IMPRIMATUR  
Hic Liber cui Titulus, A Discourse of Superstition, etc.  
May 11. 1678. Guill. Sill, R. P. D. Henr. Episc. Lond. à sacris Domesticis.   

A DISCOURSE OF Superstition With respect to the PRESENT TIMES. WHEREIN The Church of ENGLAND is Vindicated from the Imputation, and the Charge retorted not only on the Papists, but also on men of other Persuasions.  
By William Shelton, Rector of St James Colchester.  
LONDON, Printed by J. M. for Jonathan Robinson, at the Golden Lion in St Paul's Churchyard, MDCLXXVIII.   

To the RIGHT REVEREND FATHER in GOD, AND RIGHT HONOURABLE HENRY LORD BISHOP OF LONDON, One of His Majesty's most Honourable Privy-Council, etc.  
May it please your Lordship,  
THere is none to whom I own account of myself and Studies, more than to your Lordship as my Diocesan. None to whom I more readily submit this Essay, which endeavours to do Right to the Church of England, whose Honour and Security is so great a part of your Lordship's care, as to challenge the acknowledgement of all Pens. The Moderation of our Church (which ought to be esteemed her Glory) in receding no farther from the Church of Rome, than she has receded from Primitive Christianity, is objected as a Crime, by the eager men of the separation.  
Our First Reformers were Wise men, and (Thanks be to God) so are their Successors too. Their Wisdom in the first compiling, and late Review of our Liturgy, has directed them to keep the mean between the Two Extremes, of too much stiffness in refusing, and too much easiness in admitting variations. So by the good Providence of God, have we been delivered from the superstitions of the Romish Church; and so have we been preserved from a superstitious avoiding superstition.  
As the Kingdom of England is famous for being the Balance of Europe; so is the Church of England, for being, by a regular Reformation, well fixed in a due distance between the superstitious additions of the Church of Rome, where Supremacy, Infallibility, and the Inquisition compel men to swallow Camels, and the superstitious Abstinences of those who strain at Gnats, and either will not Understand the notion of a thing Indifferent, or will not rightly infer from it.  
To evince this, is the Design of the following Tract, which in all humility I offer to your Lordship's Patronage, being thereto emboldened, by the Experience I have had of your Lordship's Candour and Favour, which by how much the less I have merited, I ought the more to acknowledge.  
God Almighty preserve your Lordship to a long Presidency in this Church: and bless the joint labours and cares of the Right Reverend my Lords the Bishops, to such an happy Repair of our Breaches; that neither the Wild-Boar, nor the Foxes, may spoil our Vineyard: to be such a defence upon the Glory of this Church, that neither the Romanist nor Separatist, may slain or darken it. So prayeth,  
Your Lordships in all Humility and Obedience, W. SHELTON.   

THE CONTENTS.  
SECTION I. 
THE Occasion of this Discourse. The Church of England charged with Superstition. In the times of Queen Elizabeth, King James. The reproach restrained by a Canon, to no purpose. The Jealousy increased in the beginning of Charles I. and in the time of the Covenant. The design of this Discourse. Pag. 1  SECT. II. 
The use of the word first enquired into: Then the nature of the thing. How Greek Authors use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Smith's select Discourse. Plutarch. Max. Tyrius. Antoninus. Dr Hammond's Tract of Superstition considered. What Latin Authors mean by Superstitio. Tully opposes it to Religion. Lactantius not agreeing with him in the reason of the word. p. 11  SECT. III. 
Other Etymologies. Superstitio quasi super statutum. Lucretius huffs at all Religion as super stans. Nigidius Figulus account of the word. Seneca, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny take it in a bad sense, so Festus and St. Paul. St Austin differs not, who comprehends many particulars under this General, according to whom many superstitious observations obtain still in the World. Three Definitions of superstition out of Aquinas. Zanchy, Aims to the same purpose. Religion, True Worship; Superstition false worship. p. 18  SECT. iv 
The Nature of the thing considered in several Propositions. First, Superstition is first in the Opinion, then in the practice. To which agree Morton, Hooker, Falkener. The same practice superstitious or not, as the Opinion is by which it is guided. This the Foundation of what follows. p. 28  SECT. V 
Second Propos. The Doctrines upon which the Conformity of the Church of England is established, are not superstitious Opinions. Those Doctrines are as follows. First, All Circumstances relating to the worship of God, are not particularly determined in H. Scripture. T. C. gainsays, but it is manifestly true. Our Adversaries acknowledge and build upon it. p. 34  SECT. VI 
Secondly, Some things (notwithstanding Scripture determinations) do still remain Indifferent in their nature. This denied by Bradshaw and Brook: Bradshaw changed his mind, but his followers propagate his first Opinion. A gross mistake. A Thing Indifferent not a mean between Good and evil, but between Commanded and forbidden. p. 40  SECT. VII. 
Brooks notion, Optimum est eligendum, not always true. In divers cases no Best. Many dishes at a feast. Many Inns in a Town. Many Shops in a City. He that stays till he know which is Best, will in many cases never determine, because he hath nothing to determine him but his own choice. The Ceremonies of our Religion not altogether so Indifferent, but in specie neither Commanded nor forbidden. p. 45  SECT. VIII. 
Thirdly, The Church may make Determinations in things Indifferent. Scrupled by Brooke, whose Discourse of Episcopacy is again examined. The weakness and Unworthiness of it detected. Denied also by others, Modest Discourse, etc. and Bagshaw, but upon insufficient grounds. p. 55  SECT. IX. 
This acknowledged by the Presbyterians in their Directory, Confession of Faith. Other Authors that have written since. Acknowledged also by the Independents in their Confession of Faith, 1658. p. 66  SECT. X. 
Fourthly, Where the Governors of the Church have power to determine, they ought to be obeyed. Zanchy and Calvin on our side. When Zanchy would not have these things imposed, yet he would have them yielded to (if imposed) rather than any man should quit his Ministry. p. 71  SECT. XI. 
Calvin of the same mind. Much for a stated Liturgy and Ceremonies, which though he would have few, yet those he finds fault with, do not now obtain in our Church. What he did not like, he would have born with. As the Surplice in Bishop Hoopers' case, and Unleavened Bread at Geneva. p. 80  SECT. XII. 
Besides these M. durel citys about 40. Foreigners all of the same Judgement. As were also our Countrymen, T. C. Humphrey Rainolds, Knewstubs, others. And of late Mr Baxter. These Testimonies concluded with St. Ambrose, and St. Austin's determination. p. 87  SECT. XIII. 
Fifthly, It is lawful for the Church to appoint significant Ceremonies. This denied by N. C ts. How they differ from Sacraments. The Presbyterians require sitting at the Lords Supper because significant. Their pretence of the Example of Christ not sufficient. Because, p. 93  SECT. XIV. 
First, That Example does no more oblige in this, than in other Circumstances of Time and place, unless in the significancy of it, which then is as much superstitious as our kneeling. For secondly, They have not Example for the same manner of sitting. Thirdly, Not certain whether they have Example for any manner of sitting at all. p. 100  SECT. XV. 
They use another significant Ceremony in the Covenant and consent they require of people whereby they should own their Minister. Worcestershire Agreement gives account of it. Distinction between Discipline and Worship will not help them. p. 108  SECT. XVI. 
Upon these Grounds the Church of England not superstitious, unless the number of Ceremonies be too great. Which hath been complained of without Cause, and some of them acknowledge in our favour. A Digression about the number of Ceremonies. Or unless our Rites be required as somewhat more than Indifferent. In which the Prefaces to our Liturgy vindicate us. p. 112  SECT. XVII. 
Two Objections. 1. Ceremonies imposed as Indifferent are not so. So they were once believed. But now some N. C ts. think not so of them. Answer. Where no Law, no Transgression. Not forbidden in the second Command, nor elsewhere. The Surplice, and Kneeling, and the Cross particularly considered. p. 123  SECT. XVIII. 
2 Obj. Though in Nature Indifferent, yet some Accidents may render it sinful to impose or practise them. They are thought by Bagshaw to be laid as snares for tender Consciences. If so, it would be Tyranny rather than superstition. But it blasphemes Dignities so to think. The Accidents considered: Because they are offensive: because they come from Papists. The law of not giving offence does not disoblige the subject from obedience in things in themselves lawful. Nor does it disable the Magistrate from making laws in things Indifferent. The abuse of Popery signified nothing to T. C. in his own case. The second General Proposition concluded. p. 132  SECT. XIX. 
Third Proposition. The Opinions that are superstitious are rejected by the Church of England. Divers Objections against Popery besides superstition, but that now to be considered. They are superstitious. First, in making their Ceremonies necessary parts of God's worship. Pius IU. Creed imposed upon all Bishops, makes all the Doctrines of Trent necessary to salvation. They equal Traditions to the written word, and so introduce false Doctrines. They teach for Doctrines the Commands of men, and so are superstitious. p. 144  SECT. XX. 
Secondly, They ascribe an efficacious sanctity to their Ceremonies. They worship the Cross with Latra, and affirm that it scares away the Devil, drives away diseases, and sanctifies the things on which it is made. This is superstition to expect effects as by divine Institution, which we have no warrant to expect. Estius endeavours to salve the matter, but not to satisfaction. They teach that the Sacraments confer Grace Ex opere Operato, and that is superstitious. Bellarmine's distinction between opus operatum, and operantis, to their prejudice. p. 154  SECT. XXI. 
Thirdly, Their Doctrine of Merit is superstitious. Bellarmine ascribes Merit and satisfaction to good Works. His famous acknowledgement to the contrary. We own a necessity of good works, but exclude Merit. Whatever else is any where done upon a Religious account, farther than Religion ought to be concerned, is superstitious. The Church of England not guilty in any of these Cases. p. 163  SECT. XXII. 
The Fourth Proposition. There are superstitious Omissions of which men may be guilty, when they seem greatly to abhor superstition. A Negative Superstition. A superstitious fearfulness of which Lord Bacon and St. Austin complain. Such was that of the Jews who would not defend themselves on the Sabbath day. Of the Soldiers in Sfetigrade. The N. C ts. have reason to examine whether their Abstinence be not such. To abstain from that which is lawful, as believing it Unlawful, this undue opinion of Religious Matters is superstitious. The Conclusion. p. 171    

ERRATA.  
PAge 95. line 9 for where insignificant, read wherein significant, p. 149. l. 13. for rest r. rests; the lesser faults are left to the ingenuity of the Reader to correct or pardon.   

THere is lately published the seventh Edition of a Body of Divinity, etc. By the most Reverend Father in God, James Usher, late Archbishop of Armagh, to which is added his Life, containing many remarkable passages never before Extant. Sold by Jonathan Robinson, at the Golden-Lyon in St. Paul's Churchyard.   

A DISCOURSE OF Superstition With respect to the PRESENT TIMES, etc.  
THE prejudices and disaffections 
Sect. 1.  which have alienated so many from the Communion of the Church of England, own themselves to no Original more; than to an Opinion taken up, that some Usages in our Church are Superstitious; An Opinion strongly concluded, but upon weak grounds, and by a Process very illogical. For when the Adversaries of our Order and Peace, have amply represented, how jealous God is of his Honour, how severely he hath threatened the breaches of the second Commandment, and how sorely he hath punished the Idolatry of the Jews; in the application of these things to our Times, Superstition and Idolatry are frequently joined, as equally forbidden in that Commandment, and without more proof the Church of England is supposed guilty of Superstition, and good people are exhorted to come out of her, upon pain of partaking of those Plagues which Idolaters have reason to fear.  
From the times of Queen Elizabeth down to our days, Superstition hath been laid to our Charge. Mr Hooker acknowledges and resents it. 
Ecclesiastic. Pol. Book 5. §. 4.  So it is judged our Prayers, our Sacraments, our Fasts, our times and places of public meeting together for the Worship and Service of God, our Marriages, our Burials, our Functions, Elections, and Ordinations Ecclesiastical, almost whatsoever we do in the exercise of our Religion, according to Laws for that purpose established, all things are some way or other thought faulty, all things stained with Superstition.  
One of the Treatises that were sent abroad (as it were to give new light to a new World) 1660. under the name of Mr William Bradshaw, is about things Indifferent, where he thus speaks in the Marginal Notes. 
Notes on the fifth Chapt. of things Indifferent.  The Doctors of Oxford ask, what hurt can a wise Man see in a square Cap and a Surplice? Indeed there is no outward hurt or evil in it, but it must be considered, whether there be not any inward hurt therein; for if it can be proved, that by them the Souls of many are poisoned with superstitious conceits, than it is apparent that they have inward hurt in them. This is but a supposition, but it follows dogmatically, The Ceremonies 
Ibid. Notes on Chap. 8.  in Controversy have been and are, the special means and occasion of the Schism of many Hundred Brownists, of much Superstition in many Thousand Ignorant Protestants, and of Confirmation of many Infinites of wilful Papists in their Idolatry. He concludes the Treatise thus: The Ceremonies in Controversy are either excellent parts of our Religion (which he not yielding must believe the other part of the Disjunction) or notorious parts of Superstition.  
This is the dirt that was cast upon the Church of England, in the beginning of King James his Reign, that he might be out of love with her. A reproach of which the Convocation of 1603. was so sensible (for though that Treatise came first out, a little after the Convocation, yet the suspicion was rife before) that they pass this Canon among 
Canon 6.  others: Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, by Law established, are wicked, Antichristian or Superstitious, etc. Let him be Excommunicated, etc. This Canon did not restrain the petulancy of Censorious men, for besides Mr. bradshaw's confidence; in the defence that Dr Burges makes for Bishop Morton, it appears, 
Burges Answer Rejoined Chap. 4. §. 1.  that the N. C sts of those times did thus argue. The Ceremonies of the Church of England have been and still are abused to Idolatry and Superstition by the Papists. And that we 
Id. ib. §. 4.  cannot be thought sincerely to have repent of that Idolatry and Superstition, except we cast away with detestation all the Instruments of it. Once more, they say, That a superstitious construction is 
Id. ib. ● 79.  made of our Cross, not only by the Papists, but by our own Canons and Canonical Imposers of it.  
These Jealousies did but fly in the dark during King James his Reign, but soon after Charles the First came to the Throne, he received divers Complaints of this nature: The Parliament, Anno 1628. 
Rushworth Historical Collections, p. 526.  complains of Idolatry and Superstition as some of those heinous and crying sins, which were the undoubted Cause of those evils that were fallen upon them. The Remonstrance which the Commons 
Id. ib. p. 621.  of the same Parliament made against the then Duke of Buckingham, expresses their fears concerning Innovation of Religion. A while after Mr. Rouse makes a Speech concerning Religion, wherein he desires it may be considered, what new paintings are laid on the old face of the Whore of Babylon. How the See of Rome does eat 
Ib. p. 645, 646.  into our Religion, and fret into the banks and walls of it: for a remedy of which, he propounds the expedient of a Covenant, to hold fast God and Religion, to which Covenant he would have every man say Amen. This man does not (it is true) speak of Superstition, but he is understood to mean it, by another Orator of the same House (Mr. Pym) who complains that the Law 
Ib. p. 647.  was violated in bringing in superstitious Ceremonies. After whom, another in the same Session (Sir John Eliott) apprehends a fear of some 
Ib. p. 649.  Bishops then in place, that if they should be in their power, they might be in danger of having Religion overthrown, because some of them were Masters of Ceremonies, and laboured to introduce new Ceremonies into the Church.  
After those eager Debates, the motion for a Covenant slept for some years, but was renewed again in the Unhappy Times of the Fatal Parliament. In the times when it was a great part of the Impeachment against the Great Archbishop of Canterbury, that he had traitorously 
Artic. of Impeach. 7. 10.  endeavoured to alter and subvert Gods true Religion by law established in this Realm, and instead thereof to set up Popish superstition and Idolatry, and that he traitorously endeavoured to reconcile the Church of England with the Church of Rome. In these times it was that Mr. Rouse's motion ripened up to a Solemn League and Covenant, wherein they obliged themselves to endeavour the Extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, and Superstition. By which words the Covenanters (as some of them have since declared) believe themselves obliged against Conformity; for, this reason they give in a Book they call a Sober and Temperate Discourse concerning the Interest of words in Prayer, etc. in which the Title of one of their Chapters is: The Ministers Third Reason, viz. 
Chap. 10.  why they do not meddle with the Common Prayer (as are the words of the Chapter) is, because they have sworn to endeavour a reformation in worship, and to endeavour to extirpate Superstition.  
Nothing now can be more evident, than that both of old, and in our times Superstition is objected to us. It does not come in my way to condemn, nor do I take upon me to justify the practices of all particular persons; I concern myself only in the legal Establishments of our Church, and they would little need a vindication, if men would take the pains to inquire into the nature of Superstition; for they would soon find the Innocence of our Rites would defend themselves from this suspicion. But it is our Unhappiness that we have to deal with men who take things upon trust, who are not easily undeceived, because they will maintain a Conclusion, before they have examined the premises: observing Superstition to be a word that signifies somewhat bad, they condemn us without a Trial, and before they know what it means, conclude us guilty of Superstition.  
I have waited some while in expectation, that some abler Pen would engage in this Argument, but not finding that of late days, the Nature of Superstition has been particularly and fully discovered or described, I have now undertaken the task, in which because I desire to be understood, I labour for no other ornament of stile than perspicuity: And without farther Preface I proceed to inquire, what is this Superstition with which the Church of England is so much upbraided.  
There is no Precept in the Holy Scripture that forbids Superstition by that name, nor does any sacred Author mention it, except St. Luke in two places to be considered in due time, when I examine how the word is used in other Authors; For by this Method, I conceive, I shall best accomplish my design, if  
First, I inquire into the use of the Word. And secondly, into the nature of the thing signified by such a Word.  
1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (by which the Greeks 
Sect. 2.  expressed that which we now commonly call Superstition) signifies most literally a service performed to God or to a Daemon, rather out of fear than love; An over-timerous and dreadful apprehension of the Deity, as the learned Smith, who also calls it 
Select Discourse of Superstit. p. 26. & 36.  a compound of Fear and Flattery; such an apprehension of God in the thoughts of men, as renders him grievous and burdensome to them. But however this may be the primary sense of the word, yet that it hath been transferred to signify more largely, is evident from Greek Authors. Plutarch in his Tract, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, constantly discourses of it, as of an extreme to Religion, to which he opposes Atheism as the other extreme; Thus he gins, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignorance of God from the beginning hath run in Two Channels, one way to Atheism, and the other way to Superstition. And after he had in many like expressions, opposed them to one another he concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some have run so far from Superstition, till they have overshot themselves into Atheism, having neglected Religion which is the mean between both.  
Maximus Tyrius as plainly opposes 
Dissertat. 4ta.  the Religious, and Superstitious man. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. A Religious man is the Friend of God, A superstitious man is a Flatterer of God.  
Antoninus gives this Character of 
Lib. 6. §. 30.  himself, He was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Religious without Superstition.  
The Incomparable Dr Hammond does (I know) pursue the Etymology and Original Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the former part of his little Tract of Superstition; where he gives several Interpretations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and afterwards gives these senses of the Compound word.  
1. It is taken in general for Religion or Worshipping God.  
2. For the worship of deified dead men, and Angels which the Heathens took to be True Gods.  
3. For any part of Divine Worship which for fear of vengeance from God, any Worshipper performed to him.  
4. For a trembling fear of God's punishment due for every sin.  
5. For the use of Magical Spells. From whence he concludes the Modern use of the word improper; but whether proper or improper, because it is use that gives the rule for our manner of speaking, therefore that must be considered: And that the word is used for somewhat undue in the worship of God, he himself acknowledges in these words. That which men see those of another persuasion do; which they like not, or think them not bound to, they call it strait their Superstition.  
And that thus Authors have made use of this word, will more appear by considering the Latin word, Superstitio. Concerning whose Etymology all Critics are not agreed. Tully discourses at large both of the name and thing, and he is the first among the Latin Authors now extant, for so far as I can find, that so translates the Greek Word: for if Nigidius Figulus (of whom by and by out of A. Gellius) were before him, yet I suppose he hath no entire Volume now extant. I therefore take some particular notice of what Tully says in this Matter. When he had given some natural Account of the Multitude of Gods that were so much talked of in those Ages, and of the Superstitions that took rise from the Fables of the Poets concerning them, he proceeds to distinguish between Religion and Superstition, in memorable words. Cultus Deorum 
Cicero do Natura Deorum lib. 2.  est Optimus idemque castissimus atque sanctissimus, plenissimusque pietatis, ut eos semper purâ integrâ incorruptâ & ment & voce veneremur. Non enim philosophi solum, verum etiam Majores nostri Superstitionem à Religione separaverunt. Nam qui totos dies precabantur & immolabant, ut sui liberi sibi superstites essent, Superstitiosi sunt appellati, quod nomen patuit postealatius. Qui autem omnia quae ad Deorum cultum pertinerent, diligenter pertractarent & tanquam relegerent, sunt dicti Religiosi, etc. It a factum est in Superstitioso & Religioso, alterum vitii Nomen, alterum laudis. The best, and purest, and most holy worship that we can give to God, is to serve him with à pure and uncorrupt heart and voice. For it was not only peculiar to Philosophers, but our Forefathers also made a difference between Religion and Superstition, for they who prayed all day long and offered Sacrifice that their Children might survive them, were called Superstitious; A word which afterwards was extended to a larger signification: But Religious men had their name from their diligence and care in reviewing what pertained to Divine Worship. And hence it came to pass, that in the settled use of these words, Superstition was counted a Crime, Religion a praiseworthy thing. According to which distinction he had said before: Superstitione facile est liberare, 
Id. ibid. lib. 1.  cum sustuleris omnem vim Deorum: nisi forte Diagoram aut Theodorum qui omnino Deos esse negabant, censes Superstitiosos esse potuisse. Horum enim sententiae non modo Superstitionem tollunt in qua inest Timor inanis Deorum, sed etiam Religionem quae Deorum cultu pio continetur. It is an easy matter to secure men from Superstition, if you will make them Atheists; Unless you think such Atheists as Diagoras and Theodorus could be tainted with it, whose Opinions did not only root out Superstition, which contains in it a vain and needless fear of God, but true Religion too, which consists in a right worship of the Deity.  
The reasons which this learned Heathen assigns of the names and differences between Superstition and Religion, Lactantius likes not, and 
Lactant. de verâ sapienti● Cap. 28.  therefore when he had derived Religion à Religando; of Superstition he speaks thus: Superstitiosi vocantur two, qui super stitum memoriam defunctorum colunt, aut qui parentibus suis superstitibus colebant Imagines eorum domi tanquam Deos penates. Nam qui novos sibi ritus assumebant, ut in Deorum vicem mortuos honorarent quos ex hominibus in coelum receptos putabant, hos Superstitiosos vocabant; eos vero qui publicos & Antiquos deos colerent, Religiosos nominabant, unde Virgilius,  Vana superstitio veterúmque ignara Deorum. 
They were counted Superstitious who did honour to the memory of the dead, or who while their Parents were alive, worshipped their Images as if they were Household Gods: for they who took up any new Rites, in giving honour to dead men, whom they thought to be taken up to Heaven among the Gods, were so called; whereas they were esteemed Religious, who confined themselves to the worship of those who were anciently reputed for Deities. Hence Virgil introduces Evander, excusing himself to Aeneas, that the Honour he did to Hercules did not deserve the name of Superstition.  
There want not other Etymologies 
Sect. 3.  of this word. Isidore is quoted for this, Superstitio quasi superstatuta 
M. Delrii Disqu is. Magic. lib. 1. Cap. 1.  observatio. An unstatutable, unwarrantable observation. Alii dicunt à senibus, quia multis annis superstites per aetatem delirant: then is introduced Lucretius, qui superstitionem dicit superstantium rerum, i. e. coelestium quae super nos stant, for which these Verses are quoted where he huffs at all Religion.  

Humana ante Oculos foedi cùm vita jaceret,  
In terris oppressa gravi sub Relligione,  
Quae caput è Coeli regionibus ostendebat,  
Horribili super aspectu mortalibus instans.   
(So not only Delrio, but Turnebus also 
Adversar. lib. 10. Cap. 26.  reads that Verse which others read thus,  Horribili aspectu semper mortalibus instans.) 
according to Lucretius, all Religion, because it concerns itself in things above us, (with which that Atheist thought we had nothing to do) deserves the name of Superstition.  
Whatever the first Reason of this appellation might be, thus much is certain, that in ordinary use, it signified somewhat undue in Divine Worship; and of this Tully was ware, when he made the acknowledgement, of which Lactantius forgot to take notice. Quod Nomen patuit postea latius. Also Nigidius Figulus in his Comment upon the old Verse,  Religentem esse oportet, Religiosum nefas. 
takes Religiosus in an ill sense as all 
A. Gellii Noct. Attic. lib 4. Cap. 9  one with Superstition. Religiosus is appellabatur qui nimiâ & superstitiosâ Religione sese alligaverat, eaque res vitio assignabatur. He who was superstitious in his Religion (which was counted a Crime) was called a Religious man.  
Seneca expresses the Import of this 
Senec. Epist. 123.  word well, according to the Greek: Superstitio error insanus est, amandos timet, quos colit violate, quid enim interest utrum Deos neges an infames? Superstition is a wild kind of error, it is afraid of him who ought to be loved, and dishonours him whom it worships, for what difference is there whether you deny God or blaspheme him? In a former Epistle he discourses thus. Audiat quemadmodum 
Id. Epist. 95.  se gerere in sacrificiis debeat, quam procul resilire à molestis superstitionibus. Nunquam satis profectum erit, nisi qualem debet Deum ment conceperit. He who desires to understand himself and his Religion, let him retire as far as he can from troublesome superstitions. No man will proceed well in Religion, who hath not right Conceptions of God.  
In a like sense do other Latin Authors use the word, when they upbraid Christian Religion under that name, as apprehending it a false Religion. So Tacitus when he speaks of Nero's laying the blame of the burning of Rome upon the Christians, calls 
Histor. August. lib. 15.  their way Exitiabilis Superstitio, A pestilent Superstition. Suetonius also in the life of the same Nero, calls the 
Vit Neron. Cap. 16.  Christians, Genus hominum superstitionis novae & maleficae. A sort of men of a new and mischievous Superstition. And Pliny to Trajan, gives Christian Religion the same name though with somewhat a softer Epithet. Superstitio prava & immodica, An Immoderate Superstition.  
This is then the Account I gather out of Heathen Authors, mostly hitherto: the sense they had of a Deity persuaded them not only that he ought to be worshipped, but also that every kind of service would not be acceptable to him. The right worship of God (that which they so apprehended) they called Religion, that which was undue, and therefore unacceptable, passed under the name of Superstition. Even as Festus did apply the name to the Religion of the Jews, as esteeming 
Acts 25. Acts 17.  it not the best way of worship. And St. Paul more truly, did so reprove the Idolatry of Athens.  
When the World was better instructed in the Notion of a Deity, and in the manner of worship that was due to him, we find the word still in use among Christian Authors. Lactantius hath been offered already. St. Austin comprehends Idolatry and many other particular Customs under this Term. Superstitiosum est, 
De Doctrinâ Christianâ lib. 2. Cap. 20.  quicquid institutum est ab hominibus ad facienda & colenda Idola, pertinens vel ad colendam, sicut Deum, creaturam partémve ullam Creaturae, vel ad consultationes & pacta quaedam significationum cum Daemonibus placita atque foederata, qualia sunt molimina Magicarum artium, etc. Ex quo genere sunt Haruspicum & Augurum libri, etiam omnes ligaturae atque remedia quae medicorum disciplina condemnat, sive in praecantationibus sive in quibusdam notis quas characteres vocant. Idolatry and consulting with the Devil, or any kind of Witchcraft: The practices of Soothsayers, that would pretend to foretell future Events by the flying of Birds or Entrails of Beasts: Those Charms that are designed for the Cure of Diseases, of which no natural or physical account can be given: These and divers like Observations he taxes with Superstition.  
And some of those (or others like them) which St. Austin there mentions, obtain still in the World: viz. If Rats do any mischief, to be afraid of that as an ill Omen of some death or disaster in the Family: And many other as unaccountable. If it rain or snow such a day, or be fair such a day (as Candlemas, and Swithin, and others) than the future part of the year will be so or so. These Observations have upon this account been esteemed Superstitious, because they are taken to be an indication of the pleasure of God as to future Events, whereas we have no assurance that they are a sufficient indication. And it may deserve enquiry, whether the Custom of praying God to bless persons when they sneeze, were not originally superstitious. I determine not in this case, because sneezing hath been sometimes reckoned a Disease, and then praying for such an one, is of the same import, with praying for any one in danger: but I make the doubt, because sneezing hath been sometimes reckoned an Omen of good or bad luck, and St. Austin mentions this in the same place where he speaks of Millia inanissimarum 
Id. ibid.  observationum, when a man does redire ad lectum si dum se calceat sternutaverit. If a man chance to sneeze while he is putting on his shoes he must to bed again. These and a Thousand such observances as these, are deemed to have a relation to God, when it cannot be proved, and are therefore judged superstitious, so far as there is any Religion placed in them.  
I proceed no further in examining the use of the word, than to give Three Definitions of it, from Three men of several Ages, and several ways and Opinions, but such as do all amount to one and the same purpose.  
Aquinas gives it thus: Superstitio 
Secunda secundae qu. 92. Art. 1, & 2.  est vitium Religioni oppositum secundum excessum, quo quis divinum exhibet cultum vel cui non debet, vel non eo modo quo debet. And in the next Article concludes. Multae sunt superstitionis species, ut Indebitus veri Dei cultus, Idololatria, Divinationes & varia observationum genera.  
Zanchy to the same purpose. Manifestum 
Tom. 4. lib. 1. Cap. 17.  est superstitionem esse Religioni oppositam & per excessum. He adds, Unde etiam fit ut omnis falsus cultus superstitio appelletur.  
Ames also says thus. Superstitio est 
Medul. Theolog. lib. 2. Cap. 13.  quâ Deo cultus indebitus exhibetur, and again, Superstitio dicitur excessus Religionis. The sum of all which is, as Atheism is a defect of Religion, so is Superstition an extreme on the other hand, an Excessive Religiousness, when men go beyond their bounds in Divine Worship; so that all false worship goes under the name of Superstition. A man may be righteous overmuch, and overmuch wise, so may he also be, not too holy or too good, yet too religious, when he exceeds, and practices in matters of Religion upon Opinions false and unworthy of God.  
This hath been the use of the word in approved Authors of divers Ages. It hath sometimes been determined to particular practices, as Magic and Enchantments; but upon a general reason, because these are undue mixtures in Religion, for so both in Heathen and Christian Authors this difference is commonly assigned between them. Religio est 
Ubi prius.  veri Cultus, superstitio falsi, as Lactantius hath it. When we worship God aright that is Religion, when by any undue additions we corrupt Religion, in all those things we are superstitious.  
2. The Enquiry into the Nature 
Sect. 4.  of the thing still remains. Whereby does it appear, whether the worship we here, or others elsewhere perform to God be regular and Religious, or excessive & undue, and so superstitious? The Resolution I give to this question, I form into these Propositions.  
1. Superstition is first in the Opinion, and thence influences upon the practice.  
2. The Doctrines upon which the Conformity of the Church of England is established, are not superstitious Opinions.  
3. The Opinions that are indeed superstitious (such as are divers that obtain in the Papacy and elsewhere) are rejected by the Church of England.  
4. There are superstitious Omissions, of which men may be guilty, and that then, when they seem to have a great Zeal against Superstition.  
1. Superstition is first in the Opinion before it can have any influence upon the practice. Practices are unlawful, when they transgress the Commands by which they are obliged, but superstitiously unlawful they cannot be, unless they proceed from such Opinions: Hence it comes to pass, that the same practices are sometimes superstitious and sometimes not, according as men's Opinions are, by which they are persuaded to them. So is the difference between the Ch. of England, and of Rome, in the use of the Cross, in kneeling in the act of receiving, etc. as will afterwards appear. I am not alone in thus stating the Notion of Superstition. A superstitious act is that 
Bishop Durham (Morton) Sermon on 1 Cor. 11. 16.  which is founded upon a superstitious Opinion. It was not merely the Pharisees often washing, but their Opinion of some especial purgation thereby, which Christ reprehended in them. Nor was it the having an Altar for which St. Paul reproved the Athenians, when he called them superstitious, but the opinion of honouring a God thereby they knew not whom.  
To a like purpose, Mr Hooker, Superstition is when things are abhorred 
Eccles. Polity. Book 5. §. 3.  or observed, with a zealous or fearful, but erroneous relation to God. And in words just before. Superstition is always joined with a wrong opinion touching things divine.  
Conformably to both these, says a late learned Author, All Superstitious, 
Falkener Libert. Ecclesiast. B. 1. Chap. 5. Sect. 2. §. 7.  or other sinful honour of the Elements, must be founded in embracing those false apprehensions and corrupt Doctrines which our Church rejects.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refers to the inward sense and apprehension of our minds: or if it must be distinguished between the thoughts of the mind, and the passions of the Soul; it is evident, that fear arises from such opinions and apprehensions as administer to it. Yea though superstition be (as hath been said) an excess of Religion, and though this excess may discover itself in the practices of men, yet the reason and that which occasions this excess, is in the Opinion.  
False Notions and apprehensions of God, tempt men to try by undue ways to please him. Men have a conceit, that such services are more grateful to him than they are: Or, there is a superstitious observation of some Accidents, as Prognostics of Events, because of an Opinion taken up, that God Almighty does by such signs declare his pleasure or displeasure.  
In all these Cases, the First Seat of Superstition is in the Opinion, and from thence it is derived into practice; for did these false Opinions which thus misled men, cease by a better information of the understanding, the practices and observances that depend on them would also cease; or if they were continued, they would be hypocritical, or vain, or any thing rather than superstitious. For Example: It is superstitious (say we) to worship an Image, or to pray a Soul out of Purgatory, etc. because they are false and superstitious Opinions that induce men so to do. If it may be supposed that men who opine right, who do not in their judgement yield more to an Image than they ought, and who do not in truth believe Purgatory; may yet perform the same Ceremonies, and make the same prayers; I ask then, for what reason are these things done? If not for this reason, because men are of opinion that the Image deserves it, that the dead may be profited by their Devotions; then is it a vain and ridiculous piece of Pageantry. Or if some politic reason, and secular Interest tempt men these ways; what they do may be excused from Superstition, because it is not intended for the honour of God, and so is not performed as a part of his Worship, but it is otherwise faulty, because by pretences of Religion they advance their Interest, and gain becomes their Godliness. If in truth there be any Religious intendments in these performances, than this is that which plainly renders them superstitious, because they Originally proceed from superstitious Opinions.  
This I have first said, because upon this depends the Vindication I design of the Usages of the Church of England. For, if what is done in Divine Worship, be not otherwise superstitious, but as it proceeds from and is directed by superstitious Opinions; then if it can be evinced, that we are not guided by any such Opinions, it will follow that our Rites and Ceremonies are void of superstition. And this I trust to make appear in what next follows.  
2. The Doctrines upon which the 
Sect. 5.  Conformity of the Church of England is established, are not superstitious Opinions. Of which matter I give this Account, which I shall take to be sufficient, till by an Enumeration of some other particulars, of which I am not ware, it be made appear, that there are some other Doctrines that may be suspected of superstition, which the Church of England in justification of her Conformity is obliged to maintain.  
1. All Circumstances relating to the Worship and service of God, are not particularly determined in the word of God.  
2. Therefore, notwithstanding the Determinations of the Holy Scripture, some things do remain Indifferent in their own Natures.  
3. The Governors of the Church have power to make Determinations in things Indifferent.  
4. Therefore people are bound to obey their Governors in such their Determinations.  
5. It is not unlawful for Church-governors to appoint some significant Ceremonies. These are the foundations upon which we stand; upon which our Governors require, and upon which we practise Conformity, and none of these are superstitious Opinions. Wherefore in the application of these Generals to our Times and state of things, we conclude, the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England not being for their number burdensome (of which in due time) are not in their nature and kind superstitious.  
1. He who judges all Circumstances relating to the public worship of God not particularly determined in the word of God, is not superstitious in that Opinion. For this is so plainly and manifestly true, that it is a shame for any man to deny it. There hath been (I know) an Axiom among Cartwrights Disciples, That nothing aught to be established in the Church, which is not commanded in the word of God. This they thought plainly warranted by the manifest words of the law, about adding to or diminishing from the word of God. Now (adds Mr Hooker) these 
Eccles. 〈◊〉 Book 3. §. 5.  men having an eye to a number of Rites and Orders in the Church of England, such as the Ring in Marriage, the Cross, etc. thought by the one only stroke of that Axiom to have cut them off. And T. C. is quoted as arguing thus. You which 
Ib. §. 2.  distinguish and say, that Matters of Faith and necessary to salvation, may not be tolerated in the Church, unless they be expressly contained in the word of God, or manifestly gathered; But the Ceremonies, Order, Discipline, Government in the Church, may not be received against the word of God, and consequently may be received, if there be no word against them, although there be none for them: You I say distinguishing in this sort prove an evil divider.  
To all which there needs no other Answer than what Mr Hooker gives. Let that which they do hereby intent, be granted them; let it once stand as consonant to reason, that because we are forbid to add to the Law of God any thing, or to take aught from it, therefore we may not for matters of the Church make any law more than is already set down in Scripture; 
Ib. §. 6.  who sees not what sentence it shall enforce us to give against all Churches in the World, in as much as there is not one, but hath had many things established in it, which though the Scripture did never command, yet for us to condemn were rashness. He goes on to give the Example of the Church of God in the time of our Saviour instead of all others.  
If this ratiocination be weak, they who suspect it have great reason to show us out of Scripture an exact form of Church-Government; but instead of doing so, they only argue that so it must be, without directing us to the place where it is. To which I again oppose Mr hooker's words. As for those marvellous discourses, 
Ibid. ad finem.  whereby they adventure to argue, that God must needs have done the things which they imagine were to be done: I must confess I have often wondered at their boldness herein. When the question is, whether God hath delivered us in Scripture (as they affirm he hath) a complete, particular, immutable form of Church-Polity, why take they that other both presumptuous and superfluous labour, to prove he should have done it: There being no way in this case to prove the deed of God, save only by producing that Evidence wherewith he hath done it? But if there be no such thing apparent upon record, they do as if one should demand a Legacy by force of some written Testament, wherein there being no such thing specified, he pleads that there it must be, and brings Arguments from the love of the Testator, imagining that these proofs will convict a Testament to have that in it, which other men can not where by reading find.  
It will appear in the process of our arguing, that the very men who would insinuate to the disparagement of our Rites, that Divine Worship must have a Divine Warrant, for Circumstances as well as for substance, have not themselves been guided by this Opinion, but have taken a liberty in their Directorian or Dictatorian way, which they have denied to others: And because I shall by and by bring them as witnesses for us and against themselves, I respite yet a little their farther Conviction in this matter.  
2. Notwithstanding the Determinations 
Sect. 6.  of the Holy Scripture, there do still remain some things in their own nature Indifferent; and in this Opinion there is no Superstition. It might reasonably be thought, that this Proposition is so evident, that no man who pretends to learning will deny it. But so it is, that the power of Church-governors may be reduced in a manner to nothing, some there have been, who will not own any thing Indifferent in these matters. I meet with two who have maintained this Assertion, and I presume they are the same whom Bishop Saunderson means, when he speaks of some of 
Saunderson de Obliga. Conscient. praelec. 6. §. 23.  this Opinion. Duo praesertim, alter alicujus nominis apud suarum partium homines Theologus, alter è proceribus Regni laicus. Those Two, I conceive, must be Mr Bradshaw and the Lord Brooke.  
I shall not do Mr Bradshaw right, if I do not acknowledge, that Dr 
Burges Answer Rejoined. Ch. 2. §. 9  Burges tells us, he reversed his Opinion of things Indifferent. Surely he had great reason to do it. That he was once of the Opinion which I fasten on him, must not be denied. One of his Treatises Reprinted 1660. is Of the Nature and use of things Indifferent. Where he states the Case thus: A 
Chap. 2.  thing Indifferent is a mean between good and evil, so that whatsoever is Indifferent is neither good nor evil, whatsoever is either good or evil is not indifferent. After this he avers, that no Action of Religion, 
Chap. 8.  whether it be Moral or Ceremonial, is Indifferent, but either good or evil; and again, No Ceremony of Religion is Indifferent. 
Ibid.   
A gross and palpable mistake and unworthy of a man so cried up for his learning, the more pardonable indeed because he acknowledged his Error: but because they who Reprinted him, were not so just to his Memory as to insert that acknowledgement, and because they for whose sake he was reprinted, have not, it may be, that respect for Dr Burges as to read him, I must animadvert on it as I find it, and answer, That no considering man can think, that when we use an Indifferent Rite, we mean that we do neither good nor evil. No sure, that which is Indifferent in its Nature, may be in its use Necessary. We use it as being by sufficient Authority commanded thereto, and therefore upon such reasons as justify us that we do well; if we are mistaken in our Judgement, and have no sufficient reason for what we do, it is ill done.  
But this plainly we mean by a thing in its Nature Indifferent, somewhat which is not in specie commanded of God, and so is not absolutely necessary, nor is it so forbidden, therefore not simply Unlawful. This Mr Bradshaw might have known to have been our Notion of a thing Indifferent, for so Mr Hooker (at whom he sometimes nibbles) had told him. The nature of things Indifferent is, neither to be commanded nor forbidden, but left free and Arbitrary. He instances quickly after. When many meats are set 
Eccles. Polity, Book 2. §. 4.  before me, all are Indifferent, none Unlawful, I take one as most convenient. If scripture require me so to do, then is not the thing Indifferent, because I must do what scripture requires. They are all Indifferent, I might take any; scripture does not require me to make any special choice of one, I do notwithstanding make choice of one, my discretion teaching me so to do. Now though eating of this dish rather than another, cannot be said, after my choice is made, to be neither good nor evil, (for I choose discreetly or indiscreetly) yet before my choice determined me to one, they were both Indifferent (so in their nature they still remain) neither commanded, neither forbidden, neither necessary, neither unlawful in its own Nature.  
So in the Circumstances of Religion, after my choice is determined by the Command of my Superiors, these things are not so Indifferent as that I do neither well nor ill in my obedience. Before they had determined they found these things Indifferent in their Nature, their discretion having guided them to make choice of such a Vesture, etc. as they apprehended convenient, now that becomes necessary as to use, which at the same time remains Indifferent in its Nature.  
The Lord Brooke by a little Metaphysicalness 
Sect. 7. Disc. opening the Nature of Episcop. Ch. 5.  goes farther, and from this principle, Optimum est semper eligendum, endeavours to prove this Conclusion. That there is nothing Indifferent in Re & in se, but to our Understandings some things seem so, for want of good light, but in the things themselves every thing, pro hic & nunc, is either Necessary or Unlawful. It may seem harsh to say that a man is not always obliged to do that which is best. Where there is an apparent difference and inequality in the matter of our actions, how far a man may satisfy himself to do that which is good, though he do not always that which is best, I digress not to examine. The Assertion may be founded upon another reason and state of things, and upon that I build and say, There is a Truth in this Proposition, A man is not always obliged to do that which is best; the reason is, because in some Cases there is no Best, but the severals that fall under deliberation are alike, no more Intrinsic Good or Evil in one than another, but any of them if it were alone, were sufficiently eligible and satisfactory. Now if in every action of a man's life he must not proceed, till he can find a difference where none is to be found; If a man must no where act, till he see clearly what is best to be done, this must needs fill the minds of men with Infinite scruples and perpetual anxieties: And after a man is satisfied that this is good and lawful and fit to be done, yet must he demur and take heed he do it not, lest peradventure somewhat else were better to be done in the room of it. I give Instances whereby it will appear we are not left to endless doubts in all Cases.  
I am at Table and have many Dishes of meat before me which please me well, I care not to eat of all, but make my choice as it may happen, I cannot say it is Best to eat of this or that, either that which is commended to me, or that which is next me, or some like accident determines my choice, and if I had eaten somewhat else it would have been equally to my satisfaction. Otherwise, should I sit still and dispute with myself thus? I must do that which is Best, therefore I must consider of every Dish by itself, and diligently observe all the differences between them, and if I cannot clearly discern which is best of all, I must sit still till I can: so I might lose my Dinner, and when I rise, should find my mind as unsatisfied as my belly. Or, I am travelling and take up in a Town where I never was before; I see divers fair Inns before me, know none; nor have I any manner of reason to prefer one to another. I go to one as it happens, not out of this principle that I must do that which is best, for they are all alike, all Indifferent, and if I choose not till I certainly know which is best for me, I may lie in the streets all Night. Once more, I go to London to buy somewhat that I want, without any other Interest or Acquaintance than my money. Many Shops sell the same Commodities, I can give no reason (but this only, that I must buy somewhere) why I call at the sign of the Sun, or the Moon, the Lion, or the Bear. They are all alike, only some accident (without full persuasion that I do that which is best) determines me. And an Hundred such like Cases happen in the Course of Affairs.  
Now in all these, what shall we say to Bradshaw? Cannot these things be Indifferent, unless what I do be neither good nor bad? No sure. Till I have made my choice, it is Indifferent, because I am under no Command in these Cases, but am left perfectly to the conduct of my own discretion. And what shall we answer to Brook? Must I not stir till I know which is Best? There is no Best nor Worst. If I discern any inconvenience on one side more than on the other, then is there a difference, and I am unadvised if I do not consider it: but where I discern no difference, and yet scruple till I be satisfied which is Best, I shall scruple till Doomsday if I should live so long, because I have nothing to determine me but my own choice. It remains then, that there are things Indifferent in their own Nature. Where there is no Antecedent Command to make such an Action necessary, nor Antecedent prohibition to make it unlawful, it is Indifferent in itself, not between good and evil, but between commanded and forbidden, between absolutely necessary and simply unlawful.  
I have laid my Foundation thus low in a Consideration of the Nature of things, because the Objectors I deal with go thus far. It is not necessary to our Cause to affirm, that the Ceremonies of Religion in Controversy (the Surplice and Cross, etc.) are altogether so Indifferent, as that there should be no more reason to determine rather to one, than there is to take one Inn or Shop rather than another. These Instances were produced to show where the Rule fails, Optimum est semper faciendum, and to prove that there are things Indifferent in their own nature. To which I add, that some Rites and Ceremonies of our Religion are so too, as I prove by this Irrefragable Argument. Whatsoever is in specie, neither commanded nor forbidden (i. e. antecedently to humane laws) is a thing Indifferent in its own nature. But the Surplice and the Cross, and Kneeling, etc. are in specie neither Commanded nor forbidden. Ergo they are Indifferent.  
They who deny the Major fight with their own shadows, and gainsay out of a spirit of opposition; for we persist in this (and they know it) that we mean nothing else by a thing Indifferent in its own nature, but somewhat left undetermined in the Holy Scripture. They who deny the Minor, must prove these things in the use of them forbid in Scripture; which if they shall endeavour to do, I doubt not but to pronounce them superstitious, and shall in the Conclusion prove it. In the mean time, because Negatives are hard to be proved, it concerns them to confute us by producing the Texts which forbidden them: which Texts if they be no other than the second Commandment, or that in Coloss. 2. about will-worship, or Matthew 15. Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men, or some such like these, than I demand farther, In as much as the Surplice, etc. are not named in any of these places, by what good Consequence, by what Demonstrative Syllogism shall it be proved from such a Text that it is not lawful to wear a Surplice? Here now will be the failure, they quote Texts from whence they declaim, but they do not argue closely and cogently. We know we do not add to the word of God (whether they do not Ipsi viderint, and I shall anon endeavour to open their Eyes) We do not teach for Doctrines the Commands of men. We do not urge humane Impositions upon account of Divine Institution (any otherwise than as it is the appointment of God to obey Authority) Wherefore when such a Text is one of the premises, we fear not with Confidence to aver, that this cannot be a good Conclusion. Ergo, to wear a Surplice is not Indifferent in its Nature but a Sin. But of this a little more hereafter.  
Now I farther proceed and say, The Church of England does not reckon these things so Indifferent as to partake nothing of the nature of good or evil (which is bradshaw's false Notion) or so Indifferent that all other things that may come in competition with them are as equal to them as one Shop or Inn may be to another. For Example. Kneeling is not so Indifferent that there is no more to be said for it, than for lying along. A White Garment not so Indifferent as that any other colour would be altogether as grave and decent: but therefore Indifferent, because undetermined in Scripture. Nevertheless, when the Governors of the Church have descended to consider, what is expedient to be done in these matters, the determinations which they have made, have not been by chance as a man goes to his Inn, but they have proceeded according to the Rules of Christian Prudence (and it is to be hoped they may be allowed to do so, as well as the Assembly who in their Directory so profess, as will presently be said) The general Rules of Decency, Order, and Edification have set them their bounds. According to the best of their Wisdom, they have judged such and such Impositions expedient, and therefore have so determined concerning them.  
Which determinations when they are once made, so far as the Lord Brooks Notion is true, it serves our turn very well, Optimum est faciendum. We have so much Reverence for our Superiors, as to judge they have determined us to that, which they thought most fit and expedient: then for our own practice, we still esteem these things Indifferent in their nature, but necessary as to use. Being satisfied that the Holy Scripture does not forbid such usages, we count them lawful. Being also satisfied that our Governors command them, now by virtue of a Law Intervening, they are necessary to us, because we are commanded to obey our Governors in all lawful things.  
These things pertaining to the Propositions that next follow, I go on.  
3. It is no superstitious Opinion to believe, 
Sect. 8.  that the Church may make determinations in things Indifferent. Our forementioned Lord Brooke boggles here, I must therefore consider what he says.  
First, He concludes thus. The 
Ib. Chap. 6.  Church hath no power to make any one thing Indifferent in itself. (That, say I, she need not do, for she finds them Indifferent.) Again (he says) we cannot say the Church hath power to determine what is Indifferent. In things that seem Indifferent, where neither of the excreams is necessary, there (especially where both are doubtful) [he conceives] the Church hath not power to determine to either extreme. As suppose Black and White Colours should be doubtful, whether both or either, or neither were lawful; In this Case (says he) for aught I yet see, the Church hath no power to determine any one so doubting, either to Black or White; the reason is, because neither is necessary, there being so many Intermediate Colours between both. That is as much as to say (if these things be applied) Ministers may be determined neither to a White Surplice, nor to a Black Gown, because there are other Colours, and rather than the Church shall determine to one, Ministers shall be left to their liberty, to dress themselves in a Fool's Coat. But he goes on to cut short the Church's power. When one of the extremes, between which we waver as Indifferent, is necessary to be embraced, as in most cases it is, here all the power lawful (as he conceives again) can do no more but resolve which of the two extremes is best.  
And is not this hitherto pretty well? A surplice cannot be said to be necessary, because a man may wear a Gown, or Cloak, or Coat, or Mantle, or if he be disposed, may nakedly hold forth the Truth. Kneeling is not necessary because a man may stand, or sit, or loll, or lie along. What then? Is it therefore unlawful for the Church to determine to some one of these? No sure; for according to the latter Conception, when one extreme is necessary to be embraced, the Church may resolve which is best. And this is the Case here. For though no one of the two be necessary, yet some one of them all must be embraced. For the Sacrament cannot be received but in some posture or other, etc. I conceive therefore his Lordship's latter Conception, in the very birth of it pulls the former by the heel and supplants it. For if the Church may resolve which of the two extremes is best, where one is necessary; with as much reason may she resolve which of four or five is best, because some one of them must be embraced. Or else it will follow, because a Pulpit is not necessary, in as much as a man may preach in a Tub (at least if it be set on a Tressle) because a Folio Bible is not necessary in as much as a man may read in a lesser print; because a Communion Cup of Silver is not necessary, there being other Metals; therefore the Ecclesiastical Court may not compel a man to pay to the Churchwardens rate, when he hath provided these things. And what a blessed Reformation will this be!  
And yet it seems there is danger lest the powers already given should be too large, wherefore he limits again. This power wherever it is must be very warily exercised, since of all two extremes (and according to 
Idem ibid.  his Principles the Case will be the same, where four, or five, or twenty things are opposed) only one can be lawful, so that one is wholesome and the other poison. But where at last is this power? be it little or much, let us know its bounds. The Church hath a Judicative declarative power, like the Judges in Westminster-Hall, but not a legislative power, as the King and Parliament. If a man may be bold to ask again; Who is this Church? You shall find his Lordship give a noble answer. By the Church here I mean (says he) not only one, or two, or a few of what rank soever, but all, even every true Member of the whole Church; for I conceive every such member hath de jure, a vote in this Determination.  
A right Ecumenical Council indeed, when every member of the body must be convened to declare his opinion, about any Rite or Ceremony that shall happen to be called into question. If I may add a Conception of my own, I should think it worth enquiring, whether Women and Children be not true Members of the whole Church, the liberty of whose Consciences may be as little imposed upon as that of us men. Well, to gratify his Lordship we will suppose what is Impossible to be put in practice: Every true Member of the whole Church, awakened and alarmed with the scruples of John a Nokes, about the posture in which the Sacrament is be received; is met together to declare and determine what is best to be done. Now, it ever the Mountains brought forth a Mouse, you shall see how little this Convention signifies; for when every Calves- Head hath spoke an Oracle, every one passed their Vote, let us Imagine that some one among them (and it is hardly possible it should be otherwise) should be dissatisfied and descent from the Judgement of the greatest part of the Church, and after reading and praying should continue to descent, In this case (he conceives 
Ibid.  once more) no power on earth ought to force that man's practice more than his Judgement.  
Liberty! Oh sweet Liberty! What pity it is the Lord Brooke hath not another life to lose in defence of this Gospel liberty. But seriously (so far as amazement will admit) are not things now brought to a strange Conclusion? Will it not be perfectly in vain, to determine any thing at all about Church-Matters? For, even in those things that seem Indifferent, one is Best, the other Unlowful. When the Church hath resolved which is best, yet every man must be left to do what he thinks best. So is the State of the Church as deplorable as ever was that of the Commonwealth 
Judges 21.  of Israel. In those days when there was no King in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own Eyes.  
There are many other scurvy passages in that ill-natured Book, and many Unworthy Reflections upon my Lords the Bishops that then were: but I must not digress to take notice of them. This process of his is sufficiently exposed by this account of it.  
I confess I have met with two other Pamphlets that also demur in this thing. A Modest Discourse concerning Ceremonies, believes that the Church's Authority in commanding matters 
Page 1.  of Indifferency, wants ground from Scripture. And Mr Bagshaw in his Two great questions concerning things Indifferent in Religious Worship, holds it utterly unlawful for any Christian Magistrate 
Page 2.  to impose the use of them. But neither of them are so extravagant, as to deny that there is any thing Indifferent, only they think what God hath not determined, men may not. Against whom I oppose to this purpose.  
Either Church-governors have power in these Cases to determine, or all people must be left to their liberty, to determine for themselves. But what intolerable disorder and confusion would that bring into the Church? Then would God be the Author of confusion and not of peace. There is then no power now left in the Church, that may take care that things be done decently and in order: but this is orderly and decent, that every man should have liberty to break Order, and go his own way. And if in forms and modes of worship there could be as many differences (as those that are, are not few) as men, it might be lawful for every man to go by himself, and a single person should constitute a Church. Men would never agree neither about time, nor place of public Worship, nor about the person that should teach them and pray for them, nor about the manner of public Prayers, or public Preaching, nor about the form of administering the Sacraments, nor is it easy to name any one thing in the public worship of God, wherein all men would be of one mind, but if all were left to their liberty when Church-governors have determined as they think most expedient; every private person shall have a Negative Vote, and if he like not to worship God in the same way as others do, he must pass without control to worship as he pleases, or if it so please him, not to worship at all.  
But these are but the Capriccios of some few particular men, the vanity of which I need not labour much to show, because however the Fox pronounces the Grapes sour which he cannot reach; however some discontented men quarrel at the power of the Keys, when they do not hang at their own Girdle, yet there never was any body of men, that did at any time usurp a power to make Laws, and determine in Church Affairs, but did proceed upon this Principle, that it is lawful to make determinations in things Indifferent; and plain it is that the Presbyterians and Independents both, allow what I now contend for.  
The Presbyterians in the Preface 
Sect. 9  to their Directory, distinguish some things to be of Divine Institution, and others not, and of these they say: Other things we have endeavoured to set forth according to the Rules of Christian prudence, agreeable to the general rules of the word of God. Also in their Confession of Faith set out with 
Assemb. Conf. of Faith. Ch. 31.  their Catechisms they define: That it belongs to Synods and Councils to set down rules and directions for better ordering the public worship of God and Government of his Church, which Decrees and determinations if Consonant to the word of God (where it is worthy observing, that when they are establishing their own Authority and way, they expect not express Commands for every thing they do, however they have been observed to huff at Episcopacy and to require Commands for our establishments) are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an Ordinance of God appointed thereto in his word.  
Since these first attempts of the Assembly, we find some writing conformably to their dictates and professing thus. We freely grant that the 
Discourse Liturg. etc. Chap. 16.  Civil power, or the Church (orderly assembled) may determine at what hours on the Lordsday the Congregation shall meet, as also it shall determine particular times for Fasting or Thanksgiving, as God's providence shall administer Occasions, (and yet some of this way are against keeping Christmas, etc.) that places of public worship shall be erected, frequented, kept decent, and an Hundred things of that Nature, which even reason and nature itself teaches all sober persons to be such, as that without some Order to be observed in them, the worship of God either would not be performed, or would be undecently performed.  
True it is that the same men say in the same Chapter, The Assertion of the Church's power in appointing Ceremonies and Circumstances of Divine Worship is the very root of all, the Pandora ' s Box, the very Fountain head of all those Impositions, which have bred so much trouble, disturbance, and persecutions in the Church of God. Which how to reconcile to what is just now quoted, I well know not, nor to another passage in the same Chapter, where though they desire to distinguish between Circumstances and Ceremonies of worship, yet they acknowledge thus. That the word of God hath left many things (not possible to be determined by it) to the Authority of the Christian Magistrate cannot be denied, whether any Ceremonies or no is a question, divers Circumstances relating to the worship of God, are undoubtedly so left.  
When I compare these things, I know not how to understand the Coherence of them, unless it be thus. When Church-governors are Episcopal, and shall assume a power to appoint Ceremonies and Circumstances of divine worship, this is the fountain head of Impositions that breed disturbance and persecutions: But if they shall chance to be Presbyterian, then there are an Hundred things not determined by the word of God, but left to their Christian Prudence. For Example: A Convocation may not by a Canon or Rubric appoint, a font of stone at the West end of the Church, nor kneeling at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, nor that the Bread and Wine be severally distributed to every Communicant, but the Directory may make appointments contrary to all these and an hundred things of the like nature. For the Ordinance of Parliament (all the Authority it had) which established the Directory, says. The Directory for public worship herein set forth, shall henceforth be used, pursued, and observed, in all exercises of the public worship of God, in every Congregation, Church, Chappel, and place of public Worship, within this Kingdom of England, and Dominion of Wales.  
The Independents in their Confession of Faith, set out from the Savoy, 1658. speak to the same purpose. There 
Chap. 1. Sect. 6.  are some Circumstances concerning the worship of God and Government of the Church, common to Humane Actions and Societies, which are to be Ordered by the light of Nature, and Christian prudence, according to the General Rules of the word, which are always to be observed.  
Now I must crave leave that our Adversaries would judge whether they are not unequal to us, in denying us a liberty which they grant to themselves. In this general Consideration of things, it is not material to ask for what reason they scruple our Ceremonies, whether as significant or popish, etc. which shall be examined in due time. All that I now conclude, is no more than what they themselves believe and practise, viz. It is no superstitious Opinion to believe that the Church may make Determinations in things Indifferent.  
4. Where the Governors of the Church 
Sect. 10.  have power to determine, it can be no superstitious opinion to believe, they ought to be obeyed, in the exercise of this their lawful power. Yea, if it should be granted (what I do not by any means grant, only to come as close as may be to our Adversaries, I suppose the case) that it is not well done to Impose such things Indifferent; yet if they be not in their own nature evil, it is better to obey than to disturb the peace of the Church, and to separate from established order. Zanchy and Calvin are professedly our Advocates in this Matter, on whose Testimony I build the more, because they are of great Authority with those who descent from us.  
Zanchy wrote a Letter to Queen Elizabeth, wherein he did earnestly persuade her not to Impose the Surplice and such like things upon the Clergy of England. This he did with 
Zanch Epistol. lib. 1. p. 111. Tom. ult.  great Zeal, and it may seem with some acrimony; as if he had been a great Patron of Nonconformity, and I will not deny that it seems by that Letter he did greatly dislike such Impositions; and but that he was commanded by his Prince to write as he did (he did Coactus scribere as he professes) it is a Letter that might argue him to meddle too much in the affairs of another Church: but we take it as we find it, and notwithstanding all that is there said, it is manifest that Zanchy was of our side.  
That he was abused in the Information that was given him of our affairs, appears by his Letter to the Queen, wherein he complains of her introducing and establishing all the Massing attire of the Romish Priests, for so he calls them. Vestes albas ac lineas, quibus in papatu utuntur sacrifici: Antichristi supellectilem: Papistarum Impiam pompam: Idololarriae & superstitionis Papisticae reliquias vel saltem symbola: that is in the English of some of our Malcontents, All the rags of the whore of Babylon. Whereas the attire of their Priests is made up of six Vestments (as a Learned man of our own hath observed out of their Ritualists) Amictus, Alba, Cingulum, 
Falkner Libert. Ecclesiast. lib. 2. Cap. 4. §. 9  Stola, Manipulus, Capsula, all far different from the Surplice; and these six Garments are accounted holy Garments used by their Priests, and all of them have their particular Consecrations, as the Surplice in the Church of Rome hath not. Zanchy then thus mistaking the case was more eager than he needed to have been, but he was under another and greater mistake.  
It was reported to him that there was great danger, lest many pious men should be turned out of their Live upon this Occasion; yea, it was told him, that there were plerique Episcopi (that must be some considerable number of the Twenty six that are in England and Wales) Viri omni erudition & pietate insignes, qui malint Officio & loco cedere quam istiusmodi vestes admittere. There were many Bishops that would not conform. Now who that knows any thing of the State of the Church of England, Anno 1571. (when that Letter was written) knows not that the Bishops of that time were sufficiently satisfied with the Conformity that was then urged, nor was there one among them (for so far as I can now find) that made so much noise about these things as Bishop Hooper of Gloucester did under Edward the Sixth: If therefore Zanchy may be excused for endeavouring what he could in favour of those good and Learned men whose exauctoration he feared; yet that not being the case, the earnestness of his Letter (if we should yield more to his judgement than of necessity we are obliged to do) will not signify much to the reproach of our Conformity.  
But we have greater assurance that Zanchy was our Friend: For when he had dated his Letter to the Queen from Heidelberg, Sept. 10. 1571. he dates another the very next day 
Zanch. Epist. lib. 2. p. 181. Tom. ult.  to Bishop Juell (though it be doubtful whether he lived to receive it, because he died the 23d of the same Month) from the tenor of which I conclude, that in his Letter to the Queen he says nothing to prove the usages of our Church unlawful to be practised, (whatever his opinion might be of the conveniency of Imposing them) or if he did, he unsays it again the very next day in his Letter to the Bishop, which of so Learned and fixed a man, is not easily to be believed. For the very occasion of that second Letter, was to desire Bishop Juell and other Bishops, to use their Authority with the rest to persuade. Ne si Regina amoveri nullo modo possit à sententiâ, ipsi propterea suas deserere malint stationes, quam edicto Regio obtemperare. If the Queen were resolved and would be obeyed, he would have all the Clergy rather obey than leave their places and Employments. He goes on declare his Opinion, that for such things as these, Ministers may not leave their Flocks: He acknowledges the Case, that where things are in their own nature evil, we must with the Apostles obey God rather than Man, and then adds, Si vero res suâ naturâ adiaphorae, lege mandatoque regio praecipiantur, quando alterutrum necesse sit, ut aut cedatur loco, aut tali mandato obtemperetur, obtemperandum potius esse, etc. When the Magistrates command Indifferent things upon this necessity, that men must obey or forsake their Ministry, they must rather obey. Nay he reckons this Case so clear, that he concludes: Esse vero hanc sententiam ita certam & perspicuam, tum in sacris literis tum apud patres & in Historiis Ecclesiasticis, ut supervacaneum omnino sit, ullam adferre probationem apud illos, qui vel mediocriter in scriptures sunt exercitati. Nunquam enim propter res suâ naturâ adiaphoas, deserenda est vocatio legitima & necessaria. They who ever consulted the Scriptures, or Fathers, or Ecclesiastical Historians, will need no proof of this, That it can never be lawful for men to leave a necessary Employment (such as that of the Ministry is) for the sake of Indifferent Rites.  
If this will not convert a Nonconformist, yet I hope it will make them ashamed to quote Zanchy's Letter to the Queen, as if it were much to our disadvantage (as the Replyer 
Vid. Burges Answer Rejoined. Chap. 1. Sect. 19  upon Bishop Mortons' defence does) let both his Letters be compared, and much good may they do them.  
That this was Zanchy's settled Judgement, appears from what he elsewhere says, in defence of Garments peculiar to Divine Service: Quod veteres Episcopi coenam administraturi, 
Zanc. Tom. 4. de Cultu Dei externo lib. 1. Cap. 16.  aliam induerint vestem, ad mutationem coenae nihil pertinet. Non enim Christus jussit, ut communibus vestibus induti coenam administraremus, sicut & ipse indutus erat, sed tantum ut faceremus quod & ipse fecit. Idem de multis aliis rebus dici potest, tam in Baptismo quam in coenâ Dominicâ. Whereas the Bishops of old did celebrate the Eucharist in a peculiar Garment, this makes no change in that service, for our Lord Christ did not command us to be clothed as he was, but to do what he did. And the same may be said of many other things, both in Baptism and the Lords Supper.  
The sum of all he thus expresses, Quae addita sunt, sed tanquam adiaphora, propter ordinem, propter decorum, & ad aedificationem, ea substantiam Sacramentorum eoque cultum non mutarunt. Those things that are added for Order, Decency, and Edification, make no alteration in the substance of the Sacraments, or of Divine Worship.  
I conclude then, though we yield Zanchy theirs, as to his Opinion, that it is not well done to impose these Indifferent things, yet he is clearly ours as to the Proposition I maintain. When Indifferent things are once determined (whatever Governors may have to answer for such Impositions) because they are not in their own nature evil, it is better to obey than to disturb the peace of the Church.  
But Mr Calvin is a greater man 
Sect. 11.  than Dr Zanchy, and the cause which he condemns shall lie under a great prejudice: his opinion therefore 
M. durel View of Government and public worship in the Reform. Churches beyond the Seas, pag: 161. etc.  must be considered. However he be generally esteemed no great friend to Episcopacy, yet M. durel hath endeavoured to vindicate him from being very Antiepispocal▪ Be that as it will; if our N. Cts will stand or fall to calvin's Judgement, our advantage is as great as we need desire.  
1. For first he does greatly admire set forms of Prayer. So he says in a Letter to the Protector of Edward the Sixth. Quod ad formulam precum & 
Calv. Epist. 87. Dat. 1548.  Rituum Ecclesiasticorum, valde probo, ut certa illa extet à quâ Pastoribus discedere in suâ functione non liceat. I do greatly like that forms of Prayer, and the Rites of the Church should be stated, so as Ministers in the exercise of their function should not have leave to vary from them. His reasons are Three, Ut consulatur quorundam simplicitati & Imperitiae: Ut certius constet omnium Ecclesiarum inter se consensus. Postremo ut obviam eatur desultoriae quorundam levitati qui novationes quasdam affectant. First, For the supply of some men's inabilities (a reason that our modern N. C ts. in this time of Gospel light, think an undervaluing of them) Secondly, That the several Churches (of the same Dominion) may appear to consent together. Thirdly, For a security against Innovators (and in that also I wish they were not concerned.) Upon this last reason Calvin adds, that there should be summa quaedam doctrinae ab omnibus recepta, quam inter praedicandum sequantur omnes, ad quam etiam observandam omnes Episcopi & Parochi jurejurando adstringantur, ut nemo ad munus Ecclesiasticum admittatur, nisi spondeat sibi illum sensum inviolatum futurum. Extet praeterea communis Catechismi formula, etc. Which I thus accommodate to our Usage, he could not think it unlawful to subscribe to the thirty nine Articles.  
2. Because some Ceremonies must accompany Divine Service, it appears by the former words that he would have them stated too. I conceal not his Opinion, that he would have but few Ceremonies for fear of Superstition. Nihil consultius video 
Epist. 303. Dat. 1560.  quam parcissimis Ceremoniis uti in Ecclesiâ, satis enim Experientiâ constat, quàm proclivis sit lapsus in superstitionem.  
Now if any shall hence infer, that Calvin, if he were alive, would judge us to abound in superfluous Ceremonies, I oppose his former Letter to the Protector, where he speaks, de abolendis & radicitus evellendis abusibus & corruptelis, of rooting out abuses: but he instances but in three things, Praying for the dead, Chrism and extreme Unction. All which having now no place in our Church, and it being undeniable that we are reform to some greater degrees than in Edward the Sixths' time, we have fair reason to say that the present state of things is such as Calvin would not disallow; at most if he would have advised to have omitted some of our Ceremonies, yet in the same place where he desires Ceremonies should be few, he adds, Aliud vero est, cum nobis jus non est admittendi aut repudiandi quod videbitur. Si non licet obtinere quod cupimus, feramus istos defectus, non approbemus. Where we are to obey and not to rule, let us bear with those defects which we need not approve.  
3. But Calvin is the man, who called some of our Rites Fooleries. Because our N. C ts. shall have liberty to make the most of that word, I so translate it, though others think it may be rendered Unfitnesses. Let them take the advantage of it, provided they will acknowledge that at the same time he calls them tolerable. The words are in a Letter to some English Divines at Frankford, in Queen Mary's time. In Anglicanâ 
Ep. 200. Dat. 1555.  Liturgiâ qualem describitis, multas video fuisse tolerabiles Ineptias. Calvin being at a distance, taketh things as they were represented to him, therefore he speaks of the English Liturgy according to the description they gave of it, and there is some reason to suspect, that they who gave him that account, misrepresented the case. I am not alone in the Imagination. M. durel is before me who 
View of Government, etc. p. 117.  undertakes it at large. But Calvin says moreover video fuisse: so it had been (he thought) in Edward the Sixths' time, and who knows not what perfective alterations have been since made? Suppose at most he did not like some things, yet this is certain, that he did not think it worth while to contend about them, for so he says in the same Letter. In 
Id. ibid.  rebus mediis ut sunt externi Ritus, facilem me & flexibilem praebeo. In such Indifferent matters as outward Rites are, I am an easy man and ready to be persuaded. And I give but Two Instances more that I may have done with him.  
When he writes to Bullinger about Bishop Hooper's Scruples and troubles, he says, De pileo & veste 
Ep. 120. Dat. 1551.  lineâ maluissem (ut illa etiam non probem) non usque adeo ipsum pugnare, idque etiam nuper suadebam. Though I do not much like the Square-Cap, and Surplice, yet I wish Hooper had not been so fierce against them, and so I lately persuaded him. Yea, in an affair of their own, Beza reports him to have been of the same temper. Some there were at Geneva who had upon some pretences introduced the use of Unleavened Bread (and of that only) at the Communion: At this others were so offended, that they inclined, rather to stay away than Communicate. Calvin who 
Bez. Vit. Calvini. An. 1538.  was then withdrawn from Geneva, hearing of it, advised them, ne ob istud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 litem moverent, sic obtinuit panis Azymi usus, de quo etiàm postea restitutus Calvinus nunquam contendendum putavit, minimè tamen dissimulans quid alioqui esset magis probaturus. He would not have them quarrel about such an Indifferent matter. So the use of Unleavened Bread was established, which when Calvin returned again, he did not think fit to make any disturbance about, though he did not dissemble that he rather wished, it had been otherwise. It appears then Calvin was not so inflexible in all matters of Conformity as many of our Modern N. C ts. are.  
To Calvin and Zanchy it is easy to 
Sect. 12. M. durel View of Government, etc. p. 119. & deinceps.  add like Testimonies out of other Authors magnified by the N. C ts. M. durel hath brought about forty, mostly Divines, as it were into Council, delivering their Opinions about Ceremonies and Circumstances of worship. All unanimously agreeing against our present Dissenters, that these things, viz. the Surplice and Cross, etc. are not such, for which a separation is to be made: and if all do not speak to every particular matter in Controversy between us, yet all speak to some, and some to all, by all which it appears, that the Church of England is not condemned by the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, nay she is justified, nay she is admired.  
For the particular purpose of the Argument now in hand, I offer a few of our own Countrymen, and I cannot begin better than with T. Cartwright, who is quoted as professing 
Burges Preface to Answ. Rejoined, p. 3, 4.  to oppose our Ceremonies as inconvenient but not as unlawful, and therefore persuaded Ministers, rather to wear the Garments than cease their Ministry, and taught men to receive the Sacrament kneeling, if they could not have it otherwise, because though the gesture be (as he takes it) incommodious, yet he says it is not simply unlawful. Mr Sprint, also assures us, that Dr Humfrey, Dr Rainolds, 
Cassand. Anglic. p. 163.  Dr Sparks, Dr Chaloner, Dr Ayray, Mr Chaderton, Mr Knewstubs, though they stood out and testified their dislike against sundry of the Ceremonies established, yet they did in case of deprivation yield to them, and studiously persuaded others in this case to this practice.  
Of latter days Mr Baxter hath determined, that it may be very sinful to command some Ceremonies, when yet it may be the subjects duty to use them when they are commanded. Upon which Proposition he says farther: If a thing 
Baxt. Disputat. of Church Government, p. 460.  be simply unlawful, as being forbid by God himself, there no command of man can make it lawful: But if it be but inconvenient, or evil only by accident, or circumstance, it is possible for the command of Governors to take off that accidental evil, and make it become a duty.  
I have dwelled at large upon these Testimonies, not because the Reason of the thing is doubtful, so as to need such a Confirmation, nor because if it were, other Testimonies as considerable could not be produced, but to comply with the humour of the N. C ts. and to deal with them at their own Weapon. They have made a great noise about the consent of the Reformed Churches, and did Covenant to endeavour a Reformation according to the Example of the best Reformed Churches; as if all that go under the name of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, did as much believe us Superstitious as these men pretend to believe. Whereas beside the Veneration which Spanhemius expresses to have for the Order 
Epist. ad tertiam partem. Dub. Evangel. An. 1638.  of the Church of England, in a time when Conformity went higher than of late days: besides Bogerman's acknowledgement at Dort to the Bishop of Landaffe that then was, Domine, nos 
Bishop Hall Episcopacy by Divine Right, Sec. 4.  non sumus adeo foelices, It was their misfortune not to be under Episcopal Government; we have many more clear evidences of the great respect which Foreigners bear to the Church of England.  
I conclude this Proposition with the grave and excellent determination of St. Austin, in which he gives account of St. Ambrose too. Monica coming to Milan, and observing the Order of the Church there, that they did not fast on Saturday as was usual in other Churches, was troubled about it; for her satisfaction St. Austin advises with St. Ambrose, who answers him, and resolves her, by his own practice. Cum Romam 
Augustin. Januario.  venio, jejuno Sabbato, cum hîc sum non jejuno; sic etiam tu ad quam forte Ecclesiam veneris, ejus morem serva, si cuiquam non vis esse scandalo, nec quenquam tibi. When I am at Rome, I fast on Saturday as they do there, here I do not; so I would have you, wheresoever you come, observe the Order of the place, if you would neither give nor take offence. An Answer which satisfied Monica, and passed for an Oracle with St. Austin, who adds of his own in the same Epistle: Some things Universal tradition had so confirmed, that he did not think fit they should be altered, as the Observation of Easter and Whitsuntide, etc. but then, Alia quae per loca terrarum 
Id. ibid.  variantur, sicut est quod alii jejunant Sabbato, alii non, alii quotidie communicant, alii certis diebus, etc. & si quid aliud hujusmodi animadverti potest, Totum hoc genus rerum liberas habet observationes, nec disciplina ulla alia est in his melior, gravi prudentique Christiano, quam ut eo modo agate, quo agere viderit Ecclesiam ad quamcunque forte devenerit; quod enimneque contra fidemneque contra bonos mores injungitur, Indifferenter est habendum, & pro eorum inter quos vivitur societate servandum est. As to those Observances which are divers in divers Countries, that some fast on Saturday, others not; some communicate every day, others at stated times: All such things as these are free, and a grave and prudent Christian can follow no better rule, than to behave himself according to the Order of the Church, to which he shall chance to come: For whatsoever is enjoined that is not against Faith, nor good manners, is to be esteemed Indifferent, and to be practised according to the Company with which we converse. St. Austin does rightly state the Notion of a thing Indifferent (suppose the Surplice) somewhat in its own nature not necessary, therefore in a Church that does not enjoin it, it may be omitted, somewhat in its own nature not Unlawful, therefore in a Church that does enjoin it, it ought to be used.  
5. It is no Superstitious Opinion to believe 
Sect. 13. Discourse of Liturgies, Chap. 16. §. 9  that the Church may appoint significant Ceremonies. This is another matter wherein the N. C ts. speak big. It is not true that they have any Authority to appoint significative Ceremonies, where are sensible signs to affect the Understanding, this is to give them Authority to institute Sacraments. Another formerly. All humane Ceremonies being appropriate 
Abridg. Lincoln. See Burges Answer Rejoined. Chap. 3. Sect. 1.  to God's service, if they be ordained to teach any spiritual duty by their Mystical signification, are unlawful. But such are these Three, the Surplice, the Cross in Baptism, and Kneeling in receiving the Communion. Ergo, they are Unlawful. There is a clear difference between signs of Grace inwardly infused, and signs of duty enjoined. It is the nature of a Sacrament to be an outward sign of inward Grace. Wherefore because Christ is the Author of Grace, as it belongs to him whose the deed of Gift is to set to his Seal, so is it the Prerogative of our Lord Christ to institute Sacraments for his Church. But signs of duty are other things, and this distinction is thus expressed by the Learned Morton. There be two acceptions of the word Mystical, 
See Burges ut supra. Chap. 3. Sec. 4.  one Sacramental by signification of Grace conferred by God, the other only moral, signifying some duty of men to God. The Mystical Ceremonies condemned by Learned Writers, are Sacramental; all the Ceremonies which we defend, are Mystical, Moral, not Sacramental.  
They who have written of these things, have given us divers Instances, both out of the Old Testament and New, where insignificant Ceremonies have been allowably practised, although they have not been strictly Sacramental, nor of Divine Institution. That which I offer to consideration, is somewhat not fully retorted upon our Adversaries, that I have any where observed, therefore I take liberty to enlarge upon it, when I have first moved one question. Put the Case a Canon or Constitution of our Church, should enjoin the Sexton to make his Graves East and West, and to take care that they who are buried be laid with their Feet to the East. I ask, would it be lawful, or unlawful, to obey this Constitution? Unlawful? How can that be so, when it is commanded, which is now generally practised, and that without scruple? If lawful, then is a significant Ceremony allowed lawful, for though all men may not think of it, or may not so design, yet there can be no doubt but the Original of that Custom, had a Respect to the Resurrection of the Body, and to an expectation of Christ's coming to Judgement, the belief of which was declared by this significant Ceremony.  
But that which I urge is this. They against whom we argue, contend for sitting at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and that for this reason, because it is a significant posture. That it is any where in the New-Testament commanded to receive the Sacrament sitting, no man in his Wits will say: Yet the Presbyterians have often argued for it, upon the account of its significancy. So I have heard it out of the Pulpit. That gesture which ought to be kept above all the rest, is Sitting, because though it be but a Circumstance, yet it hath some significancy in it, because it is a supper gesture. And secondly and chief, because it signifies the familiarity that is between Christ and Believers, Luke 22. 30. This Supper is a Type of the Everlasting Supper in Heaven, where one shall not sit and another stand. I name not my Author because he is long since dead, but I am certain I do him no wrong. And to make it appear that this is their Doctrine, I add a Printed Testimony.  
Among the Treatises that bear Mr bradshaw's name, one is a Proposition concerning Kneeling at the Sacrament, wherein are these words. Whereas 
Bradsh. several Treatises. p. 104.  the end of a Sacrament, is to inform the outward man, by sensible demonstrations, it pleased our Master to use such a gesture, as agreeably with Bread and Wine, setteth out our Communion and spiritual familiarity with him, and rejoicing in him, and therefore as he says, If any man hear my voice, etc. I will come in to him and sup with him, and he with me: So he says, Many shall come from the East and West, and shall sit with Abraham, etc. By which place it appears, that as by Supper, so by sitting, familiar rejoiceing, or rejoicing familiarity is expressed. Therefore not kneeling but sitting is for receiving.  
It is plain then, that sitting is reckoned a significant posture. It is also plain, that it is required in the Directory. 
Direc. Celebra. Commun.  The Table being decently covered, and so conveniently placed, that the Communicants may orderly sit about it, or at it, etc.  
I know the pretence is, that they do not Institute a significant Ceremony, they only retain it, as having warrant from the Example of our Saviour. So says the forementioned Proposition. Kneeling is contrary to 
Ibid.  the Example of Christ and his Apostles, who ministered and received sitting, or in such a gesture as in those countries' was most used at eating, from which Example to differ without warrant from God's word, cannot be without fault, seeing the Examples of holy men, much more that of Christ, are to be followed except there be some reasonable cause to the contrary.  
In Answer to which I oppose three things.  
First, If the Example of Christ were as they say, yet it does no more conclude for our sitting, than for our receiving at Supper time, etc.  
Secondly, They have not the Example of Christ, for that manner of sitting which they now urge.  
Thirdly, It is not absolutely certain, whether they have his Example for any manner of sitting at all.  
1. Suppose the most, that the 
Sect. 14.  Apostles at the first Institution of the Sacrament, did receive it sitting, where is the Argument, because they did, therefore so must we? Let this be proved. Where is the particular Command that makes it our duty to follow this Example? Cedo locum and we yield. That must not be said. What then? Will they argue from the Equity of the Example? Let us go on then and say, Because of the same Example we must receive at night, in an upper room, and only Males: For either the whole Example binds in all Circumstances, or in none; or some difference must be assigned between this Circumstance and the other of Time and place, etc. And what I pray shall that be? Is it because (which is a sufficient reason) they were but Occasional? there was no design in Instituting and administering the Sacrament in such a place, but because it was judged by our Blessed Saviour a convenient place; Or at night, but because the Pass-over was first to be eaten, and that night our Blessed Saviour was to be betrayed, therefore that time of night was most proper, because it could not be sooner or later. Now let it be considered, was it not also Occasional, that they received it sitting? so as their Master found them at the Pass-over (as is now supposed) so being in haste, he administers this Sacrament. Why therefore should this come into Example rather than the other Circumstances, unless (which can never be proved) there be some indications in the Gospel, that it was the pleasure of our Lord that this part of his Example should oblige and not the rest.  
Oh! but this gesture signifies (as was before said) and does it so? Who can tell that? Who may be bold to say, that the posture which was used upon occasion, was intended for signification, when no such thing is said, only the wits of men have devised this reason, and imagined a significancy in it? But be it so. May not then also some signification be fastened upon the time and place? It is best to receive in an upper room: this signifies the exalted state to which Believers are received, and by which they are dignified, whereby also they are raised up to a nearness to Heaven in that holy Ordinance. Again, it is best to receive at night: this signifies, after a poor Sinner hath been wearied in his days of sin, as men at night turn to their rest after the labours of the day; so now after the labours of sin, Return to thy rest, O my Soul, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee, Psal. 116. and Come unto me all ye that labour, etc. and I will give you rest, Math. 11. I dare say as good Texts to prove receiving at night, as sitting with Abraham in the Kingdom of God proves the posture. Thus is it easy to devise and imagine; and if this shall be thought a worshipping God after our own devices (as the men who seem so much to abhor Superstition will be ready to say) I see not but they who contend so much for sitting, will be guilty, unless they can make it appear that the Holy Scripture hath rather recommended one than another. Now if I should repeat those Tragical Declamations against adding to the word of God, Will-worship, and men's devices in the worship of God, of which their writings are full; how would they all fit here? For what is, if this be not worshipping God after men's Imaginations, when they will make differences where our Blessed Saviour hath made none? And yet this is the best that can be said of this Case: for this supposes that Christ's Example recommends sitting.  
2. Whereas this is farther to be said, They have not so much as Example for that manner of sitting which they now urge: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Matth. 26. Luke 22.  the two words used by the Evangelists upon this occasion, do not signify such a sitting as is now in use: It is therefore generally agreed, that their posture was more like to lying than sitting. So that the best of their Argument can be but thus: Because our Blessed Saviour gave the Sacrament to his Disciples in that gesture which they used at Meals, which was a kind of lying, therefore we ought to receive it in the gesture now used at Meals which is sitting: where we must desire their Logic to tell us, what degree of necessity is in this sequel, because they did one thing, we must do another. Yet neither is this the worst of it, all this is but a supposition of that which they are never able to prove. For  
3. It is not absolutely certain, in what posture they did then receive the Lords Supper. Probably they continued in the same posture, but who can peremptorily conclude it? Who can demonstrate to the contrary, but that when our Blessed Saviour, while they were eating, solemnly betook himself to the Institution of a new Sacrament, they to address themselves to a new service, might betake themselves to a new gesture? I cannot prove they did, nor (for aught I can find) can any body prove they did not. There is nothing conclusive in any of the Evangelists, that they did certainly continue in the same posture; Unless the Order of St. Luke be insisted on, who (Chap. 22.) after the Institution of the Sacrament hath these words, But behold the hand of him that betrays me is with me at the Table. Which Order signifies little to those who will not yield Judas to have been at the Sacrament (as divers of our Adversaries will not) but admit he was there, as seems very probable, yet though they were all at the same table as before (and who can demonstrate but it might be another table) yet it does not appear certain, that they were in the same posture as before. This doubt I move, not as a thing in itself considerable, but to represent how strongly some men (and even the same who call so much for Scripture grounds, and for a divine warrant for Circumstances of worship as minute as this) will build upon probabilities, when it serves their turn. Because it is not said they risen up, it is by consequence gathered they sat still. If they did, it was not our manner of sitting, but another. If they had sat as we, yet this Example is no more obligatory, than it is to other Circumstances of the same Institution. Yet through all these If's, and Consequences, and Suppositions, they conclude to the expedience, if not to the necessity of a significant Ceremony, though in us they call it Superstition.  
The lifting up the hand at the Covenant, the laying the hand upon the Book in swearing and other like Ceremonies, have been objected to them by others, I urge not that, but add another Instance whereby it will plainly appear, that many of the N. C ts. though they suspect so much superstition in a significant Ceremony, yet can themselves allow and urge the use of a Ceremony, and that in a Religious matter, and because it is significant, although the particular Ceremony be no where in Scripture commanded.  
They who have endeavoured to 
Sect. 15.  settle Presbyterated and Associated Churches, have determined to do it by way of Covenant, so consenting to be a Member of such a Church. The Agreement of the Associated Churches in Worcestershire, will give us light in this thing; who thus express themselves. Because Ministers should 
Agreement of the Associated Churches in Worcestersh. §. 18.  have a particular knowledge of their Charge, which now is uncertain, and for divers other reasons propounded and debated among us; We judge it very fit, if not of necessity, to desire a more express signification of our people's consent, to our Ministry and Ministerial actions, and in particular to submit to this discipline, as the members of that particular Church. Afterwards they tell us in what form of words they require this consent to be given.  I do consent to be a Member of the particular Church of Christ at— whereof— Teacher, etc. 
The reasons why this was required, Mr Baxter gives in his Explication of that Agreement, not as his 
Ibid.  own, but as those that moved the Association to make that determination. The reasons are Twelve. In all which there is not so much as a pretence of a divine Institution, nay it is confessed in the Preface, that the sign itself of this consent is not particularly determined; and Mr Baxter after the reasons adds this Memorandum: Remember yet that I maintain, that God does in Scripture require, only consent signified (a thing which I do not now debate) but hath not tied us to this or that particular sign, for signifying it, but having given us general Rules, that all things be done to Edification, decently, etc. he hath left it to humane prudence to determine of the particular sign, whether voice, subscription, etc. So then, such a form of words is owned to be a sign signifying consent. It is also owned a sign required only upon General Rules of Scripture. What unpardonable crime is it then, if the Church of England agree upon some Ceremonies significant, by virtue of the same general Rules, of Edification and Decency? In which Cases if private men will be so wise as to abound in their own sense, whether or no such things be decent and edifying, the same Mr Baxter hath determined the Controversy in the same place: where though he assert, that the Pastors are to consult with the people about the convenience; yet he positively concludes: That people are to obey the determination of their guides. And how now comes it to pass that the power which they in their times assumed, should be denied the Church of England, viz. Power and Authority to appoint significant Ceremonies?  
If they will distinguish between Discipline and Worship, and allow a significant Ceremony in that, but not in this, I reply, that in their contentions for Discipline about Mr hooker's time, that Axiom of theirs [Nothing aught to be established in the Church, which is not commanded by the word of God] was applied to Discipline as well as worship, and therefore 
Eccles. Pol. Lib. 3. Sect. 5.  Degrees in the Universities, sundry Church-Offices and Dignities were struck at. Yea, they did affirm, that the Discipline was no small part of the Gospel, 
Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline. p. 440.  that without this Discipline there can be no right Religion, that they who reject the Discipline refuse to have Christ reign over them. However it is clear, A significant Ceremony because allowed in Discipline, is not in the Nature of the thing unlawful. Nor does it deserve the name of a Sacrament properly so called. Nor does the Church of England deserve to be upbraided with superstition because of such appointments.  
If these grounds be firm and good, I conclude that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, unless they be either burdensome in their Number, or required as somewhat in nature and kind, greater and more necessary than things Indifferent, are not faulty or superstitious.  
Both which Cases deserve Consideration.  
1. If our Rites be in their nature 
Sect. 16.  Innocent, no man hath reason to find fault with their Number. The Compilers of our Liturgy have been ware, that an Objection might be here made, and have taken care to prevent the scruple. Some Ceremonies are 
Preface to the Liturgy, of Ceremonies.  put away, because the great excess and multitude of them hath so increased in these latter days, that the burden of them was intolerable, whereof St. Austin in his time complained, etc. This our excessive multitude was so great, and many of them so dark, that they did more confound and darken, than declare and set forth Christ's benefits to us. That Complaint of St. Austin, is in his Epistle to Januarius, where he acknowledges. 
Aug. Januario Ep. 119.  Quamvis enim neque hoc inveniri possit, quomodo contra fidem sint; ipsam tamen Religionem, quam, paucissimis & manifestissimis celebrationum sacramentis, misericordia Dei esse liberam voluit; servilibus oneribus premunt, ut tolerabilior sit conditio Judaeorum. Admit that such observances be not against the Gospel; yet in as much as the Merciful God would have Religion free from the burden of many Ceremonies; they have so clogged it with burdensome services, that the condition of the Jews was more tolerable than of Christians now adays. That there may be no such Cause of Complaint among us, the Church of England hath been very moderate in this thing. Not so as to escape the ill will of her Adversaries, when they were resolved to find fault; for the Preface to the Directory complains of the many unprofitable and burdensome Ceremonies, contained in the Liturgy, which occasioned much mischief: yet in cool blood some of the party are constrained to acknowledge the 
Disc. of Liturgies, p. 91.  number of Ceremonies retained in our Church, pretending to any legal Authority, but small. The Surplice, and Cross, and Kneeling at Sacrament are we think all. And they do us much wrong if they refuse this acknowledgement. For a great number of observations which obtain in the Church of Rome in the Celebration of the Sacraments (which from their number of seven we have reduced to Two) and in other parts of Divine Worship, have no place in the Church of England, lest they should divert the minds of men from worshipping God in spirit and truth. Ceremonies harmless in themselves may yet be hurtful in respect of their number, therefore hath our Church abrogated a great number of Saints-days and other like Customs, as Mr 
Eccles. Pol. lib. 4. Sec. 14.  Hooker hath observed.  
Wherefore such is the present state of our Church, that we may securely defy our Adversaries in this matter, if it were as easy to cure their Jealousies of what may be, as to answer their objections against what is established. But here they make difficulty. Though our present Number of Ceremonies be but small, yet they raise a doubt, how far a Church may go; how many Ceremonies may be established, before the number be burdensome. Where is the Maximum quod non, and the Minimum quod sic of superstition. This is thought a great Argument why no Ceremonies, (beyond what are of direct necessity) should be imposed; because of the 
Bagshaw's Two great Queries, p. 10.  Impossibility to fix a point, where the Imposer will stop. For do but once grant that the Magistrate hath power to impose, and then we lie at his mercy how far he will go. And they who allow our present number to be but small, yet think them too many, because, though there 
Discourse of Liturgies, p. 91.  be no more Ceremonies established by law as yet, there are many probationers, and they can see no reason, but the Church's power if allowed to appoint any (save only such, without which the service of God, would apparently to all rational men, be performed indecently and disorderly) may appoint Hundreds. It is also one of Mr Baxters reasons, against the Imposing Crossing, and the Surplice, etc. When we once begin to let in Humane 
Baxter Disput. of Ch. Government, p. 477.  Mystical Rites, we shall never know where to stop, or make an end. On the same ground, that one age invents three or four, the next think they may add as many: and so it will grow to be a point of devotion, to add a new Ceremony (as at Rome it hath done) till we have more than we well know what to do with.  
I answer. The Writings of Moralists are not thought defective, though, when they have given General Rules for Temperance, that men may not drink till they disable their Reason, and impair their health, etc. they do not descend particularly to determine how many Glasses a man may drink, and precisely to say, such a draught makes him Intemperate. Nor did Mr Chillingworth think, he was wanting to his Adversary, who counted it prodigiously strange, that Protestants 
Chillingw. Religion of Protest. etc. p. 128, 129.  could not be induced to give in a particular Catalogue of points Fundamental, when he calls it an Unreasonable demand, because variety of Circumstances makes it impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of them.  
I think I may have as much reason, to reckon it no Imperfection in this discourse, if I do not venture punctually to determine, how great a number of Ceremonies may be required, before we come at Superstition. When the number becomes so great that the shadow darkens the substance: When the substantial service of God, which should be performed in spirit and truth, is prejudiced by the attendance that is given to the outward Ceremony: when the use of the means renders us uncapable to obtain the end; then does it rise to that excessive multitude of which our Church speaks. But because the use of our liberty in other lawful things, cannot be fixed in an Indivisible point, but altars according to the various Circumstances of times, and persons, and conditions, and relations of men; therefore no wise man will give one particular determinate rule, which shall oblige equally in all Cases.  
In like manner as our Church reckons Ceremonies Indifferent, so at the same time are they concluded alterable, and it is acknowledged, that upon weighty and important considerations, 
Preface to the Liturgy.  according to the various exigency of times and occasions, such changes and alterations should be made therein, as to those in place of Authority should from time to time seem either necessary or expedient. And here sure must the thing rest. It must be left to the prudence of our Governors. If they shall impose any thing in which the Consciences of people are not satisfied; If in truth it shall be believed that the number of Ceremonies enjoined is so great, that the means disserve the end; that what is ordained as an help to Piety and Devotion, does rather hinder it: these persons so dissatisfied about the number, are in the same case with those who are dissatisfied about the nature of an Injunction. If they scruple without cause, and are not duly informed, their scruples do not render the Injunction unlawful in itself. Nevertheless, the Doctrine of our Church does not encourage them to act against their Consciences, they must peaceably suffer where they cannot act. No doubt, but it is possible Church-governors (who among us do not pretend to Infallibility) may in some things be mistaken: Yet such things as these must be left to their determination. For is it not so elsewhere? There may be too many Alehouses in a Town, and it may be difficult to determine exactly how many are sufficient, and where the number will exceed, but is it therefore unlawful for the Justices to licence any? There may be in a Country, or Town, Parishes too many for the Maintenance, or too few for the people, and it may be difficult for Authority to know exactly how many are needful and convenient; Shall there be therefore no division made into several, for fear lest there should be too many or too few? What if there be the same difficulty in adjusting the true number of Ceremonies? yet in as much as it is necessary there should be some, because else Religion in the substance would suffer and decay; therefore is it also lawful for our Governors to make a determination in this matter.  
The Determination of which number must proceed upon the same Rules of Decency, Order, and Edification, which give a law to the kind and nature of Ceremonies. And in this General may men rest satisfied till the number shall grow doubtful. Then it will concern private persons to take heed as to their own practice, that the Ceremony do not devour the substance. But because at present there is no reasonable Cause to fear; because the Ceremonies that are now required are so few, that no man may without peevishness quarrel at their number, if they be Innocent in their nature and use, therefore I return from this digression to consider that in the next place.  
2. The Rites and Ceremonies of our Church are not required as things in their nature necessary, but Indifferent.  
The use of the Cross at Baptism is 
Canon 30.  thus accounted for, as being purged from all Popish superstition and error, and reduced in the Church of England to the primary Institution of it, upon those true Rules of Doctrine concerning things Indifferent, which are consonant to the word of God and the Judgement of all Ancient Fathers, etc. And upon the same Rules of Doctrine are our other Ceremonies established. For so the Preface to the Liturgy expresses it. The Ceremonies that remain, are retained for a Godly Discipline and Order, which (upon just causes) may be altered and changed, and therefore are not to be esteemed equal with Gods Law. And the Preface that was made upon the last establishment says. The particular forms of Divine Worship, and the Rites and Ceremonies appointed to be used therein, are things in their own Nature Indifferent and alterable, and so acknowledged. Words too plain to need a Comment, and liable to no Objection that I can foresee, unless one of these two things shall be replied both upon them, and all that hath hitherto been said in this matter.  
First, That some things are required under the Notion of things Indifferent, which are not so.  
Secondly, Be it granted that some Indifferent things may be imposed, yet it does not follow that all may, or that the things in controversy may.  
We say, the things they scruple 
Sect. 17.  are required but as things Indifferent as indeed they are. They are not all satisfied to think so of them. The time was, when T. C. did oppose our Ceremonies, not as unlawful, but as inconvenient, as hath been already said. And Mr Ash in the Epistle to his Funeral Sermon on Mr Gataker, when he had named Cartwright, and Hildersham, and Dod, etc. he says of them, though these men disliked the use of superstitious Ceremonies, yet they opposed their Tenants and practice, who separated from the Church of England, condemning it and the Ministry of it as Antichristian. The separation is, it seems, now advanced, for there are men that reckon there is more superstition among us, than was believed formerly, and therefore separate farther from us. It is denied 
Modest Disc. of Ceremon. p. 8.  now that these are things of Indifferency to be used (as is required) in the service of God. And whereas it is supposed that we say that the Imposition of Rulers makes Indifferent things cease to be Indifferent, they answer. They are not Indifferent in the Judgement 
Petition for Peace, p. 12.  of Dissenters, though they be so in ours. 
Exercit. about an Opining Cansci. p. 80.  They think they have probable Arguments to judge it unlawful to Minister in a Surplice, to sign with the sign of the Cross in Baptism, and to kneel in the Act of receiving the Lords Supper. Yea these things are so far from being Indifferent, that they are thought so Unlawful, as that because of them people separate from our Churches. For whatever reasons may persuade their Guides not to conform, yet the people separate from us, that they may not partake with our Ceremonies, or for a worse reason.  
I could not altogether omit so necessary a part of my Discourse, but because it hath been so often said, I pass it in fewer words. Where no Law 
Rom. 4.  is there is no Transgression. That which is not forbid is not Unlawful. Are these Rites and Ceremonies forbidden in the word of God? By what Text? perhaps by the second Commandment, or by those words of St. Matth. Teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of men: Ch. 15. or by the Text of Will-Worship, 2 Colos. or because we may not add to, nor diminish from the word of God, Deuteron. 4. Now because the Surplice, and Cross, and Kneeling, are not named in these Texts (as was upon occasion said before) therefore Consequences must be drawn from them, and laboured so long, till the Conclusion must hold as firm as confidence can make it. Because the second Command forbids making and worshipping graven Images, therefore all devices and Inventions of man's brain must have no place in Divine Worship. Ergo, what? Ergo, rend the Surplice, etc. As if the Basin at the Desk were not as much the device of man as the Font, and the Directory were not as obnoxious as the Rubric.  
If our Church did equal her commands to the word of God, then were she guilty of adding to the word, and establishing the Commands of men in the room of the Doctrines of God. If any accidents may bring our Rites within the compass of some general prohibitions, the Unlawfulness of them upon that account, will be to be considered in what next follows. If they shall be denied Indifferent in their own Nature, and yet no one Text of Scripture can be produced that speaks one word about them, they who shall so deny, do both bring an Unanswerable prejudice against all the particular establishments, made by the General Rules of prudence, whether by the Presbyterians or Independents, and do also quite mistake the nature of a thing Indifferent.  
If we descend to particular Instances, I desire to know, why the Surplice is not as Indifferent as a Gown or Cloak. Not because it is a white Garment, for then why are not Bands Unlawful? And where is the Text that forbids white more than black? Nor because it is of such a fashion; for the Scripture gives no more directions for the shaping of a Cloak than a Surplice. Why then? Surely either because it is thought decent or significant, or because it is appropriated to divine worship.  
1. If it be decent, then is it no Error to think it so; then the Apostolical Canon, let all things be done decently, justifies and maintains it. And is it not decent? Does nature teach so, to whom St. Paul appeals? We do 
1 Cor. 11.  not find any inbred shame, as if we did somewhat Unnatural in the use of it. Does Scripture pronounce it uncomely? We cannot find it. There is no other Rule for Decency, but either common estimation, or the pleasure of our Governors: for the latter we are secure, and set peevishness aside, fear not being condemned by the former.  
2. Peradventure it is thought significant, therefore not Indifferent. I answer: that a significant Ceremony (if this should be such) only as such, is not superstitious. But who told our men of scruples, that it is urged as significant of Candour and Purity? By what Canon or Rubric is any man obliged to have such an Opinion of it? Whatever others, who may have a better Opinion of significant Ceremonies, may think of it, he who is satisfied to wear it as a decent Garment, transgresses no Law, if he think no more.  
3. Is it unlawful and not Indifferent, because it is appropriated to Divine Service? This it seems is Dr Collings 
Exercit. of Opin. Consc. p. 80.  scruple, who thinks it Unlawful to wear any habit peculiarly appropriated to the worship of God. I wonder then how it can be lawful to lean on a Pulpit Cushion, or to use a Communion Cup, if the Churchwardens should be so superstitious as to lock them up and preserve them from all other uses. If there be any thing in Scripture that forbids the use of a Garment upon any of these accounts, somewhat will be offered worth considering, till then, we continue to believe it Indifferent and free from superstition.  
2. Why is not Kneeling, etc. Indifferent? not because it is a posture, for so is sitting, but because it is such a posture. And what is it? A posture used upon any superstitious Opinion? Let us know what that is. Is it suspected to signify our Adoration of the Elements? The Declaration of our Liturgy delivers us from that suspicion, and authorises us to reckon them pitifully Ignorant, or monstrously Uncharitable, who after so plain a Declaration will suspect it. What it signifies we there read. This Order 
Order for Adminis H. common.  is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ, and for the avoiding of profanation and disorder. If it be unlawful to signify humility and thankfulness, why do we at any time kneel or lift up our hands and eyes to Heaven? Or if it be unlawful to avoid profanation and disorder, then let St. Paul be reproved for setting 
1 Cor. 11.  things in Order in the Church of Corinth. Till I can find some Text that forbids Kneeling, or till I can be satisfied that some superstitious Opinion gives occasion to it, I must continue to reckon this also Indifferent.  
3. And to the same purpose I say of the Cross at Baptism. How superstitiously the Papists use it, I shall have occasion to say, but our use of it being to where in Scripture forbidden, unless it can be proved, that our 30th Canon (of which before) gives a false Account of it, unless there be some Popish (or other) superstition or error from which it is not sufficiently purged, it remains in its nature Indifferent. Our general Answer in all is, as before, Where no Law is, there is no Transgression. What is not forbid, is allowed, is not Unlawful.  
2. There may be some who will 
Sect. 18.  grant that some Indifferent things may be Imposed, yet will not yield that our Ceremonies therefore may, because of some objections against them, which have not equal force against all matters Indifferent. Such are these two thought to be.  
1. The case of Scandal and giving offence to weak Brethren.  
2. Because they have been abused among the Papists.  
I should be ashamed to mention these things where in the N. C ts. have been so often answered, did I not consider, that till this be cleared, the prejudice which I desire to remove will still remain; for if for these reason's Conformity be Unlawful, then may it seem, that they who either impose or practise it, have an undue opinion of that which is so unlawful, and that opinion shall be suspected of superstition. I proceed therefore to say, If they who impose these Rites, did not in truth judge them expedient and decent in the worship of God, only because they think them barely lawful, they urge them as believing many scrupulous minds will be offended at them, and therefore they lay them as Snares, and take advantage to incommode and bring under a penalty, those who scruple them; this might be called Tyranny, but not properly superstition, and so would not rach our Case. I make not this supposition as if I would tempt any dissatisfied man so to judge of them, for assuredly it is no less than a blaspheming of Dignities, to think they enact Conformity for this reason. But I find they who pretend to be dissatisfied will thus suspect. And Mr Bagshaw thus expresses it, Whoever obtrudes his conceits 
Two great Queries concerning things Indiff. p. II.  upon others, who perhaps are not so well satisfied as he is; becomes impious to God, by invading his sovereignty, and lording it over another man's Conscience; and likewise injurious to men, by pressing such things as are only baits to the careless, and traps for the Conscientious. Unless there be more hypocrisy than superstition in our Governors, this cannot be the case, for they profess to have done that which to their best understandings 
Preface to the Liturgy.  they conceived might most tend to the preservation of peace and unity in the Church, the procuring of Reverence, and exciting of Devotion, in the public worship of God, and the cutting off occasion from them that seek occasion of cavil or quarrel against the Liturgy of the Church. They have then imposed nothing, but what they judged not only lawful, but expedient; which Impositions being already proved Indifferent, unless the Circumstances that attend them render them such, may not be judged superstitious.  
It is therefore to be considered, whether either of the two suspicions now mentioned, be reason enough to charge our way of worship as superstitious.  
1. Suppose the Governors of the Church do not err in esteeming these things in their own nature Indifferent, yet say Dissenters, in as much as they are offensive to many Godly and Conscientious men, they ought not to be imposed; or if they be, it will be doubtful, whether the great opinion they have of such matters, as to enjoin them notwithstanding their offensiveness, be not a superstitious Opinion.  
I answer. If the Act for Uniformity should contradict those Precepts of the Gospel, that oblige us not to lay stumbling-blocks, nor give offence to our weak Brother; in as much as giving offence and not walking charitably are the same thing, this procedure would be a trespass against the second Table, rather than the First, would be uncharitableness rather than superstition. It will be replied. Though directly it be an offence against our Neighbour, yet reductively it is against the First Table, because such a practice is declarative of some undue and superstitious Opinions of those things which are so imposed. Let it be added therefore. So long as private persons are not determined by the Laws of their Superiors, it concerns them warily to use their liberty, to take heed that their doing that which is lawful, may not tempt others to do the same thing, while they judge it unlawful, which is the offending of our Brother, of which St. Paul speaks to the Romans and Corinthians, who only discourses of what ought to be done in those Cases, where no lawful power had interposed, to determine them one way or other. For eating flesh and letting it alone were both lawful, and remained Indifferent in nature and use too: Now so long as the case remains thus, the Law of not scandalising a weak Brother is a Moral Law, because it is an instance of the great Law of loving our Neighbour as ourselves, and doing to others as we would have them do to us, wherefore so far as it is practicable it obliges. But this may not be extended to disoblige the subject from obeying his superiors in lawful things, nor to disable the Magistrate from making laws in things Indifferent.  
First, it does not disoblige the subject, because the law of obedience to our Superiors being also a Moral Law, either we are at the same time obliged by two laws which contradict, or one must yield to the other. If wearing the Surplice offend, I must either disobey the Magistrate, or offend my Brother. Which then of these two must give place? According to the N. C ts. we must relinquish a certain Rule for that which is uncertain. What the Magistrate commands is certain, it is also certain, that I am in my Conscience resolved of the lawfulness of that which is so Commanded (taking it abstractly from its offensiveness) If I must now demur in my obedience lest I give offence, how shall I certainly know whether I offend or no? how shall I know how many I may offend? What assurance shall I have but my Nonconformity may offend as many on the other side? I shall now proceed by an uncertain Rule, because I know not whither it will carry me, and I am in a Case wherein one Moral Law must give place to another. Whereas upon our Principles things are fairly reconcileable. In matters undetermined by Law, where we are at our liberty, we must walk charitably and take heed that we give no offence, that our liberty become not a stumbling-block, 
1 Cor. 8. 9  this is the Moral Law, and this is Gospel. But there is no Precept of the Gospel that commands us to disobey our Superiors lawful commands for an uncertain danger of giving offence. Wherefore when we practise Conformity in obedience to established Laws, although peradventure we should offend our weak Brother, yet do we not thereby declare a superstitious Opinion of the Ceremonies we use. We may think ourselves obliged to obey our Governors in all lawful things, and yet not think of the Surplice or Cross, etc. more highly than we ought to think.  
2. And as it does not disoblige the subject from Obedience, so neither may it be thought to disable the Magistrate from making laws about things Indifferent. For if it did, it were not safe to make any laws about Decency and Order, because the Magistrate can never be secure, but his Determinations may be so cross to the opinions of some of his subjects, as to make them offend if they obey. But it hath been already evinced, that the N. C ts. yield the Magistrate a power to proceed according to the Rules of Christian Prudence in governing the Church: And the frame of the Directory, and the urging of the Covenant do sufficiently assure us, that the hazard of scandalising a weak Brother, was no restraint to an Ordinance of the Lords and Commons. He who in his Conscience thought there was no way of worship so Regular as that of the Church of England: He who thought he should sin if he should conform to the Directory, was not thereby excused from sequestration. Yet I dare say, they would take it ill, if they should be suspected of superstition, of having an undue opinion of their manner of Divine Service. And I cannot yet see why they, commanding men to receive the Sacrament sitting, when probably that would tempt some men not to receive it at all, did not as much offend their Brother, and did not as much declare that they had a superstitious opinion of such sitting, as the commands that now require Kneeling may be so interpreted.  
2. Nor does the second scruple weigh much. Our Ceremonies are supposed to have been abused among the Papists, and this is made a great Argument by the N. C ts. why they should not be retained. To this the Answer hath been so often given to this purpose, that by the same reason our Churches may not be now used, nor our Bells which have been Christened, nor any thing retained that relates to Divine Worship, but what is of absolute necessity, and is particularly commanded; that I dwell not here any farther than, according to my former Method, to give a Testimony how little this objection signifies when it is made against them.  
It had been laid to T. C ' s. charge, that he should thus declaim against the Church of England. The Communion 
Survey of the H. pretended Discipl. p. 315, 316.  Book was taken out of the Mass-Book, that it were better to conform ourselves in outward things to the Turks than to the Papists. Whatsoever comes from the Pope which is Antichrist, comes first from the Devil, etc. In the time of this Raillery it did chance to be laid to his charge, that their Disciplinarian way did smell of Donatism and Anabaptism, and was a kind of Papism. Now what defence does he make? If amongst the filth of their Heresies (viz. the Papists, Donatists, and Anabaptists) there may be found any good thing (as it were a grain of good Corn in a great deal of Darnel) that we willingly receive, not as theirs, but as the Jews did the Holy Ark from the Philistines, whereof they were unjust Owners. Yea it may come to pass that the Synagogue of Satan may at some time have some one thing with more convenience than the Catholic Church of Christ.  
Our Liturgy is indeed taken from them, but as gold is purged from dross. And there are divers things wherein we agree with them, because it is no crime to agree with them there, where they do not disagree with the word of God: And because it is not hard to believe that running into a contrary extreme, that an Aversation from what is Innocent among them, does harden them in their Errors as much, yea a great deal more, than a retaining some Customs which may honestly be retained. If we do not symbolise with them in the superstition of their Rites, there is no reason we should be charged with superstition; because we do not run a madding from them as far as we are able into another extreme.  
This is that I had to say to the second general Proposition (which hath exceeded the proportion of the other, because it was my chief design.) The Doctrines upon which the Conformity of the Church of England is established, are not superstitious Opinions.  
3. The Opinions that are superstitious, 
Sect. 19  such as are divers which obtain in the Church of Rome and elsewhere, are rejected by the Church of England. There are many differences between us and the Church of Rome, and they are not all reducible to this Topick of superstition. There are Doctrines among them of other denominations, because they serve some secular Interest of profit, or pleasure, or honour; so is it easy to evince, that the Doctrine of Purgatory, and Celibacy of Priests, and others are Doctrines of men who reckon gain their Godliness. The Doctrine of Indulgences and Dispensations, etc. does not only design profit, but together with other lose Doctrines of Morality, makes a very easy way to Heaven, and so is sensual and pleasurable. And the Supremacy of the Pope and exemption of ecclesiastics from secular Jurisdiction, is a Doctrine of Mundane greatness and unsufferable Ambition. There may be a mixture of superstition in all or any of these, according as men's apprehensions are concerning them. But there are other matters, wherein I give account of their superstition. Bishop Morton hath comprehended this in three generals, wherein he does at the same time vindicate the Church of England, and condemn that of Rome.  
Our Church in her Service-Book does 
Presentment of a Schismatic. p. 14.  make known to all the World, that she does detest the superstition of the Romish Ceremonies, by condemning their superstitious Opinions. First, In making them necessary parts of God's Worship. Secondly, In ascribing an efficacious sanctity to them. Thirdly, By arrogating a meritorious condignity from them to themselves. I need not restrain my discourse to Ceremonies only, be it in Ceremony or be it in substance; If I make it appear that they esteem that a necessary part of God's worship which ought not to be so esteemed, (and so for the other two) I shall conclude right when I charge them with superstition.  
An Enumeration of particulars will be the best evidence in this matter. I therefore give Instances to show that for these several reasons the Church of Rome is guided by superstitious Opinions to superstitious practices, by which it will also appear that the Church of England does renounce those practices, at least if for other reasons some of them be retained, yet the Opinion which is the original of their practice is disowned by us.  
1. That opinion is superstitious whereby men judge and esteem any usages in Religion necessary when they are not so, or more necessary than indeed they are. When men advance any thing in the worship of God beyond its nature, judging that to be holy, and to have a relation to God which hath none, or to have a nearer relation than in truth it hath. Pius IU. in a Creed which he imposed, 
Oruphrius in Vit. Pii 4. p. (mihi) 384.  furnishes us with sufficient Instances.  
When he had by his Diploma allowed and confirmed all that was done at the Council of Trent, he proceeded to direct in what manner Bishops should be made.  
Then it follows. Hanc Fidei formulam quam Episcopi designati profiterentur instituit. He appointed a certain Creed which all that were to be made Bishops should make profession of. In the Conclusion of which Creed are these words. Hanc veram Catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest sponte profiteor, etc. This true Catholic Faith, out of which no man can be saved, I willingly profess. Now among the Credenda, which he reckons, and obliges others to reckon necessary to Salvation, are such as these. That there are seven Sacraments of the New-Testament properly so called, instituted by Jesus Christ. The propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, worshipping Relics and Images; and lest enough should not be crowded into that Creed, it is added. Caetera item omnia à sacrosanctâ Tridentinâ Synodo tradita, definita & declarata indubitanter recipio atque profiteor. All that was determined at the Council of Trent is to be received without scruple. This is the Faith without which (they say) no man can be saved.  
How these Opinions are rejected by our Church is too plain to need proof. It rest to say, however otherwise faulty and dangerous they are, this makes them superstitious, that they are made necessary, whereas indeed they are false. I mean not every thing established by that Council of Trent, but the Articles beforenamed, and divers other like things decreed in that Council.  
If the Intendment of this Essay were principally against the Church of Rome, it would the less be an excursion, if the things now mentioned were severally considered, and their repugnancy to Scripture shown; but being designed rather for the Vindication of the Church of England, and that for the sake of those who agree with us in rejecting these Doctrines, I am not willing to engage in all these Controversies. I think it sufficient to add another instance under this Head, and so convict them together of superstition.  
The Council of Trent does advance 
Histor. Concil. Trident. Sess. 4.  Unwritten Traditions to an Authority equal with the word of God. When the question is moved what are these Unwritten Traditions, their Authors distinguish between such as are Divine, Apostolical, and Ecclesiastical. Those which they call Divine are in the Account of Azorius, such as these. Purgatory, 
Azor. Institut. Moral. Part. 1. lib. 8. Cap. 4.  Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, worshipping Images, Communion in one kind enough for Laics, etc. Whereas the question may be again asked, how shall we know that these are Divine Traditions after some other Rules, Bellarmine wholly rests it upon the 
Bellarm. De Verbo Dei non scripto. Cap. 9  Testimony of the Romish Church. Ex Testimonio hujus solius Ecclesiae sumi potest Certum Argumentum ad probandum Apostolicas Traditiones. From the Testimony of the alone Church of Rome may a man have a certain Argument to prove Apostolical Traditions. Which rule I suppose he intends for the assuring us of Divine Traditions too: for so he had before joined them. Asserimus in scriptures 
Id. ibid. Cap. 3.  non contineri Totam Doctrinam necessariam, sive de fide sive de moribus, & proinde praeter verbum Dei scriptum requiri etiam verbum Dei non scriptum, i. e. Divinas &. Apostolicas Traditiones. We assert that the scripture does not contain all necessary Doctrine, whether about Faith or manners, there is therefore moreover required, Divine and Apostolical Tradition.  
From these premises I argue to the superstition of the Church of Rome. Because they practise in their Sacraments and elsewhere upon superstitious opinions. The Devotion of the Jews 
Isai. 29.  is thus challenged, Their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men. The Messages which God Almighty sent them by his Prophets, were not the Rule of their worship, but the Traditions of men were instead of the word of God. And this was their Indebitus cultus, their superstition: This Text the Septuagint translate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In vain do they worship me, 
Matth. 15.  teaching the commands of men and Doctrines. St. Matthew hath altered the site of one word, and there we read in application to the Pharisees. In vain do they worship me teaching for Doctrines the Commands of men. The case to which this quotation is there applied, is their making the Fifth Commandment of none effect by their Tradition. That which God had made necessary by his Command [Honour thy Father and Mother] with that they dispensed. That which God had not made necessary by any express Declaration of his pleasure, that was made necessary by their Tradition. And this was their superstition.  
To which the case of the Church of Rome is but too parallel. They make the second Command of none effect by their Tradition of worshipping Images. In other things they make that necessary which the written word of God hath not made so. Some of which Traditions if they be not directly contrary to the word of God, yet because they are arrogantly equalled, and commanded to be received Pari pietatis affectu & reverentiâ; the practices that flow from these Doctrines cannot be excused from superstition, as we now use the word (and as they, as well as we, define the thing) for an excess in Religion, whereby men worship God, after such a manner as they ought not.  
2. The second Account of their 
Sect. 20.  superstition is, that they ascribe an Efficacious sanctity to their Ceremonies. Here also Instances will make it plain, both that they are thus chargeable, and that the Church of England does reject these Opinions.  
The Doctrine of Rome is, that the Cross is to be worshipped with the highest kind of worship. Crux Christi in 
Aquin. tertia Pars qu. 25. Artic. 4.  quâ Christus Crucifixus est, tum propter repraesentationem, tum propter membrorum Christi contactum Latriâ adoranda est. Crucis vero Effigies in aliâ quâ●is materiâ priori tantum ratione Latriâ adoranda est. The Cross whereon Christ was Crucified  to be worshipped with Latriâ, both because of its representation, and because of its touching the Body of Christ. But the sign of the Cross elsewhere, is to be worshipped only for the former reason, (which last words were well put in, for it would be a wonder indeed, if the sign of the Cross made at Rome, should deserve worship propter Contactum.) This we contend is superstitious, because the Opinions they have of the Cross are such. For they ascribe such Effects to the Cross, which neither the word of God ascribes to it, nor any man's reason without the help of feigned Miracles, or Traditions (before accounted for) would expect from it. Take it in Bellarmin's words. 1ᵒ Tres sunt Effectus Crucis 
Bell. de Imagine. Sanctorum lib. 2. Cap. 30.  mirabiles. Terret & fugat Daemons: 2ᵒ pellit morbos & omnia mala: 3ᵒ Sanctificat ea quibus imprimitur. There are Three wonderful effects of the Cross. First, It frights and sears away the Devil. Secondly, It drives away Diseases and all Evils. Thirdly, It sanctifies those things upon which it is made. The first of these effects he ascribes to it for Three Causes. Ex apprehensione Daemonis, 
Ib●●  ex Devotione hominis, ex Instituto Dei. From the apprehension of the Devil, from the Devotion of man, from the Institution of God. So that they suppose the appointment of God hath empowr'd the Cross to scare the Devil. The power of sanctifying that upon which the sign of the Cross is made, he makes parallel with the power which he supposes in Relics. Sanctificantur 
Ibid.  aliquo modo two qui tangunt Reliquias, which he hath the confidence to assert upon the Authority of the Fathers.  
Our 30th Canon (as hath been said) rejects these superstitions and errors. Which superstition we therefore lay to their charge, because they ascribe an effect to a certain Cause, without a sufficient warrant. That the sign of the Cross hath not naturally in itself any power of sanctifying or curing, Bellarmine can't but acknowledge. Signum Crucis operatur mirabilia non ex 
Id. ibid.  virtute suâ naturali quam habet ut figura quaedam, sed ut signum divinitus Institutum. The sign of the Cross works wonders, not as a certain figure, by any natural virtue, but as a sign appointed of God. Here is then superstition, to esteem the sign of the Cross more holy than indeed it is, to believe it to have such a relation to God, which it can't be proved to have, to ascribe to it a virtue which no syllable in the H. Scripture declares to us. And who hath known the mind of God any farther than he hath been pleased to reveal it to us?  
Estius makes a little attempt to deliver 
Estius in sentent. Tom. 3. Distinc. 37. Sec. 8.  such like Ceremonies as this is from superstition. Si debito decentique modo exspectetur effectus aliquis à Deo, etiamsi naturali virtute haberi non potest, nulla est superstitio. If the effect be expected in a due and decent manner, though the cause cannot by any natural virtue produce it, it is no superstition. So, he says, the Church does consecrate Salt and Holy-Water, etc. because Christ gave his Apostles power over unclean 
Matth. 10. Luke 10.  Spirits, and power to tread on Serpents and Scorpions, etc. which power he supposes still to reside in the Church. As Elisha cured the waters with salt, as Christ cured blind Eyes with clay and spittle, in like manner, potestas exorcizandi Daemones à Christo Apostolis tradita usque in hodiernum diem in Ecclesiâ permansit. The power of casting out Devils committed by Christ to his Apostles remains in the Church to this day. If we will take Forgeries and cheats for real miracles, the thing is proved. But if we should be a little scrupulous, and require better proof of matter of fact, and till that be given, should doubt whether the Apostles power of working Miracles be transmitted to this age, we are then at a great loss to solve the Phaenomenon, and to clear the use of the Cross and holy water, etc. from superstition. Whereas it is confessed, that the natural virtue of these Ceremonies can't produce such effects, it is also as plain, so far as the Word of God is our guide, that we have no sufficient warrant to expect these preternatural and extraordinary Events, because there is no divine promise annexed to the use of these things.  
Of the same nature is that Doctrine that the Sacraments confer Grace, Ex opere Operato. The Council of Trent 
Histor. Conc. Trid. Sess. 7.  anathematizes them who say, per Sacramenta non conferri gratiam virtute ministrationis eorum, sive ex opere operato. That the Sacraments do not confer grace by virtue of the very administration of them, or by the deed done. So Bellarmine gins his second Book, De effectu Sacramentorum, with this enquiry. An sacramenta novae legis sint verae Causae justificationis ex opere operato. Whether the Sacraments of the Gospel be true causes of Justification by virtue of the deed done. That they are so, and that they are thereby distinguished from the Sacraments of the old Law, he offers to prove in the process of that Book. In which though it be true, that he speaks of Faith and Repentance as dispositions in the subject, to mollify the Opinion, yet there is no doubt but their Opinion is, that the Sacraments confer grace, however indisposed the subject be. Which appears by the absolutions that are given upon Confession, even there, where no Contrition shows itself. According to the Jesuits Doctrine, 
Mist. Jesuitis. Letter 10. p. 145. 150. T. Bauny. Ibid.  they ought not to be denied or delayed absolution, who continue in habitual sias, against the laws of God, and nature, and the Church, though they discover not the least hope of amendment. And Valentia determins that Contrition is not requisite at all in order to obtain the principal effect of the Sacrament, nay on the contrary it is rather obstructive. Yea Bellarmine himself 
Bellarm. de Imagine. Sanctorum lib. 2. Cap. 30.  elsewhere distinguishes between opus operatum, and opus operantis. When men pray for help against Diseases, the effect does not infallibly follow, for this reason, quia tunc effectus non producitur ex opere operato, more Sacramentorum, sed ex opere operantis. Because it is not produced by the deed done, as in the Sacraments, but supposes the disposition of the doer. What they thus attribute to the Sacraments, Azorius extends to sacramentals (though he confesses 
Institut. Moral. Part. 1. lib. 4. Cap. 11.  some Romanists are against him) he affirms that the very sprinkling with Holy-Water without consideration of the act of Repentance, does away venial sins.  
How much our Church ascribes to Sacraments, is plain. They are sure 
Artic. 25.  witnesses and effectual signs of God's Grace and good will towards us, by which he does work invisibly in us. But in the same Article it is declared against the Opus Operatum, for in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation.  
The dangerous Consequences of this their Doctrine, especially as their late Casuists have improved it, I now exaggerate not. All that I would conclude hence is, that their worship of God in the Sacraments, because it is built upon this opinion, is superstitious. God alone is the fountain of Grace, he conveys it into the hearts of men as he pleases: But no man hath reason to expect it by any other means than what God hath promised to bless. The Sacraments are of excellent use: But there is no promise extant that the bare receiving the Eucharist, whatever the disposition or indisposition of the Receiver be, shall produce this effect (and it is conferring grace in Adultis, that is now to be considered.) Nay, we are assured that he who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself. Wherefore he who promises to himself, that which God hath not promised, he who expects grace upon these terms, who receives the Sacrament upon an Opinion, that the deed done (however it be done) will bring him into a state of grace, is superstitious in so thinking and so doing.  
The Doctrine of Merit is another 
Sect. 21. Bellarm. de Justificat. lib. 9 Cap. 17.  superstitious Opinion. If Bellarmine understood it, this it is. Opera bona Justorum meritoria sunt vitae aeternae ex condigno, non solum ratione pacti & acceptationis, sed etiam ratione operis. The good works of just men do merit life eternal of condignity, not only because of the Covenant of grace, but also from the nature of the works themselves. Moreover beyond the bare merit of good works, he affirms, that as a man may merit a reward to himself, so he may make satisfaction for the release and discharge of another. And this is the foundation of their doctrine of Indulgences. Extat Thesaurus aliquis in Ecclesiâ qui sit Indulgentiarum Fundamentum. For the making good of which he thus argues and proceeds.  
Prima Propositio. In bonis actionibus 
Bellarm. de Indulgent. lib. 1. Cap. 2.  hominum Justorum duplex valor sive pretium assignari potest, meriti, viz. & satisfactionis.  
Secunda Propos. Opus bonum quâ parte meritorium est, non potest alii applicari, potest tamen quâ satisfactorium.  
Tertia Propos. Extat in Ecclesiâ Thesaurus satisfactionum ex Christi passionibus infinitus, qui nunquam exhauriri poterit.  
Quarta Propos. Ad hunc Thesaurum superfluentium satisfactionum pertinent etiam passiones B. Mariae Virgins, & omnium aliorum sanctorum qui plus passi sunt quam eorum peccata requirerent.  
That is in short. Together with the infinite value of the satisfactory sufferings of our Saviour, The sufferings of the B. Virgin Mary and all other Saints, who have suffered more than their sins required, are to be joined, by which as they have merited to themselves, so have they satisfied for others.  
How much this dishonours the Undertake of our B. Saviour, and for what other reasons we explode the Doctrine of Merit, and the appendage of satisfaction, and Indulgences, I have not now to say. The superstition of these Opinions is now to be considered.  
Bellarmin's Controversies would not have deserved the Character given them by Albertus Hungerus, in his approbation prefixed to the First Tome, viz. Integerrimum, pulcherrimum absolutissimumque Controversiarum omnium corpus, A most Entire and Complete body of Controversies; if he had balked any of the Doctrines currant at Rome. So he must write when he pleads for a party; but I think it not very difficult task, to find some acknowledgements, even in those same Books of Controversies, which would greatly weaken most of the things in difference between us, 
Bellarm. de Justificat. lib. 5. Cap. 7.  which he would establish. In this of Merit, who hath not heard of that famous resolution of his: Propter incertitudinem propriae Justitiae & periculum inanis gloriae, Tutissimum est fiduciam totam in solâ Dei misericordiâ & benignitate reponere. Because of the Uncertainty of our own righteousness, and the danger of vain glory, It is most safe to put our whole confidence only in the mercy and goodness of God.  — Sisic Omnia dixisset— 
How well does this agree with what we say in our Office of the H. Communion! We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O Merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great Mercies, etc. And with our 12 Article. Good works which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's Judgement. We will join against the Antinomians, and with great zeal assert the necessity of good works, if the merit of them may be excluded, but that we can't but charge with superstition.  
He who gives Alms, etc. does a good work acceptable to God by Jesus Christ; but he who opines, he thereby merits the favour of God (any otherwise than because God has promised to accept such services) He who apprehends such a worthiness in what he does, as that for its own sake he may expect to receive some reward, because there is some proportion and equality in it, ad praemium vitae aeternae, as Bellarmine speaks: He who designs to oblige Almighty God by his good works; hath a proud conceit of himself, who when he hath done all he can, is but an Unprofitable servant; and he has a false and undue Opinion of God, to think a man may be profitable to God, as men may be one to another. Therefore are these services superstitious, because they are performed upon false and undue Opinions, and he who thus worships God, does that which is not required at his hands.  
If these things wanted evidence, I might add their works of supererogation, their Austerities and penances, so far as they apprehend a Merit in Opere Operato. Also other things might have a place in this Argument, and might range by themselves, if they be not reducible to any of Bishop Mortons' general heads. Such as are, Their public Prayers in the Church, in a Tongue not understood of the people. Their requiring and using such a vast number of Ceremonies, which by their great excess and multitude become a burden intolerable (as the Preface to our Liturgy acknowledges) These and such like things can't be excused from superstition.  
Together with these I might add a number of observations which are neither proper to Popery, nor indeed to the Christian Religion, but are scattered all over the World. Such as St. Austin means when he complains of Millia inanissimarum observationum, etc. and such as Aquinas comprehends, when he makes divers kinds of superstition, Divinationes & varia observationum genera. Of which Customs Mahometanism and Gentilism are very full. But having given account of these before, I pass them with this general acknowledgement.  
Whatever we do upon a Religious account, where Religion, properly so called, ought not to be concerned; When any undue Opinion of God excites us to any action, when we exercise ourselves in that, which may be deservedly called, Indebitus Dei Cultus, when we think God is pleased with such a manner of performance, which does not please him; as it does well agree with the Import of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (an over-timorous and servile apprehension of the Deity) so may it properly be called superstition.  
But in as much as it is very evident, that the superstitious Opinions of the Church of Rome are rejected by the Church of England, in as much as it can't be proved, that any of our service is enjoined upon any other Opinion equally superstitious; we conclude, there is wrong done us, when superstition is laid to our charge. Yea, if peradventure some of our Church should have private Opinions of their own, that might render their particular practices superstitious, yet this is enough to deliver our service from the Imputation, and in this we persist as our just Vindication.  
There is no Canon nor Rubric, no Article nor Injunction that obliges any within our Communion to any superstitious Opinion.  
4. Proposition. 
Sect. 22.   
There are superstitious Omissions of which men may be guilty; and that then, when they seem to have a great zeal against 
Burges Answer Rejoined Preface, p. 64.  superstition. It was laid to the N. C ts. charge in King James his time, that they were guilty of negative superstition. A phrase caviled at by those who reply upon Bishop Morton, but Dr Burges has sufficiently vindicated it, and commends them to their friend Ames, who comprehends it in his definition of superstition. For when he had defined it to be an excess of Religion; He adds, cujusmodi 
Medul. Theolog. lib. 2. Cap. 13.  excessus non tantum est in exercitiis positivis, sed etiam in Abstinentiâ à quarundam rerum usu, ut àcibis. This excess of Religion is not only in what we positively do, but may be also, in what we abstain from, as Meats.  
True it is, that superstition is an excess, as it hath been defined, yet the defect in the practice may be superstitious, because it may proceed from excess in the Opinion. For if a superstitious Opinion be the reason why men abstain from the use of a Ceremony, that abstinence is as properly superstitious, as the use of it upon a superstitious Opinion can be. My Lord Bacon says well and wisely. There is 
Bacon Essay of Superstition.  a superstition in avoiding superstition, when men think to do best, if they go farthest from the superstition formerly received. There is a superstitious fearfulness in some men, of which St. Austin complains 
August. Januario. Ep. 118.  thus. Sensi saepe dolens & gemens, multas infirmorum perturbationes fieri, per quorundam fratrum contentiosam obstinationem & superstitiosam timiditatem, qui in rebus hujusmodi, quae neque sacrae scripturae Authoritate neque Universalis Ecclesiae traditione neque vitae corrigendae utilitate ad certum possunt terminum pervenire, tantum quia subest qualiscunque ratiocinatio, cogitantis qut quia in vuâ patriâ sic ipse consuevit, aut quia ibi vidit, ubi peregrinationem suam quò remotiorem à suis eò doctiorem factam putant, tam litigiosas excitant quaestiones, ut nisi quod ipsi faciunt nihil rectum existimant. Words which by a little alteration and paraphrase are but too accommodate to the case of our present Dissenters.  
To the grief of my Soul I have often observed, how weak and scrupulous minds have been miserably perplexed in matters of Religion, by the contentious obstinacy and superstitious fearfulness of some who seem to be very Godly men. Differences arise in matters Indifferent and alterable in their own natures; such as the H. Scripture hath not any where particularly determined; nor hath any tradition of the Universal Church fixed them in one certain course; nor can it be said, that for the bettering the lives of men, it must be thus, and may not be so: yet there are Jealousies and scruples in their minds, it may be they remember it otherwise in their times, and where they have lived. It may be they have been as far as Scotland, Amsterdam, or Geneva, and have a greater opinion of what is done abroad: For one reason or other they are litigious and troublesome, and think nothing well done, but what they do themselves.  
From this scrupulosity are men apt to call any thing into question, and for fear lest they should err on one hand, and run into superstition and Popery; they run as far on the other; and their Omissions are as superstitious, as they feared their practice would have been.  
Such was the case of the Jews, 
1 Machab. 2.  when they were assaulted by their Enemies on the Sabbath day; rather than violate the Sabbath by defending themselves, they tamely suffered themselves to be destroyed. The law of self-preservation could not persuade them to any resistance, and if Mattathias had not been wiser than the rest, they might all have perished.  
Such also was the superstition of the 
Knol. Turk. History.  Soldiers in Sfetigrade, when Amurath besieged it (An. 1449.) A Traitor in the City had cast a dead dog, into the only Well which supplied the City with Water: which when it was espied in the Morning by the Soldiers, no Importunity could persuade them to drink of that Water which they reputed Unclean by a dog's Carcase; so was the Governor compelled to surrender the City.  
And such surely was the conceit of that zealous man some while since among ourselves, who cut out of his Bible, the Contents of the Chapters, and so would cut out the word of God itself, that was on the other side of the page, rather than suffer any Humane mixture with the pure word of God.  
Whether the case of our N. C ts. be not somewhat parallel, is now to be considered. They suspect superstition in the use of the Surplice and Cross, etc. and therefore Religiously abstain from them; but what if this Abstinence also should be superstitious? If the Rites and Ceremonies of our Church be as they imagine, it must be, either because we judge that lawful which is Unlawful, or that necessary which is but Indifferent, or because these Ceremonies though granted in their own nature Indifferent, yet by reason of some Accident that attends them, may not be imposed, and may not be submitted to if imposed. All which things have already had their Consideration, after all which I have not doubted to conclude, that our Rites may be used without superstition.  
But now I move a doubt on the other side, to which if they cannot give a better Answer than I am ware of, they can't excuse themselves from superstition. For what other reason's Conformity may be refused I now inquire not. If any refuse it, because they cannot wear a Surplice, or use the Cross, and if any private persons neglect the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, because they cannot kneel as is commanded; I desire to know for what reasons they are not free to join with us in these Usages. Either they think them lawful or Unlawful: If lawful, such as may be submitted to, and yet for some politic respects they will not submit; this Abstinence of theirs may be free from superstition, but some other way it will be as Unaccountable: For he who without violating his Conscience can conform but will not, let him (if he can) excuse his disobedience to the Powers which God hath set over him, let him (if he can) deliver himself from the Character of a contentious man.  
If without fraud or guile, there be a man who does not act because he dare not, who is persuaded in his Conscience, he should sin against God, and do that which is Unlawful, if he should wear a Surplice, etc. This is the man whom I charge with superstition, because he judges that Unlawful, which is Indifferent, because he proceeds upon a mistake of the nature of things, because a false opinion betrays him to this abstinence. He declares hereby that he hath a wrong Notion and apprehension of God, when he thinks him displeased by such an Action, against which the Scripture hath not declared his displeasure. As men may teach for Doctrines the positive Commands of men, so may they also teach for Doctrines the prohibitions of men; and this is adding to the word of God. And in this does Ames condition take place. In illâ Abstinentiâ 
Medul. Theol. prius.  Honour aliquis singularis Deo intenditur. They conceit they Honour God by abstaining from that which is not where forbidden. It is not where said, neither in express words, nor in any equivalent phrase, That it is the will of God, no man should wear a white Garment when he Ministers in Divine Offices; that no man should kneel when he receives the Sacrament, etc. Wherefore what God hath cleansed, why should we call Common? Where is the man that hath Authority to pronounce that Unclean, which God hath not so pronounced? The necessary use of these things when they are commanded, does not take away the Indifferency of their nature, and this delivers us from superstition: But to abstain from them as Unlawful in their nature, does directly contradict the opinion of their Indifferency, and leaves the men who so abstain, under the guilt and bond of superstition.  
So may men find that at a Conventicle, which they are afraid to meet at Church. Superstition lodges in the minds of men, and they who are inclined to it, may discover it when they sit still, as well as when they move. Touch not, taste not, handle not, are not greater Indications of a superstitious abstinence, than are wear not, kneel not, Cross not; when the Doctrine of these Ceremonies is known to be Innocent and allowable. Wherefore they who are indeed afraid of superstition, who are afraid of mixing their own Inventions with the worship of God, and doing that which is not required at their hands, are concerned rightly to inform themselves, in what they are commanded to do: And when they find that the H. Scripture hath no where forbidden the use of the Surplice upon those Terms upon which it is enjoined, (only the liberty which they themselves had power to determine, is by the Magistrate determined for them, not lightly or wantonly, but for grave and weighty reasons) Let them not fear they shall transgress where there is no law. Let them not fear superstition in those practices to which they are induced by Opinions not superstitious. But on the other side let the fear be, lest they make the way to Heaven straiter than our Saviour hath made it. Lest they scruple and condemn that which does not appear unlawful. Lest they split upon Scylla while they eat Charybdis. Lest they run into superstition while they desired to avoid it, and lest an Innocent Ceremony scare them to an Unjustifyable Separation.  
FINIS.