A Second Reply to an Answer Made by Doctor Whitgift Part 2, Part 2 · Chapter 4 – Chapter 5
THE FOƲRTH CHAPTER, OF this Tractate: tovuching the ceremonies in Baptim, pag. 607 of the D. book.
NOw follow the corruptiōs in the ſacramē ts apart: and firſt of thoſe in Baptim. where in mayntenāce of the queſtions, miniſtred to young infantes which can not anſwer: he would make vsus beleue, that the catholik writers, as yt were the Gouldsmithes, were in dout whether the Denis which he browght, were good money or no: whereas the contrariety in opinions, ys betwene the Papiſtes, and Proteſtantes. His euidence to proue hym legitimat, becauſe theſe bookes be very auncient: implieth that a number of horrible abuſes, are as auncient. And therefore in ſted of ſaying, ſome falshood might be thrust in: he should hauehave ſaid, ſome truth might be thruſt in, to giuegive credit to the reſt: conſidering that the purenes of the tong (which he wrote in) being ſet apart, there are few thinges, worthy ether of S. Pauls Scholer, or of the Bishop of Athēs. His defence, by the Bishop of Sarisbury, is ain the former part p. 466. l. 2.anſwered. The not anſwering alſo of my reply, againſt Denis, vnderunder pretence of a flout: is bIn the Epiſtle of the former part of this booK. Diuiſ. 2. p. 609.before noted.
To the reaſons againſt Auguſtines kinde of ſpeaking, he can anſwer nothing: onelyonly he miſpendeth the tyme, in prouing that baptim is the ſeal of faith, which none denieth: but that yt is called faith (which he owght to hauehave proued) he could not finde a word. For that alſo, that Augustin maketh for the interrogatories miniſtred to infantes: beſide ſtrong affirmations he can bring nothing. As for that alledged by me, yt is moſtAuguſt. Epist. 23. manifeſt in another place: where Auguſtin sheweth yt to hauehave bene the vſe, that the miniſter asked of the parentes vuhether the childe beleued, they anſvuering that yt did: ſo that, althowgh this were an abuſe, yet yt is much different, from the maner which we hauehave receyued from the papiſtes, and more ſimple then yt. In the next diuiſion, he anſwereth nothing to the purpoſe, nor in the next to yt, ſauing onelyonly a vayn cauil: for, whereas I meant the true faith, he flyeth to that of Simon Magus, which was counterfait. In the next, where yt was alledged that al ovught to be doen ſimply and playnly in the church, he can anſwer nothing: onelyonly, yt may ſerue for a colorable cavil, that as the book wil hauehave the infantes promiſe by the godfathers, ſo (ſaith he) the Adm. wil hauehave infantes, deſire by their parentes. For albeit the Adm. wordes, might hauehave bene warelier ſet: yet it is but a hauking after ſyllables, when their meaning is playn: that there owght to be no ſuch ſtrange, and vnwonted kinde of ſpeaches, in the common ſeruice. I pas by aMuſc. common places in treatiſe of baptim.Muſculus autority, flat far vsus: but M. bBucer in Cenſ. Litu. Angli. cap. 12. & 14.Bucers, wherewith the D. often preſſeth vsus ſo ſore, muſt not be forgottē: which doeth preciſely finde faut with our ſeruice book, herein.
His ſecond chapter requireth no anſwer. For as for his exception, that we alow of godfathers deuiſed by the Pope, yt iscDiuiſ. 3. p. 475. in the firſt booK. anſwered: beſide, that yt was not, by his own account, deuiſed by a Bishop of Rome which was Antichriſt. The contrariety with my ſelf, in that page 18, I denying, that the vſage of a thing by the whole church, can giuegive yt ſuch autority, as that yt may not be abrogated, yet here alow of godfathers, as of an indifferent ceremony: conſidering that the churches hauehave generally receiued yt, is vnworthy of anſwer. For there is great difference, in allowing the churchis autority abſolutely, or withowt condition: and in reuerencing her autority in an indifferent matter in yt ſelf, and, towching the vſe, profitable, when yt is vſed accordingly: ſo that a blinde man might ſee, how I might iuſtly improue the firſt, and approue the laſt.
In the there firſt diuiſions, of his ſecond chapter pag. 614: there is no anſwer, worthy the reply. Vuhere he would prefer croſsing before milk in baptim, he doeth yt contrary to Tertullians autority, of whom onelyonly his reaſon dependeth, which wil hauehave them alike neceſſary. His reaſons, that the milk indured not long, nor was general. beſides, that they are popish reaſons, are not proued, and may be in part confuted, in that yt had not onelyonly place in Afrik, but in the a…om … …ra Lucifer.weſt partes, not onelyonly in Tertullians, but alſo in Ieromes tyme: At the leaſt, the anointing in Baptim, was as general, and of as long continuance, as the cros. For, being in Afrik in Tertullians tyme, yt ſpred yt ſelf into the bBaſ. de ſa… ſpiritu … 28eaſt, and cAmbr. lib. de his qui … cō …rantur.weſt churches: with ſuch continuance, as from them, yt paſſed into the p…pish ſynagoges, aſwel as croſsing.
To this defence may wel be referred, that which he anſwereth pag. 275 vntounto my obiection: that Senſors. Tapers holy bread &c, are euen of the ſame coate that the ſurplice is of, and to be meaſured with the ſame pole. for yf his anſwer there, which is, that the ſurplice is indifferēt, but that theſe thinges be falsly accoūted indifferent, be good: yt wil help to ſuccour, his weaknes here: and yf yt be shewed nawght here, nether wil yt ſerue hym there. Let hym tel vsus therefore, why the ſurplice and the cros with their ſignifications should be indifferent, and oyl and tapers &c with their interpretations, falsly counted indifferent. Here, we muſt beleue hym of his word, for reaſon, he hath none. Howbeit page 291, where he repeateth this again, he pretendeth this reaſon: that the one hauehave an opinion of ſaluation and of worship annexed, al which (ſaith he) we remoue from theſe orders: which, ſauing that yt is againſt hym ſelf, is to no purpoſe. For, in the firſt part of his anſwer, he giueth to vnderſtand, that the papiſtes shameful abuſe of theſe thinges, is cauſe enowgh to make them now vnindifferent, which is contrary to the whole cours of his defence: and in the later part of his anſwer, he giueth to vnderſtand, that their oyl, tapers, cenſors, holy bread, and holy water may be browght into our church: ſo that the opinion of ſaluation and worship, be, by a publik and ſolemn proteſtation of the indifferency of them, remoued. V…ho knoweth not alſo, that the abuſe of the papiſtes, hath bene as great, and rather greater in the cros eſpecially, by opinion of ſaluation and worship: then euer were, the tapers or ſenſors. whereupon yt is manifeſt, that the D. herein, can make no more diſtinction or difference, betwene the cros and the ſurplice, with oyl and tapers &c: then he vhich chaulketh▪ (as they ſay) a vuhite lyne, vponupon a vuhite vual. Let vsusforeign. therfore return.
In the next diuiſion, to diuers reaſons againſt this ceremony in Baptim, boeth ſimply, and in reſpect of the preſent tyme, he anſwereth not a word: onelyonly, he paſſeth the tyme, in shewing how the papistes vſed yt otherwiſe, then we doe, which is not in queſtion. In the next, to that alledged of the ſignification, making yt more popish: he anſwereth, that the papiſtes did not declare the ſignification, and that they were therefore dumb with them: as thowgh their pulpites rung not oftentymes, of ſuch vnſauory voices, or that a number of the ſimpler papiſtes, knw not this popish deuinity. To that, that yt bringeth in a nue vuord into the church: he anſwereth, that there is nothing against yt in the word, which is vntrue. For, althowgh the ceremony of croſsing, were conuenient, yet to rayſe a doctrine of yt, is vnlawful: for aſmuch, as yt is not enowgh to teach the truth, vnles yt be truly tawght, and that is, onelyonly owt of the word of god. Now, let hym shew a word of god, that two lynes laid croſwiſe: ſignifieth, that we should not be ashamed, of the paſsion or cros of Chriſt.
Hetherto belongeth, that which he hath 291, towching the ſurplice: where yt appeareth, that his defence in this cauſe, is ſpekled and of diuers colours. For there, in the firſt ſection, he giueth playnly to vnderſtand, that he aloweth not, that a man should draw any ſuch ſignification from the apparel, as the admonition doeth, from ſitting at the lords ſupper. Now, the ſignification yt bringeth, of rest, and of a ful finishing, throvugh Christ, of al the ceremonial lavu, and of a perfect redemption vurovught, that giueth reſt for euer: ys a holy doctrine, therefore yt foloweth, that he wil not hauehave, ſo much as an holy and an agreable doctrine, vntounto the reſt of the ſcriptures, fetched owt of the wearing of the apparel: which is the ſame thing, which I affirm: namely, that yt is not enowgh, that the thīg ſignified, be accordīg to the ſcripture, onles the ſignificatiō yt ſelf, be raiſed and groūded of the ſcripture. So that hereby, he hath vtterly ouerthrowē hym ſelf: not onelyonly, in the ſignification of the apparel, but alſo in this of the cros, and that after, of the ring. For, by the ſame reaſon, that he misliketh al ſuch ſignification, in the one: he muſt needes mislike yt, in the other.
I anſwer the ſuppoſed reaſon of M. Martyr, directly. For, …eing yt buildeth the wearing of a white ſurplice, vponupon that the Miniſters are called angels: yt muſt folow, that the ſame cauſe that moueth the ſcripture, to bring in the Angels clad in white, muſt be the leſſon, that the Miniſters hauehave to learn of their white apparel: which, whether yt be purenes, or glory, or boeth, yt being a true repreſentation in them, is (as I ſaid) a lying ſign in the Miniſters, which are miſerable and ſinful men. Herein alſo, to that which I obiected, that by the ſame reaſon the Ministers should vuear vuinges, becauſe the Angels are ſo deſcribed, he can anſwer nothing: whereunto ad, that hereof there is yet more cauſe. For the white apparel, which the Angels wore, was no ſignification of their office, but of their pure and glorious nature, wherein they were created, and wherein they ſtil remain: whereas, the winges, shadow forth their office, which is, that they are ſwift meſſengers of god, in al thinges whereunto they are ſent. Therefore, ſeing this reaſon wil hauehave the cōformity betwene the heauēly ſpirites, and Miniſters of the goſpel, to ſtand in reſpect of their office: their winges, being a picture of their office, and not the whitenes of apparel: yt foloweth, that the conformity should be rather in the winges, then in the whitenes of apparel.
To that which I alledged, againſt them which make yt a ciuil matter, that by this ſignification yt is made eccleſiastical: he oppoſeth, that a graue apparel, putteth vsus in minde of grauity. Y… doeth ſo, and that is no ciuil, nor yet eccleſiaſtical, but a diuine order, that, by how much a man hath obteyned at the hand of god, ſuch an eſtate or dignity as requireth ſuch apparel: by ſo much, he is bound in the whole cours of hys lyfe, by modeſty and grauity, to shew hym ſelf thankful: whereof, euen his table, better furnished then other mens, owght likewiſe to put hym in remembrance. And theſe thinges, hauehave a perpetual conuenience, which can not be changed. As for the ſeueral habites of degrees, and eſtates, I gra…nt alſo, that thoſe which be conuenient, and as long as they be ſo: owght likewiſe to bring to remēbrance, the duty which the eſtate wherof they are markes, doeth require. And, yf he could proue, that the ſurplice were a fit garment for a Miniſter: I would not deny, but that he owght generally, be therby put in minde of his duty in that behalf. But, that mē should run owt into idle ſpeculations, of the colour, or form: I can not agree. For, no more then yt is meet, that vponupon the eating of milk, ſyncerity and ſimplicity should be enioyned: no more owght there vponupon the white colour of the ſurplice, be raiſed any ſuch ſignification of glory and purenes. In ciuil reſpect, and where the commodity of this life is onelyonly regarded, the vſe of ſignifications is freer: as in Liuery and Seazon of a hows, by the ring, and of land by a clot or turft: but, where men are called to godlines of lyfe by ſignifications, there they nether owght to be withowt warrant of the word of god, nor yet can be ciuil. For a ciuil ceremony, doeth binde vsus no further, then to the owtward performance of that, whereunto the ceremony is vſed: which yf we doe, althowgh it be with an euil minde, yet we cā not ciuilly be charged.
So long as the ſignification of the white in the ſurplice, is (as he ſuppoſeth) and ayd to godlines, ſo long yt is neceſſary and not indifferent: which is that which I ſaid, and which he confuteth not. Likewiſe in ſaying, that they are ſuppoſed strong to vuork godlines, I meant not, that the vertue is in the garment, as yf yt could cauſe men to be godly: but I meant to aſcribe vntounto yow, that in ſo ſpeaking of yt, yow match yt with the word of god. For the word of god yt ſelf, throwgh the peruerſnes of our nature: is not, withowt the working of gods holy ſpirit, ſtrong enowgh, to work godlines in vsus. And ſo my argument, yf vuhite hauehave strenght to moue to godlines, then that vuhich is vuhiter hath more: is good. For, nothīg hath power to moue vntounto godlines, but that which god hath ordeined for that purpoſe: and that which he hath ordeyned, hath of yt ſelf power to work that, whereūto he hath ordeined yt, if it light of a fit obiect, or matter to work vponupon. In what ſens, I cal them Sacramente, which are inſtituted with ſuch ſignifications: I hauehave before declared.
That which I ad there of our ſuperſtitiō, vuhileſt vue vuil hauehave no painted, nor grauen, but vuouen images, agreeth alſo wel, vntounto this matter of the cros. For, yf to ſet vp a wodden cros in the church, with cōmandement that in looking vpō yt, we should remēber not to be ashamed of the cros of Chriſt, be a faut againſt the firſt table: the ſame reaſon is, of this cros of flesh: whereunto his anſwer, that thoſe are against the expres commandement of god, is aIn the former part and first Tract.before confuted, where is shwed, that they are as vnlavuful, vuhich may be gathered or concluded to be forbiddē, as the thinges, which are expresly forbidden. And, here yt hath bene proued, that theſe ſignifications vponupon ſuch groundes, are not according to the word of god. Beſide that, yt may peraduenture abuſe hym, that he taketh the word image, to reach no further then vntounto the portraiture of a man, or of ſome other liuing thing? whereas yt cō prehendeth al repreſentations of mens deuiſe, browght into the church, for doctors and teachers therein. The reſt in this diuiſion, is not to purpoſe.
Here, leauing the principal matter which is, that eueryevery Diuiſ. 6. p. 617.ceremony vuhich vuith an ovutvuard ſign, had a doctrine annexed vntounto yt, is, in a general ſignification, a ſacrament, and that conſequently they make a Sacrament of the cros: he taketh hym ſelf, to that I denied the foreskin in circumciſion, to be an element: which is not worth the anſwering. For, I confeſſed circumciſion, to hauehave bene gods holy ſacrament: the queſtiō is, whether that Auguſtine did wel define of a ſacrament, in vſing the word Element, which is properly taken for the ſimple natures onelyonly▪ whē as, the law of defining; requireth the propriety of wordes: cōſidering alſo, that by his maner of ſpeach, in calling wine, bread, or flesh, Elementes, the common people are not inſtructed: ſo that, boeth in reſpect of the learned and vnlearned, yt ſeemeth; the definitiō might hauehave bene better aſsigned. Being charged, for reiecting M. Hoopers and Alaſcos allegory as papistical, vuhē he notvuithſtanding allovueth of this: he anſwereth, that theirs is dumb, and not this, which is vntrue: for they ad boeth a more witty, and likely ſignification, apag 599. and 132 of myne ſect. 2.before noted, whereof let the reader iudg. vuhy anointing vuith oyl, vuhich vuas ſometyme the lords ovun ſacrament, and vuhich hath a more ample ſignification, then that of the cros, should not aſvuel be reteyned, as the cros, or rather vuhy, the cros being displaced, yt should not hauehave place: he can anſwer nothing, but that yt is the churchis liberty: which is ſtraung, that she should hauehave liberty to doe that, whereof she can giuegive no reaſon.
To that, that vuodden croſſes in high vuayes, are as lavuful, Diuiſ 7. pa. 619.as thoſe in the forehead, and in the church, he anſwereth, that they are durable and erected to be worshipped, which theſe be not: as thowgh, there were no daunger but in gros worshipping. Althowgh, here he forgetteth, that which he alledged owt of M. Bucer, who giueth warnīg, that yt be not receiued vuith ſuperſtition or ſeruitude of the element: which were in vayn, if (as he ſaith) there were no man ſo mad, as to imagin any ſuch thing of yt. That, of the ſmale indurāce, wil not help. for, if there be daūger of Idolatry, whē yt is lōg before our eyes, conſidering that that Idolatry hath her beginning in one momē …: yt may as wel hauehave yt in that momēt, as in another. yea ſo much more likely, at this cros; thē at that in the ſtreetes: as yt is ſet in a higher place, euē in the church, and not behinde the dore, but in the holy ſacrament, as yt were in the Ark, where the principal iuels of the church are layed vp. Ys the fire once kindled? ywis, our peruers nature hath matter enowgh, to make yt flame. And, beſide that the memory of yt is renued, at eueryevery Baptim: by this example in the church, they may eaſely cros them ſelues at home, at the leaſt, the ſuperſtitious (which think that their croſsinges in the forhead and breaſt, is an armour of proof againſt al tentations of the Deuil) take occaſion hereon, to be confirmed in their ſuperſtition.
THE SECOND PART, OF THIS chapter: of confirmation of children, and vuemens churching.
TO this chapter pertayn, the confirmation of children, and wemens churching: as thinges ſuppoſed, to be annexed to the baptim, and birth of children. In the firſt whereof, his firſt ſect page 726, is no anſwer to me: which alledged yt, boeth horribly abuſed, and not neceſſary. That yt is aunciēter, then the feyned decretal epistles, I yeeld vntounto: But to that alledged, that yt hath no ground in ſcripture, he anſwereth nothing, wherein notwithſtanding the queſtion conſiſteth. That alledged of the impoſitiō of hādes, vntruly fathered of the Apoſtles, he wil hauehave me proue: whereas, yt being affirmed of hym, owght to hauehave bene shewed by hym. That yt was not in Iuſtins tyme, may appear: in that, he deſcribing the liturgy of the churches in his tyme, maketh no mention of yt. That yt was no tradition of the Apostles left, as Ierome (al his proof in this behalf) affirmeth: hath bene aIn the former part p. 34. lin. 25.before declared. Hys exception of the abuſe in laying on of handes, in ordeyning Ministers, againſt that I browght that this ceremony confirmed an opinion conceyued, that yt is a ſacrament: is idle. For, that being the ordinance of god, may not for any abuſe be taken away: but this, being not, althowgh yt were in yt ſelf indifferent, for the offence ſake, owght to be diſanulled. Hether appertayneth that apa. 787.otherwhere, of M. Caluins alowance hereof. where the reaſon I oppoſed owt of hym, that the giftes by laying on of handes ceaſing, yt alſo ovught to ceas: is vnanſwered. I graunt, he ſpeaketh against the popish impoſition of handes: but withal, in this point, he ſpeaketh againſt ours, which pretendeth (as doeth theirs) that the holy goſt is giuen by this impoſition of handes, whereof there is no promiſe. And therefore, his defence that yt is giuen by prayer, ys not ſufficient: conſidering,pag. 727. that the book ſaith, by putting on of hādes and prayers: ſo that, althowgh M. Caluin should like of laying on of hādes, yet he muſt needes mislike of ours, which preſuppoſeth that the holy goſt is giuen, by the bishops laying on of handes. His anſwer, to the autority of ſo many reformed churches, is fond. For, that they meant to diſalow cōfirmation ſimply, and not the popish onelyonly: may appear, in that they purged not the popish impoſition of handes, but vtterly caſt yt away: And when they ſay, they can vuant yt vuithovut damage, they ſignify, that in the beſt ſort, yt is vnprofitable.
To that alledged, of the popish opinion, that yt is better then baptim, confirmed in that, that our Bishop onelyonly may confirm, vuhere eueryevery Minister may baptiz: he anſwereth owt of Ierom and Bucer, that yt is meet yt should be doen by the Bishop: which I graunt, yf yt were meet at al. But that the Bishop whichb in the former part p. 588. and 556. Ierome and Bucer alow be not lord Bishops, but ſimple Paſtors of one onelyonly church, or not of the twentith part whereof our Bishops are, hath bene before declared. The reaſon, of the inconuenience of bringing the children half a ſcore miles vuith charges, for that vuhich (if yt vuere needful) might be doen by the Pastor at home, he anſwereth, by calling yt chiledish: ſuch is the compaſsion, he hath of the peoples trauail: and eſpecially of the neceſsity of the poor, which are compelled thus, beſide extraordinary charges, to leſe two or three dayes work. That he thincketh yt, not worthy once to be conſidered: belike is, becauſe they goe not, vppon his legges, nor ſpend of his purs.
There reſteth the churching of wemen. where this title,pag. 534. implying a banishment from the church is defended, b… the common peoples vſage of Chriſtmas a popish name: as thowgh this error of the people, owght to hauehave bene confirmed by the book, and not rather corrected: he might aſwel anſwer, that the drawer of the book, might hauehave called the holy Communiō a mas, becauſe the ignorāt ſort, doe ſo. But vntounto this anſwer, hath bene further replyed a2. part of the laſt Tract and 2. part of the chapter. diuiſ. 2.before. Of two other pointes in that diuiſion, he talketh, but anſwereth not: the next requireth no anſwer: the next hath bene anſwered: the next to yt requireth none.
To excuſe his rashnes, in permitting the vail, which is a church ceremony, to wemens diſcretion, he ſaith▪ yt is rather ciuil: the vntruth whereof, is manifeſt, yt being doen of ſuperſtition, and opinion that yt owght to be ſo, not for ſuccour againſt the ayer, as he pretendeth: beſide that, in ſaying rather ciuil, he priuily confeſſeth, that there is ſome part of yt eccleſiaſtical.
THE FIFT CHAPTER: OF CEREmonies abovut the holy communion, in the reſidu of the D. xv. Tractate.
IN eleuen diuiſions whereof, to diuers reaſons of the great inconuenience of miniſtring yt with wafer kakes, and in kneeling, there is nothing alledged worth the reherſal: conſidering that yt hath bene shewed that the churchis power in thinges indifferent is not abſolute, to doe what she thincketh good, but for the moſte edifiyng in regard of the perſōs and other circumſtances: and conſidering, that againſt that we would hauehave the ſitting of our Sa. Chriſt called again, for remedy of the ſuperſtition, yea idolatry committed of ſome by kneeling: his inſtans of celebrating the communion in the night, is inſufficient. For, that was vponupon a particuler occaſion, which is not in our church, nor hath no place in the ceremonies in controuerſy: ſeing that (for the cauſes aſsigned of me) the celebrating of yt in the night, was for that tyme neceſſary: which is alſo anſwer to that of vnleauened bread vſed at the ſame tyme, whereunto he can anſwer nothing: Laſtly conſidering that to shew the inconueniences, and humbly to deſire redres herein, in ſuch ſort, as for the abuſes, we doe not withdraw our ſelues from the holy communion: is not (as he slaunderously accuſeth) to make any tumult. Therefore not to ſpend tyme, in confutation of his bare ſayinges, the contrary of certeyn whereof, are to be ſeen: as in a playn matter, I commit theſe vntounto the iudgment of the reader.
OnelyOnly, let hym obſerue that aBucer. in cenſ. Litur. Anglica. cap. 5.M. Bucer doeth improue the kneeling at the communion: and in one word, al the geſtures which the Papiſtes vſed, in this imitation of the ſupper of the lord.
For that in the bpag. 601.17 diuiſion, towching this, whether yt be meeter to ſay take ye, or take thow, to the reaſon, of the example of our Sauiour Chriſt, he can not anſwer. To the reaſon, taken of the maner of preaching, he ſaith: that exhortation giuen in the ſecond perſon ſinguler, moueth moste, which is not to the point of the queſtion. For, yt is not debated here, whether the Miniſter should ſpeak to al at once, by thow, or by ye: but, whether yt is meeter, that yt should be once onelyonly ſpoken to al that communicate at one table, or reherſed according to the number of perſons that communicate. Beſide that, a figuratiue ſpeach, as this is, (when by the word thovu, are noted a great number:) is more fit for preaching and prophetical writing, then for the ordinary ſeruice. which owght to be moſte ſimple. I confes ſome difference, of the exhibiting of the benefites of Christ in the ſacramentes, and in the word: but how that difference should cauſe vsus to change the form vſed by our Sau. Chriſt which (knowing that difference beſt) did notwithſtanding at once, ſpeak to al at the table with hym: I ſee not, nor he sheweth not, nor, I am aſſured, can not. the reſt in this chapter, requireth no anſwer: the two next chapters be anſwered.
The 6 chapter, is of the ceremonies in the Solemnization of mariage page 723. where for the mayntenance of the ring, with the fond ceremonies thereof, and of the vncomely wordes of worshipping with the body, taken onelyonly from popery: there is likewiſe nothing worth anſwer, that of the deuiſing of nw ſignes, to teach by, being before confuted.