same groundes termes and condition that the Def. and Rejoynder doe Cum velit Deuâ— ex praescripto legis sua coliâ—â—â— proinde fictitios â—ultus detâ—stetur fideâ— certereâ— ugnat quicquam oâ—us mandatis addi hominum arbitriâ— he sayth of them Seing God will be worshipped by the rule of his law and therefore detests all feined services it is undoubtedly contrarie to faith that any thing be added to his precepts by the judgment of man But that answer being onely for a florish the Rejonder his second is that Calvin spake of mysticall Ceremonies excescively multiplied As if both these could not staÌ„d together for to speak against any sinne excessively multipied and yet withall against sinne The Prophets often speak of multiplying idols altars fornications according to the number of cities or townes on every â—igh hill under every green tree Doe they not withall speak simplie against all idolatrie But Calvin as the Rejoynder addeth alloweth in some case the mixture of a like water with wine in the Lords Supper What for a religions Ceremonie shew the place and after that see how it can be justified against those accusations which the Rejoynder layeth upon Sopping the bread in wine pag. 61.62.63 Calvin as he lastly addeth epist. 120. could have wished that Hooper had not so muche strugled against the Cap and Rochet or Surplice But beside that Calvin did not nor we neyther esteem a Cap or a Rochet eyther a Surplice is added by the Rejoynder so evill as the Crosse in Baptisme Calvin could not say so muche without a shrewed item ut illa etiam non probem though I doe not allow of suche thinges Which manyfestly declare that his wishe was not grounded on suche an opinion as the Def. and Rejoynder mainteyne It might also be added that Calvin in the same place accused them of wicked perfidiousnesse who though they seemed to favour the Gospel yet made a partie against Hooper about that trashe unto the hindering of his Ministerie which is the case of al our deprâ—ving and silencing Prelates 5. The second witnesse produced by the Def. for to be answered is Chemnitius To whose condemning of all worship instituded without the word the Def. answered by his wedge saying that he meant onely that which is made essential worship not accidentall Concerning this distinction enough hath been sayd in the 5. and 6. staple sect of the manudiction let this onely be remembred that it is all one as if he should divide worship into worshâ—p and no worship for both Def. and Rejoynder often say accidentall worship is no worship They adde some time for explication that it is no essentiall worship but so they may say eâ—sentiall worship is no worship and then adde that they mean no accidentall worship The Repl. therfor justly required that should be showen if Chemnitius distinguish will-worship as he doeth into lawfull and unlawfull Vpon this occasion the Rejoynder 1. criethout of a falshood shamefull and to be blushed at for saying that the Def. distinguisheth will-worship into lawfull and unlawfull But let any man judge where is the falshood shame and cause of blushing The question is of worship invented by man which Chemnitius with other Divines call will-worship whether it be lawfull or no the Def. answereth by a distinction that some is unlawfull as essentiall and some lawfull as accidentall What can be more plaine But sayth the Rejoynder Accidentall worship be denieth to be properly worshâ—p and therfore denieth it to be will worship unlesse it be imagined essentiall What a consequence is this to bear up so weightie an accusation It is not properly worship and therfore it is not will-worship He may as well say it is not properly worship and therfore it is not lawfull worship May it not be improper will-worship though it be not properly worship Or no improper worship come meerly from the will of man It is rather a propertie of Ceremonies to depend meerly on the will of the institutor So Tostatus in Exod. tom 1.148 et in Levit. pag. 585. A Ceremonie is a certain observation or a speciall mauner of worshipping God determined out of the sole Commandment of of the lawgiver Ceremonia est observatio quaedam vel modus specialis colendi Deum determinatus ex solo mandato legislatoris His second exception is frivolous His third is this Chemnitius hath this distinction in substance though not in termes For he sayth that right inward worship being supposed right externall expressions will follow of their owne accorde and they are externall worship though not acceptable in themselves Where 1. Mark the partialitie of the Rejoynder In the former answer he requireth the Repl. to shew the distinction which he attributeth to the Def. in his words or termes otherwise he may blush for shame Now when he is urged to shew his distinction out of Chemnitius he forsaketh words or termes and flieth to substance without once thinking of shame and blushâ—ng 2. This substance is a meer shadow For first Chemnitius acknowlegeth no outward expressions to be right worship but onely those that flow of their owne accorde without any institutioÌ„ from inward worship And who will say that the Def. and Rejoynder their accidentall worship of Crosse and Surplice doe so flow from internall Secondly those externall expressions are as essentiall to externall worship as profession of faith is to a visible Churche Nay ther is no externall worship beside the expressions and setting forth of the internall Thirdly Though those expressions be not acceptable of or in themselves being separated from the internall yet it doeth not follow from thence that they are in their nature accidentall worship and no ways substantial For the Rejoynder confesseth that all Gods ordinances are substantiall worship and yet he will not say that Gods outward ordinances are acceptable unto him when they are separated from internall worship Vpon supposition which now appeareth true that the Def. could not shew his distinction out of Chemnitius he was desired at the least to shew that ther is some worship which is not necessarie because otherwise he must needs sincke under CheÌ„nitius his charge To this the Rejonder answereth 1. that Chemnitius understandeth by will worship whatsoever of mans device is imagined necessarie 2. that ther is some externall worship which is not in the particularities of it necessarie For the first of which enough is sayd in the 7. s. of the manud Yet here I may adde that it is so farre from trueth no will-worship can be without imagination of necessitie that on the contrarie whosoever doeth take upon him for his will sake professedly to apoynt any worship cannot possiblie imagine it absolutely necessarie but acknowleging ther hath been worship without his addition he professeth to adde something not simplie necessarie to the being but onely to the better being of it As for the second In Gods own ordinances which were substantiall and essentiall by the Rejoynder his confession
the Rejoynder answers that sopping of bread in wine is worse then the Crosse. 1. because the crosse maketh no alteration of what Christ did ordayne saying doe this 2. it is not substituted in the place of Baptisme as sops in wine were by those Haerteikes in place of the Supper 3. it is not esteemed an instrumentall signe of any grace given by the use of it as they took their sops to be 4. their sopping destroied the very Sacrament And for these differences the Repl. is bidden to hang downe his head for asking suche a quaestion But 1. Addition is as evill as alteration For when Christ sayd doe this he meant as well doe this onely as doe this all Fac hoc totum fac hoc tantum as Zanchie expoundeth it Addition also is some alteration if not of the things instituted yet of the institution as making it unsufficient or incomplete by it self alone 2. Sops and wine were not substituted in place of bread and wine but were bread and wine Neyther were they first or onely or for any thing appeareth at all used by Haereticks as the Rejoinder for his advantage without ground avoucheth but by ancient Churches at least in some cases as is manifest out of Prosper de Promissionibus Dimidium temporis cap. 6. Puella particulam corporis Domini intinctam percepit etc. Sopping was so farre from being a matter of Haeresie that as it seemeth it was receyved among the Fathers so longe as infants communicating in the Lords Supper which was as D. Morton confesseth Appeale lib. 2. cap. 13. sect 3. for sixe hundred yeers 3. Sopping of bread in wine considered abstractly from bread and wine was no signe instituted as an instrument of grace For so sayth Cassander pag. 1027. out of Ivo this custome of Sopping prevailed onely through feare of shedding and not by direct authority 4. It is too severe a sentence Invaluit hac intingendi consuâ—tudo non autâ—ritate sid timore effusionis against those ancient Christians in Prospers time and which is more as Cassander and Hospinian judge in Ciprians that they destroyed the very substance of Sacrament The setting forth of Christs death was not excluded though some part of the bloud was representatively joined unto the body A man is dead that lieth in his bloud though some of it soak againe into his body The Fathers sixe hundred yeers together did not destroy the substance of the Sacrament Hitherto therfor appeareth no cause for the Repl. to hang downe his head Let us see if more cause be in the comparisons he maketh betwixt sopping and crossing The first was the bread and wine the onely things used in sopping were ordeyned by Christ so is not the Crosse. The Rejoynder answereth here nothing to the purpose save onely that they were ordeyned to be used apart From whence it followeth onely that it is unlawfull to use them not apart And so it followeth that Baptisme must as well be used apart orseparated from the Crosse because it was ordeyned so to be used and the Crosse was not ordeyned for any religious use eyther apart or with other thinges The second is that sopping hath some agreement with reasoÌ„ Crossing hath none The Rejoynder hence maketh two consequences 1. Ergo Christ in ordeyning the Sacrament otherwise hath doen some thing not agreable to reason 2. Ergo the Churche in Crossing hath been void of all reason fifteeÌ„ hundred yeare And upon these groundes he crieth out of madnesse But so madnesse may be found in any assertion if it be first put out of the right wittes or sense as this is For the meaning was not that Sopping is agreable to right reason in the Sacrament but in civill use where the aeriall Crosse hath none Yet it may be added if it were lawfull for men to adde to Gods ordinances in the Sacraments then ther would be founde more probabilitie of reason to bring in sopping into the use of bread wine as a manner of food theÌ„ a mysticall aereall crosse into the use of water which is no manner of washing As for the Churche it hath not universally used the crosse so longe except the Waldenses and others like unto them were none of the Churche The same Churche that used crossing used also for divers hundreds of years to give the Sacrament of of the Supper unto infants without reason and the continuation of the Crosse more hundreds of years addeth no reason unto it except reason in suche things doeth increase with their age Many thinges have been used in the Churche without reason or else ther is reason wee should still use all that have been used caeteris paribus If ther be any good reason in the crosse let that be tried by reason and not by slipperie conjectures taken from the persons using it The third comparison was that Sopping was used by Christ at the very table of the Supper but Crossing was never so muche honored by him or his Apostles as to use it at any time The Rejoynder answereth that this argument would prove as well that the eating of a Paschall lambe before the Sacrament to be better then Sprinkling of water on the foâ—ehead of the Baptized Because CHRIST did that and not this But this is not so well For that 1. Sprinkling of water is no instituted ceremonie distinct from that washing which Christ and his Apostles used 2. It is very probable that the Apostles goeing into the colder part of the world did use sprinkling 3. Concerning a Paschall lambe used before the Sacrament as a Ceremonie morally significant and reductively Sacramentall I see not why it should not be praeferred before the Crosse or any suche invention even because Christ did use it if that Circumcision be now a lawfull Christian Ceremonie as the Def. and Rejoynder professe and mainteyne pag. 285. It is also crediblie reported a great Bishop not long since living that every Easter day he used to have a wholle lambe praepared after the Pascall manner brought to his table D. B. knoweth well who it was and of whom he hath heard it The fourth comparison was that sopping was no new signe but Crossing is The Rejoynder opposeth that it had been an abomination to eat the Pascall lambe sodden but the addition of sitting or leaning on couches though a new signe added by them selves was lawfull etc. Of which speache the first part is granted viz. a sodden lambe had been an abomination neyther isa sopping communion excused In the second ther is observable partiallitie in that he calleth setting an addition to the Passeover and yet in the same answer with the same breath denieth the crosse to be any addition unto Baptisme The ground of all is rotten viz. that sitting was a religious significant Ceremonie instituted by men These thinges considered let any man judge what cause the Rejoynder had to talke in this place of the Repl his roome-conscience contentious spirit smitten with giddinisse forsaken of wisdome In that
divine by institution No man can conclude thus we must every where have some garment and therefore in England a Surplice We must alwayes in Baptisme have some admonition to professe the faith and therefore in England a Crosse. We must use reverent gestures in receiving the holy Communion and therefore in England we must kneel in the act of receiving But we may conclude thus We must have a fit place to meete in and this place is generally fittest for our Congregation therefore we must have this We must have a convenient time to meete in and this houre is generally most convenient for our Congregation therefore this The Monkes may as well conclude We must have some garments therefore we must in one order have blacke in another white in a third blacke over white or white over blacke in a fourth gray a fifth party coloured in some all wollen in some all linnen c. ad infinitum as well I say every whit as the Rejoynder can conclude from a garment to a Surplice from admonition to the signe of a Crosse or from reverence in a table-gesture to kneeling To Bellarmine the Rejoynder answereth that he speaketh of naturall Ceremonies Which is true but are not these conteined under the generality of the Defendâ—nt his words there is no gesture or circumstance of worship which hath not beene abused And as for other circumstances which are called civill many of them admit onely of such variety as nature doth lead unto by occasion of this or that determination common to religion with other affaires 9. That our Ceremonies are not individually or singularly the same which Papists have solemnely abused the Replier said it is no marvell because it is impossible to carry the same particular signe of the Crosse from the Fonte to the Church doore or to keep it being so long as it is in making That is therefore no great mystery The Rejoynder answereth nothing to this save onely that he descanteth upon the terme mystery 10. It was added as an overplus not for necessity of the Argument that as it seemeth Papists doe give divine honour unto the signe of the Crosse as it is usâ—d among us because they ascribe divine operation unâ—o it as it was used by Iewes Heathens and Iulian the Apostata Bell de effect Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 31. and they doe not account us worse then them The Rejoynder opposeth 1. That the Papists honour not the Lords Supper in our hands The difference is that unto that Sacrament they require a right-ordained Priest but not so to the Crosse. 2. He answereth that they ascribe this divine operation unto it onely when there is an intention of such an operation in him that maketh the Crosse. Be it so the Patrones of our crossing defend that use which the Crosse had among the Fathers who allowed that intention as Bellarmine in the place now cited sheweth And how shall the inward intention of them be discerned This at the least seemeth to follow that as for uncertainty of the Priests intention divers Papists worship the Hoaste onely upon condition if it be changed into the body by the Priests intention so they must ascribe divine honour unto our Crosses upon the like condition of such an intention as was in the Fathers 11. About materiall formall samenesse the Replier refused to dispute that was sayth the Rejoynder because if he had he must either have opposed all learning and common sense or else have yeelded to the Dâ—fendant that change of essentiall forme maketh the same materiall to become another thing as in the changing of water into wine But 1. with consent of all common sense we may say that our Crosse differeth not so from the Popish Crosse as the wine did from water Ioh. 2. 2. It were no opposition to all learning whatsoever Aristole teacheth if one should say that not the forme onely but also the matter was in a great part changed when water was turned into wine 3. Opinion and intention is not the essentiall forme of a ceremoniall Crosse. For one and the same ceremoniall Crosse is used by Papists to divers intentions as to represent a Mystery to cure diseases to drive away divels c. Bellarmine in the fore-cited place And opinion belongeth to the efficient or making cause not to the forme 4. The very making of a Crosse in such a manner or with such circumstances as put upon it a relation to religion maketh both matter and forme of that Ceremony and so after idolatrously abused carrieth with it at least a shew of an Idolatrous Ceremony But this shew the Rej. referreth unto the fifth chapter and heere opposeth onely that likenesse and samenesse are not one Which is true of individuall or singular samenesse not otherwise for those things are like which have one and the same qualitie But he himselfe will not say that onely the same individuall or particular Ceremonies which Idolaters abuse are forbidden to us He hath hitherto in all this section declined the defence of that absurdity This quidity therefore is not to the purpose 12. It was added by the Replier that we have no intention or opinion in the use of the Crosse but the Papists have the same though they have others more and therefore there is some formall samenesse in their Crosse and ours To this the Rejoynd in many words answereth nothing but that this replie stifles it selfe because if we have not all the same opinions which they have then they have not the same with us But it doeth not follow of positive opinions concerning the Crosse it selfe For we may want some of their opinions and yet they have all that we have the same Doeth not he that knoweth most of this or that know the same thing with him that knoweth little though he knoweth more 13. Another odde reason was framed by the Repl. thus If this doeth make a Ceremony not the same that men have not altogether the same opinion of it then among the Papists there are as many kinde of Ceremonies Crosses Surplices as there are diversities of opinions about their nature and use which no man will say Yes sayth the the Rejoynder I will say it of Ceremonies and he that shall denie this must lay aside both learning and conscience not knowing what to say But he is too too confident upon the ground which he is driven to by force of a contrary winde For without laying aside of learning and conscience we may thus argue If this be so then all human Ceremonies used among the Papists and brought in as hitherto all have used to speake by Popes are not Popish For they may be this or that Hedge-Priests Ceremonies who hath added his opinion and institution unto them 2. The Pope by the same reason cannot know when his Ceremonies arâ— observed or omitted because he cannot know all opinions and intentions of men And the like reason holding with us our Church must inquire into the opinions and intentions