Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies, Part 3 · Chapter 2

Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies · Part 3 · Chapter 2

p. 15CHAP. II.

That the Ceremonies are unlawfull, because they are monuments of by-past idolatry, which not being necessary to be retained, should be utterly abolished, because of their idolatrous abuse: all which is particularly made good of kneeling.

I Have proven the Ceremonies to be superstitious; now I will prove them to be Idolatrous. These are different arguments, Sect. for every Idolatry is superstition, but every superstition is p. 16not Idolatry, as is rightly by ggSynop. pur. Theol. disp. 19. thes. 30.some distinguished. As for the Idolatry of the controverted Ceremonies, I will prove that they are thrice Idolatrous. 1. reductivè, because they are monuments of bypast Idolatry. 2 participativè, because they are badges of present Idolatry. 3. formaliter, because they are Idols themselves. First then, they are Idolatrous, because having beene 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. hhManduct. pag. 38.D^r. Burgesse reckons for Idolatrous, all Ceremonies devised and used, in and to the honouring of an Idoll, 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 writting against us be forced to aknowledge this much, one may easily conjecture, what inforcing reason wee have to double out our point. The Argument in hand I frame thus:

All things and rites, which have beene notriously 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 Crosse, Surplice, kneeling in the act of receiving the Commuion, &c. are things and rites, &c. and are not such as either God or nature, &c.

Ergo, they should be utterlie abolished, &c.

As for the proposition I shall first explaine it, and then prove it; I say, all things and rites, for they are alike forbidden as I shall shew. Sect. 2 I say, which have beene notoriously abused to idolatry, because if the abuse be not knowne we are blamelesse for retaining the things and rites which have beene 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 Gods institution, as the Sacraments, or through natures law, as the opening of our mouths to speake (for when I am to preach or pray publikly, nature makes it necessary, that I open my mouth to speake audibly and articularly,) then the abuse can not take away the use. I say, they may not be used by us, as sacred things and rites pertaining to Divine worship, because without the compasse of worship, they may be used to a naturall or civill purpose. If I could get no other meat to eate, then the consecrated hoste which Papists Idolatrize in the circumgestation of it, I might lawfully eat p. 17it, and if I could get no other cloaths to put on, then the holy garments wherein a Priest hath said Masse, I might lawfully weare them. Things abused to Idolatry, are only then unlawfull, when they are used no otherwise then religiously, and as things sacred.

The proposition thus explained, is confirmed by these five proofes, 1. Gods owne praecept, Isa. 30. 22. Ye shall defile also the Sect. 3 covering of thy graven images of silver, and the ornament of thy molten images of gold: thou shalt cast them away as a menstrous cloath, thou shall say unto it, get thee hence. The covering of the Idoll here spoken of, iicomm. in illum locum.Gaspar Sanctus rightly understandeth to be that, quo aut induebantur simulacra Gentilico ritu, aut bracteas quibus ligneae imagines integuntur, aut quo homines Idolis sacrificaturi amiciebantur. So that the lea…t appurtenances of Idolls are to be avoided. When the Apostle kkIud. 23.Iude would have us to heate the garment spotted with the flesh, his meaning is, detestandam esse vel superficiem ipsam mali five peccati, quam tunicae appellatione subinnuere videtur, as our owne llcomm. in Thess. 5. 22.Rolloke hath observed. If the very covering of an Idoll be forbidden, what shall be thought of other things which are not only spotted, but irrecoverably polluted with idolls? many such praecepts were given to Israëll, as Exod. 34. 13. Yee shall destroy their altars, breake their images, and cut downe their groves. Deut. 7. 25. 26. The grauen images of their Gods shall ye burne with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver and 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. Reade to the same purpose Numb. 33. 52. Deut. 7. 5. and 12. 2. 3. Secondly, God hath not only by his praecepts commanded us to abolish all the reliques of Idolatrie, but by his promises also manifested unto us, how acceptable service this should be to him. There is a command Num. 33. 52. that the Israëlites should destroy the Canaanites, evertantque res omnes idololatricas ipsorum: cui mandato saith mmanal. in illum locum.Iunius, subjicitur sua promissio, namely, that the Lord wold give them the promised land, and they should dispossesse the inhabitants thereof, Vers. 53. yea there is a promise of remission and reconciliation to this worke. Isa. 27. 9. By this shall the iniquity of Iacob be purged, and this is all the fruit to take away his sinne: when he maketh all the stones of the Altar as chalke stones, that are beaten asunder, the groves and images shall not stand up.

Thirdly, the Churches of Pergamos and Theatyra are reproved for suffering the use of Idolothyts, Apoc. 2. 14. 20. Where the eating Sect. 4 of things sacrificed to Idolls is condemned as Idolatry and spirituall adultery, as nnexpos. upon Revel. 2. 14.Rev 2:14Perkins noteth. Paybody therefore is greatly mistaken, when he thinkes, that meates sacrificed to Idolls, beeing the good Creatures of God, were allowed by the Lord, out of the case of scandall, notwithstanding of Idolatrous pollution, for Apoc. 2. the eating of things sacrificed to Idolls, is reproved as Idolatry, and 1. Cor. 10. 20. the cating of such thinges, is condemned as a fellowship p. 18with Divells. Now Idolatry and fellowship with divells, I suppose are unlawfull, though no scandall should followe upon them. And whereas he thinkes meates sacrificed to Idolls, to be lawfull enough out of the case of scandall, for this reason, because they are the good Creatures of God, he should have considered better the Apostles mind concerning such Idolothyts. Which ooIn praec. 2. p. 534.Zanchius setteth downe thus, Verum est, per so haec nihil sunt, sed respectu eorum quibus immolantur aliquid sunt: quia per haec, illis quibus immolantur, nos consociamur. Qui isti? Daemones. For our better understanding of this matter, we must distinguish two sorts of Idolothyts, both which we finde 1 Cor. 10. Of the one, the Apostle speakes from the 14 Verse of that Chapter, to the 23. Of the other, from the 23. verse to the end; This is Beza his distinction in his Annotations on that Chapter. Of the first sort, he delivers the Apostles minde thus; that as Christians have their holy banquets, which are badges of their communion both with Christ and among themselves, and as the Israëlites by their sacrifices did seale their copulation in the same religion, so also Idolaters cum suis idolis aut potius daemonibus, solemnibus illis epulis copulantur. So that this sort of pp1 Cor. 8. 10.1 Cor 8:10Idolothyts were eaten in Temples, and publike solemne banquets, which were dedicated to the honour of idolls. qqannot. on 1 Cor. 10. 21.1 Cor 10:21Cartwright sheweth, that the Apostle is comparing the Table of the Lord, with the Table of Idolaters: whereupon it followeth, that as wee use the Lords Table religiously, so that Table of Idolaters of which the Apostle speaketh, had state in the idolatrous worship, like that feast Num. 25. 3. quod in honorem falsorum Deorum celebrabatur, saith rrcom. in illum locum.Calvine. This first sort of Idolathyts, ssanal. in 1 Cor. 10.1 Cor 10Pareus calls the sacrifices of Idolls, and from such he saith, the Apostle dissuadeth by this argument, Participare e…pulis Idolorum, est idololatria. Of the second sort of Idolothyts, the Apostle begins to speake Vers. 23. The Corinthians moved a question, whether they might lawfully eat things sacrificed to Idolls? In privatis conviviis, saith ttibid.Pareus. The Apostle resolves them that domi in privato convictu they might eate them, except it were in the case of scandall, thus uuannot. ibid.Beza. The first sort of Idolothyts are meant of Apoc. 2. as Beza there noteth, and of this sort must we understand xxde bono conjugali, cap. 16.Augustine to meane, whiles he saith, that it were better mori fame, quam Idolothytis vesci. These sortes are simply & in themselves unlawfull. And if meates sacrificed to Idols be so unlawfull, then much more such things and rites as have not only beene sacrificed and destinated to the honour of Idolls, (for this is but one kinde of Idolatrous abuse,) but also of a long time, publikly and solemnely employed in the worshipping of Idolls, and deeply defiled with Idolatry, much more I say, are they unlawfull to be applied to Gods most pure and holy worship, and therein used by us publikely and solemnely, so that the world may see us conforming, and joyning our selves unto Idolaters.

p. 19Fourthly, I fortify my proposition by approven examples: and first, we find that Iacob, Genes. 35. 4. did not only abolish out of his Sect. 5 house, the Idolls, but their eare-rings also, because they were superstitionis insignia, as Calvine; res ad idololatriam pertinentes, as Iunius; monilia idolis consecrata, as Pareus calleth them; all writting upon that place. We have also the example of Elijah, 1. Kings 18. 30. he would by no meanes offer upon Baals Altar, but would needs repaire the Lords Altar, though this should hold the people the longer in exspectation. This he did in P. Martyrs Iudgment, because he thought it a great indignity, to offer sacrifice to the Lord, upon the Altar of Baal. Whereupon, yycomm. in illum locumMartyr reprehendeth those who in administring the true Supper of the Lord, uti velint Papisticis vestibus & instrumentis. Further we have the example of Iehu, who is commanded for the destroying of Baal out of Israëll, with his image, his house, and his very vestments. Read, 2. Kings, 10. from the 22. Verse to the 28. And what example more considerable, then that of Hezekiah, who not only abolished such monuments of Idolatry, as at their first institution were but mens inventions, but brake downe also the Brazen serpent (though originally set up at Gods owne command,) when once he saw it abused to Idolatry? 2 Kings 18. 4. This deed of Hezekiah, Pope zzapud wolphium com. in 2 Reg. 18. 4.2 Kgs 18:4Steven 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 beene 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. aaIo. Calv. epist. & resp. pag. 79.Farellus saith, that Princes & Magistrates should learne by this example of Hezekiah, what they should doe with those significant rites of mens devising which have turned to superstition. Yea, the bbserm. on Phil. 2. 10Phil 2:10B. of Wincester aknowledgeth, that whatsoever is taken up at the injunction of men, when it is drawne to superstition, commeth under the compasse of the Brazen serpent, and is to be abolished. And he excepteth nothing from this example, but only things of Gods owne prescribing, Moreover, we have the example of good Iosiah, 2 Kings 23. for he did not only destroy the houses and the high-places of Baal, vers. 19. but his vessels also, vers. 4. and his grove, vers 6. 14. and his Altars, vers. 12. yea the horses and charrets, which had beene given to the Sun, vers. 11. The example also of penitent Manasseh, who not only overthrewe the strange Gods, but their Altars too 2 Chron. 33. 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. 32. 27. 20. Lastly, we have the example of Daniel, who would not defile himself with the portion of the Kings meate, Dan. 1. 8, because saith cccom. in locum illumIunius, it was converted in usum idololatricum, for at the banquets of the Babylonians and other Gentiles, erant p. 20praemessa sive praemissa, quae dijs praemittebantur. They used to consecrate their meate and drinke to Idolls, and to invocate the names of their Idolls upon the same, so that their meate and drinke fell under the prohibition of Idolothyts. This is the reason, which is given by the most part of the Interpreters, for Daniels fearing to pollute himself, with the kings meate, and wine: and it hath also the approbation of ddG. Sanctius com. ibid.a Papist.

Fiftly, our proposition is backed with a twofold reason, for things which have beene notoriously abused to Idolatry, should be Sect. 6 abolished, 1. quia monent, 2. quia movent: first then, they are monitory, & preserve the memory of Idolls, monumentum in good things, is both monimentum & munimentum, but monumentum in evill things, (such as Idolatry,) is only monimentum, which monet mentem to remember upon such things as ought not to be once named amōg Saincts, but should lye buried in the eternall darknesse of silent oblivion. Those reliques therefore of Idolatry, quibus quasi monumentis posterit as admoneatur (as eecom. in 2 Reg. 23. 6.2 Kgs 23:6Wolphius rightly saith,) are to be quite defaced and destroyed, because they serve to honour the memory of cursed Idolls. God ffExod. 23. 13. Deut. 12. 3. Ios, 23. 7.Exod 23:13Deut 12:3would not have, so much as the name of an Idoll, to be remembered among his people, but commanded to destroy their names, as well as themselves. Whereby we are admonished, as ggcom in Isa. 27. 9.Isa 27:9Calvine saith, how detestable Idolatry is before God, cujus memoriam vult penitus deleri, ne posthac ullum ejus vesligium appareat, hhCalv. com. in Exod. 23. 24.Exod 23:24yea he requireth, eorum omnium memoriam deleri, quae semel dicata sunt idolis. If iiEsther. 3. 2.Esth 3:2Mordecay would not give his countenance, nor doe any reverence to a living monument of that nation, whose name God had ordained kkDeut. 25. 19.Deut 25:19to be blotted out from under heaven; much lesse should we give connivence, and farre lesse countenance, but least of all reverence to the dead and dumbe monuments of those Idolls 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 againe. But secoundly, movent too: such Idolothyous remainders move us to turne back to Idolatry. For usu compertum habemus, superstitiones etiam postquam explosae essent, si qua relicta fuissent earum monumenta, cum memoriam sui ipsarum apud homines, tum id tandem ut revocarentur obtinuisse, saith llubi supraWolphius. Who here upon thinks it behovefull, to destroy funditus such vestigies of superstition, for this cause, if there were no more; ut &▪ aspirantibus ad revocandam idololatriam spes frangatur, & res novas molientibus ansa pariter ac materia praecipiatur. God would have Israell to overthrow all idolotrous monuments, lest thereby they should be snared, Deut. 7. 25. and 12. 30. And if the mmExod. 21. 33.Exod 21:33law command to cover a pit, lest an oxe or an asse should fall therein: shall we suffer a pit to be open, wherein the pretious soules of men and women, which all the world can not ransone, are likely to fall? Did God command nnDeut. 22. 8.Deut 22:8to make a battlement for the roofe p. 21of a house, and that for the safety of mens bodies? And shall we not only not put up a battlement, or object some barre for the safety of mens soules, but also leave the way sl…pty and full of snares? Reade we not that the Lord, who knewe what was in man, & saw how propense he was to Idolatry, did not only remove out of his peoples way, all such things as might any way allure or induce them to Idolatry, (even to the cutting of the names of the Idolls out of the land, Zecbar. 13. 2.) but also hedge up their way with thornes, that they might not find their paths, nor overtake their Idol-Gods, when they should seeke after them, Hos. 2. 6. 7? And shall we by the very contrary course, not only not hedge up the way of Idolatry with thornes, which may stop and stay such as have an inclination aiming forward, but also lay before them, the inciting and entising occasions, which adde to their owne propension, such delectation as spurreth forward with a swift facility?

Thus having both explained and confirmed the proposition Sect. 7 of our present argument, I will make me next for the confutation of the answeres, which our opposites devise to elude it. And first, they tell us, that it is needlesse 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 bbN fratri & amico art. 17.Saravia will not have pium crucis usum to be abolished cum abusu, but holds it enough that the abuse and superstition be taken away. ccIren. lib. 1. cap. 7. 9. 6.Dr Forbesse his answere is, that not only things instituted by God, are not to be taken away for the abuse of them, but further, neque res mediae ab hominibus prudenter introductae, propter sequentem abusum semper tollendae sunt. Abusi sunt Papistae Templis, & Oratoriis, & Cathedris, & sacris Vasis, & Campanis, & benedictione Matrimoniali: nec tamen res istas, censuerunt prudentes reformatores abjiciendas. Ans. 1. ddresp. ad versipel. pag 41. 4.Calvine answering that which Cassander alledged out of an Italian writer, abusu non tolli bonum usum; he admits it only to be true, in things which are institute 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 Gods worship, and which men have devised, only at their owne pleasure, is taken away by Idolatrous abuse. Pars tutior here, is to put them wholly away, and there is by a great deale more danger in retaining; then in removing them. 2. The proofs which I have produced for the proposition, about which now we debate, doe not only inferre that things and Rites, which have beene 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. e God commanded (b) Isa. 30. 22.Isa 30:22to say to the coverings, and the ornaments of Idolls get you hence. It is not enough they be purged from the abuse, but simpliciter, they themselves must pack them, and be gone. How did Iacob p. 22with the eare rings of the Idolls; Elijah with Baals Altar; Iehu with his vestments; Iosiah with his houses; Manasseh with his Altars; Moses with the golden Calfe; Iosua with the Temples of Canaan; Hezekiah with the Brazen Serpent? did they retaine the things themselves, and only purge them from the abuse? belike if these our Opposites had beene their counsellers, 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 farre better away then aplace. Did Daniel refuse Bels meate, because it was not restored to the right use? Nay, if that had beene all, it might have beene quickly helped, and the meate sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Finally, were the Churches of Pergamos and Theatyra, reprooved, because they did not restore things sacrificed to Idolls, to their right use? or, were they not rather reprooved for having any thing at all a doe with the things themselves?

3. As for that which D^r. Forbesse objecteth to us, we answere, that Sect. 8 Temples, places of Prayer, Chaires, Veshells, and Bells, are of a necessary use, by the light and guidance of nature it selfe, and Matrimoniall benediction is necessary by Gods institution, Gen. 1. 28. So that all those examples doe except themselves from the argument in hand. But ffubi suprathe Dr. intendeth to bring those things within the category of things indifferent, and to this purpose he alledgeth, that it is indifferent to use this, or that place, for a Temple, or a place of prayer: also to use these Veshells, and Bells, or others; And of Matrimoniall benediction to be performed by a Pastor, he saith, there is nothing commanded in scripture. Ans. Though it be indifferent to choose this place, or that place, &c. also to use these Veshells, or other Veshells, &c. yet the D^r (I trust) will not denie that Temples, houses of prayer, Veshels, and Bells are of a necessary use, (which exeemeth them from the touch of our present argument:) whereas beside, that it is not necessary to kneele in the communion in this place, more then in that place, neither to keep the feasts of Christs Nativity, Passion, &c. upon these dayes more then upon other dayes, &c. the things themselves are not necessary in their kinde, and it is not necessary to keep any festuall day, nor to kneel at all in the act of receiving the communion. There is also another respect which hindereth Temples, Veshells, &c. from comming within the compasse of this our argument: but neither doth it agree to the controverted Ceremonies. Temples, houses of Prayer, Veshells for the ministration of the Sacraments, and Bells, are not used by us in Divine worship, as things Sacred; or as holier then other houses, Veshells, and Bells; But we use them only for p. 23naturall necessity, partly for that common decency, which hath no lesse place in the actions of Civill, then of sacred assemblies: yea in some cases, they may be applied to Civill uses, as ggsupra cap. 1. sect. 11.hath been said. Whereas the controverted Ceremonies are respected & used, as sacred Rites, and as holier then any circumstance, which is alike common to civill 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, Veshells 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.

Neverthelesse (to add this by the way) howbeit for those reasons, Sect. 9 the retaining and using of Temples which have been polluted with Idolls, be not in it selfe unlawfull, yet the retaining of every such Temple is not ever necessary, but sometimes it is expedient for further extirpation of superstition, to demolish and destroy some such Temples, as have been horribly abused to Idolatry, as hhCom. in Deut. 12. 2.Deut 12:2Calvine also and iiIn 4. praec. Col. 709.Zanchius doe plainly insinuate. Whereby I meane to defend (though not as in it selfe necessary, yet as expedient pro tunc, that which the Reformators of the Church of Scotland did in casting downe some of those Churches, which had been consecrate to Popish Idolls, and of a long time polluted with Idolatrous worship. As on the one part the Reformators (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, recognized: so on the other parte 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 reentry of Popery, and for hedging up the way with thornes, that the Idolatrously minded, might not find their pathes. And since the pulling downe of those Churches wanted neither this pious intent, nor 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 whoore, and have deformed to much of that which was by them reformed, are to be detested by all such, as wish the eternall exile of Idolatrous monuments, out of the Lords land: yet let these Momus-like spirits understand, that their censorius verdicts doe also reflexe upon those auncient Christians kkMagdeb. Cent. 4. cap. 15. Col. 1538. 1539.of whom we read, that with their owne hands they destroyed the Temples of Idolls. And upon Chrysostome, who stirred up some Monkes, and sent them into Phaenicia, togither with workmen, and sustained them on the expences and charges of certaine godly women, that they might destroy the Temples of Idolls, as the llCent 5. cap. 15. Col. 1511.Magdeburgians have marked out of Theodoret: Likewise upon them of p. 24the Religion in France, of whom Thuanus recordeth, that templa confractis ac disjectis statuis & altaribus, expilaverant. Lastly, upon mmDaneus Polit. Christ. lib. 3 p. 229 Polan. synt. Theol. lib. 10 cap. 65.fortaine Divines, who teach, that not onelyonly Idola, but Idolia also, and omnia Idololatriae instrumenta should be abolished. Moreover, what was it else, but reasons light which made Cambyses to feare, 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 caeterorumque Deorum aedes dirui jubet: ad Ammonis quoque nobilissimum templum expugnandum, exercitum mittit, saith nnEpit. Hist. lib. 1.Iustinus. And is not the danger of retaining Idolatrous Churches, thus pointed at by P. Martyr. Curavit &c. Iehu (saith ooCom. in 2 Reg. 10. 27.2 Kgs 10:27he) tooke care to have the Temples of Baall overthrowne, lest they should returne any more to their wonted use Wherefore it appears, that many doe not rightly, who having imbraced the Gospell of the Sonne of God, yet notwithstanding keep still the instruments of Popery. And they have farre better looked to piety who have taken care, to have Popish Images, statues, and ornaments, utterly cut off, for as we read in the Ecclesiasticall Histories, Constantine the great, after he had given his name to Christ, by an edict provided and tooke order, that the Temples of the Idolls might be closed and shut up. But because they did still remaine, Iulian the Apostate did easily open and unlock them, and thereafter did prostitute the Idolls of old superstition to be worshipped in them: which Theodosius the best and commended Prince, animadverting, commanded to pull them downe, lest they should againe any more be restored. But because I suppose no sober spirit will denie that sometimes and in some cases, it may be expedient to rase and pull downe some Temples polluted with Idolls, 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 returne to D. Forbesse.

As touching matrimoniall benediction, it also is exeemed out of Sect. 10 the compasse of our present argument, because through Divine institution, it hath a necessary use, as we have said. And though the Dr to make it appeare, that a Pastors performing of the same is a thing indifferent, alledgeth, that in Scripture there is nothing commanded thereanent. Yet plaine it is from Scripture it selfe, that Matrimoniall benediction ought to be given by a Pastor, for ppNum. 6.Num 6God hath commanded his Ministers, to blesse his people, which by just Analogy belongeth to the Ministers of the Gospell; neither is there any ground for making herein a difference, betwixt them and the Ministers of the Law, but we must conceive the commandement, to t…e both alike to the blessing of Gods People. VntoUnto which Ministeriall duty of blessing, because no such limits can be set, as may exclude Matrimoniall blessing; therefore they are bound to the performance of it also. And if further we consider qqHebr 6. 7.Heb 6:7that the duty of blessing was performed by the Minister of the Lord, even before the law of Moses, we are yet more confirmed, to thinke that the p. 25blessing of the people, was not commanded in the Law as a thing peculiar and proper to the Leviticall Priesthood, but as a Morall & perpetuall duty, belonging to the Lords Ministers for ever. Wherefore notwithstanding of any abuse of Matrimoniall benediction among Papists, yet forasmuch as it hath a necessary use in the Church, and may not (as the controverted Ceremonies may) be wel spared; It is manifest, that it commeth not under the respect and account of those things, whereof our Argument speaketh.

Lastly, whereas the Dr. would beare his Reader in hand, that in the Sect. 11 Iudgment of wise Reformators, even such things as have been brought in use by men only, without Gods institution, are not to be ever taken away, for the abuse which followeth upon them: let rrCalv. Res. ad Versipel. p. 413.Reformators speake for themselves. Nos quoque priscos ritus, quibus indifferenter uti licet, quia verbo Dei consentanei sunt non reijcimus, modo ne superstitio & pravus abusus cos abolere cogat. This was the judgment of the wisest Reformators; that Rites which were both auncient, and lawfull, & agreeable to Gods Word, were notwithstanding of necessity to be abolished, because of their superstition and wicked abuse.

Secondly, our Opposites answer us, that beside the purging of things and Rites abused by Idolators, from their 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 harme, which we feare 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 ssde imagin, Col. 402.Zanchius, non idem olim fecerit diligentius Deus, per Mosen & 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, causae, occasiones. It is not enough with the Scribes and Pharises to teach out of Moses Chaire, what the people should doe, but all occasions, yea appearances of evill, are to be taken out of their sight. Efficacius enim & plus movent, quae in oculos quam quae in aures incidunt. Potuerat & Hezekias populum monere, ne Serpentem adorarent, sed maluit confringere & penitus è conspectu auferre, & rectius fecit faith ttTho. N…o. georgus in 1 10. 5. 21.one well to this purpose. 2. Experience hath taught, to how little purpose such admonitions doe serve. uuIoh. Calv. Epist. & resp. pag. 86.Calvine writing to the Lord Protector of England, of some Popish Ceremonies which did still remaine in that Church, after th… Reformation of the same, desireth, that they may be abolished, because of their former abuse, in time of Popery. Quid enim (saith h) 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 warne and teach men p. 26that they abuse not these Ceremonies, and that the abolishing of the Ceremonies themselves were not necessary. Therefore immediately he subjoyneth these words. Iam si decautione agitur, monebuntur homines scilicet, ne ad illas nunc impingant, &c. Quis tamen non videt obdurari ipsos nihilominus, nihil ut infaelici illa cautione obtineri possit. Whereupon he concludes, that if such Ceremonies were suffered to remaine, this should be a meane to nourish a greater hardnesse and obfirmation in evill, and a vaile drawne, so that the sincere doctrine which is propounded, should not be admitted as it ought to be. xxIbid. Col. 136.Inanother Epistle to Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, he complaineth, that externall superstitions were so corrected in the Church of England, ut residui maneant innumeri surculi, qui assidue pollulent. And what good then was done by their admonitions, whereby they did in some sort snedde the reviving twigs of old superstition, since forasmuch as they were not wholly eradicat, they did still shoot forth againe. If a man should digge a pitt by the way side, for some commodity of his owne, and then admonish the travellers to take heed to themselves, if they goe that way in the darknesse of the night, who would hold him excusable? How then shall they be excused, who digge a most dangerous pit, which is like to ruine many soules, and yet will have us to thinke that they are blamelesse, for that they warne men to beware of it?

Thirdly, we are told, that if these answers which our Opposites Sect. 13 give, get no place, then shall we use nothing at all which hath been abused by Idolaters, and by consequence, neither Baptisme nor the Lords Supper. But let yycomm. in Col. 2. 17.Col 2:17Zanchius answer for us, that these things are by themselves necessary, so that it is enough they be purged from the abuse. And zzde imagin. Col. 403.elsewhere he resolveth, that things which are by themselves both good and necessary, may not for any abuse bee put away. Si vero res sint adiaphorae sua natura & per legem Dei, eoque tales quae citra jacturam salutis omitti possunt, etiamsi ad bonos usus initio fuerunt institutae: si tamen postea videamus illas in abusus pernitiosos esse conversas: pietas in Deum, & charitas erga proximum, postulant ut tollantur, &c. He addes for proofe of that which he saith, the example of Hezekiah in breaking downe that Brazen Serpent, which example doth indeed most pregnantly enforce the abolishing of all things or rites, notouriously abused to Idolatry, when they are not of any necessary use, but it warranteth not the abolishing of any thing which hath a necessary use, because the Brazen Serpent is not contained in the number of those things quibus carere non possumus, saith aacom. in 2 Reg. 18. 4.2 Kgs 18:4Wolphius, 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 hazarde of Salvation, they may be omitted, is aknowledged by Formalists themselves, wherefore I need not stay to prove it.

p. 27Beside these answeres which are common in our adversaries Sect. 14 mouthes, some of them have other particular subterfugies, which now I am to search. We must consider saith r B. Lindsey, the Ceremony (b) Proc. in Perth assemb part. 2. pag. 120.it self (dedicated to, and polluted with Idolatry), (whether it be of humane, or Divine institution; If it be of humane 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 prophanation of Idolatry. For example, the abuse of kneeling in elevation, &c. proceeded 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 beeing of the owne 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 it selfe may be rightly used, and kneeling therein, &c. Ans. 1. since he graunteth that a Ceremony dedicated to, and polluted with Idolatry; may (he answereth not the argument which there he propoundeth, except he say must) be abolished, if it be of humane Institution: he must graunt from this ground, if there were no more, that the Crosse, 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 individuall case, or clothed with certaine perticular circumstances, (for he maketh this kneeling whereof he speaketh, to be found in two most different actions, the one Idolatrous, the other holy,) but of kneeling in the generall, per se, and praecise ab omnibus circumstantijs. Let him now tell, where kneeling thus considered is commended unto us in Gods word. He would possibly alledge that place. Psal 95, 6. O come, let us worship and bowe downe: let us kneel before the Lord our maker. Which is cited in the Canon of Perth about kneeling. But I answer; whether one expound that place with sCalvin, (…) com. in illum locumin this sence, ut scilicet ante arcam faederis populus se prosternat, quia sermo de legali cultu habetur: Whereupon … should follow, that it commendeth kneeling, only to the Iewes 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 solemne acts of Gods immediat worship, such as that, praise and thanksgiving, whereof the beginning of the Psalme speaketh, whether I say it be taken in this, or that sence, yet it commendeth not kneeling, p. 28except in a certaine kinde of worship only. And as for kneeling in the generall nature of it, it is not of Divine institution, but in it self indifferent, even as sitting, standing, &c. all which gestures are then only made good, or evill, when in actu exercito they are actuated and individualized by particular circumstances. 3. If so be, the Ceremony be abused to Idolatry, it skills not how, for as I have shewed before, the reasons and proofs which I have produced for the proposition of our present Argument, hold good against the retaining of any thing which hath beene knowne 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, can not 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 ddAquin. 2. 2^a. q. 43. art. 1.nihil potest esse homini causa sufficiens peccati, except only propria voluntas. 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 chosing that which opinion conceiteth to be chosen, or voluntas praeeunte 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 then 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 a Idolater, who should be against his will thrust downe, 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 gaine by this device, that the abuse of kneeling in the Lords Supper proceeded not from the nature of the action, but from the will of the agent? Can he hereupon inferre, that kneeling in that action is to be retained, notwithstanding of any contagion of Idolatry, which it hath receaved? Nay then, let him say, that Hezekiah did not rightly, in breaking downe the Brazen Serpent, which was set up at Gods command, and the abuse whereof proceeded not from the thing it self, which had a most lawfull, profitable, and holy use, but only from the perverse opinion and will of them who abused it to Idolatry.

But the comparing of kneeling to the Brazen Serpent, is very Sect. 15 unsavory to the B. And wherefore? The Brazen Serpent saith he, in p. 29the time it was abolished, had no use: that ceased with the vertue of the cure, that the Israelites received by looking upon it; the act of kneeling continueth allwise in a necessary use, for the better expressing of our thankfulnesse to God. Ans. 1. Both kneeling, and all the rest of the Popish Ceremonies, may well be compared to the Brazen Serpent. And Divines doe commonly alledge this example, as most pregnant, to prove that things or rites polluted with I dolls, and abused to Idolatry, may not be retained, if they have no necessary use, and I have cited before the B. of Winchester, aknowledging that this argument holdeth good against all things which are taken up, not at Gods prescription, but at mens injunction. eeConfer. vvith 1. Hart cap. 8. divis. 4. pag. 509.I. Rainoldes argumenteth, from Hezekiah his breaking downe of the Brazen Serpent, to the plucking downe of the signe of the Crosse. 2. Why saith he, that the Brasen 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 wildernesse, and it served for the better expressing of their thankefulnesse to God, which the B. here calleth a necessary use. 3. When he saith that kneeling continueth alwayes in a necessary use, we must understand him to speake of kneeling in the act of receiving the Communion, else he runnes at randone, for it is not kneeling in the generall, but kneeling in this particular case vvhichwhich is compared to the Brazen Serpent. Now to say, that this gesture in this action is necessary, for our better expressing of our thankefulnesse to God, importeth that the Church of Scotland, and many famous Churches in Europe, for so many yeares, have omitted that vvhichwhich vvas necessary, for the better expressing of their thankfulnesse to God, and that they have not vvell enough expressed it. And moreover, if kneeling be necessary in the Lords Supper, for our better expressing of our thankfulnesse to God, then is it also necessary at our owne common tables. Though we be bound to be more thankfull at the Lords Table, and that because vve receive a benefit of infinit more vvorth. Yet we are bound to be tam grati, as vvell thankfull, at our owne tables, albeit not tanta gratitudine. If then the same kind of thankfulnesse be required of us at our owne Tables, (for intentio & remissio graduum secundum magis & minus, non variant speciem rei;) that vvhichwhich is necessary for expressing of our thankfulnesse, at the Lords Table, must be necessary also for the expressing of it, at our ovvne. When I see the B. sitting at his Table, I shall tell him, that he omitteth that gesture vvhichwhich is necessary, for the expressing of his thankfulnesse to God. 4. Did not the Apostles receiving this Sacrament from Christ himself, vvell enough expresse their thankfulnesse to God? yet they kneeled not, but sate, as is evident, and shall be aftervvards prooven against them vvho contradict every thing vvhichwhich crosseth them. 5. God vvill never take a p. 30Ceremony of mens devising, for a better expressing of our thankfulnesse, then a gesture vvhichwhich is commended to us by the example of his ovvne Sonne and his Apostles, together vvith the Celebration of this Sacrament in all points according to his institution. 6. Hovv shall vve knovv vvhere vve have the B. and his fellovves? it seemes they know not where they have themselvs: for sometimes they tell us, that it is indifferent to take the Communion sitting, or standing, or passing, or kneeling, yet here the B. tells, that kneeling is necessary. 7. I see the B. perceiveth, that no answere can take kneeling at the Communion, out of the compasse of the Brazen Serpent, except to say, it hath a necessary use, this is the dead lift, which yet helpeth not, as I have shewed. All things then which are not necessary, (where of kneeling is one,) being notoriously abused to Idolatry, fall under the Brazen Serpen….

Paybody also will here talke with us, therefore we will talke with Sect. 16 him too. He ffapol. part. 3. cap. 4. sect. 15. 16. 17.saith, that God did not absolutely condemne things abused to Idolatry, and tells us of three conditions on which it was lawfull to spare Idolatrous appurtenances: 1. If there were a needfull use of them in Gods worship: 2 In case they were so altered and disposed, as that they tended not to the honour of the Idoll, and his damnable worship, 3. If they were without certaine danger, of insnaring people into Idolatry. Ans. 1. Either he requires all these conditiones, in every Idolothyte and Idolatrous appurtenance which may be retained, or else he thinkes, that any one of them sufficeth: If he require all these, the last two are superfluous; for that which hath a needfull use in Gods worship, can neither tend to the honour of the Idoll, nor yet can have in it any danger of insnaring people into Idolatry: If he thinke any one of those conditions enough, then let us goe through them. The first I admit, but it will not helpe his cause, for while the world standeth, they shall never prove that kneeling in the act of receiving the Communion, & the other controverted Ceremonies, have either a needfull, or a profitable, or a lawfull use in Gods worship. As for his secound condition, it is all one with that which ggsupra sect. 9.I have already confuted: namely, that things abused to Idolatry may be kept, if they be purged from their abuse, and restored to the right use. But he alledgeth for it a passage of Parker, of the Crosse, cap. 1. sect. 7. pag. 10. Where he sheweth out of Augustine, that an Idolothyte may not be kept for privat use, except 1. Omnis honor Idoli, cum apertissima destructione subvertatur. 2 That not only his honour be despoysed, but also all shew thereof. How doth this place (now would I know,) make any thing for Paybody? Doe they keepe kneeling for privat use? Doe they destroy most openly all honour of the Idoll, to which kneeling was dedicated? Hath their kneeling not so much as any shew of the breaden-Gods honour? who will say so? and if any will say it, who will believe p. 31it? who knoweth not that kneeling is kept for a publike, and not for a private use, and that the breaden Idoll receiveth very great shew of honour from it? He was scarce of warrants, when he had no better, then Parker could affoorde him. His third condition rests, and touching it I aske, what if those Idolatrous appurtenances, be not without apparent danger of insnaring people into Idolatry? are we not commanded to abstaine from all appearance of evill? Will he correct the Apostle, and teach us, that we need not care for apparent, but for certain dangers? What more apparent danger of insnaring people into Idolatry, then unnecessarie Ceremonies, which have been dedicated to, and polluted with Idolls, and which being retained, doe both admonish us to remember upon old Idolatry, and move us to returne to the same, as I have hhsupr… sect. 6.before made evident?

Now as for the assumption of our present Argument, it can not Sect. 17 be but evident, to any who will not harden their mindes against the light of the truth, that the Ceremonies in question, have been most notoriously abused to Idolatry and superstition, and withall, that they have no necessary use to make us retaine them. I say, they have been notoriously abused to Idolatry. 1. Because they have been dedicated and consecrated to the service of Idolls. 2. Because they have been deeply polluted, and commonly employed in Idolatrous worship. For both these reasons doth iiEpist. ad Regin. Elisab. Epistolar. lib. 1. pag. 112.Zanchius condemne the Surplice, and such like Popish Ceremonies, left in England, because the Whoore of Rome hath abused, and doth yet abuse them, ad alliciendos homines ad scortandum. Sunt enim pompae istae omnes, & Ceremoniae Papisticae, nihil aliud quam fuci Meretricij, ad hoc excogitati, ut homines ad spiritualem scortationem alliciantur. O golden sentence, and vvorthy to be engraven with a pen of Yron, and the point of a Diamond! For most needfull it is to consider, that those Ceremonies, are the very meretricious bravery, and inveagling trinkets, wherewith the Romish Whoore doth faird and paint her self, whiles she propineth to the world the cup of her fornications. This makes kkIbid. pag. 111.Zanchius, to call those Ceremonies, the Reliques & Symboles of Popish Idolatry and Superstition. When Queene Mary set up Popery in England, and restored all of it, which King Henry had overthrowne, she considered, that Popery could not stand well favouredly, without the Ceremonies. Whereupon llSleid. comm. lib. 25. p. 48….she ordained, ut dies omnes festi celebrentur, superioris aetatis Ceremoniae restituantur, pueri adultiores ante baptisati, ab Episcopis confirmentur. So that not in remote regions, but in his Majesties dominions, not in a time past memory, but about fourscore yeares agoe, not by peoples practise onelyonly, but by the lawes and edicts of the Supreme Magistrate; the Ceremonies have beene abused, to the reinducing and upholding of Popery and Idolatry. Both farre and neere then, both long since and lately, it p. 32is more then notorious, how grossely and grievously the Ceremonies have been polluted with Idolatry and Superstition.

I can not choose but marvell much, how mmApol. part. 3. cap. 4.Paybody was not ashamed Sect. 18 to deny, that kneeling hath been abused by the Papists. Blush ô paper, which art blotted with such a notable lie! What will not desperate impudency dare to averre? But nnProc. in Perth. assemb. part. 2. p. 118. 119B. Lindsey seemeth also to hold, that kneeling hath been abused by the Papists, onelyonly in the elevation and circumgestation of the Hoste, but not in the participation; and that Honorius, did not command kneeling in the participation; but onelyonly in the elevation and circumgestation. Ans. 1. Saltem mendacem oportet esse memorem. Saith not the ooIbid. pag. 22.B. himselfe elsewhere of the Papists, In the Sacrament they kneel to the signe, whereby he would prove a disconformity between their kneeling and ours: for vve kneel, saith he, by the Sacrament to the thing signified. Now if the Papists in the Sacrament kneel to the signe, then they have Idolatrously abused kneeling, even in the participation, for the B. dare not say, that in the elevation, or circumgestation, there is either Sacrament or signe. 2. Why doe our Divines controvert with the Papists, de adoratione Eucharistiae, if Papists adore it not in the participation? for the Hoste 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 vertue of the vvords of consecration. Now if in the participation they kneel to that which they falsely conceit 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. ergo. 4. ppRation. lib. 5. tit. de prima & lib. 6. tit. de die sancta pasche.Durand sheweth, that though in the holy-dayes of Easter and Pentecost, and the festivities of the blessed Virgin, and in the Lords dayes, they kneel not in the Church, but onelyonly stand (because of the joy of the festivity,) and at the most doe but bovv or incline their heads at prayer; yet in presentia corporis & sanguinis Christi, in presence of the bread and vvine, vvhichwhich they thinke to be the body and blood of Christ, they cease not to kneel. And hovv vvill the B. make their participation free of this Idolatrous kneeling? The qqannot. on Math. 8. sect. 3. & on 1 Cor. 11. sect. 18.Matt 81 Cor 11Rhemists shevv us, 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 the 3 decreed, rrWay to the Church, answer to sect. 51.D^r. White calleth it, the adoration of the Sacrament. Which if it be so, then we must say, that he decreed adoration in the participation it self: because extra usum Sacramenti, the bread can not be called a Sacrament. Honorius commanded, that the Priest should frequently teach his people, to bow downe devoutly, when the hoste is elevated in the celebration of the Masse, and that they should doe the same, when it is caried to p. 33the sicke. All this was ordained, in reference to the participation. Ad usum illa instituta sunt, saith ssexam. conc. trit de Euchar. can. 6. pag. 86.Chemnitius, speaking of this decrec, quando scilicet panis consecratur, & quando ad infirmos defertur, ut exhibeatur & sumatur. So that that which was specially respected in the decree, was adoring in the participation.

Lastly, here we have to doe with Dr. Burgesse, who will have us to thinke, ttof the lawfull, of kneeling, cap▪ 21. p. 65.that adoration in receiving the Sacrament, hath not been Idolatrously intended to the Sacrament in the Church of Rome, neither by decree nor custome: 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 Romane Rituall doe appoint, that Cleargie men comming to receive the Sacrament, doe it kneeling, yet uuIbid. p. 69.this was done in veneration of the Altar, or of that which standeth thereupon, and not for adoration of the Hoste put into their mouths. Not by custome▪ 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 denie, saith he, that they ever intended adoration of the species, at that moment of time when they tooke it in their mouths, but th… turned themselves to God &c. Ans. 1. As for the decree of Honorius, I have all ready answered with Chemnitius, that it had reference specially to the receiving. 2. When Cleargie men are appointed in the Romane Rituall, 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 approched 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 any thing 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 Sacraments 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 Cleargie men in their communicating, but simply as concerning their communicating, because none but they were wont to communicate at the Altar, according to that received xxConcil. Laodicaen. can. 19. See also Conc. Tolet. 4. can. 17.Canon. Solis autem Ministris Altaris liceat ingredi ad Altare, & ibidem communicare. The one of the Doctors owne 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 kneele in the participation; if it was not the Hoste it self? Now whereas he denies, as touching custome, that people did ever intend the adoration of the species: I answer. 1. How knowes he what people in the Romane Church did intend in their mindes? 2. What warrant hath he for this, that they did not in the participation p. 34adore the Hoste, which was then put into their mouths? 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 Christs 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 lyar, and saith yyubi supra pag. 71.plainly, 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 visible 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.

Last of all, for the other part of my assumption, that the Ceremonies Sect. 20 have no necessary use in Gods Worship, I need no other proof, then the common by word of Formalists, which saith, they are things indifferent. Yet the zzubi supra pag. 118 (a) ubi supra.B. of Edimbrugh, & a Paybody, have turned their … bravery, and chosed rather to say any thing against us, then 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 onelyonly. Now we may easily perceive, they are in a evill taking, when they are driven to such an unadvised and desperate answer. For. 1. If kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper be necessary, why have themselves two, written so much for the indifferency of it? O desultorious levity, that knows not where to hold it self! 2. If it be necessary, what makes it to be so? what law? what example? what reason? 3. If it be necessary, not onelyonly many reformed Churches, and many auncient too; but Christ himself and his Apostles, have in this Sacrament omitted something that was necessary. 4. If it be necessary, why doe many of their owne 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 proven that the Ceremonies are not necessary, in respect of the Churches 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 repudiat, what hath unadvisedly fallen from their pennes 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 themselvs necessary. p. 35Looke to your selvs, ô Formalists, for you stand here upon such slippery places, that you can not hold both your feet.