Chapter II…

Chapter II

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEY ARE MONUMENTS OF BY-PAST IDOLATRY, WHICH NOT BEING NECESSARY TO BE RETAINED, SHOULD BE UTTERLY ABOLISHED, BECAUSE OF THEIR IDOLATROUS ABUSES: ALL WHICH IS PARTICULARLY MADE GOOD OF KNEELING.

Sect. 1. I have here proved the ceremonies to be superstitious; now I will prove them to be idolatrous. These are different arguments; for every idolatry is superstition, but every superstition is not idolatry, as is rightly by some distinguished.(507) As for the idolatry of the controverted ceremonies, I will prove that they are thrice idolatrous: 1. Reductive, because they are monuments of by-past idolatry; 2.Participative, because they are badges of present idolatry; 3.Formaliter, because they are idols themselves.

First, then, they are idolatrous, because having been notoriously abused to idolatry heretofore, they are the detestable and accursed monuments, which give no small honour to the memory of that by-past idolatry which should lie buried in hell. Dr Burges(508) reckons for idolatrous all ceremonies devised and used in and to the honouring of an idol, whether properly or by interpretation such. “Of which sort (saith he) were all the ceremonies of the pagans, and not a few of the Papists.” If an opposite, writing against us, be forced to acknowledge this much, one may easily conjecture what enforcing reason we have to double out our point. The argument in hand I frame thus:—

All things and rites which have been notoriously abused to idolatry, if they be not such as either God or nature hath made to be of a necessary use, should be utterly abolished and purged away from divine worship, in such sort that they may not be accounted nor used by us as sacred things or rites pertaining to the same.

But the cross, surplice, kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, &c., are things and rites, &c., and are not such as either God or nature, &c.

Therefore they should be utterly abolished, &c.

Sect. 2. As for the proposition I shall first explain it and then prove it. I say, “all things and rites,” for they are alike forbidden, as I shall show. I say, “which have been notoriously abused to idolatry,” because if the abuse be not known, we are blameless for retaining the things and rites which have been abused. I say, “if they be not such as either God or nature hath made to be of a necessary use,” because if they be of a necessary use, either through God’s institution, as the sacraments, or through nature’s law, as the opening of our mouths to speak (for when I am to preach or pray publicly, nature makes it necessary that I open my mouth to speak audibly and articularly), then the abuse cannot take away the use. I say, “they may not be used by us as sacred things, rites pertaining to divine worship,” because without the compass of worship they may be used to a natural or civil purpose. If I could get no other meat to eat than the consecrated host, which Papists idolatrise in the circumgestation of it, I might lawfully eat it; and if I could get no other clothes to put on than the holy garments wherein a priest hath said mass, I might lawfully wear them. Things abused to idolatry are only then unlawful when they are used no otherwise than religiously, and as things sacred.

Sect. 3. The proposition thus explained is confirmed by these five proofs: 1. God’s own precept,—“Ye shall defile also the covering of thy graven images of silver, and the ornaments of thy molten images of gold: thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth, thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence,” Isa. xxx. 22. The covering of the idol here spoken of, Gaspar Sanctus(509) rightly understandeth to be that, quo aut induebantur simulacra Gentilico ritu, aut bracteas quibus ligneae imagines integantur, aut quo homines idolis sacrificaturi amiciebantur; so that the least appurtenances of idols are to be avoided. When the apostle Jude(510) would have us to hate garments spotted with the flesh, his meaning is, detestandam essevel superficiem ipsam mali sive peccati, quam tunicae appellatione subinnuere videtur, as our own. Rolloke hath observed,(511) If the very covering of an idol be forbidden, what shall be thought of other things which are not only spotted, but irrecoverably polluted with idols? Many such precepts were given to Israel, as “Ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves,” Exod. xxxiv. 13. “The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver nor gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein; for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God,” Deut. vii. 25, 26. Read to the same purpose, Num. xxxiii. 52; Deut. vii. 5; xii. 2, 3.

Secondly, God hath not only by his precepts commanded us to abolish all the relics of idolatry, but by his promises also manifested unto us how acceptable service this should be to him. There is a command “That the Israelites should destroy the Canaanites,” Num. xxxiii. 52, evertantque res omnes idololatricas ipsorum cui mandato, saith Junius,(512) subjicitur sua promissio, namely, that the Lord would give them the promised land, and they should dispossess the inhabitants thereof, ver. 53; yea, there is a promise of remission and reconciliation to this work: “By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged, and this is all the fruit to take away his sin; when he maketh all the stones of the altar as chalk-stones that are beaten asunder, the groves and images shall not stand up.” Isa. xxvii. 9.

Sect. 4. Thirdly, The churches of Pergamos and Thyatira are reproved for suffering the use of idolothites, Rev. ii. 14-20, where the eating of things sacrificed to idols is condemned as idolatry and spiritual adultery, as Perkins(513) noteth. Paybody, therefore, is greatly mistaken when he thinks that meats sacrificed to idols, being the good creatures of God, were allowed by the Lord, out of the case of scandal, notwithstanding of idolatrous pollution; for the eating of things sacrificed to idols is reproved as idolatry, Rev. ii.; and the eating of such things is condemned as a fellowship with devils, 1 Cor. x. 20. Now idolatry and fellowship with devils, I suppose, are unlawful, though no scandal should follow upon them. And whereas he thinks meats sacrificed to idols to be lawful enough out of the case of scandal, for this reason, because they are the good creatures of God, he should have considered better the Apostle’s mind concerning such idolothites; which Zanchius(514) setteth down thus: _Verum est, per se haec nihil __ sunt, sed respectu eorum quibut immolantur aliquid sunt; quia per hoec illis quibus immolantur, nos consociamur. Qui isti? Daemones._ For our better understanding of this matter, we must distinguish two sorts of idolothites, both which we find, 1 Cor. x. Of the one, the Apostle speaks from the 14th verse of that chapter to the 23d; of the other, from the 23d verse to the end. This is Beza’s distinction in his Annotations on that chapter. Of the first sort, he delivers the Apostle’s mind thus: That as Christians have their holy banquets, which are badges of their communion both with Christ and among themselves; and as the Israelites, by their sacrifices, did seal their copulation in the same religion, so also idolaters, cum suis idolis aut potius daemonibus, solemnibusillis epulis copulantur. So that this sort of idolothites were eaten in temples, and public solemn banquets, which were dedicated to the honour of idols, 1 Cor. viii. 10. Cartwright showeth(515) that the Apostle is comparing the table of the Lord with the table of idolaters; whereupon it followeth, that as we use the Lord’s table religiously, so that table of idolaters of which the Apostle speaketh, had state in the idolatrous worship like that feast, Num. xxv. 3; quod in honorem falsorum Deorum celebrabatur, saith Calvin.(516) This first sort of idolothites Pareus(517) calls the sacrifices of idols; and from such, he saith, the Apostle dissuadeth by this argument, Participare epulis idolorum, est idololatria. Of the second sort of idolothites, the Apostle begins to speak in ver. 23. The Corinthians moved a question, Whether they might lawfully eat things sacrificed to idols? In privatis conviviis, saith Pareus.(518) The Apostle resolves them that domi in privato convictu, they might eat them, except it were in the case of scandal; thus Beza.(519) The first sort of idolothites are meant of Rev. ii., as Beza there noteth; and of this sort must we understand Augustine(520) to mean whilst he saith, that it were better mori fame, quam idolothites vesci. These sorts are simply and in themselves unlawful. And if meats sacrificed to idols be so unlawful, then much more such things and rites as have not only been sacrificed and destinated to the honour of idols (for this is but one kind of idolatrous abuse), but also of a long time publicly and solemnly employed in the worshipping of idols, and deeply defiled with idolatry, much more, I say, are they unlawful to be applied to God’s most pure and holy worship, and therein used by us publicly and solemnly, so that the world may see us conforming and joining ourselves unto idolaters.

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 Phœnicia, 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 cœterorumque Deorum œdes 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, causœ, 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, participativè. 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 Cæsar-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 ecclesiæ observationes et constitutiones firmissime admitto et amplector; and after, Receptos quoque ac approbatos ecclesiæ Catholicæ 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.

Sect. 5. The same kind of operative virtue is ascribed to the ceremony of confirmation or bishopping; for the English service book teacheth, that by it children receive strength against sin, and against tentation. And Hooker hath told us,(659) that albeit the successors of the apostles had but only for a time such power as by prayer and imposition of hands to bestow the Holy Ghost, yet confirmation hath continued hitherto for very special benefits; and that the fathers impute everywhere unto it “that gift or grace of the Holy Ghost, not which maketh us first Christian men, but when we are made such, assisteth us in all virtue, armeth us against tentation and sin.” Moreover, whilst he is a-showing why this ceremony of confirmation was separated from baptism, having been long joined with it, one of his reasons which he giveth for the separation is, that sometimes the parties who received baptism were infants, at which age they might well be admitted to live in the family, but to fight in the army of God, to bring forth the fruits, and to do the works of the Holy Ghost, their time of hability was not yet come; which implieth, that by the confirmation men receive this hability, else there is no sense in that which he saith. What is idolatry, if this be not, to ascribe to rites of man’s devising, the power and virtue of doing that which none but He to whom all power in heaven and earth belongs can do; and howbeit Hooker would strike us dead at once, with the high-sounding name of the fathers, yet it is not unknown, that the first fathers from whom this idolatry hath descended were those ancient heretics, the Montanists. For as Chemnitius marketh out of Tertullian and Cyprian,(660) the Montanists were the first who began to ascribe any spiritual efficacy or operation to rites and ceremonies devised by men.

Sect. 6. Fourthly, That whereunto more respect and account is given than God alloweth to be given to it, and wherein more excellency is placed than God hath put into it, or will at all communicate to it, is an idol exalted against God; which maketh Zanchius to say,(661) Si Luthero vel Calvino tribuas, quod non potuerant errare, idola tibi fingis. Now, when Hooker(662) accounteth festival days, for God’s extraordinary works wrought upon them, to be holier than other days, what man of sound judgment will not perceive that these days are idolised, since such an eminence and excellency is put in them, whereas God hath made no difference betwixt them and any other days? We have seen also that the ceremonies are urged as necessary,(663) but did ever God allow that things indifferent should be so highly advanced at the pleasure of men? And, moreover, I have shown(664) that worship is placed in them; in which respect they must needs be idols, being thus exalted against God’s word, at which we are commanded to hold us in the matter of worship. Last of all, they are idolatrously advanced and dignified, in so much as holy mystical significations are given them, which are a great deal more than God’s word alloweth in any rites of human institution, as shall be shown(665) afterwards; and so it appeareth how the ceremonies, as now urged and used, are idols.

Now to kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord’s supper, which I will prove to be direct and formal idolatry; and from idolatry shall it never be purged while the world standeth, though our opposites strive for it, tanquam pro aris et focis.

Sect. 7. The question about the idolatry of kneeling betwixt them and us standeth in this: Whether kneeling, at the instant of receiving the sacrament, before the consecrated bread and wine,—purposely placed in our sight in the act of kneeling as signs standing in Christ’s stead, before which we, the receivers, are to exhibit outwardly religious adoration,—be formally idolatry or not? No man can pick a quarrel at the stating of the question thus; for, 1. We dispute only about kneeling at the instant of receiving the sacramental elements, as all know. 2. No man denies inward adoration in the act of receiving, for in our minds we then adore by the inward graces of faith, love, thankfulness, &c., by the holy and heavenly exercise whereof we glorify God; so that the controversy is about outward adoration. 3. No man will deny that the consecrated elements are purposely placed in our sight when we kneel, except he say, that they are in that action only accidentally present before us no otherwise than the table-cloth or the walls of the church are. 4. That the sacramental elements are in our sight (when we kneel) as signs standing in Christ’s stead, it is most undeniable; for if these signs stand not in Christ’s stead to us, the bread bearing vicem corporis Christi, and the wine vicem sanguinis, it followeth, that when we eat the bread and drink the wine, we are no more eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, spiritually and sacramentally, than if we were receiving any other bread and wine not consecrated. I stay not now upon this head, because our opposites acknowledge it; for Dr Burges(666) calls the sacraments the Lord’s images and deputies; and the Archbishop of Spalato saith,(667) that when we take the sacrament of Christ’s body, we adore Christum sub hac figura figuratum. 5. That kneelers, at the instant of receiving, have the consecrated bread and wine in the eyes both of their bodies and minds, as things so stated in that action, that before them they are to exhibit outward religious adoration as well as inward, it is also most plain; for otherwise they should fall down and kneel only out of incogitancy, having no such purpose in their minds, or choice in their wills, as to kneel before these sacramental signs.

Sect. 8. The question thus stated, Formalists deny, we affirm. Their negative is destroyed, and our affirmative confirmed by these reasons:—

First, The kneelers worship Christ in or by the elements, as their own confessions declare. “When we take the eucharist, we adore the body of Christ, per suum signum,” saith the Archbishop of Spalato.(668) “We kneel by the sacrament to the thing specified,” saith the Bishop of Edinburgh.(669) The Archbishop of St Andrews(670) and Dr Burges(671) profess the adoring of Christ in the sacrament. Dr Mortoune maintaineth such an adoration in the sacrament as he calleth relative from the sign to Christ; and Paybody(672) defendeth him herein. But the replier(673) to Dr Mortoune’s Particular Defence inferreth well, that if the adoration be relative from the sign, it must first be carried to the sign as a means of conveyance unto Christ. Dr Burges(674) alloweth adoration, or divine worship (as he calleth it), to be given to the sacrament respectively; and he allegeth a place of Theodoret,(675) to prove that such an adoration as he there taketh for divine worship is done to the sacrament in relation to Christ, and that this adoration performed to the mysteries as types, is to be passed over to the archetype, which is the body and blood of Christ. Since, then, that kneeling about which our question is, by the confession of kneelers themselves, is divine worship given by the sign to the thing signified, and done to the sacrament respectively or in relation to Christ, he that will say that it is not idolatry must acquit the Papists of idolatry also in worshipping before their images; for they do in like manner profess that they adore prototypon per imaginem, ad imaginem or in imagine, and that they give no more to the image but relative or respective worship. The Rhemists(676) tell us that they do no more but kneel before the creatures, at, or by them, adoring God. It availeth not here to excogitate some differences betwixt the sacramental elements and the popish images, for what difference soever be betwixt them when they are considered in their own natural being, yet as objects of adoration they differ not, because when they are considered in esse adorabili, we see the same kind of adoration is exhibited by Formalists before the elements which is by Papists before their images. To come nearer the point, Papists profess that they give to the outward signs in the sacrament no other adoration than the same which Formalists give to them. Franciscus à Sancta Clara saith,(677) that divine worship doth not agree to the signs per se, but only per accidens, and he allegeth for himself that the Council of Trent, can 6. de euch, saith not that the sacrament, but that Christ in the sacrament, is to be adored with latria. To the same purpose I observe that Bellarmine(678) will not take upon him to maintain any adoration of the sacrament with latria, holding only that Christ in the eucharist is to be thus adored, and that symbola externa per se et proprie non sunt adoranda. Whereupon he determineth, status questionis non est, nisi an Christus in eucharistia sit adorandus, cultu latriae. Now, albeit Papists understand by the outward sign of Christ’s body in the eucharist nothing else but the species or accidents of the bread, yet since they attribute to the same quod sub illis accidentibus ut vocant sit substantialiter corpus Christi vivum, cum sua Deitate conjunctum,(679) and since they give adoration or latria(680) to the species, though not per se, yet as quid unum with the Body of Christ which they contain,—hereby it is evident that they worship idolatrously those very accidents. And I would understand, if any of our opposites dare say that Papists commit no such idolatry as here I impute to them? Or, if they acknowledge this idolatry of Papists, how make they themselves clean? for we see that the worship which Papists give to the species of the bread is only relative to Christ, and of the same kind with that which Formalists give to the bread and wine.

Sect. 9. Secondly, Religious kneeling before the bread which is set before us for a sign to stand in Christ’s stead, and before which we adore whilst it is to us actually an image representing Christ,(681) is the very bowing down and worshipping forbidden in the second commandment. The eucharist is called by the fathers imago, signum, figura, similitudo, as Hospinian(682) instanceth out of Origen, Nazianzen, Augustine, Hilary, Tertullian, Ambrose. The Archbishop of Armagh hath also observed,(683) that the fathers expressly call the sacrament an image of Christ’s body, and well might they call it so, since the sacramental elements do not only represent Christ to us, but also stand in Christ’s stead, in such sort that by the worthy receiving of them we are assured that we receive Christ himself; and in eating of this bread, and drinking of this wine, we eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ spiritually, and by faith. Neither could the consecrated elements make a sacrament if they were not such images standing in Christ’s stead. But what needeth any more? Dr Burges(684) himself calleth the sacraments the Lord’s images. Now, that a man who adoreth before the painted or graven image of Christ, though he profess that he intendeth his whole adoration to Christ, and that he placeth the image before him only to represent Christ, and to stir up his mind to worship Christ, doth nevertheless commit idolatry, I trust none of our opposites will deny. Nay, Bishop Lindsey teacheth plainly,(685) that it is idolatry to set before the eyes of our minds or bodies any image as a mean or motive of adoration, even though the worship should be abstracted from the image, and not given unto it. Well, then, will it please him to let us see that kneeling before the actual images of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament, even though these images should be no otherwise considered in the act of adoration, but as active objects, motives and occasions which stir up the mind of the kneeler to worship Christ (for this is the best face which himself puts upon kneeling, though falsely, as we shall see afterward), is not so great idolatry as the other. All the difference which he maketh is,(686) “that no true worship can be properly occasioned by an image, which is a doctor of lies, teaching nothing of God, but falsehood and vanities; but the blessed sacrament being instituted by Christ, to call to our remembrance his death, &c., gives us, so oft as we receive it, a most powerful and pregnant occasion of thanksgiving and praise.” Dr Burges,(687) intermeddling with the same difference-making, will not have the sacraments, which are images of God’s making and institution, to be compared with images made by the lust of men. Two differences, then, are given us. 1. That the sacramental elements have their institution from God; images not so. 2. That the sacrament is an occasion of worship; an image not so. The first difference makes them no help; for though the ordinance and institution of God makes the use of sacramental images to be no will-worship, yet doth it not any whit avail to show that adoration before them is no idolatry. May I not commit idolatry with images of God’s institution no less than with those invented by men, when (coeteris paribus) there is no other difference betwixt them, considered as objects of adoration, but that of the ordinance and institution which they have? What if I fall down at the hearing of a sermon, and religiously adore before the pastor, as the vicarious sign of Christ himself, who stands there, in Christ’s stead, 2 Cor. v. 20, referring my adoration to Christ only, yet in or by that ambassador who stands in Christ’s stead? If this my adoration should be called so great idolatry as if I should fall down before a graven image, to worship God in or by it (for it is, indeed, as great every way), our kneelers, I perceive, would permit me to answer for myself, that my worshipping of God by the minister cannot be called idolatrous, by this reason, (because the worshipping of God by a graven image is such, therefore also the worshipping of him by a living image is no other,) since images of God’s institution must not be paralleled with those of men’s invention. As to the second difference, I answer, 1. Though the Bishop muttereth here that no true worship can be occasioned by an image, yet belike he and his fellows will not stand to it, for many of them allow the historical use of images; and the Bishop hath not denied, though his antagonist objecteth it. Dr Mortoune(688) plainly alloweth of images for historical commemoration; and herein he is followed by Dr Burges.(689) 2. Whereas he saith that the blessed sacrament is instituted by Christ to call to our remembrance his death, this inferreth not that it is an occasion of thanksgiving and praise in the very act of receiving, as we shall see afterward. Our question is only about kneeling in the act of receiving. 3. We confess that the sacrament is an occasion of inward worship in the receiving of it; for in eucharistia exercetur summa fides, spes, charitas, religio, caeteraeque virtutes, quibus Deum colimus et glorificamus.(690) But the outward adoration of kneeling down upon our knees can be no more occasioned by the blessed sacrament, in the act of receiving it, than by a graven image in the act of beholding it. The point which the Bishop had to prove is, that whereas an image cannot be the occasion of outward adoration and kneeling to God before it in the act of looking upon it, the sacrament may be, and is, an occasion of kneeling, when it is set before us in the act of receiving. This neither he, nor any for him, shall ever make good.

Sect. 10. Thirdly, Kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament before the vicarious signs which stand in Christ’s stead, and are purposely set before us in the act of adoration, that before them we may adore, wanteth nothing to make up idolatrous co-adoration or relative worship. Our opposites here tell us of two things necessary to the making up of idolatry, neither of which is found in their kneeling. First, they say, except there be an intention in the worshipper to adore the creature which is before his eyes, his kneeling before it is no idolatry. “What shall I say? saith Paybody.(691) What need I say in this place, but to profess, and likewise avouch, that we intend only to worship the Lord our God, when we kneel in the act of receiving? We worship not the bread and wine; we intend not our adoring and kneeling unto them. Give us leave to avouch our sincerity in this matter, and it will take away the respect of idolatry in God’s worship.” Ans. I showed before, that Paybody defendeth Dr Mortoune’s adoration, which he calleth relative from the sign to Chris; yet let it be so, as here he pretendeth, that no adoration is intended to the sign; will this save their kneeling from idolatry? Nay, then, the three children should not have been idolaters, if they had kneeled before Nebuchadnezzar’s image, intending their worship to God only, and not to the image. Our opposites here take the Nicodemites by the hand. But what saith Calvin?(692) Si isti boni sapientesque sophistae ibi tum fuissent, simplicitatem illorum trium servorum Dei irrisissent. Nam hujusmodi credo eos verbis objurgassent: miseri homines, istud quidem(693)_ non est adorare, quum vos in rebus nullam fidem adhibetis: nulla est idololatria nisi ubi est __ devotio, hoc est quaedam animi ad idola colenda venerandaque adjunctio atque applicatio_, &c. If Paybody had been in Calvin’s place, he could not have called the Nicodemites idolaters, forasmuch as they have no intention to worship the popish images when they kneel and worship before them. Nay, the grossest idolaters that ever were, shall by this doctrine be no idolaters, and Paul shall be censured for teaching that the Gentiles did worship devils, 1 Cor. x. 10, since they did not intend to worship devils. Idolatrae nec olim in paganismo intendebant, nec hodie in papatu intendant, daemonibus offere quid tum? Apostolus contrarium pronuntiat, quicquid illi intendant, saith Pareus.(694)

Sect. 11. The other thing which our kneelers require to the making up of idolatry is, that the creature before which we adore be a passive object of the adoration; whereas, say they,(695) the sacramental elements are “no manner of way the passive object of our adoration, but the active only of that adoration which, at the sacrament, is given to Christ; that is, such an object and sign as moves us upon the sight, or by the signification thereof, to lift up our hearts and adore the only object of our faith, the Lord Jesus; such as the holy word of God, his works, and benefits are, by meditation and consideration whereof we are moved and stirred up to adore him.” Ans. 1. That which he affirmeth is false, and out of one page of his own book I draw an argument which destroyeth it, thus: If the sacramental elements were only the active object of their adoration who kneel before them in the receiving, then their real presence should be but accidental to the kneelers. But the real presence of the elements, in the act of receiving, is not accidental to the kneelers; therefore, the proposition I draw from his own words: “We can neither (saith he(696)) pray to God, nor thank him, nor praise him, but ever there must be, before the eyes of our minds, at least something of his works, word, or sacraments, if not before our external senses.” He confesseth it will be enough, that these active objects of worship be before the eyes of our minds, and that their real presence, before our external senses, is not necessary but accidental to us, whose minds are by their means stirred up to worship. And so it is indeed. For esse scibile, or rememoratiuum of an active object of adoration, is that which stirreth up the mind to worship, so that the real presence of such an object is but accidental to the worshipper. The assumption I likewise draw out of the Bishop’s own words. For he saith(697) that we kneel before the elements, “having them in our sight, or object to our senses, as ordinary signs, means, and memorials, to stir us up to worship,” &c. Now if we have them in our sight and before our senses for this purpose, that they may be means, signs, and memorials to stir us up to worship, then, sure, their being really before our senses, is not accidental to us when we kneel. Since Dr Burges(698) hath been so dull and sottish as to write that “signs are but accidentally before the communicants when they receive,” he is to be ignominiously exsibilat for making the sacred sacramental signs to be no otherwise present than the walls of the church, the nails and timber of the material table whereupon the elements are set, or anything else accidentally before the communicants. But, 2. Put the case, they did make the elements only active objects of worship when they kneel in the act of receiving them. What! Do some Papists make more of their images when they worship before them? They hold, as the Archbishop of Spalato noteth,(699) that Imago est medium duntaxat seu instrumentum quo exemplar occurrit suo honoratori, cultori, adoratori: imago excitat tantummodo memoriam, ut in exemplar feratur. Will we have them to speak for themselves? Suarez will have Imagines esse occasiones vel signa excitantia hominem ad adorandum prototype.(700) Friar Pedro de Cabrera,(701) a Spaniard, taketh the opinion of Durand and his followers to be this: That images are adored only improperly, because they put men in mind of the persons represented by them; and he reasoneth against them thus: “If images were only to be worshipped by way of rememoration and recordation, because they make us remember the samplers which we do so worship as if they had been then present, it would follow that all creatures should be adored with the same adoration wherewith we worship God, seeing all of them do lead us unto the knowledge and remembrance of God.” Whereby it is evident, that in the opinion of Durand,(702) and those who are of his mind, images are but active objects of adoration. Lastly, what saith Becane the Jesuit?(703) Imago autem Christi non est occasio idololatriæ apud nos catholicos, quia non alium ob finem eam retinemus, quam ut nobis Christum salvatorem, et beneficia ejus representet. More particularly he will have the image of Christ honoured for two reasons. 1. Quia honor qui exhibetur imagini, redundat in eum cujus est imago. 2. Quia illud in pretio haberi potest, quod per se revocat nobis in memoriam beneficia Dei, et est occasio ut pro eis acceptis grati existamus. At imago Christi per se revocat nobis in memoriam beneficium nostræ redemptionis, &c. That for this respect the image of Christ is honoured, he confirmed by this simile: Quia ob eandem causam apud nos in pretio ac honore sunt sacra Biblia, itemque festa paschatis, pentecostes, nativitatis, et passionis Christi. What higher account is here made of images than to be active objects of worship? For even whilst it is said that the honour done to the image resulteth to him whose image it is, there is no honour ascribed to the image as a passive object; but they who honour an image for this respect, and with this meaning, have it only for an active object which represents and calls to their mind the first sampler, as the Archbishop of Spalato also observeth.(704) Neither the Papists only, but some also of the very heathen idolaters, norunt in imaginibus nihil deitatis inesse, meras autem esse rerum absentium repræsentationes,(705) &c. And what if neither heathens nor Papists had been of this opinion, that images are but active objects of worship? Yet I have before observed, that the Bishop himself acknowledgeth it were idolatry to set before us an image as the active object of our adoration, though the worship should be abstracted from the image.

Sect. 12. Finally, To shut up this point, it is to be noted that the using of the sacramental elements, as active objects of worship only, cannot make kneeling before them in the receiving to be idolatry; for then might we lawfully, and without idolatry, kneel before every active object which stirreth up our minds to worship God. All the works of God are such active objects, as the Bishop also resolveth in the words before cited. Yet may we not, at the sight of every one of God’s works, kneel down and adore, whilst the eyes, both of body and mind, are fixed upon it, as the means and occasion which stirreth us up to worship God. The Bishop, indeed, holdeth, we may, only he saith this is not necessary,(706) because when, by the sight of the creatures of God we are moved privately to worship, our external gesture of adoration is arbitrary, and sometimes no gesture at all is required. But in the ordinary ministry, when the works of God or his benefits are propounded, or applied publicly, to stir us up to worship in the assemblies of the church, then our gesture ceaseth to be arbitrary; for it must be such as is prescribed and received in the church where we worship. Ans. 1. He shuffleth the point decently, for when he speaks of being moved to worship at the sight of any creature, he means of inward worship, as is evident by these words, “Sometime no gesture at all is required;” but when he speaks of being moved to worship in the assemblies of the church, by the benefits of God propounded publicly (for example, by the blessed sacrament), then he means of outward worship, as is evident by his requiring necessarily a gesture. He should have spoken of one kind of worship in both cases, namely, of that which is outward; for of no other do we dispute. When we are moved by the sacrament to adore God in the act of receiving, thus can be no other but that which is inward, and thus we adore God by faith, hope, and love, though neither the heart be praying, nor the body kneeling. That which we deny (whereof himself could not be ignorant) is, that the sacramental elements may be to us, in the receiving, active objects of outward adoration; or because they move us to worship inwardly, that therefore we should adore outwardly. 2. Whereas he teacheth that kneeling before any creature, when thereby we are moved to worship privately, is lawful; but kneeling before the sacramental elements, when thereby we are moved to worship in the assemblies of the church, is necessary; that we may kneel there, but we must kneel here, he knew, or else he made himself ignorant that both these should be denied by us. Why, then, did he not make them good? Kneeling before those active objects which stir up our hearts to worship, if it be necessary in the church, it must first be proved lawful both in the church and out of it. Now, if a man meeting his lord riding up the street upon his black horse, have his heart stirred up to worship God, by something which he seeth either in himself or his horse, should fall down and kneel before him or his horse, as the active object of his worship, I marvel whether the Bishop would give the man leave to kneel, and stand still as the active object before the man’s senses? As for us, we hold that we may not kneel before every creature which stirreth up our hearts to worship God; kneel, I say, whilst the eyes both of body and mind are fastened upon it as the active object of our adoration.

Sect. 13. The fourth reason whereby I prove the kneeling in question to be idolatry, proceedeth thus. Kneeling in the act of receiving, for reverence to the sacrament, is idolatry. But the kneeling in question is such, therefore, &c. The proposition is necessary. For if they exhibit divine adoration (such as then kneeling is confessed to be) for reverence of the sacrament, they do not only give, but also intend to give, divine adoration to the same. This is so undeniable that it dasheth Bishop Lindsey,(707) and makes him give a broad confession, that it is idolatry to kneel at the sacrament for reverence to the elements. The assumption I prove from the confession of Formalists. King Edward’s book of Common Prayer teacheth, that kneeling at the communion is enjoined for this purpose, that the sacrament might not be profaned, but held in a reverent and holy estimation. So doth Dr Mortoune tell us,(708) that the reason wherefore the church of England hath institute kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament, is, that thereby we might testify our due estimation of such holy rites. Paybody(709) makes one of the respects of kneeling to be the reverent handling and using of the sacrament. The Bishop of Winchester exclaimeth against such as do not kneel, for not regarding the table of the Lord, which hath ever been thought of all holies the most holy, and for denying reverence to the holy symbols and precious memorials of our greatest delivery, even the reverence which is given to prayer. Where, by the way, I observe, that when we kneel at prayer it is not to give reverence to prayer, but to God, whom then most immediately we adore, so that kneeling for reverence of the sacrament receiveth no commendation from kneeling at prayer. The Act of Perth about kneeling, when Bishop Lindsey had polished and refined it as well as he could, ordained us to kneel at the sacrament in due regard of so divine a mystery. And what think we is understood by this mystery, for reverence whereof we are commanded to kneel? The Bishop(710) expoundeth this mystery to be the receiving of the body and blood of Christ. But here he either means the spiritual receiving of the body and blood of Christ, or the sacramental. If the spiritual, why did not the Synod ordain us to kneel in hearing the gospel? for therein we receive spiritually the body and blood of Christ, and that as truly and really as in the sacrament. Whereupon the Archbishop of Armagh showeth,(711) that the spiritual and inward feeding upon the body and blood of Christ is to be found out of the sacrament, and that divers of the fathers do apply the sixth of John to the hearing of the word also, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, as Cæsiriensis, and others. Basilius Magnus likewise teacheth plainly, that we eat the flesh of Christ in his word and doctrine. This, I am sure, no man dare deny. The Bishop, then, must mean by this mystery the sacramental receiving of the body and blood of Christ. Now, the sacramental receiving of the body and blood of Christ, is the receiving of the sacramental signs of his body and blood. And as the Archbishop of Armagh also observeth,(712) the substance which is outwardly delivered in the sacrament, is not really the body and blood of Christ. Again he saith,(713) that the bread and wine are not really the body and blood of Christ, but figuratively and sacramentally. Thus he opposeth the sacramental presence of the body and blood of Christ not only to bodily, but also to real presence; and by just analogy, sacramental receiving of the body and blood of Christ is not only to be opposed to a receiving of his body and blood into the hands and mouths of our bodies, but likewise to the real receiving of the same spiritually into our souls. It remaineth, therefore, that kneeling in due regard of the sacramental receiving of the body and blood of Christ, must be expounded to be kneeling in reverence of the sacramental signs of Christ’s body and blood; and so Perth’s canon, and the Bishop’s commentary upon it, fall in with the rest of those Formalists cited before, avouching and defending kneeling for reverence to the sacrament.

Sect. 14. Those who speak out more plainly than Bishop Lindsey, do here object to us, that reverence is due to the sacrament, and that we ourselves do reverence it when we sit uncovered at the receiving of it. But Didoclavius(714) doth well distinguish betwixt veneration and adoration, because in civility we use to be uncovered, even to inferiors and equals, for the regard which we bear to them, yet do we not worship them as we worship the king, on our knees.(715) As, then, in civility, there is a respect and reverence different from adoration, so it is in religion also. Yea, Bellarmine(716) himself distinguisheth the reverence which is due to holy things from adoration. Paybody(717) and Dr Burges(718) will by no means admit this distinction betwixt veneration and adoration. But since neither of them hath alleged any reason against it, I hope they will be weighed down by the authority of the Archbishop of Spalato,(719) and the Bishop of Edinburgh,(720) both of whom agree to this distinction. So, then, we give no adoration at all to the sacrament, because neither by any outward or inward action do we perform any worship for the honour of the same. Burges himself hath noted to us,(721) that the first Nicene council exhorteth that men should not be humiliter intenti to the things before them. We neither submit our minds nor humble our bodies to the sacrament, yet do we render to it veneration,(722) forasmuch as we esteem highly of it, as a most holy thing, and meddle reverently with it, without all contempt or unworthy usage. Res profecto inanimatae, saith the Archbishop of Spalato,(723) sint sacrae quantum placet, alium honorem à nobis non merentur, nisi in sensu negativo, as that they be not contemned, nor unworthily handled. If it be said that we ought not to contemn the word, yet hath it not that respect given to it which the sacrament hath, at which we are uncovered, so that this veneration given to the sacrament must be somewhat more than profanatio,—I answer, as honour both in the positive and negative sense, has various degrees, and according to the more or less immediate manifestation of divine ordinances to us, so ought the degrees of our veneration to be intended or remitted; which is not so to be understood as if one part of God’s sacred worship were to be less contemned than another (for none of God’s most holy ordinances may be in any sort contemned), but that for the greater regard of those things which are more immediately divine, we are not in the usage of them, to take to ourselves so much scope and liberty as otherwise we may lawfully allow to ourselves in meddling with such things as are not merely but mixedly divine, and which are not from God so immediately as the other, but more by the intervention of means; and thus a higher degree of veneration is due to the sacrament than to the word preached, not by taking aught from the word, but by adding more respect to the sacrament than the word hath. The reason hereof is given to be this,(724) because when we come to the sacrament, nihil hic humanum, sed divina omnia; for Christ’s own words are, or at least should be spoken to us when we receive the sacrament, and the elements also are, by Christ’s own institution, holy symbols of his blessed body and blood; whereas the word preached to us is but fixedly and mediately divine; and because of this intervention of the ministry of men, and mixture of their conceptions with the holy Scriptures of God, we are bidden try the spirits, and are required, after the example of the Bereans, to search the Scriptures daily, whether these things which we hear preached be so or not. Now we are not in the like sort to try the elements, and the words of the institution, whether they be of God or not, because this is sure to all who know out of Scripture the first principles of the oracles of God. The consideration hereof warneth us, that the sacrament given, according to Christ’s institution, is more merely and immediately divine than is the word preached; but others (I hear) object, that if a man should uncover his head at the sight of a graven image, we would account this to be an adoring of the image; and why then shall not we call our uncovering at the sacrament adoration also? Ans. Though veneration and adoration be distinguished in holy things to show that adoration given to them is idolatry, but veneration given to them is not idolatry, yet in profane things, such as images are, veneration given to them is idolatry, as well as adoration; and we are idolaters for doing so much as to respect and reverence them as things sacred or holy; for, as I touched before, and as Zanchius evidenceth by sundry instances,(725) idolatry is committed when more estimation is had of anything, more dignity and excellency placed in it, and more regard had to it than God alloweth, or than can stand with God’s revealed will; for a thing thus regarded, though it be not exalted ut Deus simpliciter, yet it is set up tanquam Deus ex parte.

Sect. 15. Now Fifthly, If the kneeling in question be not idolatrously referred to the sacrament, I demand whereunto is it specially intended? We have heard the confession of some of our opposites (and those not of the smallest note) avouching kneeling for reverence of the sacrament. Neither can the mystery spoken of in the Act of Perth (in due regard whereof we are ordained to kneel), be any other than the sacrament. Yet because Bishop Lindsey, and some of his kind who desire to hide the foul shape of their idolatry with the trimmest fairding they can, will not take with the kneeling in reverence of the sacrament, let them show us which is the object which they do specially adore, when they kneel in receiving of the same; for this their kneeling at this time ariseth from another respect than that which they consider in other parts of God’s worship, let two of our prelates tell it out: Archbishop of St. Andrews would teach out of Mouline that we ought to adore the flesh of Jesus Christ in the eucharist;(726) the Bishop of Edinburgh also will have us to worship the flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament,(727) because the humanity of Christ is there present, being ever and everywhere joined with the divinity. But a twofold idolatry may be here deprehended. 1. In that they worship the flesh and blood of Christ. 2. In that they worship the same in the sacrament. As touching the first, albeit we may and should adore the man Christ with divine worship, yet we may not adore his manhood, or his flesh and blood. 1. Because though the man Christ be God, yet his manhood is not God, and by consequence cannot be honoured with divine worship. 2. If adorability agree to the humanity of Christ, then may his humanity help and save us: idolaters are mocked by the Spirit of God for worshipping things which cannot help nor save them. But the humanity of Christ cannot save us nor help us, because omnis actio est suppositi, whereas the human nature of Christ is not suppositum. 3. None of those who defend the adoring of the humanity of Christ with divine worship, do well and warrantably express their opinion. First, some of the schoolmen have found no other respect wherefore the manhood of Christ can be said to be adored,(728) except this, that the flesh of Christ is adored by him who adores the word incarnate, even as the king’s clothes are adored by him who adores the king. And thus they make the flesh of Christ to be adored only per accidens. Ego vero, saith the Archbishop of Spalato,(729) non puta a quoquam regis vestimenta quibus est indutus, adorari. And, I pray, why doth he that worships the king worship his clothes more than any other thing which is about him, or beside him, perhaps a hawk upon his hand, or a little dog upon his knee? There is no more but the king’s own person set by the worshipper to have any state in the worship, and therefore no more worshipped by him. Others devise another respect wherefore the manhood of Christ may be said to be worshipped,(730) namely, that as divine worship agrees only to the Godhead, and not personis divinis praecise sumptis, i.e., _sub ratione formali constitutiva personarum quae est __ relatio_: but only as these relations identificantur with the essence of the Godhead; so the manhood of Christ is to be adored non per se proecise, sed prout suppositatur à Deo. I answer, if by suppositatur they mean (as they must mean) that the manhood is assumed into the unity of the person of the Son of God (for otherwise if they mean that the manhood is made a person, they are Nestorians), that which they say cannot warrant the worshipping of the manhood with divine worship, because the manhood, even after this assumption and hypostatical union, and being considered by us as now assumed into this personal union, is still for all that a creature, and a distinct nature from the Godhead (except we will be Eutychians), so that it cannot yet be said to be worshipped with divine worship. Dr Field layeth out a third way;(731) for whilst he admitteth the phrase of the Lutherans, who say not only concretively that the man Christ is omnipresent, but the humanity also, he forgeth a strange distinction. “When we speak (saith he) of the humanity of Christ, sometimes we understand only that human created essence of a man that was in him, sometimes all that is implied in the being of a man, as well subsistence as essence.” By the same distinction would Field defend the attributing of the other divine properties (and adorability among the rest) to the human nature. But this distinction is no better than if a man should say, by blackness sometimes we understand blackness, and sometimes whiteness. Who ever confounded abstractum and concretum, before that in Field’s field they were made to stand for one? It is the tenet of the school, that though in God concretum and abstractum differ not, because Deus and Deitas are the same, yet in creatures (whereof the manhood of Christ is one) they are really differenced. For concretum signifieth aliquid completum subsistens, and abstractum (such as humanity) signifieth(732) something, non ut subsistens, sed in quo aliquid est, as whiteness doth not signify that thing which is white, but that whereby it is white. How comes it then that Field makes humanity, in the abstract, to have a subsistence? Antonius Sadeel censures Turrianus(733) for saying that albedo cum pariete, idem est atque paries albus: his reason is, because _albedo dicitur __ esse, non cum pariete sed in pariete._ An abstract is no more an abstract if it have a subsistence.

There is yet a fourth sense remaining, which is Augustine’s, and theirs who speak with him. His sentence which our opposites cite for them is, that it is sin not to adore the flesh of Christ, howbeit very erroneously he groundeth that which he saith upon those words of the psalm, “Worship at his footstool,” taking this footstool to be the flesh of Christ. Yet that his meaning was better than his expression, and that he meant not that adoration should be given to the flesh of Christ, but to the Godhead, whose footstool the flesh is, it is plain from those words which Burges himself citeth out of him:(734) “To whatsoever earth, i.e., flesh of Christ, thou bowest and prostrate thyself, look not on it as earth, i.e., as flesh; but look at that Holy One whose footstool is that thou dost adore, i.e., look to the Godhead of Christ, whose flesh thou dost adore in the mysteries.” Wherefore if we would give any sound sense to their words who say that the flesh of Christ is to be adored, we must note with A. Polanus,(735) that cum dicitur carnem Christi adorari, non est propria sed figurata enunciatio; quia non adoratur proprie caro secundum se, quia creatura est, sed Deus in carne manifestatis, seu Deus carne vestitus. But two things I will here advertise my reader of.

1. That though this form of speaking, which saith that the flesh of Christ is to be adored, being thus expounded, receiveth a sound sense, yet the expression is very bad, and violence is done to the phrase when such a meaning is drawn out of it. For how can we, by the flesh of Christ, understand his Godhead? The communion of properties admitteth us to put the man Christ for God, but not his manhood. And Hooker teacheth rightly,(736) “that by force of union, the properties of both natures (and by consequence, adorability, which is a property of the divine nature) are imputed to the person only in whom they are, and not what belongeth to the one nature really conveyed or translated into the other.”

2. Yet our kneelers who say they adore the flesh of Christ in the sacrament, have no such orthodox (though forced) meaning whereby to expound themselves. For Bishop Lindsey will have us,(737) in receiving the sacrament, to bow our knees and adore the humanity of Christ, by reason of the personal union that it hath with the Godhead; therefore he means that we should, and may adore with divine worship, that which is personally united with the Godhead. And what is that? Not the Godhead sure, but the created nature of the manhood (which not being God but a creature only, cannot without idolatry be worshipped with divine worship). I conclude, therefore, that by the flesh of Christ, which he will have to be adored in the sacrament, he understands not the Godhead, as Augustine doth, but that created nature which is united with the Godhead.

Sect. 16. But, Secondly, As we have seen what is to be thought of worshipping the flesh of Christ, so let us next consider what may be thought of worshipping his flesh in the sacrament; for this was the other head which I proposed. Now, they who worship the flesh of Christ in the sacrament, must either consider it as present in the sacrament, and in that respect to be adored, because of the personal union of it with the word, or else because of the sacramental union of it with the outward sign, which is a respect supervenient to that of the ubiquity of it in the person of the word. First, then, touching the former of those respects, the personal union of the flesh with the word can neither infer the presence of the flesh in the sacrament to those who worthily receive, nor yet can it make anything for the adoration of the flesh. Not the former; for in respect of the ubiquity of the flesh in the person of the word, it is ever and alike present with the communicants, whether they receive worthily or not, and with the bread and wine, whether they be consecrated to be the signs of his body and blood or not. Therefore divines rightly hold praesentiam corporis Christi in caena, non ab ubiquitate, sed à verbis Christi pendere.(738) Not the latter neither; for (as I have showed already) notwithstanding of the personal union, yet the flesh of Christ remaineth a creature, and is not God, and so cannot at all be worshipped with divine worship. And if his flesh, could be at all so worshipped,(739) yet were there no reason for worshipping it in the sacrament (in respect of its personal union with the word) more than in all other actions, and at all other times, for ever and always is the flesh of Christ personally united with the word, and in that respect present to us. There remaineth therefore nothing but that other respect of the sacramental union of the flesh of Christ with the sacramental sign, which they can have for worshipping his flesh in the sacrament. Whereas Bishop Lindsey saith,(740) “that it is no error to believe the spiritual, powerful, and personal presence of Christ’s body at the sacrament, and in that respect to worship his flesh and blood there,”—he means, sure, some special respect, for which it may be said that Christ’s body is present at the sacrament (so as it is not present out of the sacrament), and in that respect to be there adored. Now Christ’s body is spiritually and powerfully present to us in the word (as I showed before), yea, as often as looking by faith upon his body broken and blood shed for us, we receive the sense and assurance of the remission of our sins through his merits, and as for this personal presence of Christ’s body which he speaketh of, I have showed also that the adoring of the flesh of Christ in the sacrament cannot be inferred upon it, wherefore he can tell us nothing which may be thought to infer the presence of Christ’s flesh in the sacrament, and the adoration of it in that respect, save only the sacramental union of it with the outward sign. Now adoration in this respect, and for this reason, must suppose the bodily presence of Christ’s flesh in the sacrament. Whereupon the Archbishop of Spalato saith, “that the Papists adore the body of Christ in the sacrament, only because of the supposition of the bodily presence of it, and if they knew that the true body of Christ is not under the species of the bread and wine, they would exhibit no adoration.” And elsewhere he showeth,(741) that the mystery of the eucharist cannot make the manhood of Christ to be adored, quia in pane corporalis Christi praesentia non est implying, that if the flesh of Christ be adored in respect of the mystery of the eucharist, then must it be bodily present in the sign, which is false, and hereupon he gathereth truly, that it cannot be adored in respect of the mystery of the eucharist.

Further, It is to be remembered (which I have also before noted out of Dr Usher(742)) that the sacramental presence of the body of Christ, or that presence of it which is inferred upon that sacramental union which is betwixt it and the outward sign, is not the real or spiritual presence of it (for in this manner it is present to us out of the sacrament, even as oft as by faith we apprehend it and the virtue thereof); but it is figuratively only so called, the sense being this, that the body of Christ is present and given to us in the sacrament, meaning by his body, the sign of his body. These things being so, whosoever worshippeth Christ’s body in the eucharist, and that in respect of the sacramental presence of it in the same, cannot choose but hold that Christ’s body is bodily and really under the species of the bread, and so fall into the idolatry of bread-worship; or else our divines(743) have not rightly convinced the Papists, as idolatrous worshippers of the bread in the eucharist, forasmuch as they attribute to it that which it is not, nor hath not, to wit, that under the accidents thereof is contained substantially the true and living body of Christ, joined and united to his Godhead. What can Bishop Lindsey now answer for himself, except he say with one of his brethren,(744) that we should adore the flesh of Christ in the sacrament, because corporalis praesentia Christi, sed non modo corporalis, comitatur sacramentum eucharistiae. And Christ is there present corporaliter, modo spirituali? But this man contradicts himself miserably; for we had him a little before acknowledging that in pane corporalis Christi praesentia non est. How shall we then reconcile him with himself? He would say that Christ is not bodily present in the sacrament after a bodily manner, but he is bodily present after a spiritual manner. Why should I blot paper with such a vanity, which implieth a contradiction, bodily and not bodily, spiritually and not spiritually.

Sect. 17. The sixth and last argument whereby I prove the kneeling in question to be idolatry, is taken from the nature and kind of the worship wherein it is used. For the receiving of the sacrament being a mediate worship of God, wherein the elements come between God and us, in such sort that they belong to the substance of the worship (for without the elements, the sacrament is not a sacrament), and withal are susceptive of co-adoration, forasmuch as in the act of receiving, both our minds and our external senses are, and should be, fastened upon them, hereby we evince the idolatry of kneeling in the receiving. For in every mediate worship, wherein some creature is purposely set between God and us to have state in the same, it is idolatry to kneel before such a creature, whilst both our minds and senses are fastened upon it. Our opposites have talked many things together to infringe this argument. First, They allege the bowing of God’s people before the ark,(745) the temple, the holy mountain, the altar, the bush, the cloud, the fire which came from heaven. Ans. 1. Where they have read that the people bowed before the altar of God, I know not. Bishop Lindsey indeed would prove(746) from 2 Chron vi. 12, 13, and Mich. vi. 6, that the people bowed before the altar and the offering. But the first of those places speaks nothing of kneeling before the altar, but only of kneeling before the congregation, that is, in the sight of the congregation. And if Solomon had then kneeled before the altar, yet the altar had been but occasionally and accidentally before him in his adoration, for to what end and use could he have purposely set the altar before him, whilst he was kneeling and praying? The place of Micah cannot prove that God’s people did kneel before the offerings at all (for it speaks only of bowing before God), far less, that they kneeled before them in the very act of offering, and that with their minds and senses fixed upon them, as we kneel in the very act of receiving the sacrament, and that at that instant when our minds and senses are fastened upon the signs, that we may discern the things signified by them, for the exercising of our hearts in a thankful meditation upon the Lord’s death. 2. As for the other examples here alleged, God was immediately present, in and with the ark, the temple, the holy mountain, the bush, the cloud, and the fire which came from heaven, speaking and manifesting himself to his people by his own immediate voice, and miraculous extraordinary presence, so that worshipping before these things had the same reason which makes the twenty-four elders in heaven worship before the throne, Rev. iv. 10; for in these things God did immediately manifest his presence as well as in heaven. Though there be a difference in the degrees of the immediate manifestation of his presence in earth and in heaven, yet magis et minus non variant speciem. Now God is present in the sacrament, not extraordinarily, but in the way of an ordinary dispensation, not immediately, but mediately. They must therefore allege some commendable examples of such a kneeling as we dispute about, in a mediate and ordinary worship, else they say nothing to the point.

Sect. 18. Yet to no better purpose they tell us,(747) that when God spoke, Abraham fell on his face, and when the fire came down at Elijah’s prayer, the people fell on their faces. What is this to the purpose? And how shall kneeling in a mediate and ordinary worship be warranted by kneeling in the hearing of God’s own immediate voice, or in seeing the miraculous signs of his extraordinary presence? Howbeit it cannot be proved, neither, that the people fell on their faces in the very act of seeing the fire fall (when their eyes and their minds were fastened upon it), but that after they had seen the miracle wrought, they so considered of it as to fall down and worship God.

But further, it is objected,(748) “that a penitentiary kneels to God purposely before the congregation, and with a respect to the congregation, &c. When we come to our common tables before we eat, either sitting with our heads discovered, or standing, or kneeling, we give thanks and bless, with a respect to the meat, which is purposely set on table, &c. The pastor, when he begins the holy action, hath the bread and the cup set before him purposely upon the table, and with respect to them he gives thanks,” &c.

Ans. Though a penitentiary kneel to God purposely in the presence and sight of the congregation, that he may make known to them his repentance for the sin whereby he hath scandalised them, yet is the confessing of his sin to God, kneeling there upon his knees, an immediate worship, neither doth the congregation come betwixt him and God, as belonging to the substance of this worship, for he kneeleth to God as well, and maketh confession of his sin, when the congregation is not before him. But I suppose our kneelers themselves will confess, that the elements come so betwixt God and them when they kneel, that they belong to the essence of the worship in hand, and that they would not, nor could not, worship the flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament, if the elements were not before them.

To be short, the case of a penitentiary standeth thus, that not in his kneeling simpliciter, but in his kneeling publicly and in sight of the congregation, he setteth them before him purposely, and with a respect to them, whereas our kneelers do kneel in such sort that their kneeling simpliciter, and without an adjection or adjunct, hath a respect to the elements purposely set before them, neither would they at all kneel for that end and purpose for which they do kneel, namely, for worshipping the flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament,(749) except the elements were before the eyes both of their minds and bodies, as the penitentiary doth kneel for making confession of his sin to God, when the congregation is not before him.

And if one would say, that in kneeling at the sacrament he worshippeth not the flesh and blood of Christ, but the Lord his God only, yet is the same difference to be put betwixt his kneeling before the elements, and the kneeling of a penitentiary before the congregation, for the very kneeling itself (simply considered) before the elements, respecteth them as then purposely set in our sight that we may kneel before them, whereas, in the case of the penitentiary, it is not his kneeling to confess his sin to God which hath a respect to the congregation as set in his sight for that purpose, but some circumstances of his kneeling only, to wit, when? At that time when the congregation is assembled. And where? Publicly in sight of the congregation! In regard of these circumstances, he hath the congregation purposely in his sight, and so respecteth them, but in regard of the kneeling itself simply, the presence of the congregation is but accidental to him who kneeleth and confesseth his sin before God. As touching giving thanks before the meat set on our common tables, though a man should do it kneeling, yet this speaketh not home to the point now in controversy, except a man so kneel before his meat, that he have a religious respect to it as a thing separated from a common use and made holy, and likewise have both his mind, and his external senses of seeing, touching, and tasting, fastened upon it in the act of his kneeling. And if a man should thus kneel before his meat, he were an idolater.

Lastly, Giving thanks before the elements of bread and wine, in the beginning of the holy action, is as far from the purpose; for this giving of thanks is an immediate worship of God, wherein we have our minds and senses, not upon the bread and wine as upon things which have a state in that worship of the Lord’s supper, and belong to the substance of the same (for the very consecration of them to this use is but then in fieri), but we worship God immediately by prayer and giving of thanks, which is all otherwise in the act of receiving.

Sect. 19. Moreover it is objected(750) out of Lev. ix. 24; 2 Chron. vii. 3; Mich. vi. 6; 2 Chron. xxix. 28-30, that all the people fell on their faces before the legal sacrifices, when the fire consumed the burnt-offering.

Whereunto it may be answered, that the fire which came from God and consumed the burnt-offerings, was one of the miraculous signs of God’s extraordinary and immediate presence (as I have said before), and therefore kneeling before the same hath nothing to do with the present purpose.

But if we will particularly consider all these places, we find in the first two, that beside the fire, the glory of the Lord did also appear in a more miraculous and extraordinary manner, Lev. ix. 23, “The glory of the Lord appeared to all the people;” 2 Chron. vii. 1, 12, “The glory of the Lord filled the house.” They are therefore running at random who take hold of those places to draw out of them the lawfulness of kneeling in a mediate and ordinary worship.

The place of Micah I have answered before; and here I add, that though it could be proved from that place (as it cannot), that the people have bowed before the offerings, and that in the very act of offering, yet how shall it be proved, that in the act of their kneeling they had the offerings purposely before them, and their minds and senses fixed upon them in the very instant of their worshipping.

This I make clear by the last place, 2 Chron. xxix., out of which no more can be drawn but that the people worshipped whilst the priests were yet offering the burnt-offering. Now the burnt-offering was but accidentally before the people in their worshipping, and only because it was offered at the same time when the song of the Lord was sung, ver. 27. Such was the forwardness of zeal in restoring religion and purging the temple, that it admitted no stay, but eagerly prosecuted the work till it was perfected; therefore the thing was done suddenly, ver. 36. Since, then, the song and the sacrifice were performed at the same time, we must note that the people worshipped at that time, not because of the sacrifice, which was a mediate worship, but because of the song of the Lord, which was an immediate worship. Now we all commend kneeling in an immediate worship. But this cannot content our opposites; they will needs have it lawful to kneel, in the hearing of the word, purposely, and with a respect to the word preached (though this be a mediate worship only). Their warrants(751) are taken out, Exod. iv. 30, 31; Exod. xii. 27; 2 Chron. xx. 18; Matt. xvii. 6. From the first three places no more can be inferred but that these hearers bowed their heads and worshipped, after that they heard the word of the Lord; neither shall they ever warrant bowing and worshipping in the act of hearing.

In the fourth place, we read that the disciples fell on their faces when they heard God’s own immediate voice out of the cloud. What maketh this for falling down to worship at the hearing of the word preached by men? How long shall our opposites not distinguish betwixt mediate and immediate worship?

Lastly, It is alleged(752) that God, in his word, allows not only kneeling at prayer, out also at circumcision, passover, and baptism. The reason of this assertion is given to be this, that a bodily gesture being necessary, God not determining man upon any one, leaves him at plain liberty. Ans. Whether we be left at plain liberty in all things which being in the general necessary, are not particularly determined in God’s word, it shall be treated of elsewhere in this dispute. In the meantime, whatsoever liberty God leaves man in bodily gestures, he leaves him no liberty of an unlawful and idolatrous gesture, such as kneeling in the instant of receiving a sacrament, when not only we have the outward sign purposely before us, and our minds and senses fastened upon it, for discerning the signification thereof, and the analogy betwixt it and the thing signified, but also to look upon it as an image of Christ, or as a vicarious sign standing there in Christ’s stead. The indifferency of such a gesture in such a mediate worship should have been proved before such a rule (as this here given us for a reason) had been applied to it.

Sect. 20. But the kneelers would yet make more ado to us, and be still stirring if they can do no more. Wherefore one of our doctors objecteth,(753) that we lift up our eyes and our hands to heaven, and worship God, yet we do not worship the heaven; that a man going to bed, prayeth before his bed; that David offered the sacrifices of thanksgiving, in the presence of all the people, Psal. cxvi; that Paul, having taken bread, gave thanks before all them who were in the ship, Acts xxvii. 36; that the Israelites worshipped before Moses and Aaron, Exod. iv. 31. Hereupon another doctor, harping upon the same string, tells us,(754) that when we kneel in the act of receiving the sacrament, “we kneel no more to bread than to the pulpit when we join our prayers with the minister’s.” Oh, unworthy instances, and reproachful to doctors! All these things were and are accidentally present to the worshippers, and not purposely before them, nor respected as having a religious state in the worship. What? Do we worship before the bread in the sacrament, even as before a pulpit, a bed, &c.? Nay, graduate men should understand better what they speak of.

Another objection is,(755) that a man who is admitted to the office of a pastor, and receiveth imposition of hands, kneeleth still on his knees till the ordination be ended, the rest about him being standing or sitting.

Ans. Kneeling in receiving imposition of hands, which is joined with prayer and invocation, hath nothing ado with kneeling in a mediate worship; for in this case a man kneels because of the immediate worship of invocation; but when there is no prayer, I suppose no man will kneel religiously, and with a religious respect to those persons or things which are before him, as there purposely in his sight, that before them he may adore (which is the kind of kneeling now in question), or if any did so, there were more need to give him instruction than ordination.

It is further told us, that he who is baptized,(756) or he who offers him that is to be baptized, humbleth himself, and prayeth that the baptism may be saving unto life eternal, yet worshippeth not the bason nor the water. But how long shall simple ones love simplicity, or rather, scorners hate knowledge? Why is kneeling in the immediate worship of prayer, wherein our minds do purposely respect no earthly thing (but the soul, Psal. xxv. 1, the heart, the hands, Lam. iii. 41, the eyes, Psal. cxxiii. 1, the voice, Psal. v. 3, all directed immediately to heaven) paralleled with kneeling in the mediate worship of receiving the sacrament, wherein we respect purposely the outward sign, which is then in our sight, that both our minds and our external senses may be fastened upon it? Our minds, by meditation, and attentive consideration of that which is signified, and of the representation thereof by the sign. Our senses, by seeing, handling, breaking, tasting, eating, drinking.

Sect. 21. Thus we see that in all these examples alleged by our opposites, there is nothing to prove the lawfulness of kneeling in such a mediate worship, wherein something belonging to the substance of the worship comes between God and us, and is not accidentally, but purposely before us, upon which also our minds and senses in the action of worship are fast fixed. Howbeit there is another respect, wherefore none of these examples can make ought for kneeling in the act of receiving the sacrament (which I have showed before), namely, that in the instant of receiving the sacrament, the elements are actually images and vicarious signs standing in Christ’s stead. But belike our kneelers have not satisfied themselves with the roving rabble of these impertinent allegations which they have produced to prove the lawfulness of kneeling in a mediate worship, they have prepared another refuge for themselves, which had been needless, if they had not feared that the former ground should fail them.

What then will they say next to us? Forsooth, that when they kneel in the act of receiving, they are praying and praising, and so worshipping God immediately. And if we would know what a man doth then pray for, it is told us, that he is praying and earnestly crying to God,(757) ut eum faciat dignum convivam. To us it seems very strange how a man, when he is actually a banqueter, and at the instant of his communicating can be made in any other sort a banqueter than he is; for quicquid est, dum est, non potest non esse. Wherefore if a man in the instant of his receiving be an unworthy banqueter, he cannot at that instant be made any other than he is.

Sect. 22. The truth is, we cannot lawfully be either praying or praising in the very act of receiving, because our hearts and minds should then be exercised in meditating upon Christ’s death, and the inestimable benefits which comes to us thereby. 1 Cor. xi. 23, “Do this in remembrance of me.”

This remembrance is described, ver. 26, “Ye do show the Lord’s death.” Now one of the special ways whereby we remember Christ, and so do show forth his death, is by private meditation upon his death, as Pareus resolveth.(758)

This meditation is a speech of the soul to itself; and though it may stand with short ejaculations, which may and should have place in all our actions, yet can it not stand with an ordinary and continued prayer purposely conceived, as Bishop Lindsey would maintain.(759) For how can we orderly both speak to God by prayer, and to ourselves by meditation, at one instant of time? If therefore prayer be purposely and orderly conceived, it banisheth away meditation, which should be the soul’s exercise in the receiving of the sacrament. And by the contrary, if meditation be entertained as it should be, it admitteth not prayer to have place at that time. For it is well said,(760) that _Dum auribus, oculis, manibus, dentibus exterius, auribus, oculis, manibus, dentibus fidei interius occupamur, orationem continuam et durabilem, absque mentis divagatione __ ab opere praecepto et imperato, instruere non possumus._

Sect. 23. But let us hear how the Bishop proveth that we should be praying and praising in the act of receiving the sacrament. “Whatsoever spiritual benefit (saith he)(761) we should receive with a spiritual hunger and thirst, and with a spiritual appetite and desire after the grace and virtue that is therein to salvation, the same we should receive with prayer, which is nothing else but such an appetite and desire; but the body and blood of Christ is such a benefit,” &c.

Ans. 1. Why did not he prove his proposition? Thought he his bare assertion should suffice? God’s word is a spiritual benefit, which we should receive with spiritual hunger and thirst; yet the Bishop will not say that we should be praying all the while we are hearing and receiving it, for then could not our minds be attentive. His proposition therefore is false; for though prayer should go before the receiving of such a spiritual benefit as the word or the sacrament, yet we should not pray in the act of receiving. For how can the heart attend, by serious consideration, to what we hear in the word, or what is signified and given to us in the sacrament, if in the actions of hearing the word and receiving the sacrament, it should be elevated out of the world by prayer?

2. Why saith he that prayer is nothing else but a spiritual appetite or desire? He thought hereby to strengthen his proposition, but we deny all. He said before,(762) that every prayer is a meditation, and here he saith, that prayer is nothing else but a spiritual desire. These are uncouth descriptions of prayer. Prayer is not meditation, because meditation is a communing with our own souls, prayer a communing with God. Nor yet can it be said that prayer is nothing else but a spiritual desire; for prayer is the sending up of our desires to God, being put in order.

Sect. 24. He speeds no better in proving that we should receive the sacrament with thanksgiving. “Whatsoever benefit (saith he) we should receive by extolling, and preaching, and magnifying, and praising the inestimable worth and excellency thereof, the same we ought to receive with thanksgiving. But in the sacrament we should receive the blood of Christ with extolling and preaching,” &c. The assumption he confirms by the words of our Saviour, “Do this in remembrance of me,” and by the words of St. Paul, “So oft as ye shall eat this bread and drink this cup, ye shall declare, that is, extol, magnify, and praise the Lord’s death, till he come again.”

Ans. His assumption is false, neither can his proofs make it true.

1. We remember Christ in the act of receiving by meditation, and not by praise.

2. We show forth the Lord’s death in the act of receiving, by using the signs and symbols of his body broken, and his blood shed for us, and by meditating upon his death thereby represented.

3. We deny not that by praise we show forth the Lord’s death also, but this is not in the act of receiving. It is to be marked with Pareus,(763) that the showing forth of the Lord’s death, must not be restricted to the act of receiving the sacrament, because we do also show forth his death by the preaching of the gospel, and by private and public celebration of it, yea, by a perpetual study of sanctification and thankfulness. So that the showing forth of the Lord’s death, by extolling, preaching, magnifying, and praising the same, according to the twenty-third section of the Confession of Faith, to which his argument hath reference, may not be expounded of the very act of receiving the sacrament. Neither do the words of the institution refuse, but easily admit, another showing forth of the Lord’s death than that which is in the very act of receiving, for the word is not quando, but quoties. It is only said, “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show,” &c. Which words cannot be taken only of the instant of eating and drinking.

Sect. 25. Now having so strongly proved the unlawfulness and idolatry of kneeling in the act of receiving the holy communion, let me add, corolarii loco, that the reader needs not to be moved with that which Bishop Lindsey, in the tail of his dispute about the head of kneeling, offers at a dead lift, namely, the testimonies of some modern doctors.

For, 1, What can human testimony avail against such a clear truth? 2. We have more testimonies of divines against kneeling than he hath for it. And here I perceive Dr Mortoune, fearing we should come to good speed this way,(764) would hold in our travel: “We are not ignorant (saith he) that many Protestant authors are most frequent in condemning the gesture of kneeling at the receiving of the holy communion.”

3. Testimonies against kneeling are gathered out of those very same divines whom the Bishop allegeth for it; for Didoclavius(765) hath clear testimonies against it out of Calvin, Beza, and Martyr, whom yet the Bishop taketh to be for it.

Sect. 26. Neither yet need we here to be moved with Dr Burges’s(766) adventurous untaking to prove that, in the most ancient times, before corruption of the sacrament began, the sacrament was received with an adoring gesture.

He shoots short of his proofs, and hits not the mark. One place in Tertullian, de Oratione, he hammers upon: Similiter de stationum diebus non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus interveniendum, quod statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini. Ergo devotum Deo obsequium eucharistiae resoluit, an magis Deo obligat? Nonne solennior, erit statio tua, si et ad aram dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini et reservato, utrumque salvum est, et participatio sacrificii, et executio officii.

To these words the Doctor giveth this sense: That many withdrew themselves when they came to the celebration of the supper, because the body of our Lord, that is, the sacramental bread, being taken of the minister’s hand, the station, i.e., standing, must be dissolved and left; and because standing on those days might not be left (as they thought), therefore they rather left the sacrament on those days than they would break the rule of standing on those days; therefore they forbore:

Which can have no reason but this, that taking the holy things at the table standing, yet they used not to partake them, i.e., eat the bread or drink the wine, in any other gesture than what was on the station days then forbidden, kneeling; and that Tertullian wishes them to come, though they might not then kneel, and to take the bread in public, standing at the table, and reserve it, and carry it away with them, and receive it at their own houses as they desired, kneeling.

Ans. The Doctor by this puts a weapon in our hands against himself; for if, when they had taken the bread of the minister’s hand, their standing was to be left and dissolved, and Tertullian, by commending to them another gesture in the eating of the bread, not standing, then whether urgeth he that other gesture to be used in the public eating of the bread or the private? Not in the private; for his advice of reserving and eating it in private, cometh after, and is only put for a remedy or next best, in case they would not condescend to this course in public, quod statio solvenda sit accepto corpore domini. Needs, then, it must be understood of the public. Now, if in the public eating of the bread standing was to be left, which gesture was to come in place of it? Not kneeling.

For, 1. Tertullian saith(767) elsewhere: Diebus dominicis jejunare nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare; cadem immunitate a die Paschae ad Pentcostem usque gaudemus.

2. The doctor himself saith, that upon these station days kneeling was restrained, not only in prayer, but in all divine service.

Wherefore, if, according to the Doctor’s gloss, the gesture of standing was left or dissolved, that gesture which had come in place of it to be used in the partaking of the sacrament, can hardly be imagined to have been any other nor sitting.

Well, the doctor hath unhappily raised this spirit to disquiet himself: let him bethink how to lay him again. If he cannot, I will assay to make some help, and to lay him in this fashion. The station days were not the Lord’s days, together with those fifty betwixt Easter and Pentecost (on which both fasting and kneeling were forbidden), as the Doctor thinketh, but they were certain set days of fasting; for they appointed the fourth and sixth day of the week (that is, Wednesday and Friday) for their stations, as Tertullian saith;(768) whose words we may understand by another place of Epiphanus,(769) who writeth that the fast of the fourth and the sixth day was kept throughout all churches, and held to be an apostolical constitution. Howbeit herein they did err; for to appoint a certain time of fasting to be kept by the whole church agreeth not with Christian liberty, and wanteth the example of Christ and his apostles, as Osiander noteth.(770) Always we see what was meant by station days, to wit, their set days of fifty, fasting, which were called station days, by a speech borrowed from a military custom, as Tertullian teacheth. For as soldiers kept those times and places which were appointed for their watches, and fasted all the while they continued in them, so did Christians upon their station days resort and meet in the place appointed, and there remained fasting till their station dissolved. The Doctor taketh upon him to confute those who understand by the station days set days of fasting; but all which he allegeth to the contrary is, that he findeth somewhere in Tertullian statio and jejunia put for different things. Now this helpeth him not, except he could find that statio and stata jejunia are put for different things; for no man taketh the stations to have been occasional, but only set fasts. Touching the meaning, then, of the words alleged by the Doctor (to give him his own reading of them, howbeit some read otherwise), thus we take it. There were many who came not to the sacrament upon the station days, because (in their opinion) the receiving thereof should break the station, i.e., the service of the day, and that because it should break their fast, a principal duty of the same. Tertullian showeth they were in error, because their partaking of the sacrament should not break their station, but make it the more solemn and remarkable. But if they could not be drawn from that false persuasion of theirs, that the sacrament should break their fast, yet he wisheth them at least to come and stand at the table, and receive the sacrament into their hands, and take it away to eat after (for permitting whereof he had no warrant), so should they both partake the sacrament and also (according to their mind, and to their full contentment) keep their stations, which were often prorogated till even,(771) but ever and at least till the ninth hour.(772) Finally, from this place, which the Doctor perverteth for kneeling, it appeareth that the gesture or posture in receiving the sacrament used in that place where Tertullian lived, was standing; because, speaking of the receiving of the sacrament, he saith, Si et ad aram Dei steteris.

Sect. 27. As for the rest of the testimonies Dr Burges produceth out of the fathers for kneeling,(773) I need not insist upon them, for either they speak of the inward adoration of the heart, which we ought to direct unto Christ when we receive the sacrament (and this none of us denieth), or else they speak of adoring the sacrament, where, by the word adoration, we may not understand any divine worship, inward or outward, but a reverence of another nature called veneration. That this (which we deny not neither), and no more, is meant by the fathers when they speak of the adoration of the sacrament, Antonius de Dominis showeth more copiously.(774) And thus we have suffered the impetuous current of the Doctor’s audacious promises, backed with a verbal discourse to go softly by us. Quid dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu?

Sect. 28. Finally, If any be curious to know what gesture the ancient church did use in the receiving of the eucharist, to such I say, first of all, that Didoclavius maintaineth that which none of our opposites are able to infringe, namely, that no testimony can be produced which may evince that ever kneeling was used before the time of Honorius III., neither is it less truly observed by the author of the History of the Waldenses,(775) that bowing of the knees before the host was then only enjoined when the opinion of transubstantiation got place.

Next I say, the ancient gesture, whereof we read most frequently, was standing. Chrysostom, complaining of few communicants, saith,(776) Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, frustra stamus ad altare, nemo est qui simul participet. The century writers(777) make out of Dionysius Alexandrinus’s epistle to Xistus, bishop of Rome, that the custom of the church of Alexandria in receiving the sacrament, was, ut mensae assisterent. It is also noted by Hospiman,(778) that in the days of Tertullian the Christians stantes sacramenta percipiebant.

Thirdly, I say, since we all know that the primitive Christians did take the holy communion mixedly, and together with their love-feasts, in imitation of Christ,(779) who, whilst he did eat his other supper, did also institute the eucharist; and since (as it is observed from 1 Cor. xi. 21, 33(780)) there was a twofold abuse in the church of Corinth “one in their love-feasts, whilst that which should have served for the knitting of the knot of love was used to cut the cords thereof, in that every one (as he best liked) made choice of such as he would have to sit at table with him (the other either not tarried for, or shut out when they came, especially the poor). The other abuse (pulled in by the former) was, for that those which were companions at one table in the common feast communicated also in the sacred with the same separation, and severally from the rest of the church (and the poor especially) which was in their former banquets.”

Since also we read that the same custom of joining the Lord’s supper together with common feasts continued long after; for Socrates reporteth,(781) that the Egyptians adjoining unto Alexandria, together with the inhabitants of Thebes, used to celebrate the communion upon the Sunday,(782) after this manner, “when they have banqueted, filled themselves with sundry delicate dishes, in the evening, after service, they use to communicate.” How, then, can any man think that the gesture then used in the Lord’s supper was any other, than the same which was used in the love-feast or common supper? And what was that but the ordinary fashion of sitting at table? Since the Laodicean canon,(783) which did discharge the love-feasts about the year 368, importeth no less than that the gesture used in them was sitting Non oportet in Basilicis seu ecclesiis. Agapen facere et intus manducare, vel accubitus sternere. Now, if not only divines of our side, but Papists also, put it out of doubt that Christ gave the eucharist to his apostles sitting, because being set down to the preceding supper, it is said, “while as they did eat, he took bread,” &c. (of which things I am to speak afterward), what doth hinder us to gather, in like manner, that forasmuch as those primitive Christians did take the Lord’s supper whilst they did eat their own love-feasts, therefore they sat at the one as well as the other? And so I close with this collection. Whatsoever gesture in process of time crept into the Lord’s supper otherwise than sitting, of it we may truly say, “from the beginning it was not so.”

Chapter V

THE FIFTH ARGUMENT AGAINST THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES TAKEN FROM THE MYSTICAL AND SIGNIFICANT NATURE OF THEM.

Sect. 1. That mystical significations are placed in the controverted ceremonies, and that they are ordained to be sacred signs of spiritual mysteries, to teach Christians their duties, and to express such holy and heavenly affections, dispositions, motions and desires, as are and should be in them,—it is confessed and avouched by our opposites. Saravia holdeth,(784) that by the sign of the cross we profess ourselves to be Christians; Bishop Mortoune calleth(785) the cross a sign of constant profession of Christianity; Hooker calleth(786) it “Christ’s mark applied unto that part where bashfulness appeareth, in token that they which are Christians should be at no time ashamed of his ignominy;” Dr Burges(787) maintaineth the using of the surplice to signify the pureness that ought to be in the minister of God; Paybody(788) will have kneeling at the Lord’s supper to be a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ. The prayer which the English service book appointeth bishops to use after the confirming of children by the imposition of hands, avoucheth that ceremony of confirmation for a sign whereby those children are certified of God’s favour and good-will towards them. In the general, our opposites defend(789) that the church hath power to ordain such ceremonies, as by admonishing men of their duty, and by expressing such spiritual and heavenly affections, dispositions, motions, or desires, as should be in men, do thereby stir them up to greater fervour and devotion.

Sect. 2. But against the lawfulness of such mystical and significant ceremonies, thus we dispute: First, A chief part of the nature of sacraments is given unto those ceremonies when they are in this manner appointed to teach by their signification. This reason being alleged by the Abridgement of the Lincoln ministers, Paybody answereth,(790) that it is not a bare signification that makes a thing participate of the sacrament’s nature, but such a signification as is sacramental, both in what is signified and how. Ans. 1. This is but to beg the question; for what other thing is alleged by us, but that a sacramental signification is placed in those ceremonies we speak of? 2. What calls he a sacramental signification, if a mystical resemblance and representation of some spiritual grace which God hath promised in his word be not it? and that such a signification as this is placed in the ceremonies, I have already made it plain, from the testimonies of our opposites. This, sure, makes those ceremonies so to encroach upon the confines and precincts of the nature and quality of sacraments, that they usurp something more than any rites which are not appointed by God himself can rightly do. And if they be not sacraments, yet, saith Hooker,(791) they are as sacraments. But in Augustine’s dialect, they are not only as sacraments, but they themselves are sacraments. Signa (saith the father) cum ad res divinas pertinent, sacramenta appellantur; which testimony doth so master Dr Burges, that he breaketh out into this witless answer,(792) That the meaning of Augustine was to show that the name of sacraments belongeth properly to divine things, and not to all signs of holy things. I take he would have said, “belongeth properly to the signs of divine things.”

And here, beside that which Ames hath said against him, I add these two things: 1. That this distinction cannot be conceived which the Doctor maketh betwixt the signs of divine things and the signs of holy things. 2. That his other distinction can as little be conceived, which importeth that the name of sacraments belongeth to divine things properly, and to all signs of holy things improperly.

Lastly, If we call to mind that which hath been evinced before, namely, that the ceremonies are not only thought to be mystically significant for setting forth and expressing certain spiritual graces, but also operative and available to the begetting of those graces in us, if not by the work wrought, at least by the work of the worker; for example, that the sign of the cross is not only thought by our opposites to signify that at no time we should be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ, but is also esteemed(793) to be a means to work our preservation from shame, and a most effectual teacher to avoid that which may deservedly procure shame; and that bishopping is not only thought to be a sign for certifying young children of God’s favour and good-will towards them, but also an exhibitive sign,(794) whereby they receive strength against sin and tentation, and are assisted in all virtue.

If these things, I say, we call to mind, it will be more manifest that the ceremonies are given out for sacred signs of the very same nature that sacraments are of. For the sacraments are called by divines commemorative, representative and exhibitive signs; and such signs are also the ceremonies we have spoken of, in the opinion of Formalists.

Sect. 3. Mystical and significant ceremonies (to proceed to a second reason), ordained by men, can be no other than mere delusions, and serve only to feed men’s minds with vain conceits. For to what other purpose do signa instituta serve, if it be not in the power of him who gives them institution to give or to work that which is signified by them?

Now, it is not in the power of prelates, nor of any man living, to give us these graces, or to work them in us, which they will have to be signified by their mystical and symbolical ceremonies. Wherefore Beza saith(795) well of such human rites as are thought to be significant: _Quum nulla res signis illis subsit, propterea quod unius Dei est promittere, et suis promissionibus sigillum suum opponere; consequitur omnia illa commenta, inanes esse larvas, __ et vana opinione miseros homines illis propositis signis deludi._ Dr Fulk thinks(796) he hath alleged enough against the significative and commemorative use of the sign of the cross, when he hath said that it is not ordained of Christ, nor taught by his apostles; from which sort of reasoning it followeth, that all significant signs which are not ordained of Christ, nor taught by his apostles, must be vain, false, and superstitious.

Sect. 4. Thirdly, To introduce significant sacred ceremonies into the New Testament other than the holy sacraments of God’s own institution, were to reduce Judaism, and to impose upon us again the yoke of a ceremonial law, which Christ hath taken off.

Upon this ground doth Amandus Polanus reprehend the popish clergy,(797) for that they would be distinguished from laics by their priestly apparel in their holy actions, especially in the mass: Illa vestium sacerdotalium distinctio et varietas, erat in veteri Testamento typica; veritate autem exhibita, quid amplius typos requirunt?

Upon this ground also doth Perkins(798) condemn all human significant ceremonies. “Ceremonies (saith he) are either of figure and signification, or of order. The first are abrogated at the coming of Christ,” &c.

Upon the same ground doth Chemnitius condemn them,(799) Quod vero praetenditur, &c. “But, whereas (saith he) it is pretended that by those rites of men’s addition, many things are probably signified, admonished and taught,—hereto it may be answered, that figures do properly belong to the Old Testament, but those things which Christ would have to be taught in the New Testament, he would have them delivered and propounded, not by shadows, but by the light of the word; and we have a promise of the efficacy of the word, but not of figures invented by men.”

Upon the same ground Junius(800) findeth fault with ceremonies used for signification: Istis elementis mundi (ut vocantur Col. ii.) Dominus et servator noluit nec docuit, ecclesiam suam informari.

Lastly, We will consider the purpose of Christ whilst he said to the Pharisees,(801) “The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the kingdom of God is preached.” He had in the parable of the unjust steward, and in the application of the same, spoken somewhat contemptibly of riches, which, when the Pharisees heard, they derided him, and that for this pretended reason (as is evident from the answer which is returned unto them), because the law promises the world’s goods as rewards and blessings to the people of God, that by the temporal things which are set forth for types and shadows of eternal things, they might be instructed, helped, and led, as it were by the hand, to the contemplation, desire and expectation, of those heavenly and eternal things which are not seen. Now Christ did not only rip up the hypocrisy of their hearts, ver. 15, but also gave a formal answer to their pretended reason, by showing how the law is by him perfected, ver. 16, yet not destroyed, ver. 17. Then will we observe how he teacheth that the law and the prophets are perfected, and so our point shall be plain. “The law and the prophets were until John,” i.e., they did typify and prophesy concerning the things of the kingdom until John; for before that time the faithful only saw those things afar off, and by types, shadows, and figures, and the rudiments of the world, were taught to know them. “But from that time the kingdom of God is preached,” i.e., the people of God are no longer to be instructed concerning the things of the kingdom of God by outward signs, or visible shadows and figures, but only by the plain word of the gospel; for now the kingdom of God ἐυαγγελιζεται is not typified as before, but plainly preached, as a thing exhibited to us, and present with us. Thus we see that to us, in the days of the gospel, the word only is appointed to teach the things belonging to the kingdom of God.

Sect. 5. If any man reply, that though after the coming of Christ we are liberate from the Jewish and typical significant ceremonies, yet ought we to embrace those ceremonies wherein the church of the New Testament placeth some spiritual signification:

I answer, 1. That which hath been said in this argument holdeth good against significant ceremonies in general. Otherwise, when we read of the abrogation of the ceremonial law, we should only understand the abrogation of those particular ordinances which Moses delivered to the Jews concerning the ceremonies that were to endure to the coming of Christ, and so, notwithstanding all this, the church should still have power to set up new ceremonial laws instead of the old, even which and how many she listeth.

2. What can be answered to that which the Abridgement propoundeth(802) touching this matter? “It is much less lawful (say those ministers) for man to bring significant ceremonies into God’s worship now than it was under the law. For God hath abrogated his own (not only such as prefigured Christ, but such also as served by their signification to teach moral duties), so as now (without great sin) none of them can be continued in the church, no, not for signification.” Whereupon they infer: “If those ceremonies which God himself ordained to teach his church by their signification may not now be used, much less may those which man hath devised.”

Sect. 6. Fourthly, Sacred significant ceremonies devised by man are to be reckoned among those images forbidden in the second commandment. Polanus saith,(803) that omnis figura illicita is forbidden in the second commandment. The Professors(804) of Leyden call it imaginem quamlibet, sive mente conceptam, sive manu effictam.

I have showed elsewhere,(805) that both in the writings of the fathers, and of Formalists themselves, sacraments get the name of images; and why, then, are not all significant and holy ceremonies to be accounted images? Now, the second commandment forbiddeth images made by the lust of man (that I may use Dr Burges’s phrase(806)), therefore it forbiddeth also all religious similitudes, which are homogeneal unto them. This is the inference of the Abridgement, whereat Paybody starteth,(807) and replieth, that the gestures which the people of God used in circumcision and baptism, the rending of the garment used in humiliation and prayer, Ezra ix. 5; 2 Kings xxii. 19, Jer. xxxvi. 24, lifting up the hands, kneeling with the knees, uncovering the head in the sacrament, standing and sitting at the sacrament, were, and are, significant in worshipping, yet are not forbidden by the second commandment.

Ans. There are three sorts of signs here to be distinguished. 1. Natural signs: so smoke is a sign of fire, and the dawning of the day a sign of the rising of the sun. 2. Customable signs; and so the uncovering of the head, which of old was a sign of preeminence, hath, through custom, become a sign of subjection. 3. Voluntary signs, which are called signa instituta; these are either sacred or civil. To appoint sacred signs of heavenly mysteries or spiritual graces is God’s own peculiar, and of this kind are the holy sacraments. Civil signs for civil and moral uses may be, and are, commendably appointed by men, both in church and commonwealth; and thus the tolling of a bell is a sign given for assembling, and hath the same signification both in ecclesiastical and secular assemblings. Now, besides the sacred signs of God’s own institution, we know that natural signs have also place in divine worship; thus kneeling in time of prayer signifieth the submission of our hearts and minds, the lifting up of our eyes and hands signifieth the elevation of our affections; the rending of the garments signified the rending of the heart by sorrow; standing with a religious suspect to that which is before us signifieth veneration or reverence; sitting at table signifieth familiarity and fellowship. “For which of you (saith our Master), Luke xvii. 7, having a servant ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?” All these signs have their significations from nature. And if it be said that howbeit sitting at our common tables be a sign natural to signify familiarity amongst us, yet nature hath not given such a signification to sitting at the Lord’s table,—I answer, that sitting is a natural sign of familiarity, at what table soever it be used. At the heavenly table in the kingdom of glory, familiarity is expressed and signified by sitting: “Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham,” &c., Matt. xviii. 11. Much more, then, at the spiritual table in the kingdom of grace.

The difference betwixt other common tables and the Lord’s table can infer no more, but that with great humility we ought to address ourselves unto it; yet still we are to make use of our familiarity with Christ ut tanquam in eodem toro accumbentes, as saith Chrysostom.(808) Wherefore we do not there so look to Christ in his princely throne and glorious majesty, exalted far above all principalities and powers, as to forget that he is our loving and kind banqueter, who hath admitted us to that familiar fellowship with him which is signified by our sitting at his table.

Secondly, Customable signs have likewise place in divine service; for so a man coming into one of our churches in time of public worship, if he see the hearers covered, he knows by this customable sign that sermon is begun.

Thirdly, Civil or moral signs instituted by men for that common order and decency which is respect both in civil and sacred actions, have also place in the acts of God’s worship. Thus a bason and a laver set before a pulpit are signs of baptism to be ministered; but common decency teacheth us to make the same use of a bason and a laver in civility which a minister maketh of them in the action of baptising. All our question is about sacred mystical signs. Every sign of this kind which is not ordained of God we refer to the imagery forbidden in the second commandment; so that in the tossing of this argument Paybody is twice naught, neither hath he said aught for evincing the lawfulness of sacred significant ceremonies ordained of men, which we impugn.

Sect. 7. Fifthly, The significancy and teaching office of mystical ceremonies invented by men, must be drawn under those doctrines of men condemned in the gospel. Wherefore was it that the divers washings of the Pharisees were rejected by Christ as a vain worship? Was it not because they were appointed for doctrines? “In vain (saith he) do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” Mark vii. 7.

The divers washings commanded in the law were fore-signifying to the people, and for teaching them what true and inward holiness God required of them. Now, the Pharisees, when they multiplied their washings of hands, of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables, had the same respect of significancy before their eyes. Neque enim alio spectabant (that I may use the words of a Formalist(809)) _quam ut se sanctitatis __ studiosos hoc externu ritu probarent_. Neither have we any warrant to think that they had another respect than this. But the error was in their addition to the law, and in that they made their own ceremonial washings, which were only the commandments of men, to serve for doctrines, instructions and significations. For those washings, as they were significant, and taught what holiness or cleanness should be among the people of God, they are called by the name of worship; and as they were such significant ceremonies as were only commanded by men, they are reckoned for vain worship.

And further, I demand why are the Colossians, Col. ii. 20-22, rebuked for subjecting themselves to those ordinances,—“Touch not, taste not, handle not?” We see that those ordinances were not bare commandments, but commandments under the colour of doctrines, to wit, as law commanded a difference of meats, for signifying that holiness which God would have his people formed unto; so these false teachers would have the same to be signified and taught by that difference of meats and abstinence which they of themselves, and without the commandment of God, had ordained.

Moreover, if we consider how that the word of God is given unto us “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works,” 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17, it cannot but be evident how superfluously, how superstitiously, the office of sacred teaching and mystical signification is given to dumb and lifeless ceremonies ordained of men, and, consequently, how justly they are taxed as vain worship. We hold, therefore, with the worthiest of our divines,(810) nullam doctrinam, nullum sacram signum debere inter pios admitti, nisi a Deo profecta esse constet.

Sect. 8. To these reasons which I have put in order against men’s significant ceremonies, I will add a pretty history before I go further.

When the Superior of the Abbey of St. Andrews(811) was disputing with John Knox about the lawfulness of the ceremonies devised by the church, to decore the sacraments and other service of God, Knox answered: “The church ought to do nothing but in faith, and ought not to go before, but is bound to follow the voice of the true Pastor.” The Superior replied, that “every one of the ceremonies hath a godly signification, and therefore they both proceed from faith, and are done in faith.” Knox replieth: “It is not enough that man invent a ceremony, and then give it a signification according to his pleasure; for so might the ceremonies of the Gentiles, and this day the ceremonies of Mahomet be maintained. But if that anything proceed from faith it must have the word of God for the assurance,” &c. The Superior answereth: “Will ye bind us so strait that we may do nothing without the express word of God? What, and I ask drink? think ye that I sin? and yet I have not God’s word for me.”

Knox here telleth him, first, that if he should either eat or drink without the assurance of God’s word, he sinned; “for saith not the Apostle, speaking even of meat and drink, that the creatures are sanctified unto men by the word and prayer? The word is this: all things are clean to the clean: Now let me hear thus much of your ceremonies, and I shall give you the argument?”

But secondly, He tells him that he compared indiscreetly together profane things with holy; and that the question was not of meat and drink, wherein the kingdom of God consisteth not, but of matters of religion, and that we may not take the same freedom in the using of Christ’s sacraments that we may do in eating and drinking, because Moses commanded, “All that the Lord thy God commanded thee to do, that do thou to the Lord thy God; add nothing to it, diminish nothing from it.” The Superior now saith that he was dry, and thereupon desireth the grey friar Arbugkill to follow the argument; but he was so pressed with the same that he was confounded in himself, and the Superior ashamed of him:—

Dicite Io Pæan, et Io bis dicite Pæan.

Sect. 9. As for the examples alleged by our opposites out of Scripture for justifying their significant ceremonies, they have been our propugners of evangelical simplicity so often and so fully answered, that here I need do no more but point at them. Of the days of Purim and feast of dedication I am to speak afterward. In the meanwhile, our opposites cannot, by these examples, strengthen themselves in this present argument, except they could prove that the feast of dedication was lawfully instituted, and that the days of Purim were appointed for a religious festivity, and that upon no such extraordinary warrant as the church hath not ever and always. The rite which Abraham commanded his servant to use when he sware to him, namely, the putting of his hand under his thigh, Gen. xxiv. 2, maketh them as little help; for it was but a moral sign of that civil subjection, reverence and fidelity which inferiors owe unto superiors, according to the judgment of Calvin, Junius, Pareus, and Tremellius, all upon that place. That altar which was built by the Reubenites, Gadites, and half tribe of Manasseh, Josh. xxii., had (as some think) not a religious, but a moral use, and was not a sacred, but a civil sign, to witness that those two tribes and the half were of the stock and lineage of Israel; which, if it were once called in question, then their fear (deducing the connection of causes and consequents) led them in the end to forecast this issue: “In time to come your children might speak unto our children, saying, What have you to do with the Lord God of Israel? for the Lord hath made Jordan a border betwixt us and you,” &c. Therefore, to prevent all apparent occasions of such doleful events, they erected the pattern of the Lord’s altar, ut vinculum sit fraternæ conjunctionis.(812)

And besides all this, there is nothing which can urge us to say that the two tribes and the half did commendably in the erecting of this altar.(813) Calvin finds two faults in their proceeding. 1. In that they attempted such a notable and important innovation without advising with their brethren of the other tribes, and especially without inquiring the will of God by the high priest. 2. Whereas the law of God commanded only to make one altar, forasmuch as God would be worshipped only in one place, they did inordinately, scandalously, and with appearance of evil, erect another altar; for every one who should look upon it could not but presently think that they had forsaken the law, and were setting up a strange and degenerate rite. Whether also that altar which they set up for a pattern of the Lord’s altar, was one of the images forbidden in the second commandment, I leave it to the judicious reader to ruminate upon. But if one would gather from ver. 33, that the priest, and the princes, and the children of Israel, did allow of that which the two tribes and the half had done, because it is said, “The thing pleased the children of Israel, and the children of Israel blessed God, and did not intend to go up against them in battle:”

I answer, the Hebrew text hath it thus: “And the word was good in the eyes of the children of Israel,” &c.; that is, the children of Israel blessed God for the word which Phinehas and the ten princes brought to them, because thereby they understood that the two tribes and the half had not turned away from following the Lord, nor made them an altar for burnt-offerings or sacrifice; which was enough to make them (the nine tribes and a half) desist from their purpose of going up to war against their brethren, to shed their blood. Again, when Phinehas and the ten princes say to the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, This day we perceive that the Lord is among us, “because ye have not committed this trespass against the Lord,” they do not exempt them from all prevarication; only they say signanter, “this trespass,” to wit, of turning away from the Lord, and building an altar for sacrifice, whereof they were accused. Thus we see that no approbation of that which the two tribes and the half did, in erecting the altar, can be drawn from the text.

Sect. 10. But to proceed, our opposites allege for another example against us, a new altar built by Solomon, 1 Kings viii. 64. In which place there is no such thing to be found as a new altar built by Solomon; but only that he sanctified the pavement of the inner court, that the whole court might be as an altar, necessity so requiring, because the brazen altar of the Lord was not able to contain so many sacrifices as then were offered. The building of synagogues can make as little against us.

For, 1. After the tribes were settled in the land of promise, synagogues were built, in the case of an urgent necessity, because all Israel could not come every Sabbath day to the reading and expounding of the law in the place which God had chosen that his name might dwell there. What hath that case to do with the addition of our unnecessary ceremonies?

2. If Formalists will make any advantage of the building of synagogues, they must prove that they were founded, not upon the extraordinary warrant of prophets, but upon that ordinary power which the church retaineth still. As for the love-feasts used in the primitive church, 1. They had no religious state in divine worship, but were used only as moral signs of mutual charity. The Rhemists(814) will have them to be called caenas dominicas. But what saith Cartwright against them? “We grant that there were such feasts used in times past, but they were called by the name of ἀγάπαι or love-feasts, not by the name of the Lord’s supper; neither could one without sacrilege give so holy a name to a common feast, which never had ground out of the word, and which after, for just cause, was thrust out by the word of God.” 2. If it be thought that they were used as sacred signs of Christian charity because they were eaten in the church, I answer, the eating of them in the church is forbidden by the Apostle. “What! (saith he) have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God?” Aperte vetat (saith Pareus),(815) commessationes in ecclesia, quocunque fuco pingantur. Vocabant ἀγάπας charitates; sod nihil winus erant. Erant schismatum fomenta. Singulae enim sectae suas instituebant. And a little after: Aliquae ecclesiae obtemperasse videntur. Nam Justini temporibus Romana ecclesia ἀγάπας non habuit. Concerning the kiss of charity used in those times, 2 Cor. xiii. 22, we say in like manner that it was but a moral sign of that reconciliation, friendship and amity, which showed itself as well at holy assemblies as other meetings in that kind and courtesy, but with all chaste salutation, which was then in use.

Sect. 11. As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public and common prayer), or prophesying (that is, singing, 1 Sam. x. 10; 1 Chron. xxv. 1), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comeliness in their common behaviour and conversation, the Apostle will have them, for the same decency and comeliness, still to retain in their holy assemblies. And further, the Apostle showeth that it is also a natural sign, and that nature itself teacheth it; therefore he urgeth it both by the inferiority or subjection of the woman, ver. 3, 8, 9 (for covering was then a sign of subjection), and by the long hair which nature gives to a woman, ver. 25; where he would have the artificial covering to be fashioned in imitation of the natural. What need we any more? Let us see nature’s institution, or the Apostle’s recommendation, for the controverted ceremonies (as we have seen them for women’s veils), and we yield the argument.

Last of all, the sign of imposition of hands helpeth not the cause of our opposites, because it has the example of Christ and the apostles, and their disciples, which our ceremonies have not; yet we think not imposition of hands to be any sacred or mystical sign, but only a moral, for designation of a person: let them who think more highly or honourably of it look to their warrants.

Thus have I thought it enough to take a passing view of these objected instances, without marking narrowly all the impertinencies and falsehoods which here we find in the reasoning of our opposites. One word more, and so an end. Dr Burges would comprehend the significancy of sacred ecclesiastical ceremonies, for stirring men up to the remembrance of some mystery of piety or duty to God, under that edification which is required in things that concern order and decency by all divines.

Alas! what a sorry conceit is this? Divines, indeed, do rightly require that those alterable circumstances of divine worship which are left to the determination of the church be so ordered and disposed as they may be profitable to this edification. But this edification they speak of is no other than that which is common to all our actions and speeches. Are we not required to do all things unto edifying, yea, to speak as that our speech may be profitable unto edifying? Now, such significations as we have showed to be given to the ceremonies in question, as, namely, to certify a child of God’s favour and goodwill towards him,—to betoken that at no time Christians should be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ,—to signify the pureness that ought to be in the minister of God,—to express the humble and grateful acknowledgments of the benefits of Christ, &c.,—belong not to that edification which divines require in things prescribed by the church concerning order and decency, except of every private and ordinary action, in the whole course of our conversation, we either deny that it should be done unto edifying, or else affirm that it is a sacred significant ceremony.