THE VANITY OF Humane Inventions, Held forth in a brief exercitation upon the controverted CEREMONIES, managed in certain Queries: first drawn up for the satisfaction of some private Friends, and now made public for the good of others.  Psal. 119.113. 
I hate [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Vain Inventions, but thy Law do I love.  Luth. Oper. t. 2. fol. 369. 
Verè non est res in quâ vigilantior esse debet Ecclesiastes quam formando Populi judicio in Ceremoniis.  
London, Printed in the Year, 1666.   

To his much honoured and loving Friends,— the Author of the ensuing Qüeries wisheth sound Judgement, true Zeal, and unstained Purity.  
My Christian Friends & Brethren,  
THough God was pleased some years ago, out of zeal to his own Name, and pity to his poor afflicted People in these Nations, that had so long prayed, sighed and waited for deliverance to begin a happy Reformation, in extirpating the body of Popery, with much of the rubbish and trash belonging thereunto, yet have there, from first to last, still risen up some amongst us, who though they pass under the name of Protestants, yet being impatient of sound Doctrine, purity of Worship and the power of Godliness, have been so far from being duly thankful for so great a mercy, and faithful in the improvement of it, that they have not only with the illaffected Samaritans, 
Ezra 4. ●  weakened the hands of their Brethren, troubled them in building the House of the Lord, and done much towards the frustrating of their zealous purposes and designs about it, but with the discontented Israelites, 
Numb. 14.4.  preferring the Onions and Leeks of Egypt, before the Milk and Honey of Canaan, have at least implicitly and interpretatively solicited the people to return from whence they came. And amongst these (which is sad to tell) the very Stars and Angels of the Churches (as they count themselves) are the chief, 
D. Hamond Diss. 4. c. 4. Sect. 1. p. 187.  who notwithstanding all the Arguments, Complaints, Petitions and Addresses that their Brethren have at several times presented them with, to go on with the Work of the Lord, and root out the remaining Ceremonies, as well as they have done the  body of Popery, and other Ceremonies belonging to it, every jot as lawful and innocent as those which they retain, will not for all that yield to do it, but still continue, urge and impose them, to the evident hardening of Papists in their superstitious courses, the begetting of many sad thoughts and jealousies in the hearts of all such as are true to the Protestant Interest, and the occasioning of manifold and great evils amongst us. Now that you may the better understand whether this their course be just and warrantable yea or no, I shall offer to you somewhat concerning the nature of the Ceremonies, which I shall manage in these following Queries, whereby you may in some measure come to know the state of the difference betwixt them and their Brethren, and upon what ground they have cast them out of the Ministry, and thereby done what in them lies to undo, not only them and their families, but thousands of souls with them.  
Qu. 1. Whether do you not think that the Word of God contained in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, and by his good providence transmitted and handed-down from them to us, without either loss or depravation, is 〈◊〉 a complete and perfect Rule of Religion, and all matters pertaining to it, such as Faith, Worship, Discipline and Life? It testifies of itself that it is. The Law of the Lord (saith David) is perfect. 
Psa. 19.7  There is a twofold perfection of the Law of the Lord; there is perfectio certitudinis, and perfectio plenitudinis; or, a perfection of verity, and a perfection of sufficiency. The former the Psalmist spoke of before in another place, telling us that the words of the Lord are pure words, 
Psa. 12.6  as Silver tried in a furnace of Earth, purified seven times. The latter he speaks of here, signifying to us, that the Law of the Lord is not in any thing defective, but every way sufficient to teach us our duty, and lead us unto happiness. According to what he saith afterwards; I have seen an end of all Perfection, 
Psa. 119.96.  but thy Commandment is exceeding broad. Now here we are to note, that he speaks this of the Word as it was in his time, when there were only the five Books of Moses, and some few more. And if it were so perfect then, what may we judge it to be now, after the addition of so many choice and excellent Books, not then extant, wherein some things that before were dark, are there made plain; and other things that before were unrevealed, are there set down? And that the two Testaments might, like the faces of the two Cherubims, 
Exod. 25.20.  look one towards another, and in all things answer one the other: the same doctrine that the holy Ghost taught first by David, he taught aftarwards by Paul. All Scripture (saith he) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for instruction in Righteousness: 
2 Tim. 3.16, 17.  that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works. What testimony could he have given more large and full than this? what thing is there in Religion but it is either to be learned, reformed, or done? And what thing is there either to be learned, reformed or done, but it falls either under Doctrine, Reproof, Correction, or Instruction? And if it fall under any of these, the Scripture affords sufficient light and direction in it. What ever matter or business a Man of God, or Minister, hath occasion to teach, reprove, correct or instruct in, it hath wherewith thoroughly to furnish him. And herein (if in any thing that amongst Christians falls under dispute) we have the unanimous and concurrent testimony of the Ancients. 
Answ. to the Jes. Challenge. p. 36.  Bishop Usher (to mention no more) hath impanell'd a full Jury of them, and taken their verdict, which is plain and clear for us in this particular. As for Protestants, they do all, as it were with one voice, in their Confessions, Articles, and other Writings, speak forth the sense of the Ancients, assert the sufficiency of the Scripture, and profess to take it for the Judge and Measure of their Controversies in all matters of Religion whatsoever. 
Panstrat. T. 1. de Can. l. 8. c. 1. s. 17. p. 206.  Chamier hath set down the Confessions of several of their Churches about this point, wherein they do with much boldness and freedom profess and teach, that the Word of God, contained in the Writings of the Old and New Testament, comprehends in it whatever is needful for us to believe, hope for, observe, or practise, in order to the pleasing of God, and obtaining of everlasting happiness. Nay, 
Protest. App. l. 2. c. 25. sect 13. p. 330  several of the Papists themselves (as Bp. Morton shows) being overcome with the evidence and strength of Truth, do herein join with them, teaching the sufficiency of the Scripture to all religious purposes and uses whatsoever aswell as they. And if they will but keep to the vulgar Latin, 
Sess. 3. Decret. 2  which the Council of Trent appointed to be the rule and standard not only of all other versions, but but of the Originals themselves, they must needs do it. For whereas David in the forementioned place saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which our Translation renders, thy Commandment is exceeding broad; the Vulgar renders it, Latum Mandatum tuum nimis, thy Commandment is too broad; intimating that the Word of God is so far from lying under any narrowness or straitness, that it is rather full to a redundancy. And indeed it is not likely that God, who is perfect in all he doth, 
Deut. 32.4.  and would have his Servants to give him perfect obedience, should be unperfect in his Word, or deliver to them an imperfect Rule. Yet when I say the Scripture is a perfect Rule for all matters in Religion, I do not mean, it is an express, particular Rule for every individual case or circumstance belonging thereunto; that is not to be imagined. Should God have drawn us such a Rule, 
John 21.25.  the World itself would not have contained the Books that should have been written. It is a particular Rule only for Substantials, and a general one for Circumstantials, which are so numerous, various, and mutable, that no other than a general one could be expected of them. Now as we must take care, that our Substantials be such as fall under the particular directions of it; so we must take care that our Circumstantials, how small soever they may seem, be such as fall under the general directions of it.  
Qu. 2. Whether can you find in this Perfect Rule, either any thing for a ceremonious administration now in the days of the New Testament in general, or for the Ceremonies the Bishops impose, and we refuse, in particular? It speaks much against such things, but not one syllable, that I know of, for them. When our Saviour saw how many in his time were afflicted, partly with the pressure of the Ceremonial Law, and partly with the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees, who bond heavy burdens and grievous to be born, 
Mat. 23.4  and laid them upon men's shoulders: being moved with compassion, as he used to be in such cases, he invites them from them, and encourageth them to come to him, who was about to put them under an easier administration, and deal more gently with them. 
Matt. 11.28, 29, 30  Come unto me (saith he) all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest for your souls: for my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. By these that laboured and were heavy laden, 
Harm. Evangel. c. 56. p. 742  he means not only (as Lyserus shows) such as were inwardly afflicted for sin, but such as were outwardly afflicted with Ceremonies and Traditions. So that his words imply as much as if he had said, My Disciples and followers, I see you are afflicted both inwardly and outwardly; your minds are afflicted with the sense of sin, and the apprehensions of the Wrath of God due unto you for it; your bodies are afflicted with the Ceremonial Law, and the Traditions of those hard Taskmasters, the Scribes and Pharisees; but be of good cheer, I undertake to free you both from the one and the other. And accordingly we find that when the Scribes & Pharisees came to him, and complained of his Disciples for refusing to comply with them in the tradition of washing of hands before meat, 
Mat. 15.3  he was so far from accepting the complaint, that he very sharply blames them for their vanity in that and such like things, encouraging his Disciples to persist in maintaining their just Liberty. Yet when I say that he invited the People from the Legal Ceremonies, I do not mean that he did it with reference to the present, for the time of actual freedom was not as yet come, but with reference to the future, intending thereby to comfort them under the bondage they were then in, and prepare them for their approaching deliverance. And when the fullness of time was come, rather than he would fail to perform what he had obliged himself to do, 
Gal 4.4, 5.  by suffering them to continue under that ceremonious burdensome administration, he lays down his Life to redeem them from it, 
Col. 2.14  blotteth out the hand-writing of Ordinances that was against them, which was contrary to them, takes it out of the way, and nails it to his Cross. And he is no sooner dead but the merit & efficacy of his Death beginning to work, the types and shadows begin to flee away. According to that of the Church, until the day break, 
Cant. 2.17.  and the shadows flee away; turn my Beloved, and be thou like a Roe, or a young Hart upon the mountains of Bether. In which words the Church of the old Testament begs the aid and assistance of Christ, for her support and comfort, till the day should break, and the shadows flee away; that is, till the day of his Death, at which time she foresaw that the old ceremonious administration, consisting in types and shadows, would give place to a new one, of a more spiritual and simple nature. And as she foresaw, so it came to pass; for, as upon the rising of the natural Sun the day breaks, and the shadows of the night flee away; so upon the coming and death of Christ, 
See Mr. Brightman in loc.  the mystical Sun, the Sun of Righteousness, the types and shadows began to flee away. As when the Building is set up, the Scaffold is taken down; so when Christ was come, and had offered himself to his Father, and done the work he came about, he took down that paedagogical subservient Administration of the Ceremonies, giving order that they should be laid aside. This the renting in twain of the Veil of the Temple from the top to the bottom held forth. 
Mat 27 51.  And behold (saith the Evangelist) the Veil of the Temple was rend in twain from the top to the bottom. For the better understanding of this, we are to note that there were two Vails belonging to the Temple: the one hanged betwixt the outward Court and the Holy-place, where the Priests officiated: the other betwixt the Holy-place and the Holy of Holies; and it is that which the Evangelist here meaneth. Now within this Veil there were certain things of a typical ceremonious nature, and esteemed most sacred; as the Ark, the Golden Censer, Aaron's Rod, the Pot of Manna, with other things: all which the Veil kept from the view of the people. God therefore by his own immediate hand renting this Veil, took away the distinction both of place and things, 
Vid. Aug. tom. 10. Append. Serm. 41. pag. 675: Ed. Paris. Cloppenb. schol. Sacrif. pag. 137. Exod. 20.18.  and shown that what they prefigured was come, and that thenceforth they were to be laid aside. As all that thundering, lightning, and smoking that was upon Mount Sinai, shown that the Ceremonial Law (aswel as the Judicial and Moral) then to be de●●●●●ed, was divine and to be observed; so the renting of the Veil of the Temple (with the other miraculous works that accompanied it) shown that it then ceased to be divine, and was no longer to be observed. And thus the Apostles, Elders and Brethren, assembled together at Jerusalem to consult about the Ceremonies, understood the matter, as appears by the Decree they then made concerning them. 
Acts 15.28.  It seemed good (say they) to the holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered to Idols, from Blood, and from things strangled, and from Fornication; from which if you keep yourselves, ye shall do well. And thus Paul likewise understood the matter, and thereupon, notwithstanding all the reverence he once bore to the Jewish Religion, and the several Ceremonies belonging to it, he calls them all to nought, terms them carnal Ordinances, worldly Rudiments, 
Heb. 9.10 Col. 2.8. Gal. 4.9.  beggarly Elements, and the like; persuading those he writes to, to lay them aside, maintain the liberty purchased them by Christ, and not burden themselves either with those, or any other unprofitable useless Rites, that superstitious and ill-minded men might urge upon them. Thus you see the Scripture hath much against Ceremonies, but where hath it any thing for them? 
Vid. Hoorrib. count. Jud. l. 7. c. 1. p. 446. Spanhem. Dub. part 3. p. 548.  It is plain (as I have here briefly intimated, and Christian Writers have at large proved, against the Jews) touching the taking down of the old Ceremonies, but where saith it any thing for the setting up of new ones? saving Water in Baptism, and Bread and Wine in the Supper, it mentions not any Religious standing Ceremonies be-belonging to these days of the New Testament. 

See Gillesp. Disp. against Cerem. part 3. c. 6. p. 207.  
Aims Fresh suit part 2. p. 334.   As for Imposition of Hands, Love-Feasts, The Kiss of Charity, women's Veils, and such like, they were of a mere civil nature, common to other Persons as well as Christians, and to other Actions as well as Religious. And as for Anointing of the Sick, it seems to have been of a temporary nature, according to the gift of miraculous healing that went along with it.  
Qu. 3. Whether, if it had been the will of God, that his Church in the days of the New Testament, should have worshipped him in the use of Ceremonies, would he not have appointed them himself, now, as well as he did before? Nay, whether if he had had any such will, when he appointed some, such as Water in Baptism, Bread and Wine in the Supper, would he not have appointed the rest? What reason can be rendered wherefore he should appoint them before, and not now; some, and not all? We know when it was his pleasure, that the Jews in the time of the Old Testament, should worship him in the use of Ceremonies, he appointed them himself, 
〈◊〉 27.19.  and that so particularly, that he went to the very Pins of the Taberncle. And when the time designed for their continuance was expired, he did likewise himself abolish them. And therefore no doubt if it had been his pleasure, that the Church in the days of the New Testament, should have worshipped him in the use of Ceremonies, he would have appointed them himself, as he did before, that so they might have come forth in his Name, and have had a Divine Stamp upon them as theformer had; and would never have left the appointing of them to Men, who he well knew would be unbridled, and unsatiable in introducing their own Inventions into his Worship. But it is very evident, that he wholly took down the former, saying not so much as one word, either by Himself, his Son, or his Apostles, concerning the setting up of any other in their stead, saving those before mentioned; which plainly shows it was never his pleasure, that his Church in the days of the Gospel should worship him in a Ceremonious way. For, what reason can any give, wherefore he should be so exact and punctual in appointing them heretofore and not now, if it had been his pleasure that his Church should worship him in the use of them now as it did then? 
Bell. l. 1. de Rom-Pont. l. 4. c. 17. p. 338. Imp. Agrip.  Perhaps our Adversaries will here fall in with the Jesuits, as they use, and say, That though Ceremonies might be determined for one Nation, such as Judaea, that was but a little spot of ground, yet not for the whole World, and that in regard of the great diversity of persons, places, occasions and conditions. The same Ceremonies that would have been decent and comely in one place, would have been ridiculous and foolish in another. But there is little strength in this; for why might not the command of Christ have made other Ceremonies acceptable to all Places and People, as well as those which he did appoint, or as well as other things which he commanded them to observe; such as self-abasing, mortification, forgiving wrongs, loving enemies, and the like; which are as much, nay far more inconsistent with their customs and fashions, than any of the Ceremonies under dispute, are? The Laws of Christ have many things in them that suited no better, no, nor so well as the Ceremonies imposed on us would have done, had he enjoined them; yet did not that either cause him to forbear the giving forth of his Laws, or his Servants the publishing of them. But suppose that Gestures, Vestures, & some other of the Ceremonies could not well have been pitched upon for all Nations, in regard of the diversity of the Circumstances before named, yet this is no sufficient reason why none of them might; for there are some of them that have no such dependence on those Circumstances. As to instance in the Sign of the Cross; what reason can any show, wherefore if it had been the pleasure of Christ that his Church should have used it, that he did not appoint it himself? I hope none will say, because of the diversity of places, persons or the like; for why might not it have been as welcome to all places and persons, as the Doctrine of Faith itself, had it been enjoined? Wherein would the one have disagreed more with the Customs and Fashions of People than the other? Nothing at all; no, nor near so much. It is evident then, that Christ being silent concerning the Ceremonies contended for, when as he might have appointed them (especially that last mentioned) as well as other things, or as well as the Church did in after Ages, that it was not his pleasure that they should be made use of, at least that they should be made so necessary as they are. And if it were not his pleasure that they should be so, let those who stand so much for them, and urge them under such severe penalties, see how they will justify it.  
Qu. 4. Whether, though God hath not instituted any Ceremonies for these days of the New Testament himself, save those few , hath he yet empowered the Church to do it? It does undoubtedly belong to God, to prescribe things belonging to Religion; and he all along hath done it, either immediately by himself, or mediately by those whom he authorized and enabled by special inspirations, and abilities to do it. Now since Ceremonies are things belonging to Religion, and he hath no where appointed them himself, Whether can it be made to appear from any authentic and sufficient evidence, that he hath empowered the Church, or any Person or Persons whatsoever, to do it? Our Adversaries in the twentieth Article, tell us that the Church hath Power to decree Rites and Ceremonies. But 1. We would gladly know how they came by that Clause in the Article. We find it not in the Articles of Edward the sixth, nor in that of Queen Elizabeth, confirmed by Act of Parliament, nor in those of Ireland, though taken verbatim out of the English, and therefore suspect they have not played us fair play. They have served us so many feats of Legerdemain in matters of this nature (some whereof you may find mentioned in the Author quoted in the Margin) that they must not take it ill, 
Mr. Pryn Apol. Sect. 1. p. 3.  if we have a jealous eye over them. But, 2. Admit this clause in the Article were genuine, yet we would know how the Church came by this power of decreeing Rites and Ceremonies. Hath God any where in Scripture committed such a power to her? Can they lead us to any Command or Grant therein, whereby they may with any colour or show of reason conceive her invested with such a power? What Charter (as a learned friend of their own saith) hath Christ given the Church to bind men up to more than himself hath done? 
Mr. Stillingf. Iren pref. p. 8.  Till they have showed us somewhat in Scripture to that purpose (which we believe they will never do) they must give us leave to take it for granted, that she hath no such Power committed to her. Indeed the Contents of Psalm. 149. make a show as if the Holy Ghost in that Scripture exhorted us to praise God for that power which he hath given the Church to rule the Consciences of men. But there is no mention at all of the Consciences of men in it. And that any Society, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, should have power over the Consciences of men, is a point so in jurious to the Prerogative of Christ, & every way so absurd, that I hope, those whom we now deal with, will not dare to own it, & therefore I shall say no more of this. The place they most trust in, and which upon all occasions they retire to as their Sanctuary, is that of Paul, 
1 Cor. 14.40.  Let all things be done decently and in order. This is the only place that the Church of England, in the Discourse prefixed to the Book of Common-Prayer, concerning Ceremonies, insists on. And are not our Adversaries and their Ceremonies in a desperate condition, when this is all they have to show out of the Word of God for them? Ceremonies are external Rites and Figures, which by reason of some Analogy or similitude, are instituted to shadow forth some divine mystical Truths, which Nature never appointed them to do. And what are Decency and Order to these? May not we as well as the Primitive Reformed Churches, do all things Decently and in Order without these? 
Aims, Fresh Suit, part 2. p. 80.  Hear what a man of great judgement in these as well as in other Controversies, writes on this passage. Those (saith he) that are devoted to the Ceremonies, may shufflle up and down, first to Order, and when they are beaten thence, to Decency, and from thence when they can defend that no longer, to Edification, as the rejoinder doth: But all will not help. Let them pitch or insist upon one of these grounds, without starting, I will pawn my head their Anchor will come home to them again, as finding no fast ground either in Order, or Decency, or Edification, for double significant Ceremonies (such as ours) to ride at. Thus he. And whosoever will lay aside partiality and prejudice, and read the place with an indifferent mind, shall find that the Apostle (as Expositors both ancient and modern show) aims not at Ceremonies either Jewish or Christian, but mere circumstances of order, necessary in genere, which humane Ceremonies are not. He speaks not at all of devising or framing any new matters, but of the prudent determining and ordering of such as were already made, and at the Corinthians free choice, so that they might either take them, or refuse them, as they should judge most fit, in order to the edifying, decent and orderly carrying-on of the Work of Christ. As for instance; he will have the Prophets to speak in a known tongue, one by one, submitting themselves to the judgement of others. The women he will have to keep silence, etc. And what is this for the authorising of any to institute a company of mystical, significant rites, good for nothing (as experience hath abundantly proved) but to trouble the Church and beget strife amongst Brethren? nothing at all. 
T. 3. de Bapt. l. 1. c. 24. p. 131.  And therefore Bellarmine, having mentioned the sign of the Cross, and some other matters used by us in Baptism, challengeth our Writers to prove any of them either from Testimonies or Examples of holy Scripture. What the Ceremonies under debate are, for decency and order, shall appear in due place.  
Qu. 5. Whether, since God hath no where empowered the Church to institute Ceremonies, she may take upon her to do it without Warrant from him? If we may measure her power in these days by what it was in former, she may not. Hear what God saith to the Jewish Church; Ye shall observe (saith he) to do as the Lord your God hath commanded you: 
Deut. 5.32.  you shall not turn aside to the right-hand, or to the left. Again; What thing soever I command you, 
Deut. 12.32.  observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Mark, he doth not only forbid them to add to his Commandment, but to that which he commanded; which is so plain and full, that one would think it should make those who believe the Scriptures, cautious how they introduce any thing of their own into the Worship of God. But leaving precepts, I shall offer you some particular instances, which may serve to clear this matter. Abel, Noah, and other ancient Patriarches, offered external Sacrifices unto God; but did they do it of their own heads? no, but as Cappellus showeth, 
Thes. Sal. part 1. de Orig. & Nec. scrip Sect. 9 p. 38.  at his appointment, made known to them in such a way as at that time he revealed himself. And if we come to the Church in after-ages, when she was attained to greater perfection, and was fit for such a work, durst she then do it? no, neither by one person, or many, how wise and holy soever. What a wise and great man was Moses? he was God's especial Favourite, and faithful in all his House, 
Exod. 39, 42, 43.  yet durst not he in building the Tabernacle go one jot beyond his pattern. And what an eminent man was David? he was the Light of Israel, and a man after God's own heart, 
2. Sam. 7.7.  yet might not he build God an house without special order from him. Though God did both intent, and had foretold in the Scripture, that he would have an House built where he would cause his Name to dwell, yet might not he undertake to do it, without a positive licence from him. And what a famous man was Solomon? he was so wise that all the Kings of the Earth admired him, and sought to him; 
2 Chron. 18.19. ● Chr. 3.3.  yet durst not he do any thing in building the Temple but what was agreeable to the instructions God had delivered in writing to David his father about it. He durst not engrave an Image upon the Wall, hang up a Veil, set up a Candlestick or Lamp, bring in a Singer or Instrument of Music, but what God had appointed him. Nay, he durst not bring in so much as a Shovel, Spoon, or any such thing, but what he had received special order for from God. And if we come into the New Testament, what a choice man was Paul? what rare and excellent gifts had God blessed him with? yet when he himself had received no Commandment about Marriage, he would not command any thing concerning it, but as he finds it a thing indifferent, 
1 Cor. 7.6  he declares it to be so, & so leaves it, saving that as a Minister of the Gospel he gives his opinion and advice about it, without imposing any thing. And if we leave single persons, and come to societies; what a grave and orthodox Council was that at Jerusalem? 
Act. 15.28  yet durst not they decree or impose any thing upon the Churches but what the holy Ghost directed them to, and suggested as necessary. And durst not such persons as these, who were Prophets and Apostles, and guided by an unerring Spirit, institute any thing without Command from God, and yet may our Convocation-men, when they have neither received any Command from God, neither were elected by those whom they pretend to represent, adventure to do it? Would not such persons as those command but where God had commanded, nor forbidden but where he had forbidden, and yet may they do it? Would not such persons lose where he had bound, nor bind where he had loosed, and yet will they do it? This shows they have either more power or less caution; but whether of the two it is, let the indifferent judge. If we may credit the Judgement of our learnedst & soundest reformed Writers, whom God made so eminently instrumental in restoring the Church to her primitive simplicity and purity, it is not lawful to set up, urge or use any thing in the Worship of God, above or besides what he himself hath appointed. Calvin (who was a man so much admired and honoured by Andrews, Downham, Hooker, and other of the most grave and learned Advocates amongst us for the Ceremonial way, choose what some latter of less note through either ignorance or prejudice have to their own disgrace suggested against him) speaking of the Lord's Supper, saith, it is a thing so sacred and holy, 
Epist ad Protect. Angl. p. 69. Ed. fo●  that it is a sin to defile it with any humane additions. Where note, that he doth not speak this, as if some additions were defilements, and others not; but that  is done to it by way of addition, without warrant from God, is so. And Zanchy speaks to the same purpose. In external Worship (saith he) which belongs to God, 
Vol 2. de sec. Praec. c. 14. col. 262. Decret. part 2. caus. 11. q 3. c. 101  or in Ceremonies, we may not mingle any thing of our own head. Nay, the very Canon Law itself determineth, that he who is Precedent, if he say any thing, or command besides the Will of God, or besides what is evidently commanded in the Scriptures, let him be looked upon as a false Witness of God, or Sacrilegious. Notwithstanding this, and much more that might be alleged both out of Scripture and other eminent Authors against the Churches having power to institute significant Rites and Ceremonies, our Adversaries still affirm that she may do it; and for proof thereof, they produce several instances out of Scripture, such as the gesture of Abraham's Servant in swearing to his Master; the Altar of Jordan; the Feasts of Dedication and Purim, with several others of the like nature: but how impertinent and alien they are to the matter in hand, 
Packer of the Cress, par. 1. c. 2. sect. 33, 34. p. 109. Aims fresh suit part 2. p. 104. Oil esp. Disp. agt. Engl. Cerem. part. 3. p. 200.  divers learned men have particularly manifested; whom when they have answered, we shall better know what to say to them. Do but set out natural signs of devotion and seriousness, and moral signs of civil subjection and respect: and such things as were done by the special suggestion and instinct of the Spirit of God: and such things as were extorted by extraordinary Providences and urgent necessities: as also such things as were Politic Acts or Civil Observations: and such things as were done without any general or particular Warrant from God, and so were unlawful; I say, do but set these and such like matters, altogether alien to the present business, and then see what all their instances, wherewith they make such a goodly flourish, will contribute towards the proving of a power in the Church to institute religious, significant Rites, when God hath neither in general nor in special (as I have before shown) appointed or licenced her to do it.  
Qu. 6. Whether, since the Church may not institute Ceremonies without order from God, is it not a bold and impious presumption in her to attempt to do it? Whether is it not an high affronting of his Sovereign Authority, Wisdom and Goodness? Whether doth she not thereby do as much as tell the World that he is so far from Sovereign Authority, that it belongs not to him only to make Laws and Ordinances for the management of his Service, but to her likewise: and that he is so far from infinite Wisdom that she is fain to come after him and supply the defects of his Institutions with her Inventions: and that he is so far from infinite Goodness, that he neglects her, and provides not for her matters of Decency and Order, as he should do? Whether doth she not as much as say, 
1 Tim. 5.8  that though the very Infidel provides conveniencies for his family, yet God provides not for his? And if this be not an high affronting of him, what is? 
Mat. 15.3  If the Scribes and Pharisees did so far offend in those darker times, by urging of that innocent and decent Rite, the washing of hands before meat, (for so it was in itself) how do those offend that in these Sunshine days of the Gospel, do urge things of a far worse nature, to the great hindrance of Religion, and disturbance of the Peace of the Faithful?  
Qu. 7. Whether, since the Church may not institute Ceremonies without Warrant from God, is it not very dangerous, aswel as presumptuous, for her to do it? The Scripture is plain that it is. God doth therein not only forbid us to do less than he hath required, but more. 
Deut. 4.2  As he forbids us to diminish from the Word that he commands us, so he forbids us to add to it. As he forbids us to fall short in our righteousness by doing less than he hath commanded; so he forbids us to exceed in it, by doing more than he hath commanded. And he doth not only forbid us to do it, but by severe and dreadful denunciations labours to deter us from it. 
Ecc. 7.16.  Be not righteous overmuch (saith he) neither make they self over-wise; why shouldest thou destroy thyself? And Paul anathematizeth that Man or Angel that shall preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, above what he had preached. Though we (saith he) or an Angel from Heaven, 
Gal. 1.8, 9  preach any other Gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other Gospel unto you, than that ye have received, let him be accursed. And John closeth up the Bible with a passage of the like nature; 
Rev. 22.18.  I testify (saith he) unto every man that heareth the words of the Prophecy of this Book; if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book. As we count that which is above, or besides a man's will, to be contrary to it; so God counts every thing that men teach, observe and do in his Church, that is above or beside his Word, to be no other than contrary to it. Hen. 2d. the Emperor was wont to say, Ne quid nimis; overdoing is underdoing: and indeed so God esteems of it and reputes it. He takes himself to be as much disobeyed and dishonoured when he seethe men do more than he hath commanded, as when they do less. Nay we do not find that the flames of his wrath have broken forth with greater fury upon any than Innovators, or those that have brought into his House and Worship such things as he did not appoint. How memorably was his hand upon Nadab and Abihu? The relation saith, they took either of them his Censer, and put fire therein, 
Leu. 10.1, 2.  and Incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not; and there went out fire from before the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. Here we have two things considerable; their sin and their punishment. Their sin consisted in this, that in their sacrificing they used such fire as God had not commanded. God left not the choice of fire any more than other things to them, but appointed it himself; and they should have kept to his appointment, but they declined from it, left it, and so sinned. In Religious matters, and especially in the Worship of God, it's not only sinful to go contra Statutum, but to go supra Statutum. 
Vid Am's Bell. Ener t. 1. p. 9  Or to speak home in the case, in Resigious matters acting supra Statutum is all one with acting contra Statutum. Therein God's not requiring is equivalent to forbidding; and doing more than he commandeth, to do doing contrary to it. Then, as we have their sin, so we have their punishment, and that is very remarkable; there went out a fire from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. Though they were the sons of Aaron, and men of renown, yet God was so provoked with this offence, that he slew them before him, and that both suddenly and dreadfully: Suddenly, for he gave them not so much as the least time of repentance, but destroyed them immediately, even as they stood before the Astar. Dreadfully, for he did it by fire, the most furious and terrible of all the elements. Formerly it came in mercy, now in judgement. Formerly it devoured the Sacrifices, now the Sacrificers. We see then, when men bring their own Inventions into the Worship of God, they are so far from having the Sacrifices they offer accepted, that they do no less than expose themselves to the danger of becoming a Sacrifice to Justice. A further instance we have in the Temple at Jerusalem in the days of the New Testament. When our Saviour had by his Death abolished the Ceremonial Law, and appointed it to be laid aside, and the Jews would notwithstanding keep it up, God was so incensed against them, that he takes that stately Temple, sets it on a flame, and burns it to ashes; thereby accomplishing his own Sons Prophecy, 
Luk. 21.6  As for these things which ye behold, the days will come in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. For men either to set up Inventions of their own, or to keep up any Ordinances of God longer than the time for which they were designed, 
Vit. Fab. p. 179. graecol.  is provoking and dangerous. Plutarch tells of Manlius Torquatus, that though his Son fought valiantly, yet because he exceeded his Commission, he struck off his head. In like manner, those who in the Worship and Service of God exceed his Commands, may upon good grounds fear the breaking forth of his wrath upon them, as the just recompense of their presumption. God hath appointed his Word for the Rule of our service, and he will not have us turn either to the right hand or to the left, either to do more or to do less than it commands, but to keep to it without any deflection whatsoever.  
Qu. 8. Whether is it likely that God would utterly abolish and remove such Ceremonies as were of his own Institution, to make way for such as are of men? 
Comment in Joh. 4.23.  This Bucer urges against the Papists. If God (saith he) approve not of those Ceremonies which the Patriarches long ago, being taught by his Spirit, observed in their Temples on Mount Garizim, or elsewhere, nor of those which afterwards he delivered by Moses, how much less will he approve of those which men have since invented, without the direction of his Spirit, to the irreparable loss of the 〈◊〉, and the liberty purchased by Christ? Ours likewise Dr. Whitaker inges to Bellarm. 
T. 2. Cont. 4. q. 7. c. 3. p. 727.  What (saith he) were the Old Figures taken away that there might be room for new ones? Were these that were Divine taken away, that such as are Humane might succeed them? And this likewise Amesius urges to him. 
Bell. ener. t. 2. p. 251  God (saith he) took away his own Ceremonies of the Old Testament, which were as teaching Images, not that he might make way for humane Images, but for spiritual Worship and Teaching. Nay, the reason of this consideration is so manifest and certain, that some of our Adversaries skilfullest Advocates do acknowledge it, nay improve it themselves against a Ceremonious Administration. He (saith one of them) that came to take away the insupportable yoke of Jewish Ceremonies, 
Mr. Stillingf. Iren. pref. p. 8.  certainly did never intent to gall the necks of his Disciples with another instead of it. Either men are fit to institute Ceremonies, or not; if they are, why did not God leave it to them in the time of the Old Testament? if they are not, how can we think he would leave it to them in the time of the New? Doubtless his care of his Church is as great now as it was then, and therefore if he would have been worshipped in the use of Ceremonies, as before-time he was, he would either have kept up the Old ones, or else have instituted New ones himself, without leaving it to the prudence of men, which he knows is attended with so much folly and vanity.  
Qu. 9 Whether do you think that the Ceremonies under dispute, are at the best in themselves any more than things indifferent? The Convocation-House itself challenges no more to them; and therefore speaking in one of their Canons of the Sign of the Cross, 
Can. 30.  they represent it as established upon Rules of Doctrine concerning things indifferent. 
T. 3. de Eff. Sac. l. 2. c. 31. p. 92.  Though with Bellarmine they hold them necessary in respect of observation when they are enjoined, yet they confess, that in themselves they are indifferent, and that therefore it is in the power of Authority either to continue or remove them, impose or leave them free, as they shall think meet.  
Q. 10. Whether if the Ceremonies are indifferent in their nature, they should not be so in their use? Things indifferent are such things as are neither commanded nor forbidden, and upon that account are neither virtuous nor sinful. If therefore the Ceremonies are of this nature, whether should not our Adversaries leave it to their Brethren to close with them or refuse them, as they shall think sit? Whether should they censure them any more for omitting them, than they do them for using them? The Scripture saith no. 
Rom. 14.3  Let not him (saith Paul) that eateth despise him that eateth not. Again, 
1 Cor. 10.29.  Why (saith he) is my liberty judged of another man's Conscience? In all matters of indifferency we should certainly exercise mutual indulgence one toward another, without making any disturbance or raising any strife about them. Bishop Jewel shows out of Cyprian, and Mr. Parker out of August. Jerom. Gregory, 
Repl. art. 2. p. 117. of the Cross part 2. c. 7. sect. 22. p. 91. ●iet. ord. Holland. p. 60. & passim.  that it should be thus. And Grotius saith, That in every Church those are to be tolerated, that differ about things not simply necessary. And our first Reformers (as all know) did in many things comply with and yield to the Papists for the winning of them. And if they complied with and yielded to them for the winning of them, whether may not we reasonably expect that our Adversaries, in these things of indifferency should comply with and yield to their Brethren who in all Fundamentals at least, agree with them, for the winning of them? If the Ceremonies are necessary, wherefore do they say they are indifferent? If they are indifferent, wherefore do they urge them as necessary? God would have necessary things to remain necessary, and indifferent things to remain indifferent. And it is not in the power of any humane Authority whatsoever to alter either the one or the other; either to make necessary things indifferent, or indifferent things necessary; but when they have done all that they can, necessary things will be necessary, and indifferent things will be indifferent. 
Confess. Basil art. 10. p. 137.  We believe (say the Divines of Basil) that as no man may command where Christ hath not commanded, so no man may forbid where Christ hath not forbidden. And Chamier, 
T. 3. l. 15 c. 8. s. 6. p. 325.  speaking in the name of the Protestant Churches, concerning the Authority of the Church, saith, We deny that she can change the nature of things; that those which were in themselves indifferent, should become necessary. And thus I might without troubling you any further, have dismissed this Querie; but finding that the learned Author whom I mentioned before hath lately delivered somewhat contrary to that which I have here maintained, I shall make a little stay to consider it, 
Mr Stillingfl. Iren. c. 2. sect. 9 p. 54.  and inquire into the truth of it. He affirms, That lawful Authority may command any thing that may be lawfully done. But this I conceive is not sound. For, 1. To say nothing of what I have already urged, the Magistrate must not only see that what he commands be lawful; that is to say, not sinful, but that it be good, expedient and profitabe; and that for this reason, because the end for which God hath set him on high above his brethren, and invested him with supereminent power, is, That he may be his Minister to us for good. 
Rom. 13.4.  He hath not any power but what he hath from God, and he hath not any power from God but what is for our good. There is not any Ordinance God hath instituted, any Officers he hath appointed, or any power that he hath given, but it is for our good. The Apostles were men of extraordinary power, 
Ephes. 4.12. 2 Cor. 10.8.13.10. 1 Cor. 14.26.  yet for all that, they had not any but what was for the Church's edification; neither might they teach, require, or do any thing but what tended to it. And the like may be said of all other Officers, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, ordinary or extraordinary. The end of their power is the common good, and they may not do any thing but what is both consistent therewith, and leads thereunto. If therefore the Magistrate will answer the end of his power, which by all means he is to endeavour, he must see that whatever he commands or does, have a real and proper tendency in it to the good of those over whom he ruleth. Now the commanding of unnecessary things, not tending unto the the common good (for if it did they were not unnecessary) and consequently not answering the end of his power, he may not do it. 2. There are many things that God hath so far committed to us, and settled upon us, that he hath left them wholly at our own disposal, to be used freely, and as common discretion shall prompt us, for the good of ourselves and others; so that though we may lawfully of our own accord retain or let them go, do them or omit them, yet Authority may not lawfully constrain us either to the one or the other without manifest abridging of our Liberty. 
1 Sam. 18.4.  Jonathan might lawfully strip himself of the Robe that was upon him and give it to David, with his graments, even to his Sword, his Bow, and his Girdle; and Nehemiah might lawfully refuse to take Bread, 
Neh. 5.15.  Wine, and Money from the People; and Zacheus might lawfully give half of his goods to the poor; 
Luke 19.8.  yet might not Authority have lawfully enjoined them to do it. Our reverend Fathers may with Paul lawfully labour with their hands, 
1 Cor. 4.12.11.15.8.8.  forbear taking of wages, and eating of flesh, with many other things that I could name, and yet if Authority should command them to do it, I believe they would not well resent it. Every man may lawfully wear a Buff Coat; and yet if Authority should enjoin all to do it, perhaps some that pretend greatest respect and Loyalty would count it but hard measure. And if they should, 
Vol. 3. t. 8. epist. l. 1. col. 245.  they would yet have Zanchius to second them. For he, speaking to Queen Elizabeth, in that golden Epistle which he wrote to her against the Ceremonies, saith, What if your Majesty should command all English Men that leaving their ancient grave and comely attire, they should wear Turkish Coats or Soldier's habit, Who would ever count such a Decree just? And it is much less praiseworthy that godly Pastors should be enjoined to lay aside or change the honest and ancient Apparel which the Apostles wore, viz. the common grave Habit, and put on the ridiculous and execrable Garments of Mass-Priests. Much more might be said to this particular, 
See this case hanled by the reverend and learned Mr. Baxt Disp. of Church Govern. p. 460.  but I shall perhaps have occasion to speak further of it hereafter, and therefore shall at present forbear, and go on with what I was about to propound.  
Qu. 11. Whether, if the Ceremonies are indifferent in their Nature and aught to be so in their Use, should not our Adversaries comply and bear with the Consciences of their weak Brethren, since they neither neglect the use of due means for satisfying them, nor carry themselves contemptuously towards the Authority that enjoins them? The Scripture is plain that they should. Such was the condescension and compassion of Christ towards his Disciples, that he was ready upon all occasions to comply with the Infirmities both of their souls and bodies. 
Gen. 33.14. Mar. 4.33 Mat. 15.3 9.15.12.3:  He used not rigour and severity, but like Jacob, he led on softly as they were able to endure. He spoke the Word to them as they were able to bear it. And when the Scribes and Pharisees came to him, and accused them for transgressing the Traditions of the Elders, in not washing hands before meat; he finds no fault with them, but with those that accused them. And in like manner, when the Disciples of John came to him and complained of them, that they fasted not; and the Pharisees, that they plucked the ears of corn on the Sabbath day, he does not only bear with them, but excuse for them. And as he carried it thus gently towards his Disciples, so they carried it gently one towards another. 
Acts 15.28.  The Council at Jerusalem would not burden their brethren with any other, then necessary things. And (saith Paul) We that are strong aught to bear the infirmities of the weak, 
Rom. 15.1, 2, 3.  and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification; for even Christ pleased not himself, etc. And this spirit of Christian tenderness that wrought thus in the hearts of the Apostles, wrought also in the eminent Pastors of the Church in after ages. Though they were for the observation of some Ceremonies, yet (as Mr. Parker proves by various instances) they would not have them pressed upon any, any further than they were willing to close with them. 
Of the Cress part 1. c. 2. sect 17. p. 86. and part 2. c. 5 sect 10. p. 17. Tom. 1. de Rom. pontiff l. 4 c. 18: p: 339. De Eccl. l. 2. tract. 13. in Ep. ad Paul. 4. fol. 542. Of Christian subject. part. 1. p. 46.  And such is the ingenuity of Bellarm. that whereas the Church of Rome imposes fasting on all, he interprets the Canon so favourably, that he exempts Children, the Aged, Sick and all such who are not able to bear it. And such was the boldness of Andrew Frisius, that though he were a Papist, yet he sticks not to expostulate with the Pope himself about this business. If (saith he) it be indifferent, wherefore may it not le lawful to those that will to use both? For this is the nature of things indifferent, that the use of them should neither profit nor prejudice any. Nay herein we have the suffrage of some of our Adversaries chief friends. Dr. Bilson (after Bishop of Winchester) speaking of the power of the Magistrate, saith, We may not for things indifferent trouble the weak minds of our Brethren. 
Epist. ad Comit. Leicestr.  And Dr. Pilkington (who was after Bishop of Durham) saith, that the strict imposing of things indifferent amongst us destroys Christian Liberty, for that liberty turned into necessity is liberty no longer. It appears then, if we may either heed Christ, or his Apostles, or the Ancients, or the Papists, or our Adversaries own friends, that we should in matters of less moment, such as things indifferent, exercise forbearance and tenderness towards each other: As the weak must not envy the strong, so neither must the strong despise or trouble the weak, but leave them to enjoy the privilege proper to their state. They must do all they can to edify and further them, but nothing whereby they may discourage of hinder them, lest they occasion their fall, and so become accessary to their ruin.  
Qu. 12. Whether, if the Ceremonies are but things indifferent, and aught to be used as such; should not our Adversaries prefer the peace of the Church before them? If they should, then whether do they well to urge them to the begetting such lamentable Auimosities and Divisions amongst us? Though they pretend they impose them in order unto Unity, yet Experience teacheth, and they cannot but know it, that the imposing of such matters hath ever proved the certain means of Rents and Divisions. 
Mat. 15.2  When the Scribes and Pharisees would be urging the washing of hands upon the Disciples, what did it produce but parties and complaints? And when the false Apostles afterwards urged Circumcision, 
Act. 15.2.  what was the issue of it but strife and contention? And when Victor in succeeding Ages would have all to celebrate Easter at the same time, 
Euselius Eccl. hist l. 5. c. 25. gr. Sleidan. Com. l. 20 p. 369.  what did it less than set all Christendom on a flame? And when Charles the 5th published the Interim, it did not only make the contention hotter betwixt the Papists and the Protestants, but also amongst the Protestants themselves, setting every man's sword against his fellow. And when Augustine the Monk would reduce the Bishops of Britain to the Western mode, 
Sir Hen. Spelman. Counc. ●● p. 111.  what came of it but the Martyrdom of eleven hundred pious and painful Monks at Bangor, who withstood him in his impositions? And so he (as a learned Author descants upon him) who was termed Gregorii Vicarius became Gregis Sicarius; and he who was sent to be Ecclesiae futurae Anglicanae Conversor, 
Mr. Wheelock not. in Bedam. p. 115.  proved to be Praesentis Brittanicae Eversor. And what work the urging of the Ceremonies of latter times hath made amongst us, all Europe is witness. How many Persons, Families, Congregations hath it ruined and undone? what a world of Variance hath it made amongst Brethren, who afore-time lived in peace and love together, that now can scarce endure the company or sight of each other? How hath it filled the hearts of men with jealousies, the Presses with Controversies, and the Pulpits with Invectives? 
Tom. 3 de Ess. Sac. l. 2. c. 31. p. 92.  Bellarmine useth this as an argument to prove that the Ceremonies are not of free observation, that they have successively begat most grievous dissensions. Now were it not a thousand times better that such fooleries as these, unworthy of the defence or approbation of any wise men, were for ever banished from amongst us, and never while the World stands heard of more, than that they should make such uncomfortable discords in the Church of Christ? 
Vit. Pub● p. 103.  Plutarch tells of Valerius the Consul that when he had built a sumptuous and stately House, and the People were displeased with it, he without any more ado, gets a company of workmen together, and causeth them to pull it down, and raze it to the very ground. And did an Heathen do this, and yet will Christian Bishops (that wear long white Robes to proclaim their innocency & holiness) keep up a company of beggarly Ceremonies, when they see them offend their Brethren, and beget such sad and unhappy differences wherever they are imposed? 
T. 6. cont. Faust. Manith. l. 20. c. 23 fol. 81.  Would they follow August. (whom they use to speak of under the titles both of Saint, and Bishop) they might learn better: Those things (saith he) which are not necessary, though in some sort good, are yet oft to be taken away, or altogether removed, for the evils that do thence arise. And are the Ceremonies any more than not necessary, that is, indifferent? or, to go to the utmost, are they any more than in some sort good? And do not many and great evils arise from them? Why then, according to the doctrine of this judicious Father, are they not taken away and abrogated? 
Acts 19.19.  It were sure better to bring them forth, and (as the Exorcists served their Conjuring Books) make one common flame of them, rather than they should make so many combustions and flames, in such peaceable and flourishing Kingdoms.  
Qu. 13. Whether, if the Ceremonies are but things indifferent, and aught to be used as such, they ought not to prefer the preaching of the Word, the Power of God to man's Salvation, before them? If so, then whether do you think they do well in ejecting and silencing their Brethren, and not suffering them to fulfil their Ministry because they refuse to close with them? Is it not a sad thing to see multitudes of Church doors shut up, the people scattered like Sheep without a Shepherd, and perishing for lack of knowledge, and all for the sake of two or three things accounted indifferent, that may either be used or not used, done or not done? Is it not a sad thing that these men who look upon themselves as the only sound Christians, and pretend so much respect to Christ and his Interest, should rather choose to see his Work stand still, his Kingdom decrease, and thousands of souls go to Hell, than wave the urging of a few frivolous Ceremonies that perish with the using? Morals should not give place to Ceremonials, but Ceremonials to Morals. They should not throw out the Word to bring in the Ceremonies, but rather throw out the Ceremonies to keep in the Word. And if our Saviour thought the Scribes and Pharisees worthy of a Woe for paying tithe of Mint and Anise, 
Mat 23 23.  and Cumin, and omitting the weightier matters of the Law, such as Judgement, Mercy and Faith; what will he think those worthy of, that prefer a company of mere baubles, unworthy of any thing but disdain from grave and sober Christians, before the preaching of the Word, and in it not only Judgement, Mercy and Faith, but all graces and duties whatsoever? It may be they will say, they have a Law that things shall be so ordered. Admit they have, had not they an hand in procuring, nay in making it? Or if they had not, (which yet surely no body is so ignorant as not to know) may not they (if they please) obtain the reversing of it? or if they cannot, yet should they not forbear the observing of it, when it comes in competition with a Law of an higher nature? 
2 Sam. 21.6.  David and those that were with him, had a Law against the eating of the Shewbread, yet when it came in competition with the preservation of life, they adventured to act against it, and were blameless. Our Saviour also had a Law for the strict observation of the Sabbath day, 
Mat. 12.3  yet when it came in competition with greater, such as those that concerned the propagation of the Gospel, and the necessary refreshment of his Disciples, who had attended him from place to place, to the neglect of their bodily sustenance, he urgeth it not, but justifies them in the nonobservance of it. Nay, he did not only make that Law to give place to the preaching of the Gospel, and the necessary refreshment of his Disciples, 
Luk. 14.5  but the helping of an Ox or an Ass out of the ditch. Now did he thus make a Divine Law to give place to the necessities of a few of his Servants bodies, nay to the necessities of an Ox or an Ass; and should not our Adversaries then, that argue from his fasting of forty days for the observation of Lent, make a human Law give way to the necessities of thousands of souls? Mr. Sprint labours from such places as these to prove, 
Cassand. Anglican p. 26.  that though the Ceremonies are inconvenient, & not as they should be, yet in case of deprivation we may conform to them. But though what he allegeth (as I shall show hereafter) do not hold against us, yet it doth against them. Though we may not do evil that good may come of it, yet they may forbear evil that good may come of it. Though we may not use the Ceremonies that thereby we may gain liberty to preach the Word, yet they may wave the imposing of them, to let us have liberty to do it.  
Qu. 13. Whether should they not in all their Constitutions, Observances and Impositions, take care that they avoid scandal and offence? Choose what thoughts they may have of it, Christ makes a business of it, and such a business that he adviseth us rather to pluck out a right eye, 
Mat. 5.29.  or cut off a right hand, than suffer them to offend. Nay, he declares that it were better for a man to endure the greatest temporal punishment and so escape, than offend any of his Servants: Whoso shall offend (saith he) one of these little ones, 
Mat. 18.6  which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the Sea. If it be such a dangerous thing to offend one, what is it to offend many? And if it be such a dangerous thing to offend such as are of little stature in godliness, what is it to offend such as are of great? But to go on. Paul likewise makes a business of it. 
1 Cor. 10.32.  Give none offence (saith he) neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God. Should we occasion our brother's fall, God may justly suffer him to die in his iniquity, and after require his blood at our hands.  
Qu. 15. Whether notwithstanding this, are not our Adversaries in their rigorous urging of the Ceremonies, guilty of gross and apparent scandal? That you may the better understand this, note that there is a three-fold-scandal; such as is merely active, that is, given and not taken: or such as is merely passive, that is, taken but not given: or such as is both active and passive, that is, both taken and given. A man doth actively scandalise his Brother, either by becoming a stumbling-block to him, and occasioning his fall; and so Balak scandalised Israel, 
Rev. 2.14  in tempting them to eat things sacrificed unto Idols, and commit Fornication; or by displeasing or grieving him, through some actions which he perhaps takes to be lawful, but his Brother takes to be otherwise, and thereupon is troubled, thinking he offends God and dishonours him, and doth not make that conscience of his ways he should; and so Peter scandalised our Saviour, when he dissuaded him from going up to Jerusalem. 
Mat. 26.23.  In both these a man is very injurious to his brother; for by the former he attempts the ravishing of his innocency, and by the latter, his comfort. Now are not our Adversaries guilty of both these? of the former they are guilty, by hardening and encouraging Papists in their way, whereas they should rather labour to convince and reduce them; by suggesting to the Magistrate the necessity of the Ceremonies, and moving him to make Laws to constrain such as stand out to submit to them; by creating in the People a conceit of excellency and usefulness in them, and persuading them to close with them; and by telling both the one and the other, that those who refuse to comply with them in the use of them, are proud factious, disloyal, and the like, labouring thereby to incense them against them, and stir them up to persecute them. And of the latter they are guilty, by vexing and grieving their brethren with these their sinful practices, whereby they hinder them of that joy and comfort that otherwise they might have, 
Epist. ad Regin Eliz. col. 24 c.  What should I say (saith Zanchius) of the consciences of private believers? It is manifest that they are greatly troubled with this Commandment, about putting on these linen garments. For they do so greatly complain, that their lamenting voices and groans do reach unto, and are heard in Germany. Now how grievous, and distasteful an offence it is to trouble the consciences of the Godly, the holy Scripture showeth, 
Repl p. 270.  etc. Nay Mr. Sprint saith, It may be granted, that offence and hindrance to edification doth arise from the Ceremonies. And who, setting out those whom the God of this world hath been dealing with, are so blind as not to see it? To pretend it is offence taken and not given (as our Adversaries do) is a shift too gross to take place in a day of such light. When they have proved that the Ceremonies are lawful, and that they do lawfully impose them, than they may with some show of Reason make such a pretence, but till they have done that, they should forbear. But suppose it were offence taken, not given, yet would not that clear them, because they are the occasion of taking it. It is not only required that we do not intentionally or directly give offence to our brethren, but likewise that we do not so much as administer an occasion whereby they may take it, unless it be in the necessary discharge of our duty, and then indeed it is not culpable to us but to them. What do our Adversaries think of the high Places, gideon's Ephod, 
Exod. 20.24. Judg. 8.27. 2 Kings 18.3. 1 Cor. 8.13.  the Brazen Serpent, the eating of Flesh before a weak Brother? Was the offence in these things given or taken? which of them all was not in itself lawful? nay which of them all might not have been very useful? Yet the holy Ghost when they came to be occasions of stumbling would have them laid aside. If we will walk evenly and avoid offence, we must not only shun that which is evil, but that which hath so much as an appearance, 
Syntag. l. 6. c. 3. p. 339. Sum. 22. q 4. art 7. Comm. erum in illum loc. de Repub. part 1. l. 1 c. 11. n. 18. p. 130.  or show of it; as not only Polanus and such like Protestant Writers, but Aquinas, Cajetan, Bannes, Spalatensis and other Papists teach. And whether the Ceremonies before us have not in them so much as an appearance or show of evil, you may hear anon. But they go on, and say, That in urging the Ceremonies, as they neither desire nor intent any offence, so they render a reason of the lawfulness of what they do for the preventing it. They appoint Ministers to show the intention of the Church, and declare the true sense and meaning of them. Ans. 1. Just thus the Adiaphorists of Saxony and Lipsia reasoned: 
Vide Schluss. cattle. vol. 9 t. 13. p. 509.  They would have Corpus Christi day observed, but withal, to salve the business, they would have a Sermon to teach the People their meaning in it. 2. The greater part of Ministers understand not the meaning of the Ceremonies, themselves. 3. Though they did, they have sure weightier matters to insist on, which all their time is little enough for. 
Ex. 21.33 Vid. Whitak. t. 1. cont. Dur l. 5. p. 138  4. It's better to fill the Pit (as God commands) than set one to warn passengers from falling into it. It is far easier to throw offensive things out of the Church, than keep them from doing hurt if retained. But 5. to let pass these things, as also the instances I mentioned before (though abundantly sufficient to repel this pretence) might not our Saviour have alleged this to have excused his not paying of Tribute, 
Mat. 17.27. 1 Cor. 9.12  or Paul his receiving of Wages, when the former might have withheld the one, and the latter have taken the other? No doubt they might, and that with far more reason than our Adversaries may do it in the behalf of the Ceremonies, and yet they would not use any such shift, but readily recede from their own right, and deny themselves, rather than they would occasion that prejudice to the Gospel that otherwise would have ensued. But notwithstanding the case be thus plain, in stead of acknowledging themselves guilty of scandal, and laying down the Ceremonies, the instruments of it, they retort the charge upon us, telling us, That by our standing out against the Ceremonies, we disobey and offend Authority, whom we should by all means labour to please. But this is of small weight; For 1. If Authority be offended, we may at least in part thank them for it, who in stead of acquainting them with our innocency, and endeavouring to pacify them, do inform and exasperate them against us. 2. We must remember, that (as I intimated before) there is a double active scandal; there is such a one whereby we occasion our brother's sin, and such a one whereby we occasion his displeasure. Now if we have two ways before us, one of which we must necessarily take, and the one will occasion our brother's sin, and the other his displeasure, we must venture upon the latter, as being a lesser evil, rather than the former; We must please him to his edification, 
Ro. 15.2.  not destruction. To apply this to the present case; if we make use of the Ceremonies, we occasion our brother's sin by drawing some to a liking of them, and confirming others in their over high esteem of them. If we do not make use of them, we displease Authority. In this straight what must we do? Why of two evils we must take the less; and whether the occasioning of the sin of the one, or the displeasure of the other be the greater sin, let the indifferent judge. But 3. If Authority be offended at our standing out, it is evidently offence taken, and not given. We deny them not obedience in any thing but what is sinful, and if they are offended because we will not sin, we cannot help it. We offend them herein not otherwise than Moses and Aaron did Pharaoh, in seeking of liberty for Israel to go and serve God in the Wilderness; 
Exod. 5.1  or than Shadrach, 
Dan. 3.18  Meshach and Abednego did Nabuchadnezzar, in refusing to fall down and worship his Image; 
Dan. 6.10  or than Daniel did Darius, when according to his wont manner he prayed to his God; 
Act. 4.19  or than Peter and John did the Highpriest and his Company in preaching the Gospel; 
Mat. 13.2  or to come nearer to the point in hand) than the Disciples did the Scribes and Pharisees when they would not comply with them in washing of hands. However, that we may not seem in the least seditious, or rebellious towards Authority, we are ready to submit to the penalty of the Law, and endure what they shall think meet for an offence of this nature to inflict upon us.  
Qu. 16. Whether do you think there is not such a thing as Christian Liberty? The Scripture over and over again saith there is; 
1 Cor. 8.9 10.29. Gal. 5.13. 1 Pet 2.16.  and almost every Common-place Book hath a chapter or more upon it. And wherein doth this Liberty consist? It doth not only consist in our freedom from the Curse of the Moral Law, the dominion of Sin, 
Tom. 1. de Rom. Pon tif. l. 4. c. 17. pag 338. Whit. t. 2 cont. 4. q. 7. c 3: p: 727. Ames Bell Ener: t: 1 p 255 Mr: Stillingfleet Iren: c 2: sect 10: p 56.  the Obligation of the Ceremonial and Judicial Law, to which Bellarmine would have it restrained, but likewise in our freedom from the Inventions, Traditions, and Impositions of men. This Protestant Writers do agree in: but than it is questioned whether this Liberty do extend to Judgement only, or both to Judgement and Practice. The learned Author, whom I have before mentioned, will have it to be founded upon the freedom of Judgement, and not of Practice; that is, he will have it to consist (as he himself explains it) in judging those things to be free which are so. But herein I conceive he is no sounder than in the forementioned Hypothesis to which he would have it serviceable. For, 1. our being free from any Commands whatsoever, doth not consist in our judging or esteeming ourselves to be so, (that looks too like the Antinomian Faith) but in our being so indeed. But 2. admit he had said that which I would think he intends, namely, that this Liberty consists in a freedom of our Judgements, and in that only; so that though we are imposed on as to the outward-man, yet whilst that remains undisturbed we may be said to enjoy our whole Christian Liberty; yet could not we close with him. For it is evident that Christian Liberty doth not only consist in the freedom of the Judgement, so as that we are not either obliged or constrained to assent to things indifferent as necessary, but likewise in our freedom of practice, so that it is in our own power and choice to observe and use them or not. For, 1. if the Bondage of the ancient Church consisted not only in her being bound to assent to such and such Ordinances as good and necessary, but also in her being strictly tied to observe and practise them, than the Liberty Christ hath purchased us therefrom, doth consist not only in our being disobliged from such assent to those Ordinances, but also in our being freed from the observation and practice of them; but the Bondage of the ancient Church consisted not only in her being bound to assent to such and such Ordinances as good and necessary, but also (nay much more) in her being strictly tied to observe and practise them; therefore the Liberty Christ hath purchased us therefrom, doth not consist only in our being disobliged from such assent to those Ordinances, but also in our being freed from the observation and practice of them. The consequence must needs be granted; for such as is the extant of our Bondage, such must needs be the extant of that Liberty whereby we are freed from that Bondage. It is the Assumption then that can only be pretended to need proof; and yet who is so unacquainted with Scripture, as not to know that much, nay the greater part, of the ancient Church's bondage consisted in external Observances, such as Circumcision, Oblations, Purifications and the like? And of what force this Argument is as to the Jewish Ordinances, the like it is of as to any Humane Ordinances about indifferent things: for it is not to be imagined, that Christ should purchase for us greater liberty from those Ordinances that once were of Divine institution, and in their season so necessary and profitable, than from those that never were instituted by him, neither are any way necessary or profitable. 2. That which the Holy Ghost even whilst he is explaining and bounding of Christian Liberty, doth disoblige and discharge us from, that we are to look upon as matter of Liberty, but even whiles he is explaining and bounding of Christian Liberty, he doth disoblige and discharge us not only from assenting to indifferent things as necessary, but also our observance of them, and therefore we are to look not only upon our non-assenting to them as things necessary, but also our observance of them, as matter of Liberty. The Major cannot be denied; for so far as the Spirit makes us free, 
Joh. 8.36.  so far we are free indeed. And the Minor is evident from the Decree of the Council of Jerusalem. 
Acts 15.28, 29.  It seemed good (say they) to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden, than these necessary things,— from which if you keep yourselves, ye shall do well. It belongs to the Holy Ghost to determine what things are necessary, and what are not; and as he was pleased to do it for the Churches of those times in particular, so he hath done it for the Churches of all succeeding Ages in general, telling us, that if we observe those necessary things we shall do well. And therefore as for other matters, we are freed from them, and bound no further to observe them, than reasons of brotherly love and peace in order to the furtherance of the Gospel, do persuade and move us. 3. That which the Apostles in defence of Christian Liberty abstained from themselves, and moved the People to whom they preached and wrote, to do the like, censuring and condemning their actings otherwise as a breach of their Liberty, that we are to look upon as matter of Liberty; but they abstained not only from assenting to indifferent things as necessary, but also from the outward observation of them, and moved those to whom they preached and wrote to do the like, censuring and condemning their acting otherwise as a breach of their Liberty; therefore we are to look not only upon our non-assenting to indifferent things as necessary, but also on the outward observation of them as matter of Liberty. The Major. is good; for as we must not think but that the Apostles understood their own Liberty, so neither must we think that they would abstain from, or press others to abstain from any thing but what was matter of Liberty. And the Minor is clear from several places of Scripture, 
1 Cor. 6.12. Gal. 4.10 Col. 2.20.21.  which to prevent tediousness I shall only set down in the Margin, leaving you to consult them at your leisure. 4. If Christian liberty lie only in the judgement, than we may not draw it forth into outward practice; but we may draw it forth into outward practice, therefore it lies not only in the judgement. The Consequence is no other than sound; for we may not extend our Liberty beyond its prefixed bounds. The truth of the Assumption appears from the practice of the Apostles, and the whole Christian Church all along, and our own Church in particular, which doth not only exercise a liberty of judgement, but also a liberty of practice, using some things, and declining others, as she thinks fit. 5. If Christian Liberty consist only in freedom of Judgement, then though men urge upon us the observation of all the unnecessary, frivolous, idle Ceremonies that ever were used by Jews, Heathens, Turks, Papists or any other People whatsoever, and upon our refusal to close with them, bring upon us, the Inquisition, imprison, torture, burn us, yet if in the mean time they allow us the freedom of out Judgements, they cannot be said to hinder us of our Christian Liberty; but if men should urge upon us such a multitude of Ceremonies, and upon our refusal to close with them, exercise the forementioned severity, though in the mean time they allow us the freedom of our Judgements, they might be said to hinder us of our Christian Liberty, therefore Christian Liberty doth not consist only in freedom of Judgement. The Consequence is no other than what doth fairly offer itself, and therefore is not to be excepred against. And as for the Assumption, I prove it thus. If the urging us to worship God in a more troublesome, burdensome way than he hath been pleased to appoint, may be said to be an hindering us of our Christian Liberty: then to urge upon us the observation of such a multitude of Ceremonies may be said to be an hindering us of our christian Liberty; but to urge us to worship God in a more troublesome burdensome way than he hath appointed, may be said to be an hindering us of our Christian Liberty, therefore to urge us to worship God in the observation of such a multitude of Ceremonies, may be said to be an hindering us of our Christian Liberty. Here I see not what can be denied; and therefore I think I have made good what I undertook, namely, that Christian Liberty doth not consist only in freedom of Judgement, but also in the freedom of Practice. But this Author goes on, and saith, That what he asserts, namely, that Liberty doth lie in the freedom of Judgement, and not in the freedom of Practice, and so is consistent with the restraint of the exercise of it, appears both in the case of Scandal, and in the actions of the Apostles and Primitive Christians complying with the Jews in matters of Liberty. To this I answer briefly. There is a twofold Liberty; either such as is absolute, so that it may be used at all times, and in all places; or such as is limited and bounded, so that it is not to be used at all times, or in all places, 
1 Cor. 8.9.  but only when it may be done to edification. It is not the former of these that in this place we pretend to, but the latter. For though Christ hath given us a Liberty in indifferent things, yet he hath so limited it that we may not use it, but when we may do it without being a stumbling block to them that are weak. Circumstances do so vary and alter matters of this nature, that that may be lawful for us at one time and place, which is not at another. It is lawful for us to bow the knee, but yet to do it in the house of Rimmon, or at the passing by of the consecrated Host, when we may harden Idolaters, is not lawful. The Apostles had a liberty in the use of indifferent things, yet when the good of their weak Brethren called for it, they not only might, but also ought, especially in that juncture of things, to wave it. And therefore their compliance with the weak Jews was not matter of Liberty, but Duty and Necessity, insomuch that they had sinned if they had not done it. Now because this their liberty of practice was thus liable upon special occasions to restraints, it doth not follow that their Christian Liberty did not at all consist in practice, but that it was granted to them in a limited sense, to be used so, as it might become most serviceable to the Gospel, for the furtherance whereof it was given.  
Qu. 17. Whether, if Christ hath purchased us such a privilege as liberty from humane Ordinances and Impositions, should not our Adversaries allow it us, and suffer us peaceably to enjoy it, 
Cant. 8.4  without either disturbing or censuring us in the use of it? 
Gal. 2.4.  The holy Ghost saith they should; and withal sets it down as the property of false Brethren, that after they have spied out the Liberty Believers have in Christ Jesus, they seek to bring them into bondage. And certainly if it be an injury to take from us that civil liberty that belongs to us by the Law of the Land, it is much more an injury to take from us that Spiritual Liberty that belongs to us by the Law of Christ. By how much the one is made over to us by an higher power, and is of a more excellent nature than the other, by so much the taking it away from us must needs be the more injurious. Dr. Morton proves out of Socrates, that Holidays were anciently free, 
Apol. pt● 2. l. 2. c 9 p. 211.  either to be observed or not observed, and that therefore no necessity should be imposed on Christians, which (saith he) doth it not seem to shake the Popish yoke? And if the same case had been urged to himself and his fellows, they would not have had an answer over ready. It is writ indeed of Bishop Ridley, that he enforced the Surplice 
Acts and Mon best. of his life p. 1367.  upon Hooper, to the great trouble of 〈◊〉 good man's conscience, but withal, that afterwards having weighed things better, he repent of his rigour, and was sorry for what he had done. And if ever God open the eyes of the men of this generation, they'll see that by their vehement urging of that and other unnecessary things, they have done us no small wrong, and will with that blessed Martyr be sorry for it.  
Qu. 18. Whether, though they will not allow us the Liberty purchased by Christ, and bequeathed to us by his own Will and Testament, but will be tying our hands, and laying upon us burdens contrary to it; yet is it not our duty to defend and maintain it, by withstanding them in their unjust commands and impositions? I call them unjust commands and impositions, because they do command and impose such things as aught to be left free, and at the discretion of every one to use them or not use them, as he is more or less persuaded of the lawfulness or necessity of them. Certainly if Christ hath bestowed such a Liberty upon us as a token of his tenderness and bounty, and for this end, that we should improve it for him, and serve him with cheerfulness in the use of it; then as they ought to allow it us, so we ought to maintain it. It is no less than tyranny and cruelty in them not to do the one; and it were no less than folly and unthankfulness in us not to do the other. As it was the work of Jesus Christ to give it us, so it is our duty to maintain and improve it now it is given. When the Scribes and Pharisees urged washing of hands before meat on the Disciples, and they for the maintenance of their just Liberty withstood them, 
Mat. 15.3  our Saviour openly countenances them in it. Instead of falling on them and condemning them for their disobedience, he falls on the Scribes and Pharisees, and blames them for observing such vain Traditions, to the subverting of his Father's Commandments, and troubling of his Disciples. But perhaps our Adversaries will except and say, We must distinguish betwixt the Commandments and impositions of private men, and of such as are in Authority, and have Dominion over us, and may give Laws to us. The Scribes and Pharisees, though they were wise men, yet they were not men of Authority, and so had nothing to do to impose such a Ceremony either on the Disciples or on any other, and therefore no marvel if the Disciples withstood them, and our Saviour countenanced them in it. Answ. This exception runs upon a mistake, for it is evident that both the Scribes and Pharisees were men of Authority. As for the Scribes, they were so far from being altogether private men, 
2 Kings 12.10.18.18.22.3. Ezra 10.5 Jer. 36.12  that some of them were Secretaries to the Jewish Kings. To say nothing of others, what think you of Ezra, that had dominion over the chief Priests, and Levites, and all Israel; and of Elishama, whom the holy Ghost reckons among the Princes? others, 
Mat 2.4.  even in our Saviour's time were employed in Courts of Judicature, & thereupon were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Mat. 23.2, 4.  or the Scribes of the People. And as for the Pharisees, the case is no less plain; for as the Scribes sat in Moses Chair, so did they; and as the Scribes bond heavy burdens, and grievous to be born, and laid them upon men's shoulders, so did they. Now this binding of heavy burdens, and laying them on men's shoulders, seems to have been an act of Authority; for how could they compel the People in a peaceable Commonwealth to come under their burdens, unless they were invested with Authority to impose them? But if you think this not plain enough, 
Antiq. Jud. l. 13. c. 24. Graecol. p. 463.  hear what Josephus hath; speaking of Alexandra the Queen, a woman of excellent endowments, he tells us, that she committed all things to the disposition of the Pharisees, commanding the People to obey and serve them. And that she renewed and confirmed that which Hircanus had disannulled, and the Pharisees, according to the custom of their forefathers, had introduced; so that she bore the Name, and the Pharisees the Authority Royal. For, they restored such as were banished to their estates, and in all things demeaned themselves like great Lords. Thus he. And latter Writers speak to the same purpose; 
Harm. Evang. in Mat. 23.2  Calvin saith, That in the government of the Church, and interpreting of Scripture, this Sect held the Primacy. And Camero saith, They were men of chief Authority; 
Praelect. in Mat. 10.3. p. 165.  referring us to Josephus, who he saith every where teacheth so. It seems then that the Ceremony of washing of hands, was not imposed on the Disciples by private persons, but men of great authority and account; and yet the Disciples disobey them, and our Saviour countenances and upholds them in it; for we do not find that either then or at any other time, he spoke so much as one word by way of Reproof to them about it. But that which makes what I have alleged about this instance yet more probable, is, that both the practice and doctrine of Paul were exactly agreeable hereunto. Though he were a man of a most complying sweet spirit, yet herein he was steadfast and peremptory, declaring that though he were free to use all indifferent things yet he would not be constrained to it. 
1 Cor. 6. 1●  All things (saith he) are lawful to me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. But did not he speak this by virtue of his Apostolical Authority, which might set him above those whom ordinary persons ought to be subject to? No; the same course he took himself, the same he persuades all Christians to. 
1 Cor. 7.23. Col. 2.20 22. Gal. 5.1.  Be ye not (saith he) the servants of men. And, be ye not subject to Ordinances. And, stand fast in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free. He speaks not in these places against obeying lawful Governors, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical, commanding things necessary or convenient (these he urgeth those he writes to with strongest motives and arguments to close with and observe) but against obeying such as taking upon them to do that which Christ hath no where empowered them, will be framing new inventions and means of carrying on his Work, and imposing them on his Servants. Now these he will have them to withstand, and thereby assert and maintain their own Freedom. And answerable hereunto is what we find taught and observed by many famous Protestant Writers. 
Censur. Lit. Angl c. 2. p. 458 Exam. part 2. de Rit. Pa. 230. Com. in 1 Cor. 7.23. Syntag. part 2. disp. 44. de Libert. Christian sect. 33. pag. 748.  Bucer saith It is our duty in all matters stoutly to defend our Christian Liberty, and bear it before us. Chemnitius saith, It is profitable in indifferent things to show liberty by example. Pareus saith, We are not so at our own disposal as to enslave ourselves to the servitude of men: that would be to the manifest injury of Christ our Redeemer: we are the freemen of Christ. Tilenus saith, We must not obey the Magistrate and Governors of the Church any further than usque ad arras, or so long as we may do it with a good conscience; neither must we decline any strife or danger for the defence of the Liberty purchased us by Christ, since Paul asserts that we make void his death if we suffer ourselves to be entangled with the yoke of spiritual bondage. But leaving these single Testimonies, hear what several say at once. 
Cent. 3. cap. 4. col. 86.  The Centuriators of Magdenburgh teach, that whilst indifferent things are free we may lawfully use them, but when they are imposed we ought to withstand them for the maintaining of our own Liberty. And the Protestants in the Augustan Confession say, 
Marm. Confess. sect. 17. conf. August. p. 223.  When there is a necessity placed in a Ceremony, we are by example to show the contrary. And it is well known that the Protestant Churches wave several things, in their own nature indifferent, that are appointed by the Papists, for this end, to assert their own Liberty. 
Thes. de Symb. Caenae do. disp. 4. thes 8. p. 493.  Gerard Vossius discoursing of the mixing of Water with Wine in the Eucarist, confesseth, it's probable our Saviour in regard of the generousness and heat of Wine in the East, made use of it; and that the ancient Church did the like; and that the ancient Fathers expounded Wine and Water, so mingled, allegorically; teaching one while that Water signifies People, and Wine Christ; and the mixture of them, the union of People with Christ. Anotherwhile, that Wine and Water signified the Blood and Water that flowed out of the side of Christ. Notwithstanding, he saith, that the thing in itself is indifferent, and that the present Churches may not only lawfully use pure Wine, but that since the contrary Rite hath been accounted necessary, they do wisely to do it, to show in such things their own Liberty. Nay, and Dr. Morton teacheth, 
Apol. pt. 21. l. 1: c. 42. p 139  that Ritual traditions, which pertain to Order, and the Rites of Divine Worship, are to be received only so far as they clash not with Truth, Piety, Simplicity, and Christian Liberty. And things being thus, what reason have our Adversaries, when in defence of our own Liberty we withstand their Impositions, to charge us with Pride, Obstinacy, Schism, Singularity, and such like crimes? Some of them have not stuck to give it out, that we are worse than the Papists. 
Saravia N. Fratri & Amico, art. 17. p. 16  Now this is not fair dealing. They would take it ill if we should offer to hinder them of their liberty in the use of their indifferent things (as they account them) or reproach them for it; why then do they hinder us of ours, reproach us for using it, or think much if we stand up to maintain it?  
Qu. 19 Whether do you think that the enjoyment and use of the Ceremonies will recompense the Church for the injury she sustains by them? You hear they create Divisions, destroy Christian Liberty, occasion the persecuting and silencing of Ministers, hinder the preaching of the Word, and scandalise Magistrates, Ministers, People, Protestants, Papists, and in one kind or other all sorts of persons. Now whether do you take the enjoyment and use of them to be of such advantage to the Church, and the Cause of Christ therein maintained, as to countervail all these injuries? Did they occasion nothing but the loss of so many Ministers labours, I might yet say, as Esher did in another case, 
Esth. 7.5.  the enemy could not countervail the King's damage. If one single Elias were the Chariot of Israel, 
2 Kings 2.12.  and the horsemen thereof, what then are so many faithful Ministers, endued in some good measure with the spirit and power of Elias? 
Luk 1.17  And if the silencing of one chrysostom were a greater evil, than if the Sun (that bright eye of Heaven) had been put out; what then shall we say of the silencing of so many Chrysostoms'? And if the enjoyment and use of the Ceremonies will not countervail the loss of so many Ministers labours, how then should they recompense the Church for that and the many other injuries she sustaineth by them? But I go on.  
Qu. 20. Whether do you think that denying us that liberty which (as you have heard) they should allow us, they may take upon them to institute new Ordinances, and devise new means of teaching by their mystical signification, of working grace in the heart, and exciting to devotion? Whether is not this against the second Commandment, which (as we use to tell the Papists) forbids the introducing of humane inventions into the House of God, and the setting of them up in his Worship? Whether is it not an high impeachment of the honour of Jesus Christ the great Prophet and Teacher of his Church, and the only appointer of those Ordinances and Means whereby she is to be instructed and built up in the Faith? Whether is it likely that he who would not allow of teaching by that decent Ceremony of washing of hands, 
Mat. 15.3  will allow of teaching by these men's Ceremonies? Mr. Parker tells us that some of the Ancients used the emblem of a Fish, 
Of the Cross. pt. 1. cap. 2. sect. 28. pag. 101.  to put them in mind of Christ, whose Fishes they took themselves to be made by the water of Baptism. As the Water of the Creation begat Fishes to life, so they held that the Water of Baptism begat them to new life. And he likewise saith that some amongst them let down a Dove upon the Baptised, to denote regeneration by the Spirit. And, that Constantine set a Lamb in the Baptistery of Lateran, to signify the washing away of sin in the Water of Baptism, by the Blood of Christ. And is there any thing to be learned but the Papists have some visible signs to teach it? Now do not all orthodox and sober Writers condemn these things as needless matters, nay as dangerous presumptions, telling us that Christ himself hath instituted helps enough to instruct and teach us our duty, both to him and one another, and that no other helps are to be used but such as he hath instituted? Calvin saith, 
Harm. Evang. in Mat. 21.25. Epist. 8. ad Grindal, p. 210  no Doctrine, no sacred Sign ought to be admitted among the Godly, unless it appear they come from God. Beza saith, I affirm that so often as the Ancients brought into the Church any Sacramentals, that is, significative Ceremonies of Spiritual things, so oft they grievously offended. Withal I think that all Symbolical Rites should be at once profligated out of the Church, whereinto by no right they could ever enter, nor as long as they remain can the Church have her native beauty restored. Peter Martyr saith, 
Comm. in 1 Reg. 8. fol. 70.  The most wise God needeth none of our help to devise means to excite Faith. How bold then are these men who will prescribe to God wherewith to help forward our Salvation? Polanus speaking of the Popish Clergy and their Priestly Appartel, 
Syntagm. l. 9 c. 38. p. 649.  saith, That distinction and variety of Sacerdotal Vestments was typical in the old Testament, and the Truth being exhibited, what do they require them for any more? 
Exam. pt. 2. de Rit. p. 228.  Chemnitius saith, Whereas it is pretended that by these Rites of men's addition many things are profitably signified, admonished and taught; it may be answered, That Figures do properly belong to the old Testament, but those things that Christ would have to be taught in the new Testament, he would have them delivered and propounded not by shadows, but by the Light of the Word. Lastly, hear what is alleged by the Divines of Wittenberg. 
Confess. Wittenb. sect. 17. p. 229.  It is not lawful (say they) either to restore the old Ceremonies of the Law, or devise new, to shadow-forth the Truth already laid open, and brought to light by the Gospel; as in the daylight to set up Candles to signify the Light of the Gospel; or to carry Banners and Crosses, to signify the Victory of Christ through his Cross. Of which sort is all that Massing Attire, which they say doth shadow-out the whole passion of Christ, and many other things of that kind. These are Testimonies so pertinent to the matter in hand, that none but such as have either bad heads, or evil hearts, or both, can deny but that they are full against our Adversaries, and the significant Ceremonies which they do with so much zeal and confidence plead for, and with so much rigour and severity urge upon their Brethren. And yet you must know that they are not so ill furnished but that they have somewhat to allege for themselves in this case. And 1. they say, that such kind of Ceremonies serve as Books to instruct the ignorant, and mind them of spiritual matters. Answ. 1. This is the very pretence the Papists insist on in the behalf of their Ceremonies, 
Vid. Bell. t. 3. de ess. sac. l. 2. c. 31. P. 92.  and likewise in the behalf of their Images, which they commonly call, the Books of the illiterate; and therefore if our Adversaries can tell how to answer them, they may tell how to answer themselves. 2. They have laid aside many Ceremonies of the Papists, every whit as innocent as those they retain, for which the same pretence might as rationally be pleaded. 3. As for the instructing of the ignorant, I answer with our Saviour, 
Luk. 16.29.  They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them; if they will not be taught by them, much less will they be taught by such kind of Ceremonies which God never ordained nor sanctified to such a use. 
Praelect. de sacrom. p. 203.  And with this agrees that of Whitaker; The ignorant (saith he) are not to be taught by Ceremonies: God hath given the Scriptures, that out of them such as are ignorant might draw necessary instruction. But 4. If they must needs have Ceremonies to instruct the ignorant, let them tell us what they make Priests for. Should not their lips preserve knowledge, and are not the People to seek the Law at their mouths? Is it not their work to instruct them, and feed them with knowledge and understanding? But substituting the word [Ceremonies] in the place of Images, which they themselves are, as I shall show anon, I may say of our Adversaries in this case, 
Repl. art. 14. div. 10 p. 510.  as Bishop Jewel doth of his. Of their Priests (saith he) they have made Images, and of their Images they have made Priests. For their Priests for the most part, have eyes and see not, have ears and hear not, hearts and understand not, mouths and speak not, in all respects even like unto their Images. Their Images have no eyes, and yet are made to see; have no ears, and yet are made to hear; have no mouths, and yet are set up to speak, and so in these respects do the duties that pertain to Priests. This plea therefore not serving the turn, some have bethought themselves of another, drawn from the spiritualizing of things. It is acknowledged (say they) on all sides to be a duty to spiritualise such things as come before us, that is, from those outward sensible objects that present themselves to us to raise spiritual Meditations. And if so, wherefore may we not frame or take up such matters as others have framed, which are apt to teach and mind us of spiritual things? Answ. 1. This plea as well as the former tends to the justifying of Images, and those Ceremonies which are laid aside as well as those which remain. 2. We must put a difference betwixt taking occasion from those outward sensible matters that are before us to raise spiritual meditations, and a setting up of such matters for a standing use, and placing a spiritual signification in them. 
Joh. 6.27 4.10.  We may with our Saviour, from common Bread and Water, take occasion both to think and speak of spiritual; yet we may not take either the one or the other, and set it up as a standing remembrancer to us. We may from the beholding of a Surplice, take occasion to think of the presumption and boldness of men, that not contenting themselves with the simplicity of Christ and his perfect Institutions, will be framing of such needless, superstitious vanities; but yet if we should take a Surplice and hang it up before us, that so it might continually put us in mind thereof, we should render ourselves as ridiculous as those who use them for another end. 3. We must also put a difference betwixt making a spiritual use of those sensible matters that are before us, and bringing them into the house of God, and there allowing them state in his Worship. We may from the be holding of a Lamb, take occasion to think of him, who was led as a Lamb to the slaughter; but yet we may not bring a Lamb into the place of Worship to mind us of him; that were to put upon a silly beast the office of the Word and Sacraments, which were ordained for that use. But to leave this, whiles our Adversaries are labouring to maintain the lawfulness of their significant Ceremonies, I would by the way know one thing of them, and that is this, They say they teach no Doctrine but what is contained in Scripture, and yet withal say, that the sign of the Cross doth teach us not to be ashamed of Christ crucified. Now let them either show us where the Scripture saith, that the sign of the Cross doth thus teach us, or else confess that they teach some Doctrine besides what is contained in Scripture.  
Qu. 21. Whether, may they take upon them to add New parts to the Worship of God? That surely they may not do without guilt of highest presumption. It doth, and ever did, and always will undoubtedly belong to God, and none but him, to institute and prescribe his own Worship, and every part of it. And therefore all such as undertake to do it, how wise, holy, or great soever they may seem to be, do no less than invade his Royal Throne, and usurp his Sovereign Power. What guilt then have our Adversaries drawn upon themselves in instituting of the Ceremonies! For, have they not introduced them into the Worship of God, and made them parts of it? Are not remembrances and instructions concerning constancy, pureness, reverence, and such like duties, really and properly religious Worship? And are not the Ceremonies such things as these? Do they not allow them state in their Worship? Have they not the same use and end that other parts of Worship have? Do they not urge them with the same rigour that they do hearing of the Word, Praying, Singing of Psalms, and other substantial duties? Do they not count the purest, holiest, sincerest service as imperfect, disorderly, slovenly, and I know not what, without them? Is it not therefore evident that they make them parts, and considerable parts too of Worship? 
T 3. de effect. sac. l. 2. c. 31. p. 92.  Bellarmine deals openly herein, and in plain terms tells us, That Ceremonies are a part of Divine Worship. And if our Adversaries, that follow him so closely in other points, thought it convenient to speak their minds, perhaps they would say as much of theirs? Whether there be not ground for it, I leave you to judge by what I have here briefly hinted, 
Aims fresh suit part 1. p. 46.  and a learned Author hath fully proved.  
Qu. 22. Whether may they institute New Sacraments, and add them to those instituted by Christ? If they may, let them show where they are empowered to do it. If they have a power to do it, let them show their Letters of Credency for it. If it be a thing common to all Christian Pastors and Churches, wherefore do they fall so foully upon the Papists for it, whenas in other things they are so ready to justify them, and join with them? If they may not institute New Sacraments, how will they defend the Ceremonies, which though they do not call them Sacraments, yet they give them the nature of them. Sacraments (as they themselves teach) are outward sper●●●● signs of inward and spiritual grace. And are not the Ceremonies such things as these? When they Baptise a Child, do they not make a Cross upon his forehead, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner against Sin, 
Dr. Burg. of the lawfulness of kneeling. c. 17. p. 52. Mr. Paybody, apol forkneeling, part 3. c. 2. sect. 15. p. 264.  the World, and the Devil, and to continue Christ's faithful Soldier and Servant unto his lives end? And as for the Surplice, do not they maintain the use of it to be, to signify the pureness that ought to be in a Minister? And as for kneeling at the Supper, do not they say it is a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ? Wherein then do their Cross, Surplice, Kneeling, fall short of Sacraments? They are new devised signs, and every new divised sign, in the judgement of very eminent Protestant Writers, 
† Willet of Baptism, q. 8. err. 15. p. 587  is a Sacrament. It's true, they lack Divine Institution, but have they not gone as far as they can towards the making of them Sacraments? They are not in every respect Sacraments, but that is not because they would not have them to be so, but because they could not make them so. Now may they take upon them to make Sacraments when they are not empowered to do it? are they able to work that which is signified by them? or do they think that God will make them effectual for producing of the ends intended? As for the former, I suppose, as bold as they are, they will not pretend to it; and as for the latter, I may say with Chemnitius, We have a promise of the efficacy of the Word, 
Exam. pt. 2. de Rit. p. 228.  but not of Figures invented by men. Though we may upon good grounds expect that God will bless his own Ordinances; yet we have no grounds to expect that he will bless those devices which men have taken up, not only without any warrant from him, but likewise in contempt of him, and to the prejudice of his glorious Gospel; no, we may rather look that he should take vengeance on them, 
Ps. 99.8.  as in times past he hath done.  
Qu. 23. Whether, will they justify the use of Images in the worship of God? If they will, they must first with the Papists, expunge the second Commandment, and thrust it out of the Decalogue; for as long as that stands they will never do it. For proof hereof, I need do no more than recite it to you. 
Ex. 20.4.  Thou shalt not (saith God) make unto thee any graven Image, or any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or that is in the Earth beneath, or that is in the Water under the Earth. God in this place doth not only forbid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; not only a graven Image, made of gold, silver or such like matter, but any similitude or likeness of any thing whatsoever (if made for a Religious use) as being homogeneal therewith. If they will not justify the use of Images, how will they defend the Ceremonies, for what are they but Images? doth not one figure to us Constancy, another Pureness, and another Reverence? and if they do this, what do they less than perform the office of an Image?  
Qu. 24. Whether to these new means, parts of Worship, Sacraments, Images, which they have instituted of their own accord, without any warrant from God, may they ascribe a moral divine efficacy? If they may let them produce their warrant. If they may not, wherefore do they do it? Do they not impose and use them for this end to teach the Understanding divine Mysteries, to stir up the Affections to divine Objects, and to help the Memory to retain divine Truths? To this purpose is that prefixed to the Book of Common-Prayer; Such are retained which are apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, by some notable and special signification, whereby he might be edified. Nothing can stir up the dull mind of man, edify him in the ways of God, or work any holy impressions upon him, without a divine efficacy. Those therefore who judge the Ceremonies apt to do any such thing, must needs be thought to ascribe to them a divine efficacy.  
Qu. 25. Whether if they will not content themselves with the Institutions of Christ, but will be bringing of New matters into his house. should they take up such as are of base original and descent? That they may not do without casting much reproach both upon him and his Worship, which should not have any thing in it but what is honourable, and becoming the Majesty of him to whom it is performed. The Scripture saith, 
Deut. 23.2.  That a bastard shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord to the tenth Generation. And why so, but because he was not begotten in lawful Matrimony, but in the act of uncleanness, and therefore of base descent, and consequently unfit to approach Gods holy things? 
His works p. 214.  And I remember K. James disputing against a thing much used amongst us, doth in the first place insist upon the base Original of it, which he looked upon as sufficient not only to render it unworthy of the great respect that is given it, but also of common use. How then will our Adversaries justify the Ceremonies, which are each of them of such a base Original? As for the sign of the Cross, 
Parker of the Cross part 2. c. 9 sect. 9 p. 129.  Valentinus the Heretic was the Father of it; and Montanus and his Scholars (amongst whom Tertullian was a special instrument) were the men that preferred it to have some esteem and use in the Church. As for the Surplice, the first that I think we read of, that used it, was Sisinius a Novatian Bishop, a riotous, 
Socrat. Eccl. hist. l. 6. c. 22. gr.  sensual man, who going to visit Arsacius Bishop of Constantinople, one of Arsacius his Familiars asked him why he used such attire as was vucomely for a Bishop; and where he found it written that a Priest ought to wear white? To whom by way of answer, he alleged that saying of Solomon, 
Eccl. 9.8.  Let thy garments be always white: with some other passages of the like nature, wherewith notwithstanding, he gained the admiration of all that heard him; which shows the vain facility of People in those days, and how apt they were to be drawn to Superstition. And as for kneeling at the Supper, 
Mornaeus mist. ad ann. 1209 (edit. lat. in fol.) p 343.  it was in all probability brought in by Honorius 3d. a tyrannical bloody Monster, who lived in the 13th. Century, when the Church was in a dark and sow condition. Innocent the 3d. his immediate Predecessor, bringing in Transubstantiation, he to perfect the mystery of Iniquity, brought in the Ceremony of Bowing the knee at the Elevation, that is, when the Bread is showed in the Mass; from whence it is very likely proceeded kneeling at the taking of the Elements. You see then, the Cemonies have little cause to boast of their pedigree. They were not instituted by God, but divised by men, 
Epist. ad Regin Eliz. col. 244.  and such as were of the worst sort. Nay Zanchius saith, They were rather the invention of the Devil himself than men. And hath Jesus Christ been so unfaithful in his house or provided so ill for his Church, that we must be beholding to the worst of men, such as Valentinus, Sisinius, Honorius, nay the very Devil himself, for matters of Edification, Decency and Order? Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon: lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, 
2 Sam. 1.20.  lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.  
Qu. 26. Whether if they will have humane Ceremonies, and other Ordinances and Observations of their own devising, they should pitch upon such as are like to be the occasions of much evil? Doubtless as we must wait for, and seek occasions of good, so we must in all matters, especially in those wherein we are at our own liberty, decline and avoid the incitements and occasions of evil. For what end did Jacob take away Laban's Images, 
Gen. 31. 30. Exod. 34 6. 2 Kings 18.4.  the Archangel bury Moses Body in an unknown place, and Hezekiah break in pieces the brazen Serpent, but to prevent the evil that otherwise would have been committed by them? And how fatal the neglect of this prudent foresight and zeal hath been to many, who either through ignorance or unwariness have dashed themselves upon those stumbling-blocks they should have removed, both sacred and profane Writings tell us. Gideon, 
Judg. 3.27.  without any warrant from God, went and made a rich and costly Ephod, and put it in his own City, even in Ophrah, and what was the issue of it? Why, all Israel went thither a whoring after it, 
1 Kings 22.43.  which thing became a snare to Gideon and to his house. So Jeoshaphat, though he were a pious and holy man, yet suffered the High Places to continue, and what followed upon it? Why, the People offered and burned Incense in them. In like manner Constantine, though forward in promoting the Christian interest, 
Socrat. Eccl. hist. l. 3. c 1.  yet suffered the Temples and Groves of the Pagans to stand, and so upon julian's coming to the Empire, they forthwith entered into them, and there celebrated their Idolatrous services and feasts, as in times past. There is such an innate and settled propensity in men to departed from God, and commit wickedness, that we should neither set up nor tolerate any thing that may any way incite or provoke to it. According to that excellent Decree of the Fathers of Carthage; 
Concil. Carth. 1. c. 3.  The occasions of sin (say they) are to be cut off, and all suspicions taken away, whereby the subtlety of the Devil under the pretence of Charity and Love, uses to ensnare the souls of such as are unwary or ignorant. As it is in vain for men to pretend love to God, till they are at war with sin; so it is in vain for them to pretend war with sin, while they connive at, and tolerate the occasions of it. Which being so, what shall we think of our Adversaries who do not only tolerate the Ceremonies, which are the evident occasions of so much evil amongst us, as I have already showed, but do likewise defend them, nay urge and impose them in all places throughout their Jurisdictions?  
Qu. 27. Whether, if they will not be persuaded but will have humane Ceremonies, they should make use of such as are of bad report, and tend to the disparagement of the Gospel? Such is the purity and holiness of God, and the zeal that he bears to his own Name, that he will not endure any thing in his Worship that is infamous or scandalous, or may render it vile, but will have every thing therein to be of good report. When the Church must have Evangelists, Pastors, 
Acts 16.2 1 Tim. 3.7 Acts 6.3 1 Tim. 5.10.1 Sam. 2.17.  Deacons, Deaconesses, and other Officers, he will have them all to be of good report. He will not have them like the sons of Eli, sons of Belial, that caused men to abhor the Offering of the Lord, but men of good behaviour and report, and such as may adorn Religion. And whatever they, or any of the Members of his Church do, he will have it to be honest, just, 
Phil. 4.8  pure, lovely, and of good report. And what's the reason of this, but to keep up Religion in its due esteem, and secure it from the contempt and vileness that attends both infamous persons and things? And if so, how will our Adversaries ever make Religion amends for the injury they have done to it, in using and imposing the Ceremonies, which are things of such ill report through all the Reformed-Churches? Luther saith, 
Yom. 4. fol. 351.  all humane Ceremonies have two properties of the Devil, that is, lying and murdering. 
Ep. 8. ad Grindal, p 210. Epist. ad Reg. Eliz fol. 244.  Beza saith, they are the Ensigns of the Priests of Baal. And saith Zanchy, All these Pomp's and Popish Ceremonies are nothing else but whorish Paintings, invented and devised for this end, that men might thereby le enticed to Spiritual Fornication. And how should they be other than matter of bad report when they have so long been used in the profane misteryes of that infamous whore, whom the most High himself hath stigmatised with the hateful name of the mother of harlots and all ominations of the earth. 
Rev. ●7. 5  As the common harlot that prostitutes herself to the lust of every impure villain, casts disgrace upon the very garb and dress she wears; so hath that filthy Strumpet cast disgrace upon the Ceremonies, and that in such a high degree that they are utterly unfit to be used by the chaste Spouse of Christ, whom he hath strictly charged to keep herself pure; managing his worship, and what ever she undertakes for him, with all possible advantages of integrity and holiness, that so she may not dishonour her head, but be a praise to him. And it is the carrying on of the Service of God in the use of the Ceremonies, that makes many amongst us to abhor the Offering of the Lord, 
See Mr. Cheynell of the rise growth, & danger of Socin. c. 5. p. 63.  separate themselves from our Congregations, and betake themselves to private meetings, choosing rather to in joy the Worship of God in its purity in a corner, then join with the Public Assemblies in the use of those things which their consciences tell them are unlawful. Whether this their withdrawing be justifiable or no, I shall not here determine, but this I shall venture to say, that those who have the management of affairs in the Church, should not provoke them to it, by using a company of infamous and scandalous Rites, which they know they cannot away with.  
Qu. 28. Whether if they will be sraming and using new matters, they should take up or have to do with such as have so much as an appearance or show of any evil in them? The Scripture tells us no. Moses saith, 
Exo. 23 7 2 Cor. 6.17 1 Thess. 5.22.  Keep thee far from a false matter. And Paul saith, Touch not the unclean thing. And, abstain from the appearance of Evil. 
Judas 23.  And Judas saith, We must hate the Garment spotted by the Flesh. Sin is like a Plague, and therefore we must not come near it, but keep ourselves at a remote distance from it. Hence that saying of the Jews, Remove thyself from filthiness, 
See Drusius Praeterit. in 1 Thess. 5.22.  and from all that which hath a show of it. And as we must do it in other matters, so especially in the Worship of God, which he hath instituted for the sanctifying of his own Name, and the setting forth of his Purity and Holiness, with other of his Excellencies. It is dangerous to offend in any thing, but especially in that. We must carry ourselves with circumspection, reverence and unblamableness at all times, but especially when we are before him, engaged in the discharge of those sacred and solemn duties he requires from us. And therefore we must not dare to bring into his presence any new Ordinances, no, not so much as a Ceremony, how small soever, that is either evil, or hath so much as a show of it. As for the Jewish Ceremonies, 
T. 2. Ep. 19 ad Hieron. fol. 16.  hear Augustine speak. That man (saith he) is thrown down into the dungeon of the Devil, that observeth a Jewish Ceremony in deed or in show. And as for the Popish Ceremonies, 
Censura Lit. Ang. c. 9 p. 471  hear Bucer. None of those things, words and gestures (saith he) shall find place with us, in which there doth so much as appear to be any thing that is a kin to so great Impieties, or that may be strained (though unjustly and without cause given) to the commending of these their impieties. And as if this were not sufficient, 
S. hluss. Cat. t. 13 p. 751.  the Divines of Germany say, That we must not only abstain from such things as have in them a show of Popery, but from such things as have in them so much as a shadow of a show of it. A truly golden saying worthy the wisdom, integrity and zeal of those eminent persons, who with so much Christian courage and valour fought the battles of the Lord! Now whether the Ceremonies our Adversaries with so much rigour urge upon us, have neither evil in them, nor show of evil, nor so much as a shadow of a show of it, let all the world judge.  
Qu. 29. Whether if they will be joining of humane inventions to divine institutions, they should make use of such things as have been grossly and notoriously abused by corrupt and profane men in their impious mysteries, and execrable practices? 
Ex. 34.13 Num. 33.52, 53. Isa. 27.9. Rev. 2.14 20. 2 Kin 18.4. 2 Chr. 34.4. Dan. 1.8. Act. 19.19 1 Cor. 11.22.  The Scripture (as you may see by the places quoted in the margin, which for brevity-sake I refer you to) is full against it, teaching us by various Precepts, Promises, Reproofs, Precedents, and Reasons, to decline the use of such things, nay, utterly to exterpate and abolish them, as being odious to God, and altogether unfit to be employed in his Service. And with the Scripture agree both the Doctrine and Practice of the Ancients. He (saith Augustine) that cometh to the Sacrament with an Heathenish Ear-ring, 
T. 2. Ep. 73. ad Possidon. fol. 70.  such as the Gentiles superstitiously use in the service of their Gods, cometh to the Lord's Table with a badge of the Devil. 
Concil. Carth. 5. c. 15.  And the Council of Carthage were so set against the Relics of Idolatry, that they besought the Emperors that they might be abolished in all places what soever, And Mr. Parker, hath showed, 
Of the Cross, pt. 1. c. 1. sect 15. p. 24. & sect 28 p. 41.  that though the Love-Feasts, the Nocturnal Vigils, the Churches of Heretics, the shriving of Penitents, the Imperial Standard, Sanctuaries for Offenders, with many other things were of ancient and plausible use, yet because they were abused, the Church laid them aside. And if we come down to latter Writers, they tell us we must be so far from sparing such things as have been abused in Idolatrous services, that we must utterly destroy them, and root them out, not leaving so much as any foot-step or remainder of them; 
Comment on 2 King 18. Comment on Luke 5.39. Ep. cuid. amico in Angl. p. 1125. T. 1: count. Duraeum, l. 5. p 158 de Sacra. manduc. p 267. See the Discourse of Cerem. prefixed to the Liturgy.  as we may see in Wolphius, Gualther, Martyr, Whitaker, Sadeel, and others. Nay, and the Church of England renders this as the weightiest cause of the abolishment of certain of the Ceremonies, that they have been so far abused, partly by the superstitious blindness of the rade & unlearned, & partly by the unsatiable avarice of suchas sought more their own lucre than the glory of God. And whether the Ceremonies retained have not been grossly and notoriously abused, as well as those that are abolished, is evident to all that know any thing of the proceed of the Church of Rome. There is not any of them but it hath been in times past, and is still abused by them every day in their Idolatrous Solemnities; which (as appears by what hath been alleged) renders them altogether unfit for the sincere and pure Worship of God, into whose presence nothing must enter that defileth, 
Epist ad Reg. Eliz col. 244.  or that is unclean. Though for no other (saith Zanchy) yet for this very cause such Garments ought not to be thrust upon the Church of Christ, because the Harlet of Rome hath abused, and doth still at this day abuse them. In his judgement then, if there were nothing else to allege against the Ceremonies, but the very abuse of them, it were sufficient reason wherefore they should be laid aside. Here you see the evidence is clear on all sides: yet even in this our Adversaries have somewhat to say for themselves. And 1. They allege, that if we must not make use of those things that have been abused, we must make use of nothing; for there is not any thing in the world, how lawful, holy, or necessary soever, but it hath been one way or other abused. Not only Ceremonies, but also the Word, Sacraments, and all the Ordinances and Creatures of God have been abused: and therefore, according to this Doctrine, we must not make use of any of them. Ans. 1. After this manner the Papists defend themselves against us, when we, disputing against their Ceremonies, urge them, with the abuse of them, among the Idolatrous Gentiles. 
T. 3. de Eff. Sac. l 2. c. 32. p. 95.  If this kind of reasoning (saith Bellarmin) availed, we ought to abolish both Baptism and the Supper, for that they have been abused. And yet who seethe not the weakness of such an answer? 2. Our Adversaries may do well to remember, that by this defence they reflect upon their Mother the Church of England, who (as I have already showed) thought the abuse of some Ceremonies a sufficient reason wherefore they should be abolished. 3. We must distinguish betwixt the Ordinances of God, and such things as are of necessary and standing use: and the unprofitable devices of men, and such things as are unnecessary, and may be parted with, without any detriment or prejudice to the Church. When the Ordinances of God, and other necessary things suffer abuse, we must not thereupon lay them aside, any more than our Saviour did the Law, 
Mat. 5.17. Joh. 2.15.  or the Temple, (the former of which was abused by the Scribes and Pharisees, the latter by the buyers and sellers) but labour to vindicate them from it, and restore them to their due esteem and use: But when the unprositable devices of men, and such things as are unnecessary, as the Ceremonies, and other matters of the like nature, are abused, we must not stand to vindicate them (for the use of them will not countervail the pains) but forthwith abolish them, and throw them away, as the instances I have already alleged, do fully show. And to this purpose is that of Bucer. 
Censur. Lit. Angl c. 9 p. 472  All matters abused (saith he) must be abolished, unless they are of those things, words, or signs, that the Lord hath commended to us. But 2. They allege further, and say, That though the same individual things that have been abused aught to be abolished, yet it does not follow, that others of the same kind, that have not been abused, must: and therefore, though those individual Ceremonies that have been abused by the Papists ought to be abolished, yet there is no reason that ours should that have not been abused. Answ. 1. If this kind of reasoning be good, than the Papists may free themselves from the charge of Heathenism, Turcism, Judaisme, since their Ceremonies are not the same in number with those of the Heathens, Turks, Jews, but only in this kind; 
Vid. Bull. de Orig. Error. l. 1 c. 33. Sutliv. de Turcopap l. 1. c. 10. p. 49. Vives in Aug. de Civit. l. 8 c. 27. p. 74 P. Virg. de Invent l. 5. c. 1. p. 405.  and yet our Writters think they cannot do it, nay some of their own think so too. 2. They do in this, as well as in the former, fly in the face of the Church of England; for she hath not only abolished many of the same individual Ceremonies, abused by the Papists, but the same in kind likewise; and not without reason: for the evil that befalls certain individuals, does as it were diffuse itself all over, stain and disgrace the whole species; insomuch that for the evils of certain individuals, the whole kind is often laid aside: as I might show by many instances, which I shall not here trouble you with. Now such is the purity of God, that he will not endure any thing in his Worship that hath so much as an evil report, or a bad name, or any affinity or relation to what is evil. 4. God forbids us (as I shall acquaint you further anon) to do after the manner of Idolaters; which plainly shows it is his will that we should not only forbear the use of the same things in number, which they have abused, but the same things in kind also. 5. Idolatry is a sin, so dishonourable and displeasing to God, that we ought to show our utmost detestation of it, which we cannot do so well by forbearing to use only the same things in number that have been abused in it, as the whole kind likewise. So long as we make use, either of the same things in number or in kind, that have been abused by Idolaters, we seem to own and allow of what they do. Now we should not so much as seem to allow of their courses; and therefore for preventing of it, we should renounce both the one and the other.  
Qu. 30. Whether, whiles they are regulating and ordering affairs in the House of God, they should not avoid Superstition? That none will deny that ever heard what superstition meant. Isiderus saith, 
Origin. Theol l. 8 c. 3. p. 1009.  Superstition is derived of supra statutum, and so imports a doing of somewhat more than God requires. As he that does less than he requires, incurs the guilt of contempt, so he that does more than he requires, incurs the guilt of Superstition. For, we must not think that Superstition consists only in the worshipping of a strange God, than none but gross Idolaters were guilty of it; no, it consists as well in the worshipping of the true God after a strange manner, that is, in the use of such things as he hath not commanded. And therefore as the Athenians were guilty of it, 
Acts 17.22. Mark 7.5, 6, 7. Col. 2 20 Gal. 4.10.  in worshipping they knew not what, so the Pharisees were guilty of it in their washing of hands; and some Christians in the Apostles times in their abstaining from meats, and observing of days. And the Papists likewise are, and have long been gurlty of it, and that in a very high degree, in framing, imposing, and using so many Articles, Doctrines, and Observations that have no foundation in the Word. When men content not themselves with the Laws and Ordinances of Christ, but to his Laws add new Laws, and to his Ordinances add new Ordinances, they do as really become guilty of it as if they worshipped a strange God. Herein Zanchius is express. There is (saith he) a fault in Worship by way of excess, if thou addest any thing to what Christ hath instituted, or followest what is added of others: as if to the Sacraments instituted by Christ, thou addest other Sacraments; if to Sacrifices, thou addest other Sacrifices; if to the Ceremonies of either Sacrament thou addest other Ceremonies, which are all deservedly called by the name of Superstition. Now things being thus, how will our Adversaries ever justify the Ceremonies they contend for, since they are such manifest additions to the Institutions of Christ, and are Ceremonies annexed to his Ceremonies? If they can justify Superstition, they may then justify them; but if they cannot justify it, neither will they justify them. 
Vol. 3. Epist. ad Reg. Eliz col. 242.  Zanchy doth not only charge humane Ceremonies in general with Superstition, but ours in particular, and that several times over in the same Epistle, persuading Queen Elizabeth, upon that very account, not to urge them on Ministers, but rather lay them aside. 
Mr. Cawdrey Answer to 24 Queries, p. 21  And a late judicious Author hath showed, that they are Superstitious in several particulars, and that upon that account it is unlawful to impose or use them. Notwithstanding this, our Adversaries are so far from accepting the charge, as that they do not only disclaim it, bat retort it upon us; alleging, that they are not guilty of Superstition, in imposing or using the Ceremonies, but we in refusing them. But there are Answers enough to clear us from this Imputation. 1. If we are guilty of it, and so guilty as is pretended, how comes it to pass that the Papists, that are so ready upon all occasions to load us with all manner of hateful reproaches, did never yet accuse us (nor any of the Reformed Churches that join with us in opposing their Ceremonies) of it? Nay, such is their candidness in this particular, that they do in their writings openly acquit us from it, thereby doing us more justice than our own Brethren, whom one would think we might better expect it from. That you discharge us (saith Dr. 
In Act. 17.4.  Fulk to the Rhemists) of your Superstition, we accept your Testimony, as the witness of our Adversaries. 2. Whether upon the same grounds that they charge it upon us, may not the profane Crew charge it upon all those that will not drink, swear, game, and the like, as they do? 3. If they will have us, upon this account, to be guilty of it; how will they clear themselves from it, when as they reject many Ceremonies of the Papists, as lawful and innocent in every respect as those which they retain? Nay, 4. doth not this charge fall upon them again, and so lay them under a double superstition? For when they appoint such positive Ordinances, as the Surplice in Divine-Service, the Cross in Baptism, kneeling at the Supper; do not they for bid the contrary, as do not perform Divine-Service without the Surplice, do not Baptise without the Cross, do not receive Supper without kneeling; each of which Negatives notwithstanding is not only lawful, but a duty? And whereas they argue from the words of the Apostle, Touch not, ●aste not, handle not, that there is a Negative Superstition, consisting in Negative Observations, we say so too, but withal, that it is nothing to us; for these Observations, were humane without any warrant from the Word: ours are Divine and founded upon it, so that we should greatly sin, if we did not what we do. Moreover, they who used these observations, used them as matters of special & peculiar Worship, whereas we look upon our abstinence from the Ceremonies, as no more matter of Worship than abstaining from Idolatry, Murder, Theft, or such like sins: and therefore it is most unreasonable that our Adversaries should charge us with Superstition. But yet we may not wonder at it, for it is usual with some men to term all such as make a greater stir about Religion than they would have them, superstitious. Thus Pliny in an Epistle of his to Trajan, 
Epist. l. 10. Ep. 97. p. 317  charges the Christians of his time with being guilty of it in a high degree. And we will not be ashamed of those reproaches, wherein those blessed Saints and Martyrs did so glory.  
Qu. 31. Whether, whiles they are decking and trimming the Worship or God, with matters of pretended decency and order, they may set up Idols in his House, and give religious respect to them? This is so far from being lawful, that they should abhor the very thoughts of it. The The Apostle saith, 
1 John 5.21.  we must keep ourselves from Idols. An Idol is a thing so odious and provoking that we should run from it, as from a devouring flame. August. saith, 
T. 10. serde temp. 241. fol. 246.  We must flee the idolothite, or that which is offered to an Idol, as if we saw the very Devil. And if we must thus flee, that which is but offered to an Idol, how must we flee from the Idol itself? One of our Adversaries own Writers, 
Mr. Sillingf. Orig sac. l. 2. c. 5. s. 2 p 168.  saith, God would not suffer the Prophet to eat and drink in Bethel, to testify how much he loathed and abominated that place since it was polluted with Idolatry. How then will they ever justify the setting up and using of the Ceremonies, which have not only been polluted with Idolatry, but are themselves filthy Idols, as appears by these particulars? 1. They are other means for the carrying on of God's work, than he hath any where appointed; and such things in the judgement of some of our best Authors are Idols. One of them showing the several ways of erecting Idols, 
Mr. Perkins vol. 1 the Idolatry of the last times p. 659.  saith, The second way is, when God is worshipped otherwise, and by other means, than he hath revealed in the Word. If then he hath not any where revealed in the Word that he will be worshipped in the use of the Ceremonies, (which, as I have before shown, he hath not) they must needs, according to his judgement, be Idols. 2. They are Images devised by man, without any appointment or warrant from God, and such are Idols. The very notation of the word tells us so; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived, as both ancient and modern Critics agree, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies the form or similitude of any thing, whether real or feigned, true or false, that is represented to us. The Papists indeed, who would fain distinguish away their Idolatry, have found out a difference betwixt Idolum and Simulacrum; but Erasmus tells us, 
Paraph. in 1 Cor. 8 4.  that Ambrose knew none, and that he himself knew none, saving that the one is a Greek word, and the other a Latin. And Beza saith that Idolum with the Greeks, 
Annot. in eund loc.  signifies the same that Simulacrum doth with the Latins. And therefore we find that whereit is said of Rachel, 
Gen. 31.19  that she stole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Images that were her fathers, the Sept. Vulg. and Pagnine do all render it Idols; thereby teaching us that Images are Idols. 
Orig. l. 8. c. 11. p. 1024 De Idol. c. 3. p. 150 Dr. Fulk against the Rhemists in Acts 17.4, 5. Mr. Perkins vol. 1. Refor. Cath. point. 9 p. 581.  And Isidorus, shows us that the Heathens used the names of Image and Idol indifferently. But leaving the Notation of the word, Tertullian tells us, that every form or representation is to be termed an Idol. And several of our own Writers of eminent note speak to the same purpose, telling us, That Images made without warrant from God for Religious use, are Idols, and upon that account to be avoided. 3. They have more respect and honour given them by far, than they do either in regard of their nature or use deserve, and therefore are Idols. For we must not think that those are Idols only that men professedly take for deities, and worship as such (than there were but sew comparatively in the world) no, 
Vol. 2. de secund: praec. col: 504.  those (as Zanchius shows) are likewise Idols, and to be esteemed such to which we ascribe any of the attributes, offices, prerogatives, or works of God. When we take the honour in any respect belonging to God, and bestow it on the Creatures, we make those Creatures, on which we bestow it, Idols. He that invocates deceased Saints, adores the Eucharist, attributes infallibility to a man, makes them all Idols. He that with the Epicure places his happiness in the contentment of his belly, does as the Apostle shows, 
Phil. 3.19.  make his belly his God, and consequently an Idol. So he that desires or loves the world more than God, and depends upon it, makes it an Idol, and himself (as the same Apostle speaks) an Idolater. 
Col. 3.5.  Now that the Ceremonies have more honour given them than belongs to them, is evident. The Papists tell us they are consecrated to God, are holy things, have relation to him, and that in this respect they are to be adored. Some of them say, they are to be adored per se, as they are holy things: 
See Mr. Parker of the Cross part. 1. c. 6 sect. 6. p. 8  others, secundum quid, as they have relation to God; but they all agree in this, that they are to be adored. As they hold that Images, holy Books, and the sacred Utensils are to be adored; so they hold that the Ceremonies being holy things, and having relation unto God, are in like manner to be adored: as appears by their daily practice in their oblations, kiss, bowings, and other testimonies of undue respect which they give to them. But to say nothing of the rest, 
See Mr. Bradsh. Treatise of the Cross, p. 117.  what think you of the sign of the Cross? Do not they make a plain Idol of it? do they not how to it, and worship it? do they not ascribe a divine efficacy to it? do they not say it expels Devils, heals Diseases; and sanctifies those that are signed with it? do they not say it is powerful to throw down strong holds, to convert sinners, and bring them to salvation? If this be not to make it an Idol, what is? But as if this were not sufficient, they go on, and tell us, That the same honour that belongs to Christ extended on the Cross, belongs to the Cross itself; and the same honour that lelongs to the Cross, belongs to the Image of the Cross, and the same honour that lelongs to the Image of the Cross, belongs to the sign of the Cross made in a transient way, with the finger, upon the forehead, breast, or elsewhere. For they do not place the merit or worth of it in the matter of it, but in the form or similitude of it to Christ extended on the Cross. And upon this ground, as they worship the one, so they do the other; & as they make an Idol of the one, so they do of the other. But to this our Adversaries say, grant the Papists ascribe too much to the Ceremonies, and make Idols of them, what's that to them, they make no Idols of them. Answ. 1. Not only the Papists, but they likewise ascribe too much to them. Do they not ascribe to them the power of teaching divine and spiritual mysteries, which belong to none but God, and those whom he authorises to do it? Do they not use one to teach Constancy, another Purity, a third Reverence? Do they not look upon them as the things that give beauty and life to the worship of God? Do they not teach, 
Vide Mountag. Orig. Eccl. t. 1. pt. 2. p. 80.  that the Sign of the Cross is the instrument of Divine power and sufficient to drive away Devils? And if we leave them, and go to such of the common People as they have instructed and proselyted to their way, do not some of them place as much holiness, necessity, and efficacy in them, as they do in the very Ordinances of God? Do they not make as much account of the Cross, as they do of Baptism itself? Do they not sign themselves with it as constantly morning and evening, as they say their prayers, accounting it a shield and defence to them against evil spirits? I speak not this upon conjecture or hear-say, but from the mouths of some of them themselves, who in discourse have professed it to me, and laboured to justify it. But 2. Suppose the Papists only, ascribe too much to the Ceremonies, yet that is sufficient to render them unfit to come into the house of God, or have state in his Worship; 
2 Cor. 6.16.  for, as the Apostle saith, What agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? It is not so material who it is that makes them Idols, as whether they are made Idols yea or no. Choose who they are that make them such, they do, by being so made, become unfit for Religious use. As for the pretence that those used amongst us, are not the same individual Ceremonies that have been made Idols by the Papists, I have in part answered it already, and here add; 1. When our Adversaries would convince us of the lawfulness of the Ceremonies, they presently send us to the Fathers, telling us that they used the same that we do; not the same in Number, but in Kind. Now if we should take the same course with them that they do with us, and say that those used by the Fathers, were not the same in Number with ours, but in Kind only, and that therefore their practice is not at all of force to us, would they not laugh us to scorn? And if we may argue from the use of some, to the use of others of the same kind, why may we not argue from the abuse of some to the abolishing of others of the same kind? The Church of England heretofore thought we might, and therefore (as I told you even now) renders this as the weightiest reason of the abolishing of certain of the Ceremonies, that they had been so much abused. 2. The Papists, have not only defiled the Ceremonies, as to some individuals of them, but likewise as to the whole kind, and that by a general consecration. 
Decret. part 3. dist. 5. c. 10.  As to instance in the Sign of the Cross; Pope Stephan the 5th consecrated it to such and such Idolatrous uses in general: by virtue whereof every individual Cross is an idolothite, 
Levit. 23.10. Dan. 1.8.  and so unfit for religious use. For, as the Jews in consecrating the sheaf of the first-fruits, consecrated the whole harvest; and as Nebuchadnezars Priest in offering one dish upon the altar of Bell, hallowed all that was upon the Table, so that Daniel would not eat of any part thereof, lest he should defile himself; so this Pope in consecrating the sign of the Cross in general, consecrated every individual Cross in particular, and hath thereby fastened such defilement on it, as all the water of Tiber will not wash off.  
Qu. 32. Whether, if our Adversaries will be devising and determining such matters of Decency and Order, should they not pitch upon such things as are not only free from the forementioned evils, wherewith the Ceremonies stand justly charged, but likewise have in them some good? They should not only see that what they decree and appoint be lawful, but that it be good, expedient and edifying. Our Saviour tells us that the unsavoury Salt, 
Mat. 5.13.  Which is good for nothing, is cast forth. And though somethings that Paul was moved to do, were in themselves lawful, yet because they were not expedient and edifying, he would not do them. 
1 Cor. 6.12.  All things (saith he) are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. He would not use any indifferent things, how innocent soever they were in themselves, or how eminent soever the persons were that commended or urged them, any further than Christian wisdom and charity told him they were expedient. And he did not only endeavour to promote expediency and edification in the use of indifferent things in his own practice, 
1 Cor. 14.26.  but also exhorted others to do it. Let all things (saith he) be done to edifying. There should not any thing come into, or continue in the house of God, but what may do service in it. The Jewish Ceremonies were laid aside for this reason, because they did not profit such as were exercised therein. 
Heb. 13.9.  Those than that bear rule in the Church, must not only see that what they institute and enjoin be not evil, but likewise that it be good. They must not only see that it tend not to the hindrance of the Gospel, 
Mat. 12.36. Eph. 5.11 Loc. Com: monuclas: 4. c. 4. s. 4. p. 771. Exam. part. 2. de rit. p. 228. Comment in 2 Cor. 5. T. 3. de effect. sac l. 2. c. 32. p. 95.  but to the furtherance of it. If they must beware of idle words, then much more of idle and unprofitable works. Peter Martyr, Chemnitius, and other reformed Writers teach, That all Ceremonies what soever that are inexpedient and unuseful, aught to be thrown out of the Church. And some of the Papists say the same. Aquinas saith, It is sufficient for the cashiering of a thing that it be not profitable or edifying. Nay Bellarm. renders this as the reason wherefore the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees were unlawful, because they were vain and unprofitable. Some amongstus demand, What hurt there is in the Ceremonies, and what evil we can see in them? Now this even in the judgement of Papists is a frivolous question; for we must not only see that what we use in the Worship of God, be not evil, but that it be good; not only that it be not hurtful, but that it be helpful. And how then will our Adversaries justify the Ceremonies, since they are so far from being good and helpful, that they are many ways evil and hurtful. They disturb the peace of the Church, destroy Christian Liberty, occasion the displeasing of Magistrates, throw out many hundreds, if not thousands of godly Ministers, suppress the preaching of the Word, bring it into contempt, draw away the hearts of people from spiritual matters, undo multitudes of families, engross much precious time which is spent in the study explaining, opposing, and defending of them, grieve many good Christians, cause many to separate from our Congregations, and some to leave the Nation, draw upon us the censure of foreign Churches, harden Papists, weaken the Protestant Interest, and rejoice Satan and all that bear ill will to us. Or if you would rather have it from the mouth of a stranger, who may be supposed to be more impartial in the case (though I allege nothing but what is too well known to be denied) hear the learned and judicious Zanchius; 
Epist. ad Regin. Eliz. col. 247.  speaking of the Surplice, and such like Vestments, They avail not (saith he) to edification, that is, to further piety, but rather tend to the overthrow of it: nor to any good order, but rather to disorder, for they confound godly and wicked Pastors; whereas it is meet and equal that they should be distinguished from one another, even by their garments. Neither do they make Christ's Spouse comely, therefore we ought not to yield to them. And a little after, What profit or wholesome use (saith he) can Christian People have by them? On the contrary we have showed, that godliness is weakened by them, the pure Worship of God is violated, Popish Superstition is by little and little called back, the godly are offended, the wicked are confirmed and hardened in their ungodliness; the weak in Faith are brought into hazard of their Salvation; they are occasions of many evils given. Monks and other popish Preachers are hereby helped to confirm their followers in their superstition; the wrath of God is provoked against us; those things which God would have to be destroyed, are hereby builded again by us; the whole face of the Church is defiled and disgraced; there is a foul sin committed against honest and good Laws, forbidding the putting on of strange and outlandish garments, and so the whole Church is dishonoured, the peace of the Church, yea of many Churches is troubled; one Minister is set against another, the Consciences of the godly are disquieted, the Minds of good Men are offended, God's Spirit is made sad in them; and this apple of contention is cast as it were upon the Table of the gods. Thus he. And are these the best matters of expediency that our Convocation after so long deliberation can help us too? The Lord in his own due time deliver his poor Church from such expedients.  
Qu. 33. Whether they should not content themselves with the same simplicity in the Worship of God in these days, that the primitive Christians, following the steps of Christ and his Apostles, did content themselves with in theirs? If they ought not, let them declare their grounds. If they ought, then what do they with so many gaudy inventions, which the primitive Christians in their days knew nothing of? Had they any such stately Cathedrals, Quires and Organs as are amongst us? or if the infelicity of the times wherein they lived would not permit the actual having of such things, yet did they discover any inclination or desire after them? Or, to let such matters wholly pass, had they any Cross in Baptism, kneeling at the Sacrament, bowing at the Name of Jesus, Surplices and other Vestments, which our Adversaries keep such ado about, accounting the Worship undecent, and disorderly that is without them? No, it is well known they had no such things. If you would have a particular account of the antiquity and rise of the Ceremonies you may read Bugenhagius his Commentary upon Jonah, who hath there inserted the History of them, and shown when and how each of them came into the Church. In the mean time hear what others say concerning the primitive Churches, and their state, as to the Ceremonies in general. 
De Orig. err. l. 2. c. 5. Exam. pt. 2. de Rit. p. 228.  Bullinger saith, it never came into their mind that any Rite, beside what Christ ordained, would profit the Church. Chemnitius speaking of the simplicity of the Apostles, saith, it continued for a season after, the Sacraments being administered only with those Rites which have the Commandment and Example of Scripture. Zanchius showing how the Apostles upon the Ascension of Christ, 
Epist. ad Reg Eliz col. 243.  abolished the Ceremonies of Aaron, & how the Papists call them back, saith, Whether it be better to follow the pious simplicity of the Apostles or the impious pomp of the Papists who is ignorant? Nay, 
De Eccl. Rom. Praejud. c. 10. p. 560.  hear what Camero, a noted Formalist, hath; Let us consider (saith he) the Primitive Church flourishing more in the times of the Apostles than ever it did afterwards: who will not admire the great simplicity in all points, and especially in Ceremonies? for excepting the celebration of Baptism by washing of Water, and of the holy Supper according to the Lord's Institution, in taking the Bread and Wine, and distributing them after thanksgiving: excepting also the Imposition of hands upon those who extraordinarily received the holy Ghost, whether it were in a general calling, or a particular, to a charge in the Church, and anointing for a miraculous healing the sick; I say these excepted, there will not be found any other Ceremony in those primitive times; so admirable was their simplicity. And herewith agrees that which Rhenanus tells of Winefridus, 
Rer. Ger. l. 2. p. 98.  born at Kirton in Devonshire, afterwards surnamed Boniface. Being asked whether it were lawful to sacrifice with wooden Chalices? he answered, that in old time there were Golden Priests and Wooden Chalices, but now Wooden Priests and Golden Chalices. Which saying Durand. 
Ration, l 1 de Picturis. & Cortinis & ornamentis Eccl. f. 7.  himself, though so great a patron and friend to the Ceremonies, makes use of to show how the state of things was altered, and how unlike the times wherein he lived were to the primitive. Then there was more of inward zeal, and less of outward pomp; but now there is more of outward pomp, and less of inward zeal. Then the minds of Christians were set upon Prayers, Tears and Martyrdom; but now they are set upon Ceremonies, and how they may do all things in state, and please the eyes and ears of carnal sensual people, who had rather hear a tinkling Cymbal, than the sound preaching of the Word. How our Adversaries that so much cry up the Primitive Times, and upon all occasions are urging us with them, will justify this their departure from them, I see not.  
Qu. 34. Whether they should not consult the proceed of the best Reformed Churches, and so far as they act according to the common Rule, hold communion with them? Certainly Jesus Christ would have them to do it. He would have his whole Church, 
Ps. 122.3.  to be as a City compact together. He would have all his Servants to be one, and to hold communion with each other, and prayeth that they may do it, suggesting that his Name and Glory are concerned in it. 
John 17.20, 21.  Neither pray I (saith he) for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, that the World may believe that thou hast sent me. It's true, we are mainly to endeavour union in Faith and the principal Doctrines of Religion, but yet we are not to neglect it in other things so far as it is attainable, but to do all we can to procure it. Josephus saith, 
Cont. Ap. l. 2. p. 1072.  To worship one God all after the same manner, and nothing differ in manner and conversation one from another, is the only way to establish amity and concord in a Commonwealth. And our Adversaries themselves when they are pleading for Uniformity in our own Nation, can tell us, that from diversity flows dislike, from dislike, 
Bishop of Worcest. Letter touching Mr. Baxter, p. 18.  enmity; from enmity, opposition; and from opposition, separation and schism. And is Uniformity in the outward mode of Worship, so necessary amongst particular Churches in the same Nation, and is it not at all necessary with Churches of different Nations, agreeing with us in all points belonging to the foundation, and bordering thereupon? Is not the Name and Honour of Christ concerned as well in the one as in the other; nay, more conspicuously and eminently in the one than the other? Wherefore then, whilst they are such pretenders to Uniformity, do they leave their Brethren, and retain the Ceremonies which they have cast off? What the common judgement and practice of the Protestant Churches is, we may without troubling ourselves with particular inquiries, learn from what is suggested to us in general by the great Chamier: 
Panstrat. t 4. de sacram, l. 15: c. 16. sect. 27. p. 297.  Discoursing of the Rites of Baptism, and condemning the Papists for using so many things in it, not appointed by Scripture, he comes to examine the Answer given in by Vasquez, who allegeth the same against us; to whom in the name of the Protestant Churches in general, he makes this Reply. We observe (saith he) comely circumstances in the celebration of the Sacrament, but we justly condemn those who have added such things, unto which they have fancied mysteries and proper significations, and that of those effects which appertain to the Water of Baptism; as though the work must be twice or thrice done, and that divine Institution were nothing, or not sufficient, 
T. 3. de eff Sacram. l. 2. c. 31. p. 92, 93.  unless helped out by human temerity. And this Bellarmine, who had been amongst the Protestant Churches, observed of them; and therefore having spoken of their own stately Cathedrals adorned with Crosses, Images, Altars, Lamps, and how they beget devotion, saith, that in the Temples of the Heretics there is nothing but a Pulpit for the Minister to preach in, and a Table to receive the Communion from. And he after mentions it as the common opinion of protestants, that God is not to be worshipped by any Ceremonies, but such as he himself hath appointed. Notwithstanding this, Mounseur durel would persuade us that the reformed Divines beyond the Seas are for humane Ceremonies, and that they approve of ours as lawful and commendable. And for proof hereof he produces many testimonies, but how far they fall short of doing what he would have them, I leave to the intelligent and observant Reader to judge. He that in perusal of him will but remember to distinguish betwixt all Reformed Divines beyond the Seas, and some few: betwixt what those few say upon certain evidence of the state of things amongst us, and what upon palpable misinformation: betwixt what they say of Circumstances of Decency and Order, and what they say of Ceremonies in a proper sense: betwixt what they speak as to an extraordinary juncture of things, or special case, such as ours was when we came out of Popery, and what as to a state of Liberty: betwixt what they speak out of their composed standing judgement, & what out of mere sympathy and compassion to their afflicted, suffering brethren, and the Churches then under their charge; he, I say, that will but observe these and such like distinctions, will easily see that all his testimonies wherewith he makes such ado, have little in them for him. You have already heard what Chamier in the name of his own, and other Churches speaks. And you have heard likewise what Bellarmine's observation was of them. Were it needful I might weary you with Testimonies both of Protestants and Papists, to the same purpose; but I shall only offer to you one, instead of many. It is that of Dr. Bilson, afterwards Bishop of Winchester, who speaking to the Jesuits, of some of the Reformed Churches of greatest eminercy, 
Of Christian subjection, part 1. p. 31.  which they instanced in as most favourable to their Religion, he tells them, That they were so far from admitting the full dose of their Heresies, that they could by no means digest one drachm of their Ceremonies. Now if Uniformity be so neceslary, and the Churches beyond the Seas have laid down the Ceremonies, wherefore do not our Adversaries do the like? Where do they stay behind their Brethren? Wherefore, 
2 Sam. 19.12.  like the men of Judah, are they the last to bring the King lack to his Throne? Wherefore do they still retain the Ceremonies, to the offending of their Brethren, the drawing of their censure upon them, and the begetting of uncomfortable jealousies and differences? Whether doth not this their unnecessary departing from them, lay them under the manifest guilt of Schism? Amongst other unjust imputations that they labour to asperse us with, they commonly charge us with Schism, because we join not with them in the Ceremonies, and are not they in the mean time more truly and eminently guilty of it, when they will not join with other Churches in abolishing and casting them away? 
Mr. Stillingf Iren part 1. c. 6. p 128.  Is there not more danger (as a friend of theirs very justly demands) in the scandals of Churches than persons? But perhaps they'll say, That the Churches beyond the Seas have left us, and not we them, and therefore if they'll have Communion with us in the outward Form of Worship, it's fit they should return, and fall in with us, not we with them. Answ. That they have left us, is true, but little either to our credit, or their disparagement; for they have left us no otherwise than we have left the Papists; so that they may take up Bishop Jewels words, and say concerning us, as we in him, 
Apol Ecc. Angl. p. 135.  said concerning them. We have departed from them, and for that cause give thanks to God, and gratulate ourselves in it; but from the Primitive Church, from the Apostles, from Christ, we have not departed. As it is not the suffering, but the cause that makes Martyrdom; so neither is it in the judgement of our Adversaries themselves, the departure, 
See Mr. Cheynel of Soyinianism. p. 64, 65.  but the cause that makes the Schism. And therefore we are to inquire whether they had not cause to departed from us; If they had, the charge of Schism falls not upon them but us, who occasioned their departure. But admit they and we stood upon even terms, yet it is more reasonable that we should fall in with them than they with us. 1. Because they were before us in Christ, lead the way in the Reformation, and delivered the Gospel to us; so that they may reason with us, as Paul with the Corinthians, 
1 Cor. 14.36.  What? came the Word of God out from you, or came it unto you only? 2. Because they exceed us both in number and greatness. And it was the course of the Ancients (as one hath showed by several instances) to take that way which the greatest number of Churches did chalk out to them. 
Mr. Park. of the Cross, pt. 1. c. 3. sect. 16. p. 159.  Nay, and our Adversaries themselves, when we urge them to wave the Ceremonies, answer us with disdain enough, and ask, Whether they being the greater number are to give place to us, or we to them? Now if there be reason that in lawful matters the less number of persons, of the same Nation, should give place to the greater, is there not likewise reason that in lawful matters (such as the abolishing the Ceremonies is) the less number of Churches of divers Nations, should also in order to the perfecting of Communion, give place to the greater?  
Qu. 35. Whether should they not tread in the sters of godly and holy Martyrs, who loved not their lives unto the death, but sacrificed them in the cause of Christ? I propound this the rather, because they urge it as a considerable evidence of the lawfulness of the Ceremonies, that some godly Martyrs in their life time, allowed and made use of them. Now if it be any evidence of the lawfulness of them, that some godly Martyrs allowed and made use of them, is it not much more an evidence of the unlawfulness of them, that in those dark times wherein the world wondered after the Beast, and doted on his Superstitions, there were yet found many holy men, who afterwards died Martyrs, that utterly disliked and condemned them? What then will they say to the Old Waldenses, 
See Hist. of the Wald. pt. 3. l. 1. c. 6. p. 43, 46.  so famous for their Orthodoxness and purity? Did not thousands of them die Martyrs? And did they not constantly refuse to conform to any of those Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, which they perceived to have no necessary use in Religion, but tended rather to superstition than edification? Did they not contemn all Customs of the Church which they read not in the Gospel? and did they not hold that those things which were appointed by the Bishops and Prelates, were not to be observed, because they were the Traditions of men and not of God? And doth not Thuanus, a late Popish Historian, 
Hist. sui. temp. t. 1. l. 6. p. 177.  upon this ground liken them to the Puritans of England? And whoever will but take the pains to compare them, will find that as they were acted by the same Spirit, and walked by the same Rule, so they maintained the same Principles, and suffered in the same Cause. But leaving them, what will our Adversaries say to Rogers, 
See Acts and Mon hist. of their Lives.  Hooper, Ridley, Bradford, Hawks, Philpot, Gibson, Denly and others of our own Nation? Were not they men famous for their holiness and zeal? Did they not die Martyrs, and did they not resolutly protest against the Ceremonies, declaring they would use none but those instituted by Christ? If then either the judgement or practice of holy and blessed Martyrs take place, the Ceremonies must down.  
Qu. 36. Whether should they not take counsel of, and imitate our former grave and learned Bishops, that by their excellent labours have made themselves famous throughout the Churches? If they should, what will they say to Hooper, whom I mentioned before, who was not only a Bishop, but a Martyr? or what will they say to Jewel, Pilkinton, Westphaling and others, who notwithstanding the ignorance and Superstition of the times wherein they lived, and the eminent places they supplied in the Church, did for all that, not only exercise much moderation, and forbearance in the matter of the Ceremonies, but also gave evident Testimonies of their dislike? The truth hereof is so evident, 
View of Government, p. 239.  that Mounseur durel doth of his own accord, not without some show of relenting, confess it. Speaking of Bishop Hooper, he saith, It is well known, that good and pious man, who suffered death for the testimony of Christ's truth (together with man) other godly Bishops of the Church of England) had a strange weakness about the Ceremonies, of which he could not be cured by any of his friends. As then, the unlawfulness of the Ceremonies is a point that hath been sealed by the blood of zealous and holy Martyrs, so it hath been attested by the judgement and practice of grave and learned Bishops.  
Qu. 37. Whether, leaving the pious simplicity of the Primitive Christians, Reformed Churches, Faithful Martyrs, and godly Bishops, do they well to go to the Vestry of Antichrist, and there take up a company of gaudy Vestments (with other superstitious stuff) bring them into the house of the Lord, and there make use of them in his Worship, to the great grief of their brethren that would fain see it carried on in a more pure and holy manner? If Achan sinned in bringing a Babylonish garment into the Camp of Israel, 
Jesh. 7.21.  and if Tobiah sinned in bringing his furniture into the chamber of the House of the Lord, and that so greatly, 
Neh. 13.8.  that Nehemiah was sorely grieved at it; what then do these men do in bringing such a deal of Antichrists stuff, polluted with his abominations, not only into the Camp of Israel, or into the Chamber of the House of the Lord, but into the House itself, nay to the very Altar thereof?  
Qu. 38. Whether, is not this putting of themselves into garb of Antichrist, a wearing of his Livery, and a doing of special nonour to him? That is too manifest to be denied. And shall those who pretend to be godly Bishops go and do special honour to him? Would not Mordecai, 
Esth. 3.2.  though commanded by the Persian King, bow or do reverence to Haman, because he was an Amalekite, and of a stock that God would have destroyed; and yet shall they go and do honour to Antichrist, the implacable enemy of the Son of God, whom he will ere long consume with the spirit of his mouth, 
2 Thess. 2.8.  and destroy with the brightness of his coming?  
Qu. 39 Whether, is not this putting of themselves into the garb of Antichrist, and wearing his Livery in the use of the Ceremonies, an assuming of his Image, and a receiving of his Mark? 
Rev. 7.3.13.16.  The holy Ghost shows, that as Christ hath his Mark, wherewith he seals his Servants, and distinguishes them from others; so Antichrist hath his mark, wherewith he also seals his servants and distinguishes them from others. Now the Ceremonies being propria insignia, 
T. 3. de Eff. Sat. l. 2. c. 31. p. 93.  or special badges or notes of discrimination, whereby (as Bellarm. teaches) he will have his vassals distinguished and known from those of other Religions; whether may they not be said to be this his mark, and those that use them said to receive and bear it? If Writers of great eminency and authority are not mistaken they may. Pareus approving of the judgement Of Dr. Abbot Bishop of Sarisbury, 
Comment in Apoc. 13.16.  saith, His mark is twofold, the one common to all, the other peculiar to those that buy and sell. To that which is common (saith he) belong those things, which he hath commanded to be in the common use of all; as the observation of Fasts, and Feasts, instituted by him, the adoring of the Host, the Kiss of peace, the worshipping of Images, auricular Confession, the performance of the penitential Rites, and the rest of those things required of him, not of God. But the peculiar mark (he saith) is the Oath of the Spiritual Buyers and Sellers, wherewith binding themselves as in a special Bond, they promise Obedience and Subjection to him, and for a testimony thereof, they are separated and divided from the rest of the Church, by certain particular Rites and Religions, prescribed by him, as Vows, Unctions, Shave, Vestments. Thus he. Who though he do not place the mark of the Beast solely in the Ceremonies, yet he teaches that they are comprehended in it. 
Schluss. cattle. t. 13. p. 593.  But the Divines of Germany who opposed the Interim, reduce it to a narrower compass, and tell us, that the Popish Rites urged upon them, were the very Notes, Characters, and Name of the Beast; and that the third Angel appointed to preach against the Image of the Beast, and the receiving of his Mark, is no other than the Ministers that withstand the tail of Antichrist left behind him in the Church. 
See Napier and Carthw. in loc.  Others do yet restrain his mark to a narrower compass, and say, That the holy Ghost doth in an especial manner aim at the Sign of the Cross in it. And to render it more probable, we may observe this, That as there is not any Rite which the Papists more dote on, employ and abuse than it, so it is that which they make use of more than any, to distinguish them from others. What more ordinary, when they are in a strange place, than to notify to one another who they are, by making with the hand a Sign of the Cross, as if that Were the very Badge of their Religion? But admit that we could not make it out to our Adversaries, that either the Cross in particular, or the Ceremonies in general, are the mark of the Beast, yet whether should they make use of them (especially they being in other respects, as you have heard, so evil) since such learned and judicious men have reputed them to be it? If the Commands in Scripture touching the avoiding of Scandal, matters of bad report, and such like things, be of any force, they may not do it.  
Qu. 40. Whether this their taking up and using the Rites and Ceremonies of Antichrist be not (at least in a degree) a giving him the right-hand of fellowship and an holding communion with him? That cannot reasonably be gainsaid; for as both the notation of the word, and the standing use of it shows, Communion is no more than Coitio in Unum, or a becoming of one, whether in judgement, affection, privileges, observations, or any other thing wherein we are capable of joining. So far as we differ from any Sect or Society in any of these things, so far we fall short of Communion with them; and so far as we agree or are one with them in them, so far we may be said to hold Communion with them. And therefore if our Adversaries agree with Antichrist, and are at one with him as to the Ceremonies he uses, so far they must needs be said to hold Communion with him. And may they lawfully hold Communion with him? Is he not an Apostate, an Heretic, an Idolater? Nay, is he not (as his Name imports) the direct enemy of Jesus Christ and his Truth? And hath not God expressly prohibited us to hold Communion with such as are his enemies? hath he not forbidden us the use of many things unquestionably lawful, nay in some degree necessary, and that for this very end, 
Exod. 20.25, 26.14.1. Leu. 18.3 19.19, 27 28.20.23 Deut. 12.30. 1 Sam. 6.8. 1 Chr. 15.13. 2 Kings 16.11. 2 Chr. 13.9 Ezek. 8.16.11.12 Hos. 2.16 Mat. 6.7  that we may not hold any fellowship with them, or seem in the least to approve of their ways? Read the places in the Margin, and orthodox Expositors upon them, and you shall see that as he forbade his people in former times (and us in them) in general, to do after the manner of other Nations, so likewise, that the reason wherefore he forbade them such and such things in particular, and blamed them for the use of them, was because he would not have them to hold fellowship with them, or become one with them. And hence we find that his servants in aftertimes, understanding this to be his will, were very cautious of having any thing to do with such kind of People, either in Religious or Civil matters. Historians tell us of the Christians of former times, 
Cent. Magd. cent. 3. c. 6. col. 141.  that of all other things they took care in this, that they had nothing common with the Manners and Customs of the Heathens. Nay, such was their holy zeal and caution, that let them be Heathens, Jews, Heretics or what they would, they would not have Communion with them, no not in the smallest matters, unless they would lay down their enmity, come into Christ, and close with his truth and ways. 
See Mr. Parker of the Cross part. 1. c. 3 sect. 16. p. 157, etc. Aims fresh suit part 2. p. 438.  They would not worship towards the East, wear Garlands, Fast on Fridays, bring Wine and Cakes into the Church, sing Songs of Hallelujah and joy on the Calends of January, celebrate Birth-days, set Lights at their doors, because they would not symbolise with Heathens. They would not observe Easter at the usual time, look in Prayer towards Jerusalem, use the word Priest or Sacrifice, forbear decking their houses, or dressing of meat on the Lord's day, or have a Lamb to represent Christ; because they would not hold Fellowship with the Jews. They would not Fast on the Lord's day, use Trin-immersion in Baptism, abstain from Flesh, have Lights in their Worship, shave their Heads, so as to leave long hair below; and all because they would not do after the manner of the Heretics. And they who stood out in this zealous opposition against these enemies of the Truth, were not a company of the Vulgar sort only, who commonly have a zeal that is not according to knowledge, but the eminentest Lights of the whole Church, and the strongest defenders of the Christian interest. Neither were they a few of those only, acting singly and privately, but whole Councils, both Provincial and General, and those too of the most Orthodox and Famous that ever were since the Apostles times. Neither did they stand out in Religious matters only, but also in such as were of a civil & common nature; nor in some weightier things only, but also in such as in themselves were small and trivial, as the wearing of a Garland, celebrating a Birthday, and the like, thereby declaring to the World their utter detestation of them and their ways. And if we come nearer our own times, and consult the Writers of the Reformed Churches, we shall find that they (treading in the steps of the Ancients, and imitating their godly zeal) do unanimously cry down Communion with the enemies of the Truth, whether Infidels, Idolaters, or Heretics, as not only unlawful, but pernicious and dangerous. 
Epist. ad Reg. Eliz col. 243.  Zanchius tells Queen Elizabeth, that we ought to have nothing at all to do with the Papists in the business of Religion, save in those things which they have common with the Apostles. And Gualther saith, 
Com. in Luc. 11. fol. 309.  that common sense admonisheth Christians to abstain from all the Rites and Ceremonies of Infidels and Heretics. To these I might add many more, 
Aims fresh suit, part 2. p. 456.  speaking to the same purpose, but it is done by others, and therefore I forbear. Besides, that we should thus decline communion with Infidels and Heretics, is a Truth so plain, that several of the Papists themselves, though the greatest users of foreign Rites, do own and teach it. 
Decret. part 2. caus. 26. q 7. c. 13. Annal. ad ann. 184.  Gratian speaks against the observing the Calends of January, and adorning of houses with Laurel and green Boughs, because the Pagans did so. And Baronius would not have Christians to celebrate play-days in the beginning of the Spring, because the Heathens were wont to do the like in honour of the Mother of their Gods. 
T. 2. l. 2. de Monac. cap. 40. p 200. De Ador. l. 2. disp. 4. c. 3.  And Bellarmine tells us, that shaving was forbidden the Jewish Priests, lest they should be like to the Priests of the Gentiles. And Vasquez saith, that God forbade the Israelites the use of Images, and the setting up of Stones and Monuments, because he would not have them like the Canaanites and other Idolaters. And as for Heretics, the Rhemists will not have us so much as use their words. 
Annot. in 1 Tim. 6. sect. 4.  We shall (say they) keep the Faith of our Fathers, if we keep their very words; but avoid we the words of Heretics, although they seem to have no harm in them. Now things being thus, that the People of God must not do after the manner of such as are of a strange Religion, nor hold communion with them; how, on the one hand, will the Papists justify their doing after the manner of Heathens, Jews and Turks, and holding communion with them? and how, on the other hand, will our Adversaries justify their doing after the manner of the Papists in the use of their Ceremonies, and holding communion with them therein?  
Qu. 41. Whether this their giving to the Papists the right-hand of fellowship, and holding communion with them in their Ceremonies, be not likely to beget in them a greater liking of their way, and to confirm and settle them in it? Whether instead of bringing them over to us, is it not likely to beget in them hopes that we will return to them? Hear what Zanchius saith. 
Epist. ad Reg. Eliz col. 243.  This recalling (saith he) of Popish Garments, your gracious Majesty may believe me, will be a greater evil than perhaps it may seem, even to wise men, at the first blush. For methinks I see and hear the Monks crying out with very loud voices in the Pulpits, both confirming their followers in their impious Religion, by the example of your gracious Majesty, and also saying, What? doth not even the Queen of England also, a most learned and prudent Princess, begin by little and little to come back to the Religion of the holy Church of Rome, the most holy and sacred Vestments of the Clergymen being taken on again? We are to be in good hope that the day will come, wherein they will at length, though now they be thought to be dead, recall also all the other Rites and Sacraments of the holy Church of Rome. These and suchlike words, no doubt, most prudent Queen, the Monks and Jesuits will use in the Pulpits. For they take all occasions to confirm their Superstitions. Therefore to recall these stinking Garments, and other rubbish of the Popish Church, into the Church of Christ at this time, what is it but to give the Papists an occasion, and the best that may be, to confirm & harden themselves and theirs in their Superstitions, and also to help them in this business? Thus he. And it is well known that our using of their Rites and Customs doth furnish them with Arguments against us, 
See Mr. Parker of the Cross part 1. c. 3. sect. 6. p. 135.  and supply them with somewhat to say in their own defence. They do not only argue for their Mass-Book from our Service-Book; and the necessity they ascribe to the Sacrament from our private Baptism; and their Absolution, Auricular Confession, and Sacrament of Penance, from our Absolution of the Sick, prescribed in the aforesaid Service-Book; but they likewise argue for their Cross from ours; and for other Rites used by them, from those used amongst us. And thus the Fathers of our Church, who yet would be looked upon as the only mals of Papists, instead of refuting the Arguments they had before, help them to new ones; and instead of convincing them of their errors and evil ways, and reducing them from them, encourage and settle them in them. And shall the Prophets of Jerusalem, strengthen the hands of evil doers, 
Jer. 23.14, etc.  that none return from his wickedness? Let them know for this, that if they repent not, the Lord will be against them, and that he will feed them with wornswood, and make them drink the water of Gall; and that his whirlwind shall go forth in fury against them, even a grievous whirlwind, and it shall fall grievously upon their heads.  
Qu. 42. Whether this their zealous retaining the Ceremonies of the Papists, and holding communion with them therein, be not an argument that they have a secret design, when the wind stands right, to return to them again? If they have not some purpose that way, what's the reason that notwithstanding all the solicitations and entreaties of their Brethren, to lay the Ceremonies aside, and all the unhappy contests they have occasioned amongst us, they will not be got to do it, but choose to hazard Religion, Peace, Laws, Liberties and all, rather than they will part with them? What doth this hold forth, but that they use them in a Sacramental sense indeed, that is, to signify to the Papists that they have a secret respect for them; and that as they came from them, so they have a purpose to return to them? Whether it be so or no, I will not positively affirm, but it is manifest the Papists hope it is so, and we fear, if opportunity serve, it will prove so. If they would have us to lay aside our jealousies, let them lay aside the Ceremonies that do occasion them. It hath been usual that when any Nation or People have set up such a Religion, whether good or bad, they have also set up the Ceremonies of that Religion. When the Israelites fell to the worship of Baal, they bowed the knee to Baal; 
1 K. 19.18 Hos. 13.2.  and when they fell to the worship of the Calves, they kissed the Calves. 
Beda hist Angl. l. 2. c. 2. fo. 57  So when Gregory sent Augustine the Monk hither into England to reform things amongst us; and when one of his Successors Agents swore Jerom of Prague to the Church of Rome; 
Concil. Constantiens. sess. 19 Genebr. chron. ad an. 1549.  and when the Emperor urged the Interim; they each of them exacted assent to, and compliance in the Ceremonies. And so, on the other hand, it hath been usual that when any Nation or People have thrown out such a Religion, they have with it thrown out the Ceremonies belonging to it. When the Israelites threw aside the worship of Baal and the Calves, they neither bowed to the former, nor kissed the latter; but as they despised them, so they did their Ceremonies. And when the Heathens forsook their Idols, and turned Christians, they also forsook their Ceremonies, refusing (as I have before showed) to have any thing common with them, or those that worshipped them. So when the Churches beyond the Seas cast off Popery, they likewise cast off the Ceremonies belonging to it, not suffering so much as a dram thereof to remain. As the morning ushers-in the day, so the Ceremonies of any Religion tend to the introducing and bringing-in of that Religion. And therefore (saith Augustine) If ye inquire how the Pagans may be convinced, 
Tom. 10. de Verbis dom. ser. 6. fol. 5.  how they may be enlightened, how they may be called to Salvation, forsake all their Solemnities, forsake their trifles; and if they will not consent to our Truth, let them yet at the least be ashamed of their own pancity. And upon this ground Pope Zechary proceeded; 
Decret. part 2. caus. 26. q. 7. c. 14.  and therefore when he saw some celebrate the Kalends of January, and feast and dance after the manner of the Pagans, he forbade them to do it, for this reason, lest Paganism should re-pullulate and spring up again. And have not we cause to fear, lest the retaining of Popish observations, may occasion the springing up again of Popery, as well as those men had cause to fear lest the retaining of Paganish observations, might occasion the springing up again of Paganism? I believe all those that are affected to the Protestant Interest as they should be, judge we have. I would (saith Peter Martyr) that those who think these things should be retained amongst us, 
Ep cuidan Amico in Angl. p. 1125.  saw that the continuing of them will endanger the removal of the Gospel. But it was not he only that saw danger in it, but others likewise, who thereupon warned us to beware of it. 
In Cyprian. ep. 56. not. 31.  Goulartius saw so much danger in the very Cross, that he saith, If we mean to maintain the Doctrine of Christ crucified, we must abolish it. Let not therefore our Adversaries think it strange that upon our observing their tenaciousness of the Ceremonies, and lothness to part with them, we become jealous that they have more respect for Popery than they would have the world to think they have; and that if circumstances would fairly concur, they would attempt the bringing of us back to our former state.  
Qu. 43. Whether is it not probable (all things considered) that they retain the Ceremonies on purpose to serve them as instruments in the promoting of Popery? Whether is it not to be feared that they retain them to keep up the memory of it for the present, and to serve them as Engines to help them to wind it in amongst us when a fit opportunity presents itself? They know very well that the Ceremonies of Rome may be of great use to them to prepare the people for the Doctrine of Rome; and that if ever they can get Popery in amongst us, it will be no small advantage to them to tell the people, that the Ceremonies and Doctrine of Rome, being like the Harlot's attire and songs, both of the same stamp, they ought to go together; and that therefore as they have hitherto used the former, so it is fit they should now close with the latter. As for the people's fleeing to distinctions, and telling them that though they used the Ceremonies of the Papists, yet they used them not in that sense that they do, not one in a thousand (as they themselves know and confess) is able to do it; and if they could, 
See Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 65.  yet how soon can they take them off it? How easily can they tell them, that as the Popish Ceremonies are Images, so were theirs; as the Papists make their Ceremonies necessary, so did they theirs: as they ascribe efficacy to their Ceremonies, so did they to theirs. With these and such like Answers how easily will they take the ignorant people off what they will have to allege in their own behalf? And what a snare than will the people find themselves in? what a temptation than will they lie under, to submit to whatever they will urge upon them? Now this our Adversaries know; and therefore, I say, since they urge the Ceremonies with so much zeal, that they will not be got upon any terms to lay them aside, but will part with Peace, the preaching of the Word, Religion, and all, rather than let them go; is it not likely in the judgement of any indifferent persons, that they intent them as Engines to draw in the body of Popery, when an opportunity for such a work offers itself? Sure I am that divers learned men in a parallel case thought as much. Witness what the Divines of Hamburgh say concerning the Ceremonies of the Interim. These indifferent things (say they) are nothing else but the seeds of corruption, the nerves of Papistical Superstition, 
Epist. ad Melanct.  and the little passages by which our Adversaries endeavour to creep into our Churches, that they may turn them off the foundation. And the Divines of Saxony speak to the same purpose. Satan (say they) from these small beginnings of the Ceremonies makes progress to the corruption of Doctrine itself. 
Confess. Saxon. ed. 1560. Com. l. 21 p. 391.  And Sleidan tells us, that the reason wherefore the Protestants disliked the Interim, was, because they looked upon it as that which would open a way to the body of Popery. Many amongst us are ready to say, Alas, what are two or three Ceremonies? what danger is in them? what are they to the business of Popery? but we see the Protestants of Germany thought otherwise, they looked upon them as the in-lets of Popery, and upon that consideration withstood them. And how well is it known that little matters have produced great events, and that small beginnings have in a short time grown up to no less than a stupendious magnitude? Who would ever think that a company of Moles, Frogs, and such like despicable animals, should overthrow whole Towns and Cities, and yet (as Pliny shows by various instances) they have done it, in Spain, Thessaly, 
Nat. Hist l. 8. c. 29. p. 138.  France, and several other places? Who living in the Apostles times would ever have thought, had not the Scripture foretold it, that the Mystery of Iniquity, then in working, would ever have ascended to such a monstrous height? what a grain of Mustardseed was it in those days? yet in a short space it grew and waxed a great tree, sufficient to lodge the Fowls of the Air in the proud branches thereof. But to come yet nearer to our present case; What a small matter was the Cross in the beginning? At the first it was only an indifferent thing, than became holy, after necessary, and at the last a filthy Idol. Now if the Cross became so great a thing in a short time, when it had not been used before, what may it (if Providence prevent not) in a short time become in these days, when it hath not only been used before, but likewise is at present of such account amongst the Papists; nay, of such account amongst us, that a Child must not be received into the Church without it? In a word; as small things as the Ceremonis seem to be, they may (if not looked to in time) come to kindle fires to burn us all to ashes, as well as other humane inventions, as small as they in the beginning, did for multitudes of our blessed Ancestors, who suffered in Hen. the 8th, and Queen Mary's days. That we may therefore secure ourselves against the tyranny of Babylon, and inherit the blessing belonging to her destroyers, 
Ps. 137.9.  let's spare neither great nor small, but let us take even the Ceremonies, those little ones thereof, and dash them against the stones.  
Qu. 44. Whether is it not evident (notwithstanding all the advantages and opportunities we have had of carrying on the Reformation so happily begun amongst us) that our Sun is gone back many degrees, and that we are much nearer to Popery now than we were many years ago? 
Epist. ad Reg. Eliz col 243.  Zanchius took notice that we were gone back in his time, and told Queen Elizabeth of it. And several learned men have instanced in divers particulars, both in Doctrine and Worship, wherein we are nearer to Popery now, than we were in King Edward 6. days. 
Fresh-suit, part 1. p. 115.  As for Doctrine, Dr. Ames hath showed that the Articles printed 1552. are in divers respects better than those that have been printed and set forth since. And as for Worship, the Liturgy used then is in many particulars to be preferred before that we have now. This a learned Knight took notice of many years ago. 
Europe. Spec. p. 153.154. Script. Argl. p. 455. Reasons of the necessity of Reform. p. 32, 34. Pacific. Exam. p. 59  And the case is plain, for in the former (as Bucer notes) the Convocation-house left several things to the people's discretion, which in this they require and impose. As for bowing the knee (say they) signing with the sign of the Cross, elevation of the hands, smiting of the breast, and such like gestures, it shall be free for every one to follow his own opinion. And as for Vestments. Dr. Corn. Burgess hath showed, and Mr. Pryn out of him, that the Parliament in the 5th and 6th years of King Edward's Reign, did not only appoint the Book of Common-Prayer to be revised and amended, but that the use of the Rotchet, Surplices, Caps, and such like things prescribed in the former Book, should be quite laid aside. Nay our declension is so visible, that the Papists themselves take notice of it, and triumph in it. Here what a Jesuit saith. 
See Mr. Chillingworths Preface, sect. 20.  Protestanism (saith he) waxeth weary of itself, the Professors of it, they especially of greatest worth, learning, and authority, love temper and moderation, and are at this time more unresolved where to fasten than at the Infancy of their Church. Their Churches begin to look with a new Face, their Walls to speak a new Language, their Doctrines to be altered in many things. Thus you see that instead of improving the privileges and encouragements God hath vouchsafed us, and going on forward with the work of Reformation in the use of them, we have gone much backward. Instead of razing Babylon to the foundation, we begin to favour the dust thereof, and build again the things we have destroyed, 
Gal. 2. ●●.  and so in the Apostles language, make ourselves transgressors.  
Q. 45. If the Ceremonies are such Innocent, Decent, Edifying things, as our Adversaries pretend they are, how comes it to pass, that Atheists, Papists, Blasphemers, Drunkards, Whoremasters, and the whole rabble of Impious and Profane Persons are so much for them? If they are what they should be, how comes it to pass, that the Worst of Men are to in love with them, so zealous in observing them. so violent in urging and pressing them? How comes it to pass that they are most in request where Christ is least taught, and least in request where he is most taught? 
Censur. Lit. Angl c. 2. p. 458  Bucer observed long ago, that People where the Gospel was painfully preached cared not for them, but in places where it was unknown there they reverenced them. It is pretended that they teach the People Spiritual Truths, and Duties; but if it be so, how happeneth it (as Bishop Jewel saith in the case of Images) that where there is greatest store of such Schoolmasters, 
Repl. art. 14. div. 10 p. 510.  the People are ever most ignorant? Nay, how happeneth it, that People upon their Conversion care so little for them; nay, do thereupon take up such dislike and contempt of them? How happeneth it that their very hearts do rise against them, and that of their own accord without any persuasions to it? If they are such convenient useful things, as they are said to be, how happens it that the Worse sort of men are so fond of them, and the Better so much against them? I confess its possible that a wicked man may be in the right, when a good man is in the wrong; but yet I should think it no less than a wonder, if the profane crew, that are Children of wrath, estranged from God, and that do not so much as desire the knowledge of his ways, should successively from generation to generation, hit upon the Truth: and that the most gracious holy men, that are enlightened by the Spirit of God, are under a Promise of being led into all Truth thereby, and that spend their days in reading the Scriptures, Praying, holding Communion with God, should successively, from generation to generation, lie in darkness and error. Though all men are fallible, and therefore to be followed with suspicion and caution, yet its sure far more likely that those who fear God, and consequently have his secrets with them, should possess the Truth, than that a company of carnal, sensual dissolute ones (for such are the generality of those that stand for the Ceremonies) should do it.  
Qu. 46. If the Ceremonies are what they are said to be, how comes it to pass that God doth not set his seal to them, own them and bless them? How comes it to pass that those Ministers who are the most zealous defenders, urgers, and observers of them, are so insuccesful in their Ministry? How comes it to pass that they fall so far short of others in the working of grace and holiness in the hearts and lives of their People? I could mention two or three old Non-conformists, of whom if I should say that they have brought more souls to Christ and Heaven, and done more to the demolishing of Satan's Kingdom and Interest, than all the Bishops, Deans, prebend's and Canons in England, I believe the People would second me. Nay, (to drive this inquiry yet a little further) if the Ceremonies are what they should be, how comes it to pass, that such as for a season stand out, and afterwards Conform to them, do so far fall short, both in Doctrine and Manners, of what they were before? It is notoriously known that some who heretofore were against them, and have since fallen in with them, are become as much unlike in Prayer, Preaching, Conference, Life, to what they were before, as the Tree in Winter to what it is in Summer.  
Qu. 47. Whether do not you think that many of those who Conform, close with the Ceremonies, rather to avoid Sufferings and gain Preferment, than out of any real liking they have of them? Sleidan tells of Islebius and Sidonius, 
Com. l. 21. p. 376. Catal. t. 13 p. 696  that they defended the Popish Oil and Chrism, that they might go away more unctuous. And Schlusselburg saith the like of George Major the Schoolman. And we have good reason to think that many amongst us make use of the Ceremonies rather that they may have their Liberty, and gain unctuous Places, than out of any good grounds that they have for the lawfulness of them. And were the Scales turned, and Preferment laid in the other end, there were little doubt to be made, but they would be as ready to profess their dislike and descent, as they have been to declare their assent and consent. Sure I am that some of them, before Balaks Engine came to be used upon them, 
Num. 22.17.  spoke as contemptibly of them, as those do who suffer for refusing them.  
Qu. 48. Whether, since the Ceremonies are such things as in the foregoing particulars I have showed they are, would it not be a very great sin in us, if out of desire of Liberty, or upon any other account whatsoever, we should go as many do, and declare our unfeigned assent and consent to them, and being restored to our Ministry, should use them in the discharge of it? Certainly if they are chargeable with those things I have alleged, and in part proved against them, we should very greatly offend if we should do it. The People still cry out to us to Conform, and not by our silence hinder them of the benefit of our pains; but alas, they are in this like those Paul speaks of, 
1 Tim. 1.7  understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. We give not over our Ministry out of idleness, worldliness, timerousness, unfaithfulness or the like, as the hireling doth, 
John 10.12.  but out of conscience towards God; and that we may make it appear, we believe as we have taught, and that we are willing to suffer rather than sin, which we are verily persuaded we should do, if we should conform to the Ceremonies. Things are got to such a pass, that we cannot have liberty to preach unless we close with them, and we cannot close with them, unless we leave the Word, which is the measure of truth and falsehood, good and evil. And may those that are the Ministers of Christ, and have been employed in teaching the authority of the Word, the necessity of keeping to it, and the danger of departing from it, go and leave it themselves? No; Balaam, as mad as he was, will teach us sounder doctrine, 
Num. 22.18.  If Balak (saith he) would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the Word of the Lord my God, to do less or more. 
Mr. Sprint. Cassand. Anglican p. 8.  But to this an English Adiaphorist Objects; 1. That the Apostles lie direction of the holy Ghost, and upon reasons of common and perpetual equity, did practise themselves, and caused others to practise, yea advised and enjoined (as matters good and necessary to be done) Ceremonies as inconvenient and evil in many main and material respects, as the Ceremonies enjoined and prescribed in our Church are supposed to be. From whence (saith he) it follows, that to suffer deprivation, for refusing to conform to the Ceremonies of our Church, is contrary to the Doctrine and Practice of the Apostles. Answ. 1. we must distinguish betwixt such Ceremonies as are of Divine Institution, 
Vide Martyr. ep. amico cuid. in Angl. p. 1125.  and such as are only of Humane. As for the Ceremonies the Apostles used, they were such as proceeded originally from God, and were appointed by him; but ours are of no such extraction, they were fetched from the very den of Antichrist, with whom he hath forbidden us to hold Communion. Now though it be true, that Gods own institutions, when they are kept up longer, or converted to another use than they were at first designed for, cease to be his Institutions, and become the Institutions of men; yet there is far more respect belonging unto them than there is (caeteris paribus) to any institutions of men whatsoever, and that in regard of the divineness of their extraction. And therefore though the Apostles shown so much respect to the Ceremonies of the Jews, yet it is not to be thought that they would have done the like to others. Suppose some in their times had brought in some of the Ceremonies of the Samaritans or Pagans, and had urged them upon them and others, whether do you think they would have showed the like respect to them, they did to those of the Jews? It is not likely they would. If they would not comply with the Scriles and Pharisees in the use of their Ceremonies (as I have showed they would not) much less would they have complied with Samaritans or Pagans in the use of theirs. And if they would not have used the Ceremonies of Samaritans or Pagans, much less would they have used the Ceremonies, of Antichrist (such as ours are) had he existed in their days. 2. We must distinguish betwixt such Ceremonies as God hath owned, and blessed, and made eminently useful in his Church; and such as he hath never owned, nor blessed, but hath rather born witness against and cursed, by rendering the endeavours of such as have been the greatest defenders of them ineffectual. Now for the Jewish Ceremonies, as God did at the first institute them, so he was pleased afterwards all along, until the time when they were to be laid aside, to own them, and make them useful in his Church; but as for the Ceremonies of Antichrist, he hath been so far from owning them, or making them useful, that he hath followed them with remarkable symptoms of his displeasure. And therefore though the Apostles, in order to their more decent and honourable burial, might for a season use the former, yet it doth not therefore follow that they would have used the latter, or that we may do it. 3. We must distinguish betwixt such Ceremonies as have been abused by Idolaters, and by them made Idols, and such as have not. The Jewish Ceremonies though they were abused, yet they were never abused that way; but ours have been, and that in a high degree, as I have before shown. 4. We must distinguish betwixt what is done only for two or three times, in a special exigence, and what is not. As for what the Apostles did, they did it in an extraordinary juncture of things, betwixt the taking down of an old Administration, and the setting up of a new one, before they had throughly published the Gospel, or instructed the People in the Doctrine of Christian Liberty. What we do is in no such juncture, but in a time when the Gospel hath been preached all the World over, and the Church hath been fully instructed in the Liberty belonging to her; and that upon such grounds as render them necessary at all times and in all places. 
Epist. 19  August. saith, That the observation of the Jewish Ceremonies at that time was to be approved; but that time being over, it was to be detested. 5. We must distinguish betwixt such Ceremonies as are used in a mystical significant manner, and such as are not. Though the Apostles used the Jewish Ceremonies, yet it doth not appear that they used them in any mystical way, but only as circumstances of order and policy, serving to unite the Christian Jews and Gentiles. But ours are to be used as teachers of spiritual Mysteries, and in that sense we must either allow of them, or else we cannot declare our unfeigned assent and consent to the Service-Book, neither approve ourselves in the use of them, obedient Sons to the Church. 6. We must distinguish betwixt such Ceremonies as tend to the preventing of Scandals, and Separations, and such as tend to the begetting of them. The Jewish Ceremonies served to unite the affections of divided brethren, but ours (as the experience of many years hath fully evinced) serve to divide the affections of united brethren; and therefore being of the number of those things that God hath declared a peculiar hatred against, 
Pro. 6.19.  we should be so far from bringing them into the House of God, and using them there in his Worship, that we should cast them out from us with no less than detestation and abhorrency. Indeed the Author I now deal with, 
Cassand. Ang p. 68  reflects the charge on us, and saith, that Nonconformity is the occasion of Discord, and I confess it is; but yet no otherwise than Naboths keeping his Vineyard was the occasion of his stoning; 
1 Kings 21.3.  or the Apostles preaching the Gospel was the occasion of their Imprisonment. 
Act. 4.19.  For as that which they did, had nothing in its own nature that might provoke just and righteous Magistrates to exercise such severity against them, so neither hath our standing out against the Ceremonies any thing in its own nature (it being no more than our duty) that may move those we have to deal with, to withdraw their affections from us. But 2. He goes on, 
P. 24.  and tells us that when two works or duties commanded of God do meet in one practice, so as we cannot do them both, but one of them must of necessity be done, the other must of necessity be left undone, in this case the work or duty of greater reason must be performed, and that of lesser reason must be omitted, and it is a sin to neglect the greater to perform the lesser; out of which ground he assumes, That the the Doctrine and Practice of suffering Deprivation for refu sing to Conform, doth cause men to neglect greater duties to perform the lesser. The former he proves by several instances, as the Priests sacrificing on the Sabbath, david's eating of the shewbread, the Disciples plucking the ears of corn, and several other instances of the same nature. To all which I shall answer briefly; And 1. We must distinguish betwixt such things as are evil accidentally, that is, merely because they are forbidden, and such as are evil simply and in their own nature. Now those things which these Servants of God did in cases of special necessity, were not simply and in their own nature evil, but only because they were forbidden. Neither were they for bidden absolutely, but only so far as the forbearing of them might consist with the avoiding of greater evil. But the case is far otherwise with us; for in order to the gaining of our Liberty, we must not only do those things which are evil meetly because they are forbidden, but because they are so likewise in their own nature; as the declaring our unfeigned assent and consent to unwarrantable Observations, fabulous Stories, unsound Doctrine, as also the scandalising our Brethren, fashioning ourselves to Idolaters, honouring of Images and Idols, with many other things which would have been evil though God had never by any positive Law forbidden them. 2. We must distinguish betwixt such necessity, as God himself, either by his positive Command or special Providence lays upon us, and such as oppressive and unreasonable men bring us under. The Instances alleged were of Gods making, and therefore nothing at all to us who are in the hands of men, that forbidden us that liberty, that he hath not only allowed us to use, but commanded us to maintain. Now though God who hath power over his own Law, be pleased to dispense with our non-performance of those works and duties which he himself, either by his positive Command, or special Providence doth disoblige us from, yet we must not think that he will in like manner dispense with our omission of those works and duties, which ungodly men out of their enmity to him, and his truth, do forbidden us to perform, and we out of timerousness or worldliness do thereupon neglect. And therefore though the Priests, David, the Disciples and others, did upon urgent necessity laid upon them by God himself, act contrary to some positive Laws, yet we must not think that they would have done it upon the bare command of men, how great soever, without such necessity. This we may gather from the example of Daniel, 
Dan. 1.8.  who would rather adventure upon the offending of the King and incurring his displeasure, than he would eat of his polluted meat; and from the example of the Maccabees, 
2 Mace. 7.2.  who would rather endure the greatest torments, than taste of Swine's flesh. Though the King's meat and Swine's flesh were both of them contrary to the Ceremonial Law, yet no doubt if Providence had brought them into such a straight as David and the Disciples were in, they would have eaten as well as they; but being there was no necessity for it, save what the command of man made, they would not do it. So as to our case; though we should suppose the things required of us, to be such as that in a case of special necessity laid upon us by God, we might do them, yet doth it not follow that we may do them out of such a necessity, merely upon the command of man; Nay, it appears by what I have here alleged, that in such a case only, we might not do them. And so much for Answer to the substance of what is alleged by this Author. 
Grand Case, p 37  Others of the same Adiaphoristical spirit seeing that such shifts as these are too gross to serve their purpose, endeavour to subtilise the matter, by telling us that Authority doth not expect that we should declare our unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common-Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, absolutely, but comparatively. Answ. 1. How shall we be assured that Authority expects no more? It's rather likely that they, taking all so contained and prescribed, to be sound and necessary, look that we should do so too, and declare as much in public. And therefore if we will declare, we must declare in that sense, otherwise we equivocate, and deceive their expectations. 2. The Letter of the Declaration leads to an absolute sense, and therefore unless Authority put another upon it, we must look upon that as being the only sense intended by them. But 3. suppose Authority intended such a comparative sense, yet might we not close with it; for how can we lawfully declare our unfeigned assent and consent to the use of unlawful things, which we stand bound unfeignedly to dislike and descent from, and endeavour the extirpation of? As we may not declare our unfeigned dislike of and dissent from what we do unfeignedly assent and consent to, and stand bound to maintain; so neither may we declare our unfeigned assent and consent to what we unfeignedly dislike and descent from, and stand bound to extirpate. If declaring our unfeigned assent and consent to the Ceremonies be a fit and proper means for the extirpating of them, than we may do it, otherwise not.  
Q. 49. Whether, since we cannot declare our unfeigned assent and consent to the Ceremonies, or in the course of our Ministry make use of them without the guilt of sin, may our Adversaries persecute us for refusing to do it? Whether may they revile & reproach us for it, and represent us as persons Schismatical, and Turbulent, unworthy of the favour of Authority, or employment in the Church? Whether may they throw us out of our places and silence us, not only to the undoing us and our families, but the rendering of us useless to the People, whose necessities do cry so loud in our ears for help? Whether do you think it is a good work, and such as they may look back upon with comfort when they come to die, to set up a company of Ceremonies (in their own judgements needless) that we cannot close with, and then persecute us for refusing? Whether is not this to build the Sepulchers of their Fathers, that persecuted the Martyrs in Queen Mary's days, and shake hands with the bloody Inquisitors? Whether do you think it is agreeable to the nature of the Christian Religion, for them to compel men by civil penalties to a compliance with them, and persecute them if they do but in the least vary from them? 
Plut vit. Thes. p. 5.  Whether may they with Procrustes the Tyrant stretch out all they meet with to their own stature, and wrack them into conviction and obedience? 
DeImper. c 3. s. 9 p. 55. Right use of the Fathers, l. 2. p. 171, 173. See also Mr. Stillingf. Iren pt. 1 c. 2. s. 11. p. 64.  The Ancients whom sometimes they seem to have in so much veneration (if we may credit the quotations of Grotius or Daille) thought and taught quite otherwise. They were so far from approving the use of a Coercive power in the business of Faith and Religion, or the exercising of force and violence upon dissenters, that they looked upon it as unchristian, irreligious, unreasonable contrary to the example of God and Christ, and contrary to the practice of the Saints. Nay, they looked upon it as the invention and work of the Devil, and upon those that did it as his Friends and Fiends. And did they think it unlawful to persecute or use violence for the Faith itself, & the very substantials of Religion, & yet do our Adversaries think they may do it for circumstances? Did they think it lawful to do it for things necessary, and do our Adversaries think they may do it for things indifferent? Do they think that the sticking at a frivolous, vain Ceremony, is sufficient ground for them to deliver men up to Satan, throw them into prison and undo them? if so, who will ever think they regard Scripture, Reason, or Fathers, more? Who will ever think that they regard the peace of the Church, propagation of the Gospel, or Humanity more? If this be the Spirit of our Mother the Church, who will ever think her religious or Compassionate more? 
Lam. 4.3.  Who will not take up the words of the Prophet, and say, That she is become cruel like the Ostriches in the wilderness? Who will not count her hardhearted and merciless, 
Ps. 1●2. 6.  and choose rather to be a Pelican in the Wilderness, or an Owl in the Desert, than lie in her bosom? What's become of all that grace and pity that her sons use to say is in her? Doth she spend it all upon Harlots and Whoremongers? Doth she lay it out all in conniving at their miscarriages, and commuing and remitting their Penances? Hath she none at all left for the scrupulous and doubting? This may tempt a man to think, that she is of the same mind with those of her Sons who teach, That Nonconformity is worse than open Profaneness: That to refuse at the Churches Command to put on a Surplice, is worse than to Swear, be Drunk, or go to a Bawdy-house; as if the transgressing of the Churches Ceremonial Law, were a greater offence than the breach of God's Moral Law, than which what can be grosser Blasphemy? Well, if notwithstanding all we can say, our Adversaries eye towards us be still evil, 
Ap●vd M●●n. Mist. ad ann. 1416. (Edit. lat in yell.) p. 523.  and they will yet proceed to persecute us, we shall sit down and say as Clemangis did in the like case. These carnal Sons of the Church (saith he) do not only not care for spiritual things, nor have any feeling of them, but persecute those that are according to the Spirit, as since the time of just Abel, whom carnal Cain murdered, it hath ever been and will be to the end of the World. These are they who for temporal commodities flee to the Church, and living like Secular men, covet, and grasp, and rob, desiring to rule, but not to serve; glorying in their superiority, oppressing their inferiors, rejoicing in their own pride and luxury. They account gain godliness, and are always ready to do and endure any thing for the increase of their temporalties, choose how they are gotten, scorning and laughing at those that are willing to live justly, holily, chastely, innocently, spiritually. So far he.  
Qu. 50. If notwithstanding all the evils we see in the Ceremonies, we should yet submit to them, whether do you think it would serve our turns? If we should fall in with our Adversaries, and do all that at present they require from us, whether do you think such compliance would satisfy them so that they would then let us be at peace, and live quietly among them? Many wise and sober men think it would not, but that (if we would be painful in Preaching, holy in Life, and appear in any good degree for the power of Godliness) we should be as far from having their true love, and living in peace with them, as ever we were before. And indeed if we look upon past Ages, and observe what hath been the issue of such compliances, we shall find that the stitching of old and new cloth, or the joining of contrary Spirits and Principles, 
Mat. 9 16  hath not (as our Saviour teaches) filled up the rent but made it worse. When Paul at his coming to Jerusalem, 
Act. 21.2.  did upon the advice of some Brethren there, and for preventing the offence of some Jews, 
Vid. Tert. cont. Marcion. l. 1. c. 20. Hieron ep 89. Magd. Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. vit. Paul. Zanch. vol. 2. de vit. exter. cult oppos thes. 11. col. 541. Gualth. Bulling & alios in loc. Vid. Theodor. hist. eccls. l. 2. c. 21. Mr. Park. of the Cross, pt. 1. c. 3. sect. 16. p. 159.  zealous of the Mosaical Ceremonies, comply (and that sinfully as many think) in purifying himself after the manner of the Law, what did it avail him? Why, the Jews were so far from being satisfied with it, that they stirred up the People against him, laid hands on him, reproached him, drew him out of the Temple, beat him, and had not the Roman Captain prevented, they had taken away his Life. And when some of the more simple and facile sort of the Orthodox in the Council of Ariminum, yielded to the Arrians that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be laid aside, the Arrians did not only publish all over the World, that they had overcome the Orthodox, and substitute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but being unsatisfied with that, they turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So likewise when Zeno, to hush the strife about the Council of Chalcedon, framed his Henoticon, and Anastasius to accord all parties, established an Amnestia, or Act of Oblivion, commanding every one to preach according to the custom of his place; and when Heraclius, to pacify the hot contention betwixt the Orthodox, that held there were two Wills in Christ; and the Monothelites that held he had but one, enjoined silence on both sides; what did all this produce? Did it unite the differing parties? No; but set them further at distance than they were before. And if we descend to later times, hath this course wrought any better therein? No; but hath yielded the same effect it did before. For instance, when Rochezana with some other of the more lukewarm sort of the Hussites, submitted upon mutual abatements, to an accommodation with the Papists, what was the event of it? why, not long after their Adversaries reduced them to their former state, and made them subject to the tyranny of the Pope as before. And what became of the Germane Interim? Did it heal the breach betwixt the Protestants and Papists? No, but made it wider than ever; and which was worse, begot differences amongst the Protestants themselves. The like may be said of divers other compositions betwixt both Papists and Protestants, Lutherans and Calvinists, which have proved ineffectual as to the procuring of the unity and peace aimed at and intended by them. In like manner when those good men that carried on the Reformation in this Nation in Edward the 6th days, out of a charitable zeal, let many things alone that should have been removed, hoping thereby to win the Papists; 
Smectym. Ed. 5. p. 9  this their compliance (as some learned men have noted) proved so far from answering their expectations, that it did not only harden the Papists in their way, and prevent their coming in to us, but likewise drew many of ours back to them. But to come yet lower even to our own times; when his present Majesty upon his coming in, was pleased in pursuance of his Declaration from Breda, to authorise several learned divines of several persuasions to meet together, and confer about the Liturgy, and the one party out of an unfeigned zeal to the Church's peace, yielded further than many of their brethren could have done, what were either they or the Church the better for it, as to the thing mainly intended? Their opposites were so far from accepting their condescension, and answering it with the like on their part, that they loaded some of them, who laboured most in the work, with most odious calumnies and reproaches. When men are once set upon superstition, they cannot endure to let it go. Though when they are in a straight they may somewhat recede and give place (as Pharaoh when he was under God's Judgements) yet when their opportunity comes, they are sure to return to their former height. And such is the insinuating, bewitching nature of Superstition, that when men have entertained it they know not where to rest, but commonly go from step to step till they have overthrown the pure Worship of God, and made themselves the perfect Vassals of Satan. Besides, it is to be observed, that as God hath no where allowed his Servants to use dishonourable unworthy compliances, 
Cont. Burdegalens. art. 13. p. 430.  so (as Sadeel notes) he doth not bless them. And therefore though we should go against our Consciences, and fall in with the men who are over us in the Church, and do what they at present require, yet it is scarcely to be imagined that they would be 〈◊〉 satisfied therewith, or that God would bless us with peace in so doing.  
And thus I have given you the Queries I promised you, and therein what I thought convenient to say at this time touching the so much controverted Ceremonies. I have indeed much exceeded my intended bounds, but the particulars I had to speak of were so many, and the exceptions to which they (with other of the plainest truths, in this critical and cavilling age) lie open to, so various, that I could not, if I would obtain the end of my undertaking, well confine myself to a narrower compass. What advantage the reasons I have insisted on might have received from farther amplifications, illustrations, testimonies, I presume I need not to tell you. All the favour I crave from you is, that you would allow them a just and even Balance, and then account of them but according to the weight and worth that thereby you shall find in them. If the Ceremonies stand chargeable neither with all, nor any of those things I have brought in against them, than you are to acquit our Adversaries, who defend and impose them and condemn us who refuse and withstand them; but if otherwise, than you are to condemn them, and acquit us. And yet you are to remember, that you are not to measure our standing out, as to the matter of Conformity only by the Ceremonies, so as to judge of our carriage as to that particular as you find them; for notwithstanding the manifold evils we charge them with; yet there are other things urged upon us that we stick at, no less than we do at them; so that though they were either proved lawful, or the Imposition of them waved, yet we could not, for very weighty reasons, come in and do what is required from us, in order to our Liberty. If our Adversaries will stand to Mr. 
Answ. to the Pref. sect. 23.  Chillingworths motion, and take course that there be some form of worshipping God propounded, that is wholly taken out of Scripture, than they shall find us no backwarder to comply with them, than they are upon the like terms to comply with the Papists. They shall then have our heads and hearts, assent, consent and all; but till then, they must excuse us if we stand at some distance from them. We must not follow the prescriptions of men, but the directions of the Spirit of God; who as he knows best what is fit for us, either to observe or do, so he is only able to bless us in observing and doing of it. But I must forbear. The Lord be pleased at the last to gather every stone out of his Vineyard, 
Isa. 5.2. Mat. 15.13 Mat. 3.12  pluck up every plant that he hath not planted, thoroughly purge his floor, rebuke that spirit of Superstition and Presumption that is gone forth into the world, persuade us all to be content with his most holy and perfect Institutions, bind up our bleeding Wounds, take away our Reproach, remove all the impediments of our Edification and peace, and unite us both in Judgement and Affection under that one common Head Jesus Christ, to whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost, be given pure Worship and Service for evermore.  
FINIS.   

Errata, In the Margin.  
Pag. 11. f. l. r. t. p. 27. f. v. r. c. p. 61. f. Sacrom. r. Sacram. p. 90. f. comment. r. common. p. 94 f. c. 98. r. p. 98. p. 109. f. Luc●. r. Luc.   

In the Book.  
Pag. 5. l. 7. d. but. ib. l. 9 f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 9 l 6. f. destroyed r. delivered, p. 12. l. 14. after, so well, add, with the Customs of Nations. p. 20. l ult. after, set, add, out. p. 67. l. 6. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 79. l. 1 d. this. p 98. l. 26. f. drachm. r. dram. ib. l. 30. f. where r. wherefore. p. 103. l. 25. f. a r. the.