confirm the elected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socrat. l. ●. 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, and so that they were all against him; whereupon he mistrusting his own judgement, and being much perplexed thereabout, suffered himself to be swated 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 heartily 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 either 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 with the law? Abstain from all appearance, saith the Apostle: 1. 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; & 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 of 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. 3. joh. 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 non-conformity, because they are utterly unperswadeable to enter 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 human ceremonies) is as ●ffectuall to the conversion of Papists, as in England. 3. How doth this agreed 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. 1●. 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 Mr. Midsly of Ratsdell, who was after silenced for his labour, hath conuerted 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 far more Papists and Popishly affected in those places where ceremonies are most observed, then where they have been disused. 7. It is answered in the Abridgement, pag. 47. 48. that ceremonies are not for the edification 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, and 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 owe obedience unto her. Where 1. the question is taken for granted, for we deny that we owe 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 non-conformity: 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 their 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 the lewish Proselytes was great, and the converted Gentiles few, Acts 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. 22. 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 far more cause to think, that great livings, and worldly honours (one of the choicest darts that satan hath in his quiver, & 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 Neither all, nor the most part of them against whom he writeth 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, M. 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 fat of the greatest livings, and 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: & 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 question 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 question, seeing the Abridgement, which in this defence is chiefly opposed, doth every where deny the cerem● to be in their own nature indifferent. But let that pass & 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 command 〈◊〉 which can not properly prejudice Christiin 〈◊〉: the other is doctri●● necessity: when any of those properties which are essential unto divine Ordinances are attributed unto a humane constitution: as I immediately to ●inde 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 I what meaneth this new distinction betwixt necessity doctrinal and obediential? doctrinal before p. 3 was opposed unto ceremoni●● now unto obediential; both without a logic, or sound reason. 2 He should have told us what kind of necessity obediential he meaneth: for B●ll● 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 Papish useth such a phrase. Azorius a jesuit 〈◊〉. m●r. parte 1, lib. 5 cap. 6, saith expressly that humane laws do not bind, direct, proxime, & per se; directly, immediately, and 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 humane offend●●● 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. FOUR 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 profile, 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, de pont. de pont. c. 4 qu. 7● aureus bic 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 ceremonies. It is taught in our Church, that Sacraments may not be administered, or God publicly served without these ceremonies: that Ministers called and allowed of God for these ceremonies must be silenced; that they are to be excommunicated ips● facto, and accursed which oppose themselves unto them. It is taught also, that though a man doubte●● 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 fifth Section two places are objected out of the Abridgement, viz. Gal. 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 e●●. sacr. c. 32 loquitur Paulus de servitute judaica, qua serpierant illi sub antiqu● 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. 〈◊〉 illi cum circumcidi vellent, excidebant a gratia Christi, & simul obligabant se ad omnem legem servandam, quod erat prorsus re●●e ad s●atum veteris testament. We on the other side with Daneus against that place of Bell. say generate est Pau●● dictum & prece●●um; 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. con●. 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 question: 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 imitateth 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 far 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 〈◊〉 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 p. 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 fifth, 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 ensnare 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 multitude of Popish ceremonies have no other nature and 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 M. 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 M. 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 God's 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 defence 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 let 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 eff. sacr. c. 30, but what is too much, that must be left 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 commands to obey the just laws of men: for so, as Gerson observeth, the Physician's praescripts should also bind a sick man's conscience, in respect of God's 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, Whit●kers, with the rest, who writing against Bellarmine 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 D. 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 constitutions (to which our canons are as like as Apples are to Oysters) the same answer which Doctor Whitakers, contra 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 non-conformity is contempt; bowling, disusing of caps, and such habits prescribed should be contempt. here the Defendant first bringeth diverse interpretations 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 sure the Bishops must fly, if they will defend their disuse of the Crosier staff, 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 sufficienaly proved to be.   

SECT. XII.  
Here certain Divines are brought in witnessing, 1 that superstitious opinions do deprive men of Christian liberty: which we deny not, but take their testimonies as making against our ceremonies: because as I have formerly showed 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 and 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 question betwixt him and us.  
3 How he misreporteth our opinion, in saving 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 formerlyly 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 p. 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 Elizabeth, Defendresse of the Christian Religion, and most mighty Queen of England, France and Ireland H. Zanchius sendeth greeting.  
MOST gracious and 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 new 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 Bishops 
† Zanchius it is like was misinformed, for Bishops have been the chief devisers and advisers.  and Minister's 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 far 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 superstititon, and so defile themselves with them, and give of fence 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 in 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 Ireneus 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 Passover 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 owe 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 〈◊〉 to do it, which command of his did not only spur me one, who of mine owe 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 and 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 far removed. secondly, that men may live honestly and holily, all kinds of uncleannesses being abandoned. Lastlie, that public peace and holy friendship be maintained among the subjects, all occasions of contentious being, as much as possibly 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 Magistrate's 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 ●hee 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 edification of the godly, nor to order, nor for ornament, except that which is whorish: which lastlie, 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 advancement 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, ogive 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 it be better to follow 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 a 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 Jesuits 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 thei● 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 plow 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 and detestable thing with God, that the same field of the Lord should be tilled by ungodly and 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-wossey. For what agreement hath light with darkness? And therefore those things which be not of God, but from 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, and 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 the 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 ceremonies, 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, or 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 ●●ned 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 commonwealth deserve, which make good laws that the subjects shall not wear outlandish and strange apparel, nor bring it into the commonwealth, because it is a corruption of good and honest manners, and of the commonwealth 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. A●d if an outlandish kind of attire be not tolerated in well-governed commonwealth▪ 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, not 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 commandemet? 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 Bishops 
† still misinformed.  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 and execrable or accursed garments of godless Mass-priests.  
Now concerning the third part of the Prince's duties, there is nothing fitter 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, that is of the world (for Christ came not by his Gospel to keep such a peace, but rather to take it away, and 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 examples 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 testimonis 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 and 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 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 & 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 threateneth grivous 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 & 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 ungodly, 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 trespasse●. 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 and 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 & 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 edefication, 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 and 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 showed 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 〈◊〉; 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 and 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 those 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, which your. Princely Ma● ought chiefly to stand for. Let your Ma● rather bend all your thoughts, 
In making 3 sorts of officers afterwards Bishop's Seniors, or Elders & Deacons, he must take word Bishop in the scripture language, as common to all Pastors.  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 Ma● authothoritie, that neither the former by their sleeping and winking at the misdemeanours of the flock, suffer the reins 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 chiefly depend. Furthermore, your gracious Ma● 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 & 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 restrained, 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 luere, but gentle, no fighter, not covetous, one that can rule his house honestly, having children under obedience in all honesty, not forward, 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 Heidelberg. 10. Septemb. 1571.  
THus (good sir) you see how I have endeavoured to satisfy your desire concerning the general part of the Defence. If this do not fully content you, I will (if it please God) add what is wanting another time. For it is fit we should help one another in private, concerning these things, lest the public sway of formality should make us forget or forgo that sincerity which those men of God taught us, in whom when we were yet children, we saw the power of godliness that made us love their footsteps.  
Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame, Apoc. 16. 15.    

I have added to the Authors Reply, but without his knowledge, the advertisement following; to fill up this page, which without some purpose had otherwise been left blank.  
WHEN you find, good Reader, any straggling testimonies of some few foreign Divines alleged by the formalists, which seem to savour of toleration, consider first that some did write in the dawning of the day of reformation, and therefore could not so soon see distinctly and clearly every corruption which was in the Church, 2. That notwithstanding of greater light shining in the Church, after the rising of the Sun above our Horizon, the Divines treating upon many points, could not be exact in every one, or intending principally to beat down such corruptions as did most assault their own Churches, no wonder that there fell from their pens some sentences not ripely digested concerning other points. 3. That howbeit these had purposely set themselves to consider the controversies of our Churches, yet not being throughly acquainted with the particular state of the same, might give their judgement in the general case, but could not so well in the particular, as many worthy Divines in England have done. 4. They were but men, and might err in judgement, and so appeareth by the weak reasons subjoined sometimes to their opinions. And living in Churches where some corruptions do remain, they might the more readily stumble at the like in others. 6. It hath been the practice of the English Prelates from time to time, and is at this present hour, not only to offer preferment to Divines at home, but also to send gifts to foreign Divines, to blunt at least the edge of their zeal, if they could not make them altogether their own, as they have done some. For proof of this their old practice I have here subjoined a few lines taken out of the friendly caveat to B. Sands, then Bishop of London, written ann●. 1567. extant in the book entitled, The Register.  
Although you have, as much as in you lieth, gone about to win credit, and as it were to tie the tongues of Bullinger, Gualther, Zanchius, and others with your bribes, which you have diverse times sent them under the name of friendly tokens and remembrances, yet when they shall be informed better of more than they were the last time, and confirmed in the former satisfaction of these two last set forth books, as well these that I have named, as diverse more will not be ashamed, like true and constant professors of the truth, to answer your L. as Aristotle did Plato, when he said, Amicus Plato, sed magis amica viritas, that is to say, openly to confess, not in private meeting only, but in print also, that English tin, English clothes, and English silver and gold are and shall be welcome to them, as long as they are not meant to stop them from the truth against both their conscience, and their printed writings and confessions. Yea if ye will look well on the matter, Gualther hath condemned you and your splendida Pontificalia already. For in his last Epistle to you Lords, he denieth not that those informations, these two that he speaketh of delivered him, were intolerable in the Church: but trusting only upon your words, and believing your coloured lying informations too much, would not credit them as t●o too monstrous things to be in such a realm, that hau● always had so good a report for zealousness in religion, and to be maintained of such men, that in time of their banishment, both he himself, and a great sort more knew to be godly, learned, and earnest in religion.  
MElanchton did write in the dawning of the day. ●anchius in ●n Epistle to Bullinger, reporteth that he was of a fearful spirit, and did many things which he did not approve. His advices in the time of the Interim proved pernicious to the German Churches, and grievous to all the godly. Harder things, if true, are written concerning him. P. Martyr, freer in writing after he had left England then he was before, in a letter to a certain friend there, confesseth his oversight in advising rather to conform to Popish apparel then to leave the Ministry, and that now with Bullinger he was of another mind, seeing the scandals which did arise unavoideably of them, which he did not perceive before. He confesseth in another Epistle to a certain friend there, that he could not give full and particular direction not being acquainted with all the particular circumstances. Tu autem qui●●es in ipso certamine consilia hic non expecta. Valde quippe sumus à vobis procul. In ipsa consultetis arena. Which answer holdeth in other foreign Divines. The Author of this sound Reply, craving the removal or at least the free use of the ceremonies, and that none be enthralled; or saying if there Deans, Canons, and Prebendaries will practise them in their Cathedral Churches, they will not contend with them, providing the Prelates impose them not upon others, is to be understood to speak only of the English Church, where they have kept possession ever since the Reformation, and as a man almost despairing of any cure after these fifty years' contestation against them, rather than resolving. But all Writers condemn the reducing of corruptions into a Church, specially after exile of many years. Many worthies have suffered much for Reformation, what would they have done to withstand the reentry of Deformation?  
FINIS.