Sect. 5. Fourthly, I fortify my proposition by approved examples; and, first, we find that Jacob, Gen. xxxv. 4, did not only abolish out of his house the idols, but their ear-rings also, because they were superstitionis insignia, as Calvin; res ad idololatriam pertinentes, as Junius; monilia idolis consecrata, as Pareus calleth them; all writing upon that place. We have also the example of Elijah, 1 Kings xviii. 30: he would by no means offer upon Baal's altar, but would needs repair the Lord's altar, though this should hold the people the longer in expectation. This he did, in P. Martyr's judgment, because he thought it a great indignity to offer sacrifice to the Lord upon the altar of Baal; whereupon Martyr(521) reprehendeth those who, in administering the true supper of the Lord, uti velint Papisticis vestibus et instrumentis. Further, we have the example of Jehu, who is commended for the destroying of Baal out of Israel, with his image, his house, and his very vestments, 2 Kings x. 22-28. And what example more considerable than that of Hezekiah, who not only abolished such monuments of idolatry as at their first institution were but men's invention, but brake down also the brazen serpent (though originally set up at God's own command), when once he saw it abused to idolatry? 2 Kings xviii. 4. This deed of Hezekiah Pope Steven(522) doth greatly praise, and professeth that it is set before us for our imitation, that when our predecessors have wrought some things which might have been without fault in their time, and afterward they are converted into error and superstition, they may be quickly destroyed by us who come after them. Farellus saith,(523) that princes and magistrates should learn by this example of Hezekiah what they should do with those significant rites of men's devising which have turned to superstition. Yea, the Bishop of Winchester acknowledgeth,(524) that whatsoever is taken up at the injunction of men, when it is drawn to superstition, cometh under the compass of the brazen serpent, and is to be abolished; and he excepteth nothing from this example but only things of God's own prescribing. Moreover, we have the example of good Josiah, 2 Kings xxiii., for he did not only destroy the houses, and the high places of Baal, but his vessels also, and his grove, and his altars; yea, the horses and chariots which had been given to the sun. The example also of penitent Manasseh, who not only overthrew the strange gods, but their altars too, 2 Chron. xxxiii. 15. And of Moses, the man of God, who was not content to execute vengeance on the idolatrous Israelites, except he should also utterly destroy the monument of their idolatry, Exod. xxxii. 17-20. Lastly, we have the example of Daniel, who would not defile himself with a portion of the king's meat, Dan. i. 8; because, saith Junius,(525) it was converted in usum idololatricum; for at the banquets of the Babylonians and other Gentiles, erant praemessa sive praemissa, quoe diis proemittebantur, they used to consecrate their meat and drink to idols, and to invocate the names of their idols upon the same, so that their meat and drink fell under the prohibition of idolothites. This is the reason which is given by the most part of the interpreters for Daniel's fearing to pollute himself with the king's meat and wine; and it hath also the approbation of a Papist.(526)

Sect. 6. Fifthly, Our proposition is backed with a twofold reason, for things which have been notoriously abused to idolatry should be abolished: 1. Quia monent. Quia movent. First, then, they are monitory, and preserve the memory of idols; monumentum in good things is both monimentum and munimentum; but monumentum in evil things (such as idolatry) is only monimentum, which monet mentem, to remember upon such things as ought not to be once named among saints, but should lie buried in the eternal darkness of silent oblivion. Those relics therefore of idolatry, quibus quasi monumentis posteritas admoneatur (as Wolphius rightly saith(527)), are to be quite defaced and destroyed, because they serve to honour the memory of cursed idols. God would not have so much as the name of an idol to be remembered among his people, but commanded to destroy their names as well as themselves, Exod. xxiii. 13; Deut. xii. 3; Josh. xxiii. 7; whereby we are admonished, as Calvin saith,(528) how detestable idolatry is before God, cujus memoriam vult penitus deleri, ne posthac ullum ejus vestigium appareat: yea, he requireth,(529) eorum omnium memoriam deleri, quoe semeldicata sunt idolis. If Mordecai would not give his countenance, Esth. iii. 2, nor do any reverence to a living monument of that nation whose name God had ordained to be blotted out from under heaven, much less should we give connivance, and far less countenance, but least of all reverence, Deut. xxv. 19, to the dead and dumb monuments of those idols which God hath devoted to utter destruction, with all their naughty appurtenances, so that he will not have their names to be once mentioned or remembered again. But, secondly, movent too; such idolothous remainders move us to turn back to idolatry. For usu compertum habemus, superstitiones etiam postquam explosoe essent, si qua relicta fuissent earum monumenta, cum memoriam sui ipsarum apud homines, tum id tandem ut revocerantur obtinuisse, saith Wolphius,(530) who hereupon thinks it behoveful to destroy funditus such vestiges of superstition, for this cause, if there were no more: ut et aspirantibus ad revocandam idololatriam spes frangatur, et res novas molientibus ansa pariter ac materia proeripiatur. God would have Israel to overthrow all idolatrous monuments, lest thereby they should be snared, Deut. vii. 25; xii. 30. And if the law command to cover a pit, lest an ox or an ass should fall therein, Exod. xxi. 23, shall we suffer a pit to be open wherein the precious souls of men and women, which all the world cannot ransom, are likely to fall? Did God command to make a battlement for the roof of a house, and that for the safety of men's bodies, Deut. xxii. 8, and shall we not only not put up a battlement, or object some bar for the safety of men's souls, but also leave the way slippery and full of snares? Read we not that the Lord, who knew what was in man, and saw how propense he was to idolatry, did not only remove out of his people's way all such things as might any way allure or induce them to idolatry (even to the cutting off the names of the idols out of the land, Zech. xiii. 2), but also hedge up their way with thorns that they might not find their paths, nor overtake their idol gods, when they should seek after them? Hos. ii. 6, 7. And shall we by the very contrary course not only not hedge up the way of idolatry with thorns, which may stop and stay such as have an inclination aiming forward, but also lay before them the inciting and enticing occasions which add to their own propension, such delectation as spurreth forward with a swift facility?

Sect. 7. Thus, having both explained and confirmed the proposition of our present argument, I will make my next for the confutation of the answers which our opposites devise to elude it. And, First, They tell us, that it is needless to abolish utterly things and rites which the Papists have abused to idolatry and superstition, and that it is enough to purge them from the abuse, and to restore them again to their right use. Hence Saravia(531) will not have pium crucis usum to be abolished cum abusu, but holds it enough that the abuse and superstition be taken away. Dr Forbesse's answer is,(532) that not only things instituted by God are not to be taken away for the abuse of them, but farther, neque res medioe ab hominibus prudenter introductoe, propter sequentem abusum semper tollendoe sunt. Abusi sunt Papistoe templis, et oratoriis, et cathedris, et sacris vasis, et campanis, et benedictione matrimoniali; nec tamen res istas censuerunt prudentes reformatores abjiciendas. Ans. 1. Calvin,(533) answering that which Cassander allegeth out of an Italian writer, abusu non tolli bonum usum, he admits it only to be true in things which are instituted by God himself, not so in things ordained by men, for the very use of such things or rites as have no necessary use in God's worship, and which men have devised only at their own pleasure, is taken away by idolatrous abuse. Pars tutior here, is to put them wholly away, and there is by a great deal more danger in retaining than in removing them. 2. The proofs which I have produced (or the proposition about which now we debate,) do not only infer that things and rites which have been notoriously abused to idolatry should be abolished, in case they be not restored to a right use, but simply and absolutely that in any wise they are to be abolished. God commanded to say to the covering, and the ornaments of idols, "Get you hence," Isa. xxx. 22. It is not enough they be purged from the abuse, but simpliciter they themselves must pack them and be gone. How did Jacob with the ear-rings of the idols; Elijah with Baal's altar; Jehu with his vestments; Josiah with his houses; Manasseh with his altars; Moses with the golden calf; Joshua with the temples of Canaan; Hezekiah with the brazen serpent? Did they retain the things themselves, and only purge them from the abuse? Belike, if these our opposites had been their councillors, they had advised them to be contented with such a moderation; yet we see they were better counselled when they destroyed utterly the things themselves, whereby we know that they were of the same mind with us, and thought that things abused to idolatry, if they have no necessary use, are far better away than a-place. Did Daniel refuse Bel's meat because it was not restored to the right use? Nay, if that had been all, it might have been quickly helped, and the meat sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Finally, Were the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira reproved because they did not restore things sacrificed to idols to their right use? Or, were they not rather reproved for having anything at all to do with the things themselves?

Sect. 8. As for that which Dr Forbesse objecteth to us, we answer, that temples, places of prayer, chairs, vessels, and bells, are of a necessary use, by the light and guidance of nature itself; and matrimonial benediction is necessary by God's institution, Gen. i. 28; so that all those examples do except themselves from the argument in hand. But the Doctor(534) intendeth to bring those things within the category of things indifferent; and to this purpose he allegeth, that it is indifferent to use this or that place for a temple, or a place of prayer; also to use these vessels, and bells, or others. And of matrimonial benediction to be performed by a pastor, he saith there is nothing commanded in Scripture. Ans. Though it be indifferent to choose this place, &c., also to use these vessels or other vessels, &c.; yet the Doctor, I trust, will not deny that temples, houses of prayer, vessels and bells, are of a necessary use (which exempteth them from the touch of our present argument); whereas, beside that it is not necessary to kneel in the communion in this place more than in that place, neither to keep the feast of Christ's nativity, passion, &c. upon these days more than upon other days, &c., the things themselves are not necessary in their kind; and it is not necessary to keep any festival day, nor to kneel at all in the act of receiving the communion. There is also another respect which hindereth temples, vessels, &c. from coming within the compass of this our argument, but neither doth it agree to the controverted ceremonies. Temples, houses of prayer, vessels for the ministration of the sacraments, and bells, are not used by us in divine worship as things sacred, or as holier than other houses, vessels, and bells; but we use them only for natural necessity,—partly for that common decency which hath no less place in the actions of civil than of sacred assemblies; yea, in some cases they may be applied to civil uses, as hath been said;(535) whereas the controverted ceremonies are respected and used as sacred rites, and as holier than any circumstance which is alike common to civil and sacred actions, neither are they used at all out of the case of worship. We see now a double respect wherefore our argument inferreth not the necessity of abolishing and destroying such temples, vessels, and bells, as have been abused to idolatry, viz. because it can neither be said that they are not things necessary, nor yet that they are things sacred.

Sect. 9. Nevertheless (to add this by the way), howbeit for those reasons the retaining and using of temples which have been polluted with idols be not in itself unlawful, yet the retaining of every such temple is not ever necessary, but sometimes it is expedient, for farther extirpation of superstition, to demolish and destroy some such temples as have been horribly abused to idolatry, Calvin also(536) and Zanchius(537) do plainly insinuate. Whereby I mean to defend (though not as in itself necessary, yet as expedient pro tunc,) that which the reformers of the church of Scotland did in casting down some of those churches which had been consecrate to popish idols, and of a long time polluted with idolatrous worship. As on the one part the reformers (not without great probability) feared, that so long as these churches were not made even with the ground, the memory of that superstition, whereunto they had been employed and accustomed, should have been in them preserved, and, with some sort of respect, recognised; so, on the other part, they saw it expedient to demolish them, for strengthening the hands of such as adhered to the reformation, for putting Papists out of all hope of the re-entry of Popery, and for hedging up the way with thorns, that the idolatrously-minded might not find their paths. And since the pulling down of those churches wanted neither this happy intent not happy event, I must say that the bitter invectives given forth against it, by some who carry a favourable eye to the pompous bravery of the Romish whore, and have deformed too much of that which was by them reformed, are to be detested by all such as wish the eternal exile of idolatrous monuments out of the Lord's land, yet let these Momus-like spirits understand that their censorious verdicts do also reflect upon those ancient Christians of whom we read,(538) that with their own hands they destroyed the temples of idols, and upon Chrysostom, who stirred up some monks, and sent them into Phoenicia, together with workmen, and sustained them on the expences and charges of certain godly women, that they might destroy the temples of idols, as the Magdeburgians(539) have marked out of Theodoret, likewise upon them of the religion in France, of whom Thuanus recordeth, that templa confractis ac disjectis statuis et altaribus, expilaverant, lastly, upon foreign divines,(540) who teach, that not only idola, but idolia also, and omnia idololatria instrumenta should be abolished. Moreover, what was it else but reason's light which made Cambyses to fear that the superstition of Egypt could not be well rooted out if the temples wherein it was seated were not taken away; so that offensus superstitionibus AEgyptiorum, Apis coeterorumque Deorum oedes dirui jubet: ad Ammonis quoque nobilissimum templum expugnandum, exercitum mittit, saith Justinus.(541) And is not the danger of retaining idolatrous churches thus pointed at by P. Martyr: Curavit, &c. "Jehu (saith he(542)) took care to have the temples of Baal overthrown, lest they should return any more to their wonted use. Wherefore, it appears, that many do not rightly, who, having embraced the gospel of the Son of God, yet, notwithstanding, keep still the instruments of Popery. And they have far better looked to piety who have taken care to have popish images, statues and ornaments, utterly cut off; for, as we read in the ecclesiastical histories, Constantine the Great, after he had given his name to Christ, by an edict provided and took order that the temples of the idols might be closed and shut up; but, because they did still remain, Julian the Apostate did easily open and unlock them, and thereafter did prostitute the idols of old superstition to be worshipped in them,—which Theodosius, the best and commended prince, animadverting, commanded to pull them down, lest they should again any more be restored." But because I suppose no sober spirit will deny that sometimes, and in some cases, it may be expedient to rase and pull down some temples polluted with idols, where other temples may be had to serve sufficiently the assemblies of Christian congregations (which is all I plead for), therefore I leave this purpose and return to Dr Forbesse.

Sect. 10. As touching matrimonial benediction, it is also exempted out of the compass of our present argument, because through divine institution it hath a necessary use, as we have said. And though the Doctor, to make it appear that a pastor's performing of the same is a thing indifferent, allegeth, that in Scripture there is nothing commanded thereanent; yet plain it is from Scripture itself, that matrimonial benediction ought to be given by a pastor; for God hath commanded his ministers to bless his people, Num. vi., which by just analogy belongeth to the ministers of the gospel; neither is there any ground for making herein a difference betwixt them and the minister of the law, but we must conceive the commandment to tie both alike to the blessing of God's people. Unto which ministerial duty of blessing, because no such limits can be set as may exclude matrimonial blessing, therefore they are bound to the performance of it also. And if farther we consider, that the duty of blessing was performed by the minister of the Lord, Heb. vi. 7, even before the law of Moses, we are yet more confirmed to think, that the blessing of the people was not commanded in the law as a thing peculiar and proper to the Levitical priesthood, but as a moral and perpetual duty belonging to the Lord's ministers for ever. Wherefore, notwithstanding of any abuse of matrimonial benediction among Papists, yet, forasmuch as it hath a necessary use in the church, and may not (as the controverted ceremonies may) be well spared, it is manifest that it cometh not under the respect and account of those things whereof our argument speaketh.

Sect. 11. Lastly, Whereas the Doctor would bear his reader in hand, that in the judgment of wise reformators, even such things as have been brought in use by men only, without God's institution, are not to be ever taken away, for the abuse which followeth upon them; let reformators speak for themselves: Nos quoque priscos ritus, quibus indifferenter uti licet, quia verbo Dei consentanei sunt, non rejicimus; modo ne superstitio et pravus abusus eos abolere cogat.(543) This was the judgment of the wisest reformators,—that rights which were both ancient and lawful, and agreeable to God's word, were notwithstanding of necessity to be abolished, because of their superstition and wicked abuse.

Sect. 12. Secondly, Our opposites answer us, that beside the purging of things and rites abused by idolaters from the idolatrous pollution, and the restoring of them to a right use, preaching and teaching against the superstition and abuse which hath followed upon them, is another means to avoid that harm which we fear to ensue upon the retaining of them. Ans. 1. This is upon as good ground pretended for the keeping of images in churches: At inquiunt statim, docemus has imagines non esse adorandas. Quasi vero, saith Zanchius,(544) non idem olim fecerit diligentius Deus, per Mosen et prophetas, quam nos faciamus. Cur igitur etiam volebat tolli imagines omnes? quia non satis est verbo docere non esse faciendum malum; sed tollenda etiam sunt malorum offendicula, irritamenta, causoe, occasiones. It is not enough, with the scribes and Pharisees, to teach out of Moses' chair what the people should do, but all occasions, yea, appearances of evil, are to be taken out of their sight. Efficacious enim et plus movent, quae in oculos quam quae in aures incidunt. Potuerat et Hezekias populum monere, ne serpentem adorarent, sed muluit confringere et penitus e conspectu auferre; et rectius fecit, saith one well to this purpose.(545) 2. Experience hath taught to how little purpose such admonitions do serve. Calvin,(546) writing to the Lord Protector of England of some popish ceremonies which did still remain in that church after the reformation of the same, desireth that they may be abolished, because of their former abuse, in time of Popery. Quid enim, saith he, illae ceremoniae aliud fuerunt, quam totidem lenocinia quae miseras animas ad malum perducerent? &c. But because he saw that some might answer that which our Formalists answer now to us, and say, it were enough to warn and teach men that they abuse not these ceremonies, and that the abolishing of these ceremonies themselves were not necessary; therefore immediately he subjoineth these words: Jam si de cautione agitur, monebuntur homines scilicet, ne ad illas nunc impingant, &c. Quis tamen non videt obdurari ipsos nihilominus, nihil ut infelici illa cautione obtineri possit. Whereupon he concludes, that if such ceremonies were suffered to remain, this should be a means to nourish a greater hardness and confirmation in evil, and a veil drawn, so that the sincere doctrine which is propounded should not be admitted as it ought to be. In another epistle to Cranmer,(547) archbishop of Canterbury, he complaineth that external superstitions were so corrected in the church of England, ut residui maneant innumeri surculi, qui assidue pullulent. And what good, then, was done by their admonitions, whereby they did, in some sort, send the reviving twigs of old superstition, since forasmuch as they were not wholly eradicate, they did still shoot forth again? If a man should dig a pit by the way-side, for some commodity of his own, and thou admonish the travellers to take heed to themselves, if they go that way in the darkness of the night, who would hold him excusable? How then shall they be excused who dig a most dangerous pit, which is like to ruin many souls, and yet will have us to think that they are blameless, for that they warn men to beware of it?

Sect. 13. Thirdly, we are told that if these answers which our opposites give get no place, then shall we use nothing at all which hath been used by idolaters, and by consequence, neither baptism nor the Lord's supper. But let Zanchius answer for us,(548) that these things are by themselves necessary, so that it is enough they be purged from the abuse. And elsewhere(549) he resolveth, that things which are by themselves both good and necessary, may not for any abuse be put away. Si vero res sint adiaphorae sua natura et per legem Dei, eoque tales quae citra jacturam salutis omitti possunt, etiam si ad bonos usus initio fuerunt institutae; si tamen postea videamus illas in abusus pernitiosos esse conversas; pietas in Deum, et charitas erga proximum, postulant ut tollantur, &c. He adds, for proof of that which he saith, the example of Hezekiah in breaking down that brazen serpent; which example doth indeed most pregnantly enforce the abolishing of all things or rites notoriously abused to idolatry when they are not of any necessary use, but it warranteth not the abolishing of anything which has a necessary use, because the brazen serpent is not contained in the number of those things, quibus carere non possumus, saith Wolphius,(550) answering to the same objection which presently I have in hand. Now, that the ceremonies have not in themselves, nor by the law of God, any necessary use, and that without hazard of salvation they may be omitted, is acknowledged by Formalists themselves; wherefore I need not stay to prove it.

Sect. 14. Besides these answers which are common in our adversaries' mouths, some of them have other particular subterfuges, which now I am to search. "We must consider (saith Bishop Lindsey(551)) the ceremony itself (dedicated to, and polluted with idolatry,) whether it be of human or divine institution. If it be of human institution it may be removed, &c.; but if the ceremony be of divine institution, such as kneeling is,—for the same is commended by God unto us in his word,—then we ought to consider whether the abuse of that ceremony hath proceeded from the nature of the action wherein it was used; for if it be so, it ought to be abolished, &c.; but if the abuse proceed not from the nature of the action, but from the opinion of the agent, then, the opinion being removed, the religious ceremony may be used without any profanation of idolatry. For example, the abuse of kneeling in elevation, &c., proceedeth not only from the opinion of the agent, but from the nature of the action, which is idolatrous and superstitious, &c., and, therefore, both the action and gesture ought to be abolished. But the sacrament of the supper, being an action instituted by God, and kneeling being of its own nature an holy and religious ceremony, it can never receive contagion of idolatry from it, but only from the opinion of the agent: then remove the opinion, both the action itself may be rightly used, and kneeling therein," &c. Ans. 1. Since he granteth that a ceremony dedicated to and polluted with idolatry, may (he answereth not the argument which there he propounded, except he say must) be abolished, if it be of human institution, he must grant from this ground, if there were no more, that the cross, surplice, kneeling at the communion, &c., having been so notoriously abused to idolatry, must be abolished, because they have no institution except from men only. But, 2, Why saith he that kneeling is a ceremony of divine institution? which he pronounceth not of kneeling, as it is actuated by some individual case, or clothed with certain particular circumstances, (for he maketh this kneeling whereof he speaketh to be found in two most different actions, the one idolatrous, the other holy,) but kneeling in the general, per se, and praecise ab omnibus circumstantiis. Let him now tell where kneeling thus considered is commended unto us in God's word. He would possibly allege that place, Psal. xcv. 6, "O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the Lord our Maker," which is cited in the Canon of Perth about kneeling; but I answer, whether one expounded that place with Calvin,(552) in this sense, ut scilicet ante arcam faederis populus se prosternat, quia sermo de legali cultu habetur: whereupon it should follow that it commendeth only kneeling to the Jews in that particular case, or whether it be taken more generally, to commend kneeling (though not as necessary, yet as laudable and beseeming) in the solemn acts of God's immediate worship, such as that praise and thanksgiving whereof the beginning of the psalm speaketh,—whether, I say, it be taken in this or that sense, yet it condemneth not kneeling, except in a certain kind of worship only. And as for kneeling in the general nature of it, it is not of divine institution, but in itself indifferent, even as sitting, standing, &c., all which gestures are then only made good or evil when in actu exercito, they are actuated and individualised by particular circumstances. 3. If so be the ceremony be abused to idolatry, it skills not how, for, as I have showed before, the reasons and proofs which I have produced for the proposition of our present argument, hold good against the retaining of anything which hath been known to be abused to idolatry, and only such things as have a necessary use are to be excepted. 4. The nature of an action, wherein a ceremony is used, cannot be the cause of the abuse of that ceremony; neither can the abuse of a ceremony proceed from the nature of the action wherein it is used, as one effect from the cause, for nihil potest esse homini causa sufficiens peccati, except only propria voluntas(553). 5. The abuse of kneeling in the idolatrous action of elevation, proceedeth not from the nature of the action, but from the opinion of the agent, or rather from his will, for (principium actionum humanarum, is not opinion, but will, choosing that which opinion conceiteth to be chosen, or voluntas praeunte luce intellectus,) it is the will of the agent only which both maketh the action of elevation to be idolatrous, and likewise kneeling in this action to receive the contagion of idolatry. For the elevation of the bread materialiter is not idolatrous (more than the lifting up of the bread among us by elders or deacons, when in taking it off the table, or setting it on, they lift it above the heads of the communicants), but formaliter only, as it is elevated with a will and intention to place it in state of worship. So likewise kneeling to the bread materialiter is not idolatry (else a man were an idolater who should be against his will thrust down and holden by violence kneeling on his knees when the bread is elevated), but formaliter, as it proceedeth from a will and intention in men to give to the bread elevated a state in that worship, and out of that respect to kneel before it. 6. What can he gain by this device, that the abuse of kneeling in the Lord's supper proceeded not from the nature of the action, but from the will of the agent? Can he hereupon infer, that kneeling in that action is to be retained notwithstanding of any contagion of idolatry which it hath received? Nay, then, let him say that Hezekiah did not rightly in breaking down the brazen serpent, which was set up at God's command, and the abuse whereof proceeded not from the thing itself, which had a most lawful, profitable, and holy use, but only from the perverse opinion and will of them who abused it to idolatry.

Sect. 15. But the comparing of kneeling to the brazen serpent is very unsavoury to the Bishop; and wherefore? "The brazen serpent (saith he), in the time it was abolished, had no use: that ceased with the virtue of the cure that the Israelites received by looking upon it; the act of kneeling continueth always in a necessary use, for the better expressing of our thankfulness to God." Ans. 1. Both kneeling, and all the rest of the popish ceremonies, may well be compared to the brazen serpent. And divines do commonly allege this example, as most pregnant to prove that things or rites polluted with idols, and abused to idolatry, may not be retained, if they have no necessary use; and I have cited before the Bishop of Winchester, acknowledging that this argument holdeth good against all things which are taken up, not at God's prescription, but at men's injunction. J. Rainold(554) argumenteth from Hezekiah's breaking down of the brazen serpent, to the plucking down of the sign of the cross. 2. Why saith he that the brazen serpent, in the time it was abolished, had no use? The use of it ceased not with the cure, but it was still kept for a most pious and profitable use, even to be a monument of that mercy which the Israelites received in the wilderness, and it served for the better expressing of their thankfulness to God, which the Bishop here calleth a necessary use. 3. When he saith that kneeling continueth always in a necessary use, we must understand him to speak of kneeling in the act of receiving the communion; else he runs at random; for it is not kneeling in the general, but kneeling in this particular case, which is compared to the brazen serpent. Now, to say that this gesture in this action is necessary for our better expressing of our thankfulness to God, importeth that the church of Scotland, and many famous churches in Europe, for so many years have omitted that which was necessary for the better expressing of their thankfulness to God, and that they have not well enough expressed it. And, moreover, if kneeling be necessary in the Lord's supper for our better expressing of our thankfulness to God, then it is also necessary at our own common tables. Though we be bound to be more thankful at the Lord's table, and that because we receive a benefit of infinite more worth, yet we are bound to be tam grati, as well thankful at our own tables, albeit not tanta gratitudine. If, then, the same kind of thankfulness be required of us at our own tables (for intentio et remissio graduum secundum magis et minus, non variant speciem rei,) that which is necessary for expressing of our thankfulness at the Lord's table must be necessary also for the expressing of it at our own. When I see the Bishop sitting at his table, I shall tell him that he omitteth the gesture which is necessary for the expressing of his thankfulness to God. 4. Did not the apostles' receiving this sacrament from Christ himself well enough express their thankfulness to God? yet they kneeled not, but sat, as is evident, and shall be afterwards proved against them who contradict everything which crosseth them. 5. God will never take a ceremony of men's devising for a better expressing of our thankfulness than a gesture which is commended to us by the example of his own Son, and his apostles, together with the celebration of this sacrament in all points according to his institution. 6. How shall we know where we have the Bishop and his fellows? It seems they know not where they have themselves; for sometimes they tell us that it is indifferent to take the communion sitting, or standing, or passing, or kneeling, yet here the Bishop tells us that kneeling is necessary. 7. I see the Bishop perceiveth that no answer can take kneeling at the communion out of the compass of the brazen serpent, except to say it hath a necessary use; this is the dead lift, which yet helpeth not, as I have showed. All things, then, which are not necessary (whereof kneeling is one), being notoriously abused to idolatry, fall under the brazen serpent.

Sect. 16. Paybody also will here talk with us, therefore we will talk with him too. He saith,(555) that God did not absolutely condemn things abused to idolatry, and tells us of three conditions on which it was lawful to spare idolatrous appurtenances. 1. If there were a needful use of them in God's worship. 2. In case they were so altered and disposed, as that they tended not to the honour of the idol, and his damnable worship. 3. If they were without certain danger of ensnaring people into idolatry. Ans. 1. Either he requires all these conditions in every idolothite and idolatrous appurtenance which may be retained, or else he thinks that any one of them sufficeth. If he require all these, the last two are superfluous; for that which hath a needful use in God's worship, can neither tend to the honour of the idol, nor yet can have in it any danger of ensnaring people into idolatry. If he think any one of those conditions enough, then let us go through them: The first I admit, but it will not help his cause, for while the world standeth they shall never prove that kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, and the other controverted ceremonies, have either a needful, or a profitable, or a lawful use in God's worship. As for his second condition, it is all one with that which I have already confuted,(556) namely, that things abused to idolatry may be kept, if they be purged from their abuse, and restored to the right use. But he allegeth for it a passage of Parker, of the Cross, cap. 1, sect. 7, p. 10, where he showeth out of Augustine, that an idolothite may not be kept for private use, except, 1. Omnis honor idoli, cum appertessima destructione subvertatur. 2. That not only his honour be not despoiled, but also all show thereof. How doth this place (now would I know) make anything for Paybody? Do they keep kneeling for private use? Do they destroy most openly all honour of the idol to which kneeling was dedicated? Hath their kneeling not so much as any show of the breaden god's honour? Who will say so? And if any will say it, who will believe it? Who knoweth not that kneeling is kept for a public, and not for a private use, and that the breaden idol receiveth very great show of honour from it? He was scarce of warrants when he had no better than Parker could afford him. His third condition rests, and touching it I ask, what if those idolatrous appurtenances be not without apparent danger of ensnaring people into idolatry? Are we not commanded to abstain from all appearance of evil? Will he correct the Apostle, and teach us, that we need not care for apparent, but for certain dangers? What more apparent danger of ensnaring people into idolatry than unnecessary ceremonies, which have been dedicated to and polluted with idols, and which, being retained, do both admonish us to remember upon old idolatry, and move us to return to the same, as I have before made evident?(557)

_Sect._ 17. Now, as for the assumption of our present argument, it cannot be but evident to any who will not harden their minds against the light of the truth, that the ceremonies in question have been most notoriously abused to idolatry and superstition, and withal, that they have no necessary use to make us retain them. I say, they have been notoriously abused to idolatry. 1. Because they have been dedicated and consecrated to the service of idols. 2. Because they have been deeply polluted, and commonly employed in idolatrous worship. For both these reasons does Zanchius condemn the surplice,(558) and such like popish ceremonies left in England, because the whore of Rome has abused, and does yet abuse them, _ad alliciendos homines ad scortandum. Sunt enim pompae istae omnes, et ceremoniae Papistisae, nihil aliud quam fuci meretricii, ad hoc excogitati, ut homines ad spiritualem scortationem alliciantur._ O golden sentence, and worthy to be engraven with a pen of iron, and the point of a diamond! for most needful it is to consider, that those ceremonies are the very meretricious bravery and veigling trinkets wherewith the Romish whore doth faird and paint herself, whilst she propineth to the world the cup of her fornications. This makes Zanchius(559) to call those ceremonies the relics and symbols of popish idolatry and superstition. When Queen Mary set up Popery in England, and restored all of it which King Henry had overthrown, she considered that Popery could not stand well-favoredly without the ceremonies; whereupon she ordained,(560) _ut dies omnes festicelebrentur, superioris aetatis ceremoniae restituantur, pueri adultiores _ ante baptisati, ab episcopis confirmentur._ So that not in remote regions, but in his Majesty's dominions,—not in a time past memory, but about fourscore years ago,—not by people's practice only, but by the laws and edicts of the supreme magistrate, the ceremonies have been abused to the reinducing and upholding of Popery and idolatry. Both far and near, then, both long since and lately, it is more than notorious how grossly and grievously the ceremonies have been polluted with idolatry and superstition.

I cannot choose but marvel much how Paybody was not ashamed to deny that kneeling has been abused by the Papists.(561) Blush, O paper, which art blotted with such a notable lie! What will not desperate impudency dare to aver? But Bishop Lindsey seemeth also to hold that kneeling hath been abused by the Papists(562) only in the elevation and circumgestation of the host, but not in the participation, and that Honorius did not command kneeling in the participation, but only in the elevation and circumgestation. Ans. 1. Saltem mendacem oportet essememorem. Saith not the Bishop himself elsewhere of the Papists,(563) "In the sacrament they kneel to the sign," whereby he would prove a disconformity between their kneeling and ours; for we kneel, saith he, "by the sacrament to the thing signified." Now if the Papists in the sacrament kneel to the sign, then they have idolatrously abused kneeling, even in the participation; for the Bishop dare not say that, in the elevation or circumgestation, there is either sacrament or sign. 2. Why do our divines controvert with the Papists, de adoratione euchuristiae, if Papists adore it not in the participation? for the host, carried about in a box, is not the sacrament of the eucharist. 3. In the participation, Papists think that the bread is already transubstantiate into the body of Christ, by virtue of the words of consecration. Now, if in the participation they kneel to that which they falsely conceive to be the body of Christ (but is indeed corruptible bread), with an intention to give it latria or divine worship, then in the participation they abuse it to idolatry. But that is true; therefore, &c. 4. Durand showeth,(564) that though in the holidays of Easter and Pentecost, and the festivities of the blessed Virgin, and in the Lord's day, they kneel not in the church, but only stand (because of the joy of the festivity), and at the most do but bow or incline their heads at prayer, yet in praesentia corporis et sanguinis Christi, in presence of the bread and wine, which they think to be the body and blood of Christ, they cease not to kneel. And how will the Bishop make their participation free of this idolatrous kneeling? The Rhemists show us,(565) that when they are eating and drinking the body and blood of our Lord, they adore the sacrament, and, humbling themselves, they say to it, Domine non sum dignus, Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori. 5. As for that which Honorius III. decreed, Dr White calleth it the adoration of the sacrament,(566) which, if it is so, then we must say, that he decreed adoration in the participation itself, because extra usum sacramenti, the bread cannot be called a sacrament. Honorius commanded that the priest should frequently teach his people to bow down devoutly when the host is elevated in the celebration of the mass, and that they should do the same when it is carried to the sick. All this was ordained in reference to the participation. Ad usum illa instituta sunt, says Chemnitius,(567) speaking of this decree, quando scilicet panis consecratur, et quando ad infirmos defertur, ut exhibeatur et sumatur. So that that which was specially respected in the decree, was adoring in the participation.

Lastly, Here we have to do with Dr Burges, who will have us to think, that adoration in receiving the sacrament(568) hath not been idolatrously intended to the sacrament in the church of Rome, neither by decree nor custom. Not by decree, because albeit Honorius appointed adoration to be used in the elevation and circumgestation, yet not in the act of receiving. And albeit the Roman ritual do appoint, that clergymen coming to receive the sacrament do it kneeling, yet this was done in veneration of the altar,(569) or of that which standeth thereupon, and not for adoration of the host put into their mouths. Not by custom; for he will not have it said that kneeling in the time of receiving was ever in the church of Rome any rite of or for adoration of the sacrament, because albeit the people kneel in the act of receiving, yet I "deny (saith he) that they ever intended adoration of the species, at that moment of time when they took it in their mouths, but then turned themselves to God," &c. Ans. 1. As for the decree of Honorius, I have already answered with Chemnitius, that it had reference specially to the receiving. 2. When clergymen are appointed in the Roman ritual to receive the sacrament at the altar kneeling, this was not for veneration of the altar, to which they did reverence at all times when they approached to it, but this was required particularly in their receiving of the sacrament, for adoration of it. Neither is there mention made of the altar as conferring anything to their kneeling in receiving the sacrament; for the sacrament was not used the more reverently because it stood upon the altar, but by the contrary, for the sacrament's sake reverence was done to the altar, which was esteemed the seat of the body of Christ. It appeareth, therefore, that the altar is mentioned, not as concerning the kneeling of the clergymen in their communicating, but simply as concerning their communicating, because none but they were wont to communicate at the altar, according to that received canon, Solis autem ministris altaris liceat ingredi ad altare et ibidem communicare.(570) The one of the Doctor's own conjectures is, that they kneeled for reverence of that which stood upon the altar; but I would know what that was which, standing upon the altar, made them to kneel in the participation, if it was not the host itself? Now, whereas he denies, as touching custom, that people did ever intend the adoration of the species, I answer: 1. How knows he what people in the Roman church did intend in their minds? 2. What warrant hath he for this, that they did not in the participation adore the host, which was then put into their mouth? 3. Though this which he saith were true, he gaineth nothing by it; for put the case, they did not intend the adoration of the species, dare he say, that they intended not the adoration of that which was under the species? I trow not. Now, that which was under the species, though in their conceit it was Christ's body, yet it was indeed bread; so that, in the very participation, they were worshipping the bread. But, 4, What needeth any more? He maketh himself a liar, and saith plainly,(571) that after transubstantiation was embraced, and when all the substance of the visible creature was held to be gone, they did intend the adoration of the invisible things, as if there had been now no substance of any creature left therein, whereby he destroyeth all which he hath said of their not intending the adoration of the species.

Sect. 20. Last of all, for the other part of my assumption, that the ceremonies have no necessary use in God's worship, I need no other proof than the common by-word of Formalists, which saith they are things indifferent. Yet the Bishop of Edinburgh(572) and Paybody(573) have turned their tongues bravely, and chosen rather to say anything against us than nothing. They spare not to answer, that kneeling hath a necessary use. They are most certainly speaking of kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, for they and their opposites, in those places, are disputing of no other kneeling but this only. Now we may easily perceive they are in an evil taking, when they are driven to such an unadvised and desperate answer. For, 1. If kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord's supper be necessary, why have themselves too written so much for the indifferency of it? O desultorious levity that knows not where to hold itself! 2. If it be necessary, what makes it to be so? What law? What example? What reason? 3. If it be necessary, not only many reformed churches, and many ancient too, but Christ himself and his apostles have, in this sacrament, omitted something that was necessary. 4. If it be necessary, why do many of their own disciples take the communion sitting, in places where sitting is used? What need I to say more? In the first part of this dispute I have proved that the ceremonies are not necessary, in respect of the church's ordinance, howbeit if it were answered in this place, that they are in this respect necessary, it helpeth not, since the argument proceedeth against all things notoriously abused to idolatry, which neither God nor nature hath made necessary. And for any necessity of the ceremonies in themselves, either our opposites must repudiate what hath unadvisedly fallen from their pens hereanent, or else forsake their beaten ground of indifferency, and say plainly, that the ceremonies are urged by them, to be observed with an opinion of necessity, as worship of God, and as things in themselves necessary. Look to yourselves, O Formalists, for you stand here upon such slippery places, that you cannot hold both your feet.



CHAPTER III.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL, BECAUSE THEY SORT US WITH IDOLATERS, BEING THE BADGES OF PRESENT IDOLATRY AMONG THE PAPISTS.

Sect. 1. It followeth according to the order which I have proposed, to show next, that the ceremonies are idolatrous, participative. By communicating with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies, we ourselves become guilty of idolatry; even as Ahaz, 2 Kings xvi. 10, was an idolater, eo ipso, that he took the pattern of an altar from idolators. Forasmuch, then, as kneeling before the consecrated bread, the sign of the cross, surplice, festival days, bishopping, bowing down to the altar, administration of the sacraments in private places, &c., are the wares of Rome, the baggage of Babylon, the trinkets of the whore, the badges of Popery, the ensigns of Christ's enemies, and the very trophies of antichrist,—we cannot conform, communicate and symbolise with the idolatrous Papists in the use of the same, without making ourselves idolaters by participation. Shall the chaste spouse of Christ take upon her the ornaments of the whore? Shall the Israel of God symbolise with her who is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt? Shall the Lord's redeemed people wear the ensigns of their captivity? Shall the saints be seen with the mark of the beast? Shall the Christian church be like the antichristian, the holy like the profane, religion like superstition, the temple of God like the synagogue of Satan? Our opposites are so far from being moved with these things, that both in pulpits and private places they used to plead for the ceremonies by this very argument, that we should not run so far away from Papists, but come as near them as we can. But for proof of that which we say, namely, that it is not lawful to symbolise with idolaters (and by consequence with Papists), or to be like them in their rites or ceremonies, we have more to allege than they can answer.

Sect. 2. For, 1st, We have Scripture for us. "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, shall ye not do and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring ye, shall ye not do, neither shall ye walk in their ordinances," Lev. xviii. 3. "Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, &c., saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God," Deut. xii. 30. "Thou shalt not do after their works," Exod. xxiii. 24. Yea, they were straitly forbidden to round the corners of their heads, or to make any cuttings in the flesh for the dead, or to print any mark upon them, or to make baldness upon their heads, or between their eyes, forasmuch as God had chosen them to be a holy and a peculiar people, and it behoved them not to be framed nor fashioned like the nations, Lev. xix. 27, 28, and xxi. 5, and Deut. xiv. 1. And what else was meant by those laws which forbade them to suffer their cattle to gender with a diverse kind, to sow their field with diverse seed, to wear a garment of diverse sorts, as of woollen and linen, to plough with an ox and an ass together? Levit. xix. 19, Deut. xxii. 6-11. This was the hold that people in simplicity and purity, ne hinc inde accersat ritus alienos, saith Calvin, upon these places. Besides, find we not that they were sharply reproved when they made themselves like other nations? "Ye have made you priests after the manner of the nations of other lands," 2 Chron. xxii. 9. "They followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that they should not do like them," 2 Kings xvii. 15. The gospel commendeth the same to us which the law did to them: "Be not ye unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols," &c. "Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing," 2 Cor. vi. 14-17. "If any man worship the beast, and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God," Rev. xiv. 9. And the apostle Jude ver. 12, will have us to hate the very garment spotted with the flesh, importing, that as under the law men were made unclean not only by leprosy, but by the garments, vessels and houses of leprous men, so do we contract the contagion of idolatry, by communicating with the unclean things of idolaters.

Sect. 3. Before we go further, we will see what our opposites have said to those Scriptures which we allege. Hooker saith,(574) that the reason why God forbade his people Israel the use of such rites and customs as were among the Egyptians and the Canaanites, was not because it behoved his people to be framed of set purpose to an utter dissimilitude with those nations, but his meaning was to bar Israel from similitude with those nations in such things as were repugnant to his ordinances and laws. Ans. 1. Let it be so, he has said enough against himself. For we have the same reason to make us abstain from all the rites and customs of idolaters, that we may be barred from similitude with them in such things as are flatly repugnant to God's word, because dissimilitude in ceremonies is a bar to stop similitude in substance, and, on the contrary, similitude in ceremonies openeth a way to similitude in greater substance. 2. His answer is but a begging of that which is in question, forasmuch as we allege those laws and prohibitions to prove that all the rites and customs of those nations were repugnant to the ordinances and laws of God, and that Israel was simply forbidden to use them. 3. Yet this was not a framing of Israel of set purpose to an utter dissimilitude with those nations, for Israel used food and raiment, sowing and reaping, sitting, standing, lying, walking, talking, trading, laws, government, &c., notwithstanding that the Egyptians and Canaanites used so. They were only forbidden to be like those nations in such unnecessary rites and customs as had neither institution from God nor nature, but were the inventions and devices of men only. In things and rites of this kind alone it is that we plead for dissimilitude with the idolatrous Papists; for the ceremonies in controversy are not only proved to be under the compass of such, but are, besides, made by the Papists badges and marks of their religion, as we shall see afterwards.

Sect. 4. To that place, 2 Cor. vi., Paybody answereth,(575) that nothing else is there meant, than that we must beware and separate ourselves from the communion of their sins and idolatries. Ans. 1. When the Apostle there forbiddeth the Corinthians to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, or to have any communion or fellowship with idolaters, and requireth them so to come out from among them, that they touch none of their unclean things, why may we not understand his meaning to be, that not only they should not partake with pagans in their idolatries, but that they should not marry with them, nor frequent their feasts, nor go to the theatre to behold their plays, nor go to law before their judges, nor use any of their rites? For with such idolaters we ought not to have any fellowship, as Zanchius resolves,(576) but only in so far as necessity compelleth, and charity requireth. 2. All the rites and customs of idolaters, which have neither institution from God nor nature, are to be reckoned among those sins wherein we may not partake with them, for they are the unprofitable works of darkness, all which Calvin judgeth to be in that place generally forbidden,(577) before the Apostle descend particularly to forbid partaking with them in their idolatry. As for the prohibition of diverse mixtures, Paybody saith,(578) the Jews were taught thereby to make no mixture of true and false worship. Ans. 1. According to his tenets, it followeth upon this answer, that no mixture is to be made betwixt holy and idolatrous ceremonies, for he calleth kneeling a bodily worship, and a worship gesture, more than once or twice. And we have seen before, how Dr Burges calleth the ceremonies worship of God. 2. If mixture of true and false worship be not lawful, then forasmuch as the ceremonies of God's ordinance, namely, the sacraments of the New Testament are true worship; and the ceremonies of Popery, namely, cross, kneeling, holidays, &c., are false worship; therefore, there ought to be no mixture of them together. 3. If the Jews were taught to make no mixture of true and false worship, then by the self-same instruction, if there had been no more, they were taught also to shun all such occasions as might any ways produce such a mixture, and by consequence all symbolising with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies.

Sect. 5. As touching those laws which forbade the Israelites to make round the corners of their heads, or to mar the corners of their beards, or to make any cuttings in their flesh, or to make any baldness between their eyes, Hooker answereth,(579) that the cutting round of the corners of the head, and the tearing off the tufts of the beard, howbeit they were in themselves indifferent, yet they are not indifferent being used as signs of immoderate and hopeless lamentation for the dead; in which sense it is, that the law forbiddeth them. To the same purpose saith Paybody,(580) that the Lord did not forbid his people to mar and abuse their heads and beards for the dead, because the heathen did so, but because the practice doth not agree to the faith and hope of a Christian, if the heathen had never used it. Ans. 1. How much surer and sounder is Calvin's judgment,(581) non aliud fuisse Dei consilium, quam ut interposito obstaculo populum suum a prophanis Gentibus dirimiret? For albeit the cutting the hair be a thing in itself indifferent, yet because the Gentiles did use it superstitiously, therefore, saith Calvin, albeit it was per se medium, Deus tamen noluit populo suo liberum esse, ut tanquam pueri discerent ex parvis rudimentis, se non aliter Deo fore gratos, nisi exteris et proeputiatis essent prorsus dissimiles, ac longissime abessent ab eorum exemplis, praesertim vero ritus omnes fugerent, quibus testata fuerit religio. So that from this law it doth most manifestly appear, that we may not be like idolaters, no not in things which are in themselves indifferent, when we know they do use them superstitiously. 2. What warrant is there for this gloss, that the law forbiddeth the cutting round of the corners of the head, and the matting of the corners of the beard, to be used as signs of immoderate and hopeless lamentation for the dead, and that in no other sense they are forbidden? Albeit the cutting of the flesh may be expounded to proceed from immoderate grief, and to be a sign of hopeless lamentation; yet this cannot be said of rounding the hair, marring the beard, and making of baldness, which might have been used in moderate and hopeful lamentation, as well as our putting on of mourning apparel for the dead. The law saith nothing of the immoderate use of these things, but simply forbiddeth to round the head, or mar the beard for the dead; and that because this was one of the rites which the idolatrous and superstitious Gentiles did use, concerning whom the Lord commanded his people, that they should not do like them, because he had chosen them to be a holy and peculiar people, above all people upon the earth. So that the thing which was forbidden, if the Gentiles had not used it, should have been otherwise lawful enough to God's people, as we have seen out of Calvin's commentary.

Sect. 6. Secondly, We have reason for that which we say; for by partaking with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies, we are made to partake with them in their religion too. For, ceremonioe omnes sun quoedam protestationes fidei, saith Aquinas.(582) Therefore communio rituum est quasi symbolum communionis in religione, saith Balduine.(583) They who did eat of the Jewish sacrifices were partakers of the altar, 1 Cor. x. 18, that is, saith Pareus,(584) socios Judaicae religionis et cultus se profitebantur. For the Jews by their sacrifices mutuam in una eademque religione copulationem sanciunt, saith Beza.(585) Whereupon Dr Fulk noteth,(586) that the Apostle in that place doth compare our sacraments with the altars, hosts, sacrifices or immolations of the Jews and Gentiles, "in that point which is common to all ceremonies, to declare them that use them to be partakers of that religion whereof they be ceremonies." If then Isidore thought it unlawful for Christians to take pleasure in the fables of heathen poets,(587) because non solum thura offerendo daemonibus immolatur, sed etiam eorum dicta libentius capiendo; much more have we reason to think that, by taking part in the ceremonies of idolaters, we do but offer to devils, and join ourselves to the service of idols.

Sect. 7. Thirdly, As by Scripture and reason, so by antiquity, we strengthen our argument. Of old, Christians did so shun to be like the pagans, that in the days of Tertullian it was thought they might not wear garlands, because thereby they had been made conform to the pagans. Hence Tertullian justifieth the soldier who refused to wear a garland as the pagans did.(588) Dr Mortoune himself allegeth another case out of Tertullian,(589) which maketh to this purpose, namely, that Christian proselytes did distinguish themselves from Roman pagans, by casting away their gowns and wearing of cloaks. But these things we are not to urge, because we plead not for dissimilitude with the Papists in civil fashions, but in sacred and religious ceremonies. For this point then at which we hold us, we allege that which is marked in the third century out of Origen,(590) namely, that it was held unlawful for Christians to observe the feasts and solemnities, either of the Jews or of the Gentiles. Now we find a whole council determining thus,(591) Non oportet a Judoeis vel hoereticis, feriatica quoe mittuntur accipere, nec cum cis dies agere feriatos. The council of Nice also condemned those who kept Easter upon the fourteenth day of the month. That which made them pronounce so (as is clear from Constantine's epistle to the churches(592)) was, because they held it unbeseeming for Christians to have anything common with the Jews in their rites and observances. Augustine condemneth fasting upon the Sabbath day as scandalous, because the Manichees used so, and fasting upon that day had been a conformity with them;(593) and wherefore did Gregory advise Leander to abolish the ceremony of trim-immersion? His words are plain:(594) Quia nunc huc usque ab hoereticis infans in baptismate tertio mergebatur, fiendum apud vos esse non censeo. Why doth Epiphanius,(595) in the end of his books contra haereses, rehearse all the ceremonies of the church, as marks whereby the church is discerned from all other sects? If the church did symbolise in ceremonies with other sects, he could not have done so. And, moreover, find we not in the canons of the ancient councils,(596) that Christians were forbidden to deck their houses with green boughs and bay leaves, to observe the calends of January, to keep the first day of every month, &c., because the pagans used to do so? Last of all, read we not in the fourth century of the ecclesiastical history,(597) that the frame of Christians in that age was such, that nec cum haereticis commune quicquam habere voluerunt?

Sect. 8. One would think that nothing could be answered to any of these things, by such as pretend no less than that they have devoted themselves to bend all their wishes and labours for procuring the imitation of venerable antiquity. Yet Hooker can coin a conjecture to frustrate all which we allege.(598) "In things (saith he) of their own nature indifferent, if either councils or particular men have at any time with sound judgment misliked conformity between the church of God and infidels, the cause thereof hath not been affectation of dissimilitude, but some special accident which the church, not being always subject unto, hath not still cause to do the like. For example (saith he), in the dangerous days of trial, wherein there was no way for the truth of Jesus Christ to triumph over infidelity but through the constancy of his saints, whom yet a natural desire to save themselves from the flame might, peradventure, cause to join with the pagans in external customs, too far using the same as a cloak to conceal themselves in, and a mist to darken the eyes of infidels withal; for remedy hereof, it might be, those laws were provided." Ans. 1. This answer is altogether doubtful and conjectural, made up of if, and peradventure, and it might be. Neither is anything found which can make such a conjecture probable. 2. The true reason why Christians were forbidden to use the rites and customs of pagans, was neither a bare affectation of dissimilitude, nor yet any special accident which the church is not always subject unto, but because it was held unlawful to symbolise with idolaters in the use of such rites as they placed any religion in. For in the fathers and councils which we have cited to this purpose, there is no other reason mentioned why it behoved Christians to abstain from those forbidden customs, but only because the pagans and infidels used so. 3. And what if Hooker's divination shall have place? Doth it not agree to us, so as it should make us mislike the Papists? Yes, sure, and more properly. For put the case, that those ancient Christians had not avoided conformity with pagans in those rites and customs which we read to have been forbidden them, yet for all that, there had been remaining betwixt them and the pagans a great deal more difference than will remain betwixt us and the Papists, if we avoid not conformity with them in the controverted ceremonies; for the pagans had not the word, sacraments, &c., which the Papists do retain, so that we may far more easily use the ceremonies as a mist to darken the eyes of the Papists, than they could have used those forbidden rites as a mist to darken the eyes of pagans. Much more, then, Protestants should not be permitted to conform themselves unto Papists in rites and ceremonies, lest, in the dangerous days of trial (which some reformed churches in Europe do presently feel, and which seem to be faster approaching to ourselves than the most part are aware of), they join themselves to Papists in these external things, too far using the same as a cloak to conceal themselves in, &c. 4. We find that the reason why the fourth council of Toledo forbade the ceremony of thrice dipping in water to be used in baptism, was,(599) lest Christians should seem to assent to heretics who divide the Trinity. And the reason why the same council forbade the clergymen to conform themselves unto the custom of heretics,(600) in the shaving off the hair of their head, is mentioned to have been the removing of conformity with the custom of heretics from the churches of Spain, as being a great dishonour unto the same. And we have heard before, that Augustine condemneth conformity with the Manichees, in fasting upon the Lord's day, as scandalous. And whereas afterwards the council of Caesar-Augusta forbade fasting upon the Lord's day, a grave writer layeth out the reason of this prohibition thus:(601) "It would appear that this council had a desire to abolish the rites and customs of the Manichean heretics, who were accustomed to fast upon the Lord's day." Lastly, we have seen from Constantine's epistle to the churches, that dissimilitude with the Jews was one (though not the only one) reason why it was not thought beseeming to keep Easter upon the fourteenth day of the month. Who then can think that any special accident, as Hooker imagineth, was the reason why the rites and customs of pagans were forbidden to Christians? Were not the customs of the pagans to be held unbeseeming for Christians, as well as the customs of the Jews? Nay, if conformity with heretics (whom Hooker acknowledgeth to be a part of the visible church(602)), in their customs and ceremonies, was condemned as a scandal, a dishonour to the church, and an assenting unto their heresies, might he not have much more thought that conformity with the customs of pagans was forbidden as a greater scandal and dishonour to the church, and as an assenting to the paganism and idolatry of those that were without?

Sect. 9. But to proceed. In the fourth place, the canon law itself speaketh for the argument which we have in hand: Non licet iniquas observationes agere calendarum, et otiis vacare Gentilibus, neque lauro, aut viriditate arborum, cingere domos: omnis enim haec observatio paganismi est.(603) And again: Anathema sit qui ritum paganorum et calendarum observat.(604) And after: Dies Aegyptiaci et Januarii calendae non sunt observandae.(605)

Fifthly, Our assertion will find place in the school too, which holdeth that Jews are forbidden to wear a garment of diverse sorts,(606) as of linen and woollen together, and that their women were forbidden to wear men's clothes, or their men women's clothes, because the Gentiles used so in the worshipping of their gods. In like manner, that the priests were forbidden to round their heads,(607) or mar their beards, or make incision in their flesh, because the idolatrous priests did so.(608) And that the prohibition which forbade the commixtion of beasts of diverse kinds among the Jews hath a figurative sense,(609) in that we are forbidden to make people of one kind of religion, to have any conjunction with those of another kind.

Sixthly, Papists themselves teach,(610) that it is generally forbidden to communicate with infidels and heretics, but especially in any act of religion. Yea, they think,(611) that Christian men are bound to abhor the very phrases and words of heretics, which they use. Yea, they condemn the very heathenish names of the days of the week imposed after the names of the planets,(612) Sunday, Monday, &c. They hold it altogether a great and damnable sin to deal with heretics in matter of religion,(613) or any way to communicate with them in spiritual things. Bellarmine is plain,(614) who will have catholics to be discerned from heretics, and other sects of all sorts, even by ceremonies, because as heretics have hated the ceremonies of the church, so the church hath ever abstained from the observances of heretics.

Sect. 10. Seventhly, Our own writers do sufficiently confirm us in this argument. The bringing of heathenish or Jewish rites into the church is altogether condemned by them,(615) yea, though the customs and rites of the heathen(616) be received into the church for gaining them, and drawing them to the true religion, yet is it condemned as proceeding ex κακαζηλίᾳ seu prava Ethnicorum imitatione. J. Rainolds(617) rejecteth the popish ceremonies, partly because they are Jewish, and partly because they are heathenish. The same argument Beza(618) useth against them. In the second command, as Zanchius(619) expoundeth it, we are forbidden to borrow anything, ex ritibus idololatrarum Gentium. Fidelibus (saith Calvin(620)) fas non est ullo symbolo ostendere, sibi cum superstitiosis esse consensum. To conclude, then, since not only idolatry is forbidden, but also, as Pareus noteth,(621) every sort of communicating with the occasion, appearances, or instruments of the same; and since, as our divines have declared,(622) the Papists are in many respects gross idolaters, let us choose to have the commendation which was given to the ancient Britons for being enemies to the Roman customs,(623) rather than, as Pope Pius V. was forced to say of Rome,(624) that it did more Gentilizare, quam Christianizare; so they who would gladly wish they could give a better commendation to our church, be forced to say, that it doth not only more Anglizare, quam Scotizare, but also more Romanizare, quam Evangelizare.

Sect. 11. But our argument is made by a great deal more strong, if yet further we consider, that by the controverted ceremonies, we are not only made like the idolatrous Papists, in such rites of man's devising as they place some religion in, but we are made likewise to take upon us those signs and symbols which Papists account to be special badges of Popery, and which also, in the account of many of our own reverend divines, are to be so thought of. In the oath ordained by Pius IV., to be taken of bishops at their creation (as Onuphrius writeth(625)), they are appointed to swear, Apostolicas et ecclesiasticas traditiones, reliquasque ejusdem ecclesiae observationes et constitutiones firmissime admitto et amplector; and after, Receptos quoque ac approbatos ecclesiae Catholicae ritus, in supra dictorum sacramentorum solemni administratione, recipio, et admitto. We see bishops are not created by this ordinance, except they not only believe with the church of Rome, but also receive her ceremonies, by which, as by the badges of her faith and religion, cognizance may be had that they are indeed her children. And farther, Papists give it forth plainly,(626) that as the church hath ever abstained from the observances of heretics, so now also catholics (they mean Romanists) are very well distinguished from heretics (they mean those of the reformed religion) by the sign of the cross, abstinence from flesh on Friday, &c. And how do our divines understand the mark of the beast, spoken of Rev. xiii. 16, 17? Junius(627) comprehendeth confirmation under this mark. Cartwright(628) also referreth the sign of the cross to the mark of the beast. Pareus(629) approveth the Bishop of Salisbury's exposition, and placeth the common mark of the beast the observation of antichrist's festival days, and the rest of his ceremonies, which are not commanded by God. It seems this much has been plain to Joseph Hall, so that he could not deny it; for whereas the Brownists allege, that not only after their separation, but before they separated also, they were, and are verily persuaded that the ceremonies are but the badges and liveries of that man of sin whereof the Pope is the head and the prelates the shoulders,—he, in this Apology(630) against them, saith nothing to this point.

Sect. 12. As for any other of our opposites, who have made such answers as they could to the argument in hand, I hope the strength and force of the same hath been demonstrated to be such that their poor shifts are too weak for gain-standing it. Some of them (as I touched before) are not ashamed to profess that we should come as near to the Papists as we can, and therefore should conform ourselves to them in their ceremonies (only purging away the superstition), because if we do otherwise, we exasperate the Papists, and alienate them the more from our religion and reformation. Ans. 1. Bastwick,(631) propounding the same objection, Si quis objiciat nos ipsos pertinaci ceremoniarum papalium contemptu, Papistis offendiculum posuisse, quo minus se nostris ecclesiis associent, he answereth out of the Apostle, Rom. xv. 2, that we are to please every one his neighbour only in good things to edification, and that we may not wink at absurd or wicked things, nor at anything in God's worship which is not found in Scripture. 2. I have showed(632) that Papists are but more and more hardened in evil by this our conformity with them in ceremonies. 3. I have showed also,(633) the superstition of the ceremonies, even as they are retained by us, and that it is as impossible to purge the ceremonies from superstition, as to purge superstition from itself.

There are others, who go about to sew a cloak of fig leaves, to hide their conformity with Papists, and to find out some difference betwixt the English ceremonies and those of the Papists; so say some, that by the sign of the cross they are not ranked with Papists, because they use not the material cross, which is the popish one, but the aerial only. But it is known well enough that Papists do idolatrise the very aerial cross; for Bellarmine holds,(634) venerabile esse signum crucis, quod effingitur in fronte, aere, &c. And though they did not make an idol of it, yet forasmuch as Papists put it to a religious use, and make it one of the marks of Roman Catholics (as we have seen before), we may not be conformed to them in the use of the same. The fathers of such a difference between the popish cross and the English have not succeeded in this their way, yet their posterity approve their sayings, and follow their footsteps. Bishop Lindsey(635) by name will trade in the same way, and will have us to think that kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, and keeping of holidays, do not sort us with Papists; for that, as touching the former, there is a disconformity in the object, because they kneel to the sign, we to the thing signified. And as for the latter, the difference is in the employing of the time, and in the exercise and worship for which the cessation is commanded. What is his verdict, then, wherewith he sends us away? Verily, that people should be taught that the disconformity between the Papists and us is not so much in any external use of ceremonies, as in the substance of the service and object whereunto they are applied. But, good man, he seeks a knot in the bulrush; for, 1, There is no such difference betwixt our ceremonies and those of the Papists, in respect of the object and worship whereunto the same is applied, as he pretendeth; for, as touching the exercise and worship whereunto holidays are applied, Papists tell us,(636) that they keep Pasche and Pentecost yearly for memory of Christ's resurrection, and the sending down of the Holy Ghost; and, I pray, to what other employment do Formalists profess that they apply these feasts, but to the commemoration of the same benefits? And as touching kneeling in the sacrament, it shall be proved in the next chapter, that they do kneel to the sign, even as the Papists do. In the meanwhile, it may be questioned whether the Bishop meant some such matter, even here where professedly he maketh a difference betwixt the Papists' kneeling and ours. His words, wherein I apprehend this much, are these: "The Papists in prayer kneel to an idol, and in the sacrament they kneel to the sign: we kneel in our prayer to God, and by the sacrament to the thing signified." The analogy of the antithesis required him to say, that we kneel "in the sacrament" to the thing signified; but changing his phrase, he saith, that we kneel "by the sacrament" to the thing signified. Now, if we kneel "by the sacrament to Christ," then we adore the sacrament as objectum materiale, and Christ as objectum formale. Just so the Papists adore their images; because per imaginem, they adore prototypon. 2. What if we should yield to the Bishop that kneeling and holidays are with us applied to another service, and used with another meaning than they are with the Papists? Doth that excuse our conformity with Papists in the external use of these ceremonies? If so, J. Hart(637) did rightly argument out of Pope Innocentius, that the church doth not Judaise by the sacrament of unction or anointing, because it doth figure and work another thing in the New Testament than it did in the Old. Rainold answereth, that though it were so, yet is the ceremony Jewish; and mark his reason (which carrieth a fit proportion to our present purpose), "I trust (saith he) you will not maintain but it were Judaism for your church to sacrifice a lamb in burnt-offering, though you did it to signify, not Christ that was to come, as the Jews did, but that Christ is come," &c. "St. Peter did constrain the Gentiles to Judaise, when they were induced by his example and authority to follow the Jewish rite in choice of meats; yet neither he nor they allowed it in that meaning which it was given to the Jews in; for it was given them to betoken that holiness, and train them up into it, which Christ by his grace should bring to the faithful. And Peter knew that Christ had done this in truth, and taken away that figure, yea the whole yoke of the law of Moses; which point he taught the Gentiles also. Wherefore, although your church do keep the Jewish rites with another meaning than God ordained them for the Jews, &c., yet this of Peter showeth that the thing is Jewish, and you to Judaise who keep them." By the very same reasons prove we that Formalists do Romanise by keeping the popish ceremonies, though with another meaning, and to another use, than the Romanists do. The very external use, therefore, of any sacred ceremony of human institution, is not to be suffered in the matter of worship, when in respect of this external use we are sorted with idolaters. 3. If conformity with idolaters in the external use of their ceremonies be lawful, if so be there be a difference in the substance of the worship and object whereunto they are applied, then why were Christians forbidden of old (as we have heard before) to keep the calends of January, and the first day of every month, forasmuch as the pagans used so? Why was trin-immersion in baptism, and fasting upon the Lord's day forbidden, for that the heretics did so? Why did the Nicene fathers inhibit the keeping of Easter upon the fourteenth day of the month,(638) so much the rather because the Jews kept it on that day? The Bishop must say there was no need of shunning conformity with pagans, Jews, heretics, in the external use of their rites and customs, and that a difference ought to have been made only in the object and use whereunto the same was applied. Nay, why did God forbid Israel to cut their hair as the Gentiles did? Had it not been enough not to apply this rite to a superstitious use, as Aquinas showeth(639) the Gentiles did? Why was the very external use of it forbidden?

Sect. 14. There is yet another piece brought against us, but we will abide the proof of it, as of the rest. Nobis saith,(640) Saravia, satis est, modestis et piis Christianis satisfacere, qui ita recesserunt a superstitionibus et idololatriae Romanae ecclesiae, ut probatos ab orthodoxis patribus mores, non rejiciant. So have some thought to escape by this postern, that they use the ceremonies, not for conformity with Papists, but for conformity with the ancient fathers. Ans. 1. When Rainold speaketh of the abolishing of popish ceremonies,(641) he answereth this subtlety: "But if you say, therefore, that we be against the ancient fathers in religion, because we pluck down that which they did set up, take heed lest your speech do touch the Holy Ghost, who saith that Hezekiah (in breaking down the brazen serpent) did keep God's commandments which he commanded Moses," 2 Kings xviii. 6; and yet withal saith, "That he brake in pieces the serpent of brass which Moses had made," 2 Kings xviii. 4. 2. There are some of the ceremonies which the fathers used not, as the surplice (which we have seen before(642)) and kneeling in the act of receiving the eucharist (as we shall see afterwards(643)). 3. Yielding by concession, not by confession, that all the ceremonies about which there is controversy now among us, were of old used by the fathers; yet that which these Formalists say, is (as Parker showeth(644)) even as if a servant should be covered before his master, not as covering is a late sign of pre-eminence, but as it was of old, a sign of subjection; or as if one should preach that the prelates are tyranni to their brethren, fures to the church, sophistae to the truth, and excuse himself thus: I use these words, as of old they signified a ruler, a servant, a student of wisdom. All men know that words and actions must be interpreted, used and received, according to their modern use, and not as they have been of old.



CHAPTER IV.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE IDOLS AMONG THE FORMALISTS THEMSELVES; AND THAT KNEELING IN THE LORD'S SUPPER BEFORE THE BREAD AND WINE, IN THE ACT OF RECEIVING THEM, IS FORMALLY IDOLATRY.

Sect. 1. My fourth argument against the lawfulness of the ceremonies followeth, by which I am to evince that they are not only idolatrous reductive, because monuments of by-past, and participative, because badges of present idolatry, but that likewise they make Formalists themselves to be formally, and in respect of their own using of them, idolaters, consideration not had of the by-past or present abusing of them by others. This I will make good: first, of all the ceremonies in general; then, of kneeling in particular. And I wish our opposites here look to themselves, for this argument proveth to them the box of Pandora, and containeth that which undoeth them, though this much be not seen before the opening.

First, then, the ceremonies are idols to Formalists. It had been good to have remembered that which Ainsworth noteth,(645) that idolothites and monuments of idolatry should be destroyed, lest themselves at length become idols. The idolothious ceremonies, we see now, are become idols to those who have retained them. The ground which the Bishop of Winchester taketh for his sermon of the worshipping of imaginations,—to wit, that the devil, seeing that idolatrous images would be put down, bent his whole device, in place of them, to erect and set up divers imaginations, to be adored and magnified instead of the former,—is, in some things, abused and misapplied by him. But well may I apply it to the point in hand; for that the ceremonies are the imaginations which are magnified, adored, and idolised, instead of the idolatrous images which were put down, thus we instruct and qualify:

Sect. 2. First, They are so erected and extolled, that they are more looked to than the weighty matters of the law of God: all good discipline must be neglected before they be not holden up. A covetous man is an idolater, for this respect among others, as Davenant noteth,(646) because he neglects the service which he oweth to God, and is wholly taken up with the gathering of money. And I suppose every one will think that those traditions, Mark vii. 8, 9, which the Pharisees kept and held, with the laying aside of the commandments of God, might well be called idols. Shall we not then call the ceremonies idols, which are observed with the neglecting of God's commandments, and which are advanced above many substantial points of religion? Idolatry, blasphemy, profanation of the Sabbath, perjury, adultery, &c., are overlooked, and not corrected nor reproved, nay, not so much as discountenanced in those who favour and follow the ceremonies; and if in the fellows and favourites, much more in the fathers. What if order be taken with some of those abominations in certain abject poor bodies? Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas. What will not an episcopal conformist pass away with, if there be no more had against him than the breaking of God's commandments by open and gross wickedness? But O what narrow notice is taken of non-conformity! How mercilessly is it menaced! How cruelly corrected! Well, the ceremonies are more made of than the substance. And this is so evident, that Dr Burges himself lamenteth the pressure of conformity,(647) and denieth not that which is objected to him, namely, that more grievous penalties are inflicted upon the refusal of the ceremonies than upon adultery and drunkenness.

Sect. 3. Secondly, Did not Eli make idols of his sons, 1 Sam. ii. 29, when he spared them and bare with them, though with the prejudice of God's worship? And may not we call the ceremonies idols, which are not only spared and borne with, to the prejudice of God's worship, but are likewise so erected, that the most faithful labourers in God's house, for their sake, are depressed, the teachers and maintainers of God's true worship cast out? For their sake, many learned and godly men are envied, contemned, hated, and nothing set by, because they pass under the name (I should say the nickname) of puritans. For their sake many dear Christians have been imprisoned, fined, banished, &c. For their sake many qualified and well-gifted men are holden out of the ministry, and a door of entrance denied to those to whom God hath granted a door of utterance. For their sake, those whose faithful and painful labours in the Lord's harvest have greatly benefited the church, have been thrust from their charges, so that they could not fulfil the ministry which they have received of the Lord, to testify of the gospel of the grace of God. The best builders, the wise master-builders, have been over-turned by them. This is objected to Joseph Hall by the Brownists; and what can he say to it? Forsooth, "that not so much the ceremonies are stood upon as obedience. If God please to try Adam but with an apple, it is enough. What do we quarrel at the value of the fruit when we have a prohibition? Shemei is slain. What! merely for going out of the city? The act was little, the bond was great. What is commanded matters not so much as by whom." Ans. 1. If obedience be the chief thing stood upon, why are not other laws and statutes urged as strictly as those which concern the ceremonies? 2. But what means he? What would he say of those Scottish Protestants imprisoned in the castle of Scherisburgh in France,(648) who, being commanded by the captain to come to the mass, answered, "That to do anything that was against their conscience, they would not, neither for him nor yet for the king?" If he approve this answer of theirs, he must allow us to say, that we will do nothing which is against our consciences. We submit ourselves and all which we have to the king, and to inferior governors we render all due subjection which we owe to them, but no mortal man hath domination over our consciences, which are subject to one only Lawgiver, and ruled by his law. I have shown in the first part of this dispute how conscience is sought to be bound by the law of the ceremonies, and here, by the way, no less may be drawn from Hall's words, which now I examine; for he implieth in them that we are bound to obey the statutes about the ceremonies merely for their authority's sake who command us, though there be no other thing in the ceremonies themselves which can commend them to us. But I have also proved before that human laws do not bind to obedience, but only in this case, when the things which they prescribe do agree and serve to those things which God's law prescribeth; so that, as human laws, they bind not, neither have they any force to bind, but only by participation with God's law. This ground hath seemed to P. Bayne(649) so necessary to be known, that he hath inserted it in his brief Exposition of the Fundamental Points of Religion. And besides all that which I have said for it before, I may not here pass over in silence this one thing, that Hall himself calleth it superstition to make any more sins than the ten commandments.(650) Either, then, let it be shown out of God's word that non-conformity, and the refusing of the English popish ceremonies, is a fault, or else let us not be thought bound by men's laws where God's law hath left us free. Yet we deal more liberally with our opposites, for if we prove not the unlawfulness of the ceremonies, both by God's word and sound reason, let us then be bound to use them for ordinance' sake.

3. His comparisons are far wide. They are so far from running upon four feet, that they have indeed no feet at all, whether we consider the commandments, or the breach of them, he is altogether extravagant. God might have commanded Adam to eat the apple which he forbade him to eat, and so the eating of it had been good, the not eating of it evil; whereas the will and commandment of men is not regula regulans, but regula regulata. Neither can they make good or evil, beseeming or not beseeming, what they list, but their commandments are to be examined by a higher rule. When Solomon commanded Shemei to dwell at Jerusalem, and not to go over the brook Kidron, he had good reason for that which he required; for as P. Martyr noteth,(651) he was a man of the family of the house of Saul, 2 Sam. xv. 5, and hated the kingdom and throne of David, so that relictus liber multa fuisset molitus, vel cum Israelitis, vel cum Palestinis. But what reason is there for charging us with the law of the ceremonies, except the sole will of the lawmakers? Yet, say that Solomon had no reason for this his commandment, except his own will and pleasure for trying the obedience of Shemei, who will say that princes have as great liberty and power of commanding at their pleasure in matters of religion as in civil matters? If we consider the breach of the commandments, he is still at random. Though God tried Adam but with an apple, yet divines mark in his eating of that forbidden fruit many gross and horrible sins,(652) as infidelity, idolatry, pride, ambition, self-love, theft, covetousness, contempt of God, profanation of God's name, ingratitude, impostacy, murdering of his posterity, &c. But, I pray, what exorbitant evils are found in our modest and Christian-like denial of obedience to the law of the ceremonies? When Shemei transgressed king Solomon's commandment, besides the violation of this,(653) and the disobeying of the charge wherewith Solomon (by the special direction and inspiration of God) had charged him, that his former wickedness, and that which he hath done to David, might be returned upon his head, the Divine Providence so fitly furnishing another occasion and cause of his punishment. There was also a great contempt and misregard showed to the king, in that Shemei, knowing his own evil-deservings, acknowledged (as the truth was) he had received no small favour, and therefore consented to the king's word as good, and promised obedience. Yet for all that, upon such a petty and small occasion as the seeking of two runagate servants, he reckoned not to despise the king's mercy and lenity, and to set at nought his most just commandment. What! Is nonconformity no less piacular? If any will dare to say so, he is bound to show that it is so. And thus have we pulled down the untempered mortar wherewith Hall would hide the idolising of the ceremonies.

Sect. 4. But Thirdly, Did not Rachel make Jacob an idol, when she ascribed to him a power of giving children? "Am I in God's stead?" saith Jacob, Gen. xxx. 1, 3. How much more reason have we to say that the ceremonies are idols, are set up in God's stead, since an operative virtue is placed in them, for giving stay and strength against sin and tentation, and for working of other spiritual and supernatural effects? Thus is the sign of the cross an idol to those who conform to Papists in the use of it. M. Ant. de Dominis holdeth,(654) Crucis signum contra daemones esse praesidium; and that even(655) ex opere operato, effectus mirabiles signi crucis, etiam apud infideles, aliquando enituerint. "Shall I say (saith Mr Hooker),(656) that the sign of the cross (as we use it) is a mean in some sort to work our preservation from reproach? Surely the mind which as yet hath not hardened itself in sin, is seldom provoked thereunto in any gross and grievous manner, but nature's secret suggestion objecteth against it ignominy as a bar, which conceit being entered into that place of man's fancy (the forehead), the gates whereof have imprinted in them that holy sign (the cross), which bringeth forthwith to mind whatsoever Christ hath wrought and we vowed against sin; it cometh hereby to pass, that Christian men never want a most effectual, though a silent teacher, to avoid whatsoever may deservedly procure shame." What more do Papists ascribe to the sign of the cross, when they say, that by it Christ keeps his own faithful ones(657) contra omnes tentationes et hostes. Now if the covetous man be called an idolater, Eph. v. 5, because, though he think not his money to be God, yet he trusteth to live and prosper by it (which confidence and hope we should repose in God only, Jer. xvii. 7), as Rainold marketh,(658) then do they make the sign of the cross an idol who trust by it to be preserved from sin, shame, and reproach, and to have their minds stayed in the instant of tentation. For who hath given such a virtue to that dumb and idle sign as to work that which God only can work? And how have these good fellows imagined, that not by knocking at their brains, as Jupiter, but by only signing their foreheads, they can procreate some menacing Minerva, or armed Pallas, to put to flight the devil himself.