Some treasure fetched out of rubbish: or, Three short but seasonable treatises (found in an heap of scattered papers), which Providence hath reserved for their service who desire to be instructed, from the Word of God, concerning the imposition and use of significant ceremonies in the worship of God. viz. I. A discourse upon 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done decently and in order. Tending to search out the truth in this question, viz. Whether it be lawful for church-governours to command indifferent decent things in the administration of God's worship? II. An enquiry, whether the church may not, in the celebration of the Sacrament, use other rites significative than those expressed in the Scripture, or add to them of her own authority? III. Three arguments, syllogistically propounded and prosecuted against the surplice: the Cross in Baptism: and kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord's Supper.

SOME TREASURE Fetched out of RUBBISH: OR, Three ſhort but ſeaſonable Treatiſes (found in an heap of ſcattered Papers), which Providence hath reſerved for their Service who deſire to be inſtructed, from the Word of God, concerning the Impoſition and Uſe of Significant Ceremonies in the Worſhip of God. viz.

I. A Diſcourſe upon 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done decently and in Order. Tending to ſearch out the Truth in this Queſtion, viz. Whether it be lawful for Church-Governours to command indifferent decent things in the Adminiſtration of God's Worſhip? II. An Enquiry, Whether the Church may not, in the Celebration of the Sacrament, uſe other Rites ſignificative than thoſe expreſſed in the Scripture, or add to them of her own Authority? III. Three Arguments, Syllogiſtically propounded and proſecuted againſt the Surplice: The Croſs in Baptiſm: And Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper.

Every Word of God is pure: Add not thou unto his Word, leſt he reprove thee, and thou be found a Liar,

Prov. 30.5, 6.

Prove all things, hold faſt that which is good: Abſtain from all appearance of evill,

1 Theſ. 5.21, 22.

Let every man be fully perſwaded in his own mind: For whatſoever is not of Faith is ſin,

Rom. 14.5, —23.

LONDON, Printed in the Year, 1660.

To the Reader.

THeſe enſuing Treatiſes were found laid by the Walls, and covered with duſt, in the ſtudy of an old Non-Conformiſt, (there being diverſe Copies of each, under ſeveral unknown hands:) And as Armour, Treaſure, and other things uſefull, hidden in the time of our late Wars, have ſince been brought forth for profitable Imployment; The like is hoped of theſe Papers (which have ſo long been kept in darkneſs), if ſeriouſly peruſed by men of ſober minds. The fileings of Gold are precious: and the Charge of Chriſt is conſiderable, Joh. 6.12. Gather up the Fragments that are left, that nothing be loſt: Which Speech of his, may both warrant and encourage the collecting & publiſhing of the precious divine Truths penned by Gods faithful Embaſſadours, for the edification of his Church.

Mr. John Cotton▪ that faithful Servant of Chriſt, (famous in both Englands) was the known Author of the firſt Diſcourſe, and (as its verily believed) of the ſecond alſo.

Mr. Robert Nichols ſtudiouſly compoſed the third, who was a man, though leſs known, yet deſervedly famous for his great Abilities and profitable Miniſtry in Cheſhire, for many years, where his memory is ſtill very precious.

When Reverend Dr. Morton was Biſhop of Cheſter, h • required in writing of thoſe Miniſters in his Dioceſs who did not conform to the Ceremonies, the Reaſons of this their refuſal: Thereupon theſe three Arguments were by Mr. Nichols preſented unto him, atteſted by his own hand, and afterwards defended in diſpute with that learned Biſhop before many Witneſſes. The Biſhop being hereby convinced of the good mans Ability and Ingenuity, was his friend to his dying day.

The publiſhing of theſe Papers is, for the preventing of the impoſition and practice of ſapleſs ſuperſtitions Ceremonies; which good end now deſigned may hopefully be effected, if the Lord will give men herein concerned to ſtudy theſe Controverſies with unbyaſſed hearts.

It is notorious, that the preſſing of theſe Ceremonies in former time, occaſioned woful Diviſions in the Church of Christ, with much affliction unto men, famous both for their parts and piety in their Generations, and men of truly tender Conſciences and unblamable Converſation: And it is much to be queſtioned, whether ever any reall ſpirituall advantage, come to Chriſtian Soul by the preſſing or by the obſerving of them.

If the Lord would grant that Iſſue unto this Publication which is ſincerely intended and heartily prayed for, many thanks would be given unto his Majeſty, through Jeſus Chriſt, with comfort unto them that love Truth and Peace.

A DISCOURSE UPON 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done decently and in Order. Tending to ſearch out the Truth in this QUESTION, (viz.) Whether it be lawful for Church-Governors, to command indifferent decent things in the Adminiſtration of God's Worſhip.

ALL which that place holdeth forth touching this Point, may be ſummed up (for ought I can diſcern) in theſe particulars.

1. That the whole Church and every Member thereof, are to perform all the Duties of God's Worſhip in a decent and orderly manner.

2. What the Church and Members thereof are to do in this kind, that the Church-Governours may and ought to ſee it to be done.

3. It being the duty of Church-Governours to ſee that all things be done decently and orderly in the Congregation: It is therefore their part in eminent meaſure to be able to diſcern and judge what is decent and undecent, orderly or diſorderly.

When I ſay it is their part, I mean, it is their duty; their Place and Authority requireth it: Not that they alwayes have a Power or Spirit of diſcerning, to judge aright in this caſe. For it ſeemeth the High-Prieſts and Prophets, yea, and David himſelf, all of them thought it decent to bring back the Ark of God upon a new Cart; which afterwards David himſelf ſaw, and confeſſed it was not done after due order, 1 Chron. 15.13.

From whence it appeareth (ſince they alſo are ſubject to errours in this kind) that it will not be ſafe for them to judge and declare the decency of things, by no better Rule than their own Will and Pleaſure; but by ſuch Rules as the Holy Ghoſt directs us unto in this caſe, which are Scripture, Nature, Civil Cuſtom, (yea, and I willingly admit the lawful Cuſtom of the Church or Congregation, in which a man liveth, for to judge of decency;) by all theſe Rules, we have Warrant in Scripture, 1 Cor. 11.14, 16. & 14.33.

And indeed, they who are to approve themſelves, in all their proceedings (as Paul did, and all Church-Miniſters ought to do,) to every Man's Conſcience in the ſight of God; It is not for them to give the ground of their proceedings, only from their own Will and Pleaſure, but from ſuch Rules as every good Conſcience may ſee approvable.

4. This place in hand holdeth forth alſo this further Truth, That what things the Church ſeeth (by the former Rules) to be indifferent and decent, or which Church-Governours ſhall declare ſo to be, thoſe things may lawfully be done.

For the further clearing hereof, and the better diſcerning of the Power of Church-Governours in theſe matters: It may be obſerved that of decent things lawful to be done in God's Church, ſome things are

1. Indifferent and decent, As to preach in a Gown or Cloak, whereof the one is no more neceſſary or expedient than the other. 2. Expedient and decent; As to abide in ſingle life, or to enter into Marriage; of which, though Marriage in time of Perſecution be indifferent, yet ſingle life is much more expedient to prevent trouble in the Fleſh. 3. Neceſſary and decent; either alwayes, as a Woman to keep ſilence in the Church, or at leaſt, Hic & nunc, ſo as the neglect thereof would be uncomely to the light of Nature, Scripture, Cuſtom: As a Woman to be veiled in the Congregation in the Eaſtern Countries: So, to abſtain from Blood, whileſt the eating of it was offenſive to the Jew.

Now, of ſuch things as are neceſſary and decent, Church-Governours have Power to give Order and Commandment, as did the Synod at Hieruſalem, touching thoſe things they called neceſſary, (to wit, neceſſary during the time of the offence of the Jew, which was neceſſary to be avoided) Act. 15.28.

Of ſuch things as are expedient and decent, the Church-Governours have Power to declare the decency and expediency of them; yea, and to adviſe and perſwade the practice thereof, but yet not to give an Order or Law to bind the People thereunto, further than themſelves ſhall find it decent and expedient for themſelves. Thus in Point of abiding in ſingle Life, in time of the Churches diſtreſs, the Apoſtle gave his Judgment and Advice 1 Cor. 7.25, 40. and perſwaded to it, for avoiding trouble in the Fleſh, Ver. 26, 28. But would not bind them to it, neither in Point of Conſcience, nor of outward practice, as having no Commandment for it from the Lord, Ver. 25. In which reſpect, he calleth ſuch a Commandment, if he had given it, a ſnare, Ver. 35. And herein the Power of Church-Governours falleth far ſhort of the Authority of Civil Magiſtrates, who may in civil matters make binding Laws for any thing expedient to publick weal, which Subjects are readily to ſubmit unto, 1 Pet. 2.13.

But it may be objected: Paul had Power to command Philemon that which was convenient; therefore he might make a Law commanding the Church, expedient decent things.

It followeth not. For 1. It is one thing to give a Command for one thing, another to make a Law to bind him alwayes to do the like. 2. It's one thing to command a particular Perſon, who may owe himſelf to a Church-Governour (as Philemon did to Paul); another, to command, yea, to give a ſtanding Commandment, a binding Law to a whole Church, to whom he profeſſeth himſelf a Servant, 〈…〉 2 Cor. 4.6. over whom he hath no Authority, but ſtewardly, or oeconomical, to wit, when he ſpeaks in his Maſter's Name, not in his own. The Steward in a Family hath not power over his Maſter's Spouſe, but when he ſpeaks his Maſter's commands and directions, not his own. But of ſuch things as are onely indifferent and decent, I do not find in Scripture that ever Church-Governours did adviſe and perſwade them, much leſs charge and command them, leaſt of all make Laws to determine them. And that this place in hand (1 Cor. 14.40.) doth not give them any ſuch Power (though it be much urged to this end), may appear from theſe Reaſons.

1. The place ſpeaks not of indifferent decent things, but of neceſſary decent things, the neglect whereof was undecent by the light of Nature, and Scripture, and Cuſtom; As for men to pray with long haire, Women bare-headed; and for Women to ſpeak in the Congregation; and for many men to ſpeak at once.

2. The words of the place run not thus, Let all decent things be done; or, Let all things judged and declared by the Church to be decent, be done; but thi • , Let all things (to wit, that are done in the Church, whether Prayer, or Propeſying, or other Ordinance of God,) be done decently; or in that decent manner which Church-Governours will appoint, or in ſome other: That the Apoſtle limiteth not, but onely requireth, that all be done decently; which if it be ſo done, his Rule here preſcribed, is followed and fulfilled.

3. The ſame may appear out of this place by this Argument: If this place of the Apoſtle did give Power and Authority to Church-Governours to command indifferent decent things, then he that ſhould tranſgreſs the Commandment of the Church, ſhould alſo tranſgreſs the Commandment of the Apoſtle: As, look what Order or Acts of Juſtice any Civil Governour doth by the Commiſſion of the King, he that violates ſuch Acts, or tranſgreſſeth ſuch Orders, tranſgreſſeth alſo againſt the Commiſſion of the King. But it appe • reth to be otherwiſe in this caſe; If the Church-Governours command a Miniſter to preach alwaies in a Gown (it being indifferent and decent ſo to do), he that ſhall now and then preach in a Cloak tranſgreſſeth the Command of the Church, but not of the Apoſtle. For he that preacheth in a Cloak preacheth alſo decently, which is all that the Rule of the Apoſtle requireth in this Point.

But becauſe this Point is of great Conſequence, both for Church-Governours and others to be truly informed in; give me leave to clear the ſame from ſome other Arguments. That it is not in the power of Church-Governours to command indifferent decent things by Order of Law.

1. That which exceedeth the bounds of Apoſtolical Authority, and ſtreightreth the bounds of Chriſtian Liberty, that is not in the Power of any Church-Governour.

But to command indifferent decent things by Order of Law exceedeth &c.

The former appeareth from the Apoſtle's Commiſſion granted to them, Matth. 28.20. where our Saviour giveth them Commiſſion to teach all Nations to obſerve all things whatſoever he hath commanded them. Now, all things whatſoever Chriſt hath commanded them, are neceſſary, not indifferent, for the People to obſerve.

If therefore the Apoſtles, over and above the Commandments of Chriſt (which are neceſſary), ſhould teach the People to obſerve indifferent things alſo which Chriſt hath not commanded, they ſhould exceed the bounds of their Commiſſion.

It will be in vain to except: Our Saviour ſpeaketh here onely of matters of Doctrine and Faith, not Government and Order, unleſs it could be proved that our Saviour did elſe-where enlarge this Commiſſion, and gave them a more illimited Power in matters of Government and Order, or Indifferency; which (for ought I ſee) no man goeth about to do, unleſs it be from this place of the Epiſtle to the Corinthians, which hath already been cleared from ſuch meaning.

As for the ſecond part of the Aſſumption, That to command indifferent decent things ſtreightneth the bounds of Chriſtian Liberty, is of it ſelf evident: For whereas (for example) a ſingle Man or Woman are at Liberty to marry where they will, 1 Cor. 7.39. If the Apoſtle had bound them from Marriage by any Commandment of his, he had ſtreightned and deprived them of this Liberty.

It is wont to be objected againſt this, That Chriſtian Liberty ſtandeth not in the freedom of outward Actions, but in the freedom of Conſcience. As long therefore as there is no doctrinal neceſſity put upon the Conſcience to limit the uſe of outward things, Chriſtian Liberty is preſerved, though the uſe and practice of outward things be limited.

Whereto I anſwer, The Apoſtle in this caſe leaveth the People of God at liberty, not onely in point of Conſcience for lawfulneſſe to marry or not to marry, but even in outward action and practice; Let him do (ſaith he) what he will, he ſinneth not, let them be married.

For a ſecond Reaſon it may be this; They who are not to judge or cenſure one another in differences about circumſtantial things, or matters of indifferency; they may not make a binding Law, that all men ſhall be of one mind, or of one practice in ſuch things: But the former is true, Rom. 14.3. Let not him that cateth, deſpiſe him that cateth not, &c.

If it be ſaid, The place onely ſpeaks of private Chriſtians, not of Church-Governours.

The place ſpeaks of all Chriſtians, publick and private, ſeeing it reſerveth and referreth the Judgment of our Brethren, in ſuch things, not to publick Perſons, but onely to Chriſt: in the 4th, & 10th. Verſes.

3. They who did accommodate themſelvs in the uſe of indifferent things, according to the judgment and practice of all Chriſtians, whereſoever they came; they did not make any Laws to bind Chriſtians to follow their Judgment and Practice in the uſe of things indifferent:

But the Apoſtles of Chriſt did accommodate themſelves in the uſe of indifferent things according to the Judgment and Practice of the Chriſtians whereſover they came. As appeareth from the Apoſtle's Example, 1 Cor. 9.20, 21, 22. To the Jews I became as a Jew, &c.

But it may be ſaid, Though the Apoſtles choſe rather to uſe their Liberty than their Authority, in theſe things indifferent, whereſoever they came; yet, if they had pleaſed, they might have uſed Apoſtolical Authority, binding all Chriſtians to their Judgment and Practice in ſuch things.

1. Doubtleſs, if they had received any ſuch Authority, they would in ſome place, at ſome time or other, have claimed it, and practiſed it. A Sword never uſed, ruſteth in the Scabbard: And fruſtra eſt potentia quae nunquam venit in actum, is a true Axiome, whether we ſpeak of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

2. The Apoſtle himſelf cleareth this Point, when he confeſſeth, he did thus accommodate himſelf even to the weakneſs of Chriſtians, leſt he ſhould abuſe his Authority in the Goſpel, Ver. 18, 19, 20. Oh that ſuch Church-Gouernours, as plead their ſucceſſion from the Apoſtles, and do challenge in ſundry paſſage; of Government Apoſtolical Authority, would alſo be pleaſed to ſtudy and emulate an Apoſtolical Spirit.

For a fourth Argument, let it be this: If the Apoſtles, and Presbyters, and Brethren at Jeruſalem, did reach their Authority no further, than to lay upon the Diſciples necks the yoak and burthen of neceſſary things (and that onely during the time while they continued neceſſary); then may not any ſucceeding Synod reach their Authority, to lay upon the Church Commandments and Canons of indifferent things: For the Synod at Jeruſalem was the pattern and precedent of all ſucceeding Synods; For primum in uno que genere eſt menſura reliquorum. And our Saviour teacheth us to confute Alterations from Primitive Patterns, with this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Nou ſic fuit ab initio.

But the Synod at Jeruſalem reached their Authority no further than to lay a Commandment upon the Diſciples onely touching neceſſary things, Act. 15.28. Neceſſary I ſay, either in themſelves, as abſtaining from Fornication; or at leaſt in reſpect of preſent offence, as Abſtinence from blood, &c.

5. Let me conclude with this Argument, taken from the Apoſtle Paul his enter-courſe with the Apoſtle Peter. If the Apoſtle Peter was to be blamed for compelling the Gentiles by his example to obſerve the indifferent Ceremonies of the Jews; then other Church-Governours will be to blame, for compelling Chriſtians by Law, and by grievous Cenſures to obſerve the Ceremonies in Queſtion, though they were indifferent:

But the Apoſtle Paul telleth us, Peter was to be blamed in this caſe, Gal. 2.11, 14.

I ſuppoſe, No man will here except, as is wont to be excepted, againſt ſuch Arguments as plead for the refuſing of our Ceremonies, upon ſuch grounds as Paul urged againſt yielding to the Jewiſh Ceremonies, as they were urged by the falſe Apoſtles, (viz.) with Opinion of neceſſity unto Salvation. For Peter's yielding at that time to the Jewiſh Ceremonies, was not out of opinion of their neceſſity to Salvation, but only out of fear of offence, and care to prevent it, Ver. 12.

The Sum of all this, will lead us by the hand one ſtep further: If it be a ſin in Church-Governours to command, eſpecially upon ſo ſtrict panalt • , indifferent decent things; it ſhall be a ſin alſo in Miniſters and other private Chriſtians to ſubſcribe ex animo, and to yield Obedience to ſuch Command; although the Ceremonies commanded were indeed as good as they be pretended, (which, I believe, are not indifferent decent things.) For, doth not ſuch voluntary Subſcription and Conformity to them build up our Church-Governours; yea, and with them the Soveraign Civil Magiſtrate alſo in this confidence, that ſuch Commandments are as well lawfully given by them, as received and obeyed by us? Now, to build up or edify a Brother unto ſin, is no better than to offend a Brother: For the proper definition of an Offence, is, That which edifies a Brother unto ſin, as the original word expreſſeth it, 1 Cor. 8.10. And ſo to ſin againſt my Brother, is to wound his Conſcience; yea, (and as much as in me lyeth) to cauſe him to periſh for whom Chriſt dyed, which is no better than ſpiritual Murther, even the Murther of his Soul.

Now, if thus to edify my Brother unto ſin, be ſo hainous an Offence; how much more hainous an Offence is it, to edify our Governours to the giving and urging of ſuch Commandments; yea, to the ſharp cenſuring of all others; as refractory and factious Perſons, who chooſe rather to undergo the loſs of the greateſt-Comforts they enjoy in this World, than to wound the Conſciences either of themſelves or their Governours.

It is true, by forbearing Obedience to theſe Commandments we offend the Spirits of our Governours, and make them to be (though cauſleſly) offended with us; but by yielding Obedience to theſe things, we ſhould offend their Conſciences in edifying them unto Sin, and provoke the Lord to be offended with them and us. It is not for Chriſtians, much leſs for Miniſters, to redeem our peace and liberty at ſo dear a price, as the hazard of the blood of ſo many precious Soul, eſpecially of our Governours in higheſt place.

Now, I ſhall proceed to anſwer another great Queſtion for clearing the Point in hand.

May not the Church, in the Celebration of the Sacraments, uſe other Rites ſignificative than thoſe expreſſed in the Scriptures, or add to them of her own Authority?

No, but ſhe is to reſt in the uſe of thoſe Seals God hath appointed: For all ſigns of mens deviſing cannot teach or ſtir up true devotion, but delude, and nouriſh Superſtition. Beſides, to do any thing which doth derogate from the Seal of Kings, and their Prerogative therein, we know how dangerous it is in the Commonwealth; ſo certainly, to joyn Seals with God's Seals in his Church, is a Point will hardly be anſwered. It beſeemeth us to acknowledge God ſo wiſe, in the Signs that he hath choſen, as to hold it preſumption for any to imitate him in deviſing of the like: For example, none might deviſe an Oyl like his, nor an Altar beſides his;Exod. 30 38. Lev. 17.3. Lev. 10.1. none a fire like the fire that he hath choſen; yea, in his works themſelves, he is not magnified as he deſerveth, till we confeſs, None is able to come after him; and till we ſay, Who is able to do the like? Exod. 3.14. Again where man deviſeth new ſigns, the ſigns of God are vilified, as if they were from an Humane Spirit; yea, as if they were leſſe fit and convenient: And whereas Man is carnall, blind, and impotent, and yet a lover of his own devices (no leſſe than Pigmalion of his own Picture); if he ſhould be ſuffered to invent new Signs, they would be carnal and not ſpiritual; dead, having no Power; dark, veiling the brightneſs of the Sacraments: and yet more loved and delighted in, than the Sacraments themſelves. Calr. opuſc. de Neceſ. R form. pag. 59. Joſeph. Antiq. lib. 15. cap. 8. Aegeſip. lib. 2. cap. 13. For example, a Temple built on Garezim (like the Temple of Jeruſalem) overtopped the Temple; And to what fame aroſe a Temple which Orias built in Heliopolis, like to that of the Lord's in Jury?

What our heavenly King delivereth his People muſt be marked with no other form or print ſave that which is framed in his Word, and in his own Sacraments: And however God permitted the ancient Fathers to fail in heart in ſome particulars, againſt thei • general Doctrine; yet they ever diſallowed and abhorred the changing of ſigns inſtituted by God, and the deviſing of others determined to ſignify the ſame thing, that was ſealed by the Sacraments. The memory of the Barſamani and Semidalitae is abhorred,Daneſ. in Aug. de haer. cap. 64. Concil. Bracarenſ. 3. cap. 1. Conc • l. Conſtan. 6. in Trullo cap. 99. Aug. de haereſ. cap. 28. Can. Apeſt. c. 3. Decret. par. 3. diſt. 2. cap. 1.2.3.4.5.6.7. Concil. Conſt. 6. in Trullo. cap. 32. Lamb. Dan. in Aug de haer. cap. 28. & 64. Concil. Antiſiodorenſ. can. 8. for that inſtead of Bread they uſed Meal, even as others are utterly condemned for bringing in Orapes inſtead of Wine: The Ar •• mans added ſodd meat to the Bread and Wine of the Lord's Supper: The Aquarli changed Wine into Water: The Artotyritae added Cheeſe to the Bread in the Supper, upon an imitation of ancient times, when the fruits of the Earth, and the fruits of the Cattel were wont to be offered to the Lord: Others added Hony to the Wine in the Supper, and ſome Milk: But all theſe are condemned, becauſe they are not in the Inſtitution.

Q. Theſe Hereticks and Sects condemned, brought in their deviſed ſigns as parts of the Sacraments, which is a thing to be condemned: But what ſay you of ſigns deviſed by humane Authority, and annexed to the Sacraments, not as parts, but for ſignification only?

A. Signs annexed to the Sacraments for ſignification, to declare or teach what God promiſeth to man, or what duty man oweth to God, are parts of the Sacraments, no more than ſome of the former; and the Reaſons brought to condemn them, do caſhiere and caſt out theſe alſo.

1. For if he be not devout but preſumptuous who adminiſtreth otherwiſe than he hath received of the Lord, then muſt all ſtrange ſigns be abandoned which hath not been ſeen and approved of God: The charge of the Lord to his People is this, Ye ſhall do my Judgments and keep my Ordinances to walk therein; Lev. 18 4. Deut. 27.26. Gal. 3.10. Deut. 6.13. Mat. 4 10. Deut. 12.32. Deut. 4 1.2. Zanch. d. Scrip. q. 8. prop. 1. Co. ſ. 2 A • g. Exod. 12.24.43. & 27.21. & 29.9. & 30.21. Deut. 4.1. the meaning is plainly this, Ye ſhall obſerve all mine Ordinances, Moral and Ceremonial, and them onely; as the words of this Law is explained by the Apoſtle. All things which are written in the Book of this Law. And him thou ſhalt ſerve, is expounded by our Saviour, Him onely thou ſhalt ſerve; more expreſly the ſame Commandment is repeated in other places: What things ſoever I command you obſerve to do it, thou ſhalt not add unto it, nor diminiſh from it; To what might they not add? neither to the Law Moral nor Ceremonial, as the Word ſignifieth, and all Circumſtances of the Text do convince: For in the former of thoſe places, Iſrael is exhorted to hearken unto the Statutes and Ordinances of the Lord; under which two words (often joyned together) are compriſed all duties of the Law moral and ceremonial: And thereupon immediately follow theſe words,Deut. 4.8.40. Deut. 5.1. and 6.1. and 12.1. Mal. 4.4. Lev. 18.5. and 19.37. and 26.22.18.22. Deut. 4.1, 2. Exod. 25.9, 40. and 27.19. Ye ſhall not add unto the Word (or things) which I commanded unto you. The ſame is more clear in the ſecond place: for having recited many Precepts Ceremonial, and ſome few Moral; he concludeth, Whatſoever I command you to obſerve, take heed to obſerve it, &c. And Moſes himſelf faithfully in this performed the charge of God; for having received a Commandment from him to make all things pertaining to the Tabernacle, according to the pattern ſhewed in the Mount, he preſumed not to add one pin to that was ſhewed him, but ſtrictly followed his Sampler in every point.Exod. 39.42, 43. And if Moſes durſt not challenge authority of himſelf to ordain Sacramentall Rite • , and annex them to the holy Ordinances of the Lord, how ſhall we be aſſured that the Church hath any liberty herein? what reaſon can be given why that ſhould be warrantable in this age of the Church, and in that unlawfull? If the Church will preſume to claim any ſuch Prerogative, it is neceſſary ſhe produce the Charter wherein the Lord hath confirmed ſuch a Priviledg unto her, which before he denied to that his Faithfull ſervant, with whom he was pleaſed to ſpeak familiarly, and in moſt friendly manner. The worthy Reformers of Religion, who lived in the Church of the Jews after the dayes of Moſes, knew no ſuch grant, for they kept themſelves preciſely to the Law of the Lord by the hand of Moſes, not turning there-from in any thing, without ſpecial and extraordinary inſpiration. David gave to Solomon his ſon,1 Chron. 28.12.19. the pattern of all that he had by the Spirit, of the Courts of the houſe of the Lord, of all the Chambers round about, &c. And Hezekiah ſet the Levites in the houſe of the Lord,2 Chron. 29.25. with Cymballs, with Pſalteries, and with Harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the Kings Seer, and Nathan the Prothet, for ſo was the Commandment of the Lord by his Prophets. Ask the Scripture whether ever the godly Kings among the Jews had any ſuch Authority to bring in any ſpecial Action or Ceremony into the ſervice of God without ſpecial warrant; Search the Scriptures about this matter, and if they anſwer [Nay] to this demand, let us take heed to our ſelves, that we preſume not beyond commiſſion. Cut off thoſe places before cited; the Papiſts grant, the perfection of the Word of God may well be concluded: Our Writers do ſubſtantially prove the ſufficiency of the Scripture in matter neceſſary to Salvation, becauſe we are forbidden to add ought to the Word written (for of that the Te •• is meant), or to take ought from it; and by the ſame reaſon, the ſufficiency of the Scriptures in matters Ceremonial, is eſtabliſhed; for thſe places muſt be underſtood of Ceremonies no leſs then other things.Deſcrip. q. 8. prop. 1. Zanchius thus urgeth this argument; And leſt any Papiſt (ſaith he) ſhould except and ſay, Neither do we think it lawfull to add to thoſe things which pertain to Internall, and ſo to Spirituall piety and worſhip of God; but onely the Controverſy is of external Ceremonies; I pray you, conſider of what things the Lord ſpeaketh in that Chapter, Deut. 4. Of what Ceremonies, ſacred Rites, and Judicial Laws; for in the Hebrew, it ſaith thus, Hear now, O Iſrael, the Statutes, and the Judgments. That word Hachukim doth properly ſignify Ceremonious Rites of worſhip: Therefore the Lord would teach, that nothing is to be added, not onely to the Moral Precepts, and internal worſhip, but alſo to the Ceremonial-Rites and Inſtitutions; which may be further confirmed againſt our Adverſaries, by the Authority of the vulgar Tranſlation, Interpreting it in Deut. 4.5. Ceremonies; And the Opinion of Stapleton, Relect. prin. fid. doct. cont. 4. q. 3. art. 3. arg. 10. Anſw. to the Adm. pag. 30. who making anſwer to that place alledged by our Divine, to confirm the perfection of Scripture againſt unwritten traditions; ſaith, It is eſpecially to be underſtood of the Ceremonies. This is acknowledged by D. Whiteg. God (ſaith he) in the old Law to his people, preſcribed perfect and abſolute Laws, not onely Moral and Judicial, but Ceremonial alſo; neither was there the leaſt thing to be done in the Church omitted in the Law; And therefore for them at that time, and during that State, it was not lawfull to add any thing, nor take any thing away, no not in Ceremonies and civill Laws.Bill. de Pont. Rom. l. 4. c. 17. The Jews (ſaith another) had a Preſcription of particular Rites, moſt fitly agreeing to the Polity of their Church and Common-wealth. But what? hath God left no greater liberty to the Church in the time of the Goſpel, to ordain ſignificant Ceremonies; than was before given unto the Synagogue of the Jews? No ſurely, both the Jewiſh and Chriſtian Church are tyed to the direction of the Scriptures, without which they might not preſume to do any thing in theſe matters: How can theſe places be alledged with truth of reaſon againſt our Adverſaries, to prove the perfection of Scripture in oppoſition to unwritten Traditions. If the Church have authority now to ordain Ceremonies without direction of the Word, which then ſhe had not: eaſily might they reply, That that Injunction did not concern us at this day, ſeeing more liberty is given to us touching the Inſtitution of external Rites pertaining to the worſhip of God, then was granted to the Jews. And if we may add without warrant of the Word, what, and where they might not: Surely the Scripture was a perfect rule to them: In another manner than it is to us. Zanchius therefore objecting in the name of the Papiſts, That if theſe places muſt be underſtood of the Ceremonial Law, then it pertaineth not to us, inaſmuch as the Ceremonial Laws are now changed: maketh anſwer, That that Precept doth pertain to us, which is manifeſt (ſaith he) if you conſider the end of the Commandment; What end? That we ſhould obey thoſe things, and thoſe things onely that God hath commanded, adding nothing, detracting nothing. Therefore when the ſame God hath by his Son given Precepts concerning Ceremonies of the New Teſtament, and willeth us ſimply to obey them; the force of that Precept remains, Thou ſhalt add nothing, diminiſh nothing. Matth. 28.19, 20. Moreover Chriſt himſelf plainly commandeth the ſame, Baptize them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, teaching them to obſerve whatſoever I have commanded. What is this, but ye ſhall not add or diminiſh. Again, what is that that the Apoſtle ſaith, I have received of the Lord, what I have delivered unto you: but that it is not lawfull to add nor diminiſh? Then he concludes, Therefore the force of the Precept in Deuteronomy, Zanch. de ſecundo praec. tit. de ext. cult. q. 1. Tam igitur nobis non licet addere his vel detrahere quam eriam non licebat Judaeis addere vel detrahere de illis. of not adding or diminiſhing any thing in the Precepts of God, doth remain perpetual, even concerning Ceremonies, and holy Rites, and pertains to us. The Jews had liberty in certain matters of order pertaining to the ſervice of God, as we now have. In matter of Ceremonies we are tyed to the Word of God, as they were. We have no Ceremonies but two, the Ceremonies or Sacraments of Baptiſm, and the Lords Supper; and we have as certain direction to celebrate them, as they had to celebrate their Ceremonies; and fewer and leſs difficulties can ariſe of ours, than of theirs; we have no ſpecial hour, place, or manner of celebration aſſigned for them; the like may be ſaid of many Jewiſh Ceremonies, What hour had they for their ordinary and daily Sacrifices?Jun. et Trem. in act. 13.15. was not it left to the order of the Church what places were appointed in their ſeveral dwellings to hear the Word of God Preached continually, when they came not to Jeruſalem. The Word was commanded to be Preached, but no mention made in what particular method, what manner of place, Pulpit, Seat, or Chair they ſhould have, and yet they had theſe: they had alſo forms of Burial and Marriage, though nothing be commanded concerning them: The liberty of the Chriſtian Church ſtandeth in freedome from the burthen of Jewiſh Ceremonies,Beza annot. in act. 6. not in power to ordain new Rites at her pleaſure, when thoſe which God himſelf inſtituted are aboliſhed; for then ſhould our condition in the time of the Goſpell be far worſe in many reſpects then theirs was in the time of the Law: for whereas it is the vertue of a good Law,Ariſt. ad Theod. Ra. 1.3. to leave as little undetermined, and without the compaſs of the Law, as may be. If we have no Word for divers things, wherein the Jews had particular direction; there was greater perfection in the Law given unto them, then in the Word which is left to the Chriſtian Church. Again,Calv. opuſ. reſponſ. verſipel. pag. 413. the Ordinances of God, which are ever behovefull, are not ſo burthenſome, as are the unprofitable inventions of men; it is far better to bear the yoak of God, then to be in ſubjection unto the meer pleaſure of ſinfull men. And then, If the Church of the Jews was to admit of no Ceremonies, but what was preſcribed unto her of the Lord; whereas the Chriſtian Church is to ſtand to the Arbitrement of her Guides and Governours: the Bondage and Infancy of the Jewiſh,Bel. de effect. Sac. l. 2. c. 32. Bell. de Mon. l. 2. c. 13. arg. 9. reſp. & pont. r • m. lib. 4. cap. 17. Chryſoſt. hom. 52. in Matth. cited by D. Whitak. de ſc. q. 9. c. 14. is much to be preferred before the liberty and ripeneſs of the Chriſtian Church. It is replied, that the adding and diminiſhing ſpoken of, doth not mean addition of preſervation, but addition of corruption; like as the fraudulent Coyner of Money doth not corrupt the Kings Coyn, either by adding baſer metral unto it, or by clipping any ſilver from it, and in both kinds he is a Traytor. How little doth this differ from the Jeſuites gloſs upon this Text: God commands (ſaith he) nothing to be added to his Precept to corrupt it, but not ſome things which may perfect it. Can humane deviſed Rites preſerve the Ordinances of God from corruptions; or rather are not all ſuch additions manifeſt corruptions? When God hath given to Moſes particular determinations of all ſymbolical Rites pertaining to his worſhip, had it not been an addition of corruption in him, if upon his own head he had annexed any deviſed ſignificative Rites unto them. Bellarmine, himſelf grants, it had been; when in his third anſwer, he labours (but to ſmall purpoſe) to put this difference betwixt the ſtate of the old and New Teſtament;Petitur principium, quia et hoc ipſo contraria eſt quaelibet nova lex quod divina additur; quandequidem iſte ſibi addi vetat. Tilen. de pot. l. 4. c. 17. not. 11. viſe Lubbert. de Pap. Rom. l. 8. cap. 10. That in the one, all Rites pertaining to the worſhip of God, were particularly determined, but not in the other. And when the Jeſuite confeſſeth in his firſt anſwer to that Argument urged by our Divines, againſt humane Laws binding Conſcience;Jun. ani. in Bel. de Pont. Rom. lib. 4. cap. 17. that it is unlawful to add to the things commanded; As, to ſacrifice two Lambs, when God hath commanded onely one; doth he not grant by neceſſary Conſequence, that when God hath appointed that Baptiſm ſhould be adminiſtred with Water, it is unlawfull to add thereto Oyl, Cream, Salt, Spittle, and ſuch like? Moreover, to give Man Authority to add Rites of Information to the holy Ordinance of God; what is it but to prefer the folly of Man before the Wiſdom of God, as though his ſacred Inſtitutions muſt borrow reverence or defence from humane Forgeries:

Doth not this Diſtinction open a wide gapp to let in manifold Abuſes into God's Worſhip, under the colour of Addition of Preſervation? Doth it not much impaire the perfection of Scripture, when Rites Sacramental, tending to preſerve the purity and due regard of Chriſt's Inſtitutions, ſhall be eſteemed lawful in the immediate Worſhip of God, when they find no footing to ſtand on in the Word of God:D. Lambard. l. 4. diſt. 3. c. 1. D. Sp. pag. 32. D. Cov. againſt Per. pag. 123. D. Whitg. Anſ. Adm. pag. 32. Preſerve, or keep carefully that which is committed to our truſt. 1 Tim. 6.20. Cajet. interprets this place thus; Inhibetur additio, etiam pratextu Cuſtodien di mandata Dei. See. Calv. in Mat. 15. The Synagogue of Rome doth not maintain her Addition to be of abſolute neceſſity, or eſſential parts of the Sacraments, but inſtituted of the Church for ſignification and preſervation; and yet they are juſtly cenſured as unlawful, and contrary to the Authority of the Holy Scripture. The Lord chargeth that we do not add, that ſo we may preſerve it.

This Argument might here be ſhut up, but that to prevent ſome Objections, it is good to enquire what is an Addition to the Word. The Patrons of ſignificant Ceremonies ſay, An unlawful Addition to any of Chriſt's Sacraments is onely that which either participates therewith in all or at leaſt in the chief and proper ends thereof, or is added for Complement thereof, as neceſſary, and ſo, unchangeable. To add to the Word, is to ordain ſomewhat as a thing abſolutely neceſſary, and pertaining to the Eſſence of Worſhip: Thoſe add to the Word,

1. Who teach or decree any thing, either in matters of Faith or Ceremonies, contrary to the Word. 2. Thoſe that make any thing neceſſary to Salvation not contained in the Word. 3. Such as put any Religion or Opinion of merit in any thing that they themſelves have invented, beſides the Word of God.

Laſt of all, They add to the Word, which forbid that thing for a thing of it ſelf unlawful, which God doth not forbid; and make that ſin which God doth not make ſin.

But in all theſe definitions, that is left out which Moſes meant ſpecially to comprehend, which is, not to do more nor to do leſſe than he had commanded: Every unlawful Tradition is contrary to the Word, which forbiddeth all ſuch Additions. But as the Word contrary in ſtrict ſenſe, is oppoſite to that which is beſides the Word, it reacheth not (with the other particulars added to it,) to expreſs what is an Addition prohibited. The Lord Jeſus is the ſole Doctor of his Church, whoſe Office it is to teach by word and ſign, and therefore whatſoever is deviſed by Man to inſtruct by outward reſemblance, and to admoniſh by ſtriking the ſenſes by way of Repreſentation; that is an unwarrantable Addition. God is the only Sealer of his Promiſes, Tho: Aquin. pag. 3. q. 60. Cajetan. ibid. Cerimonalis lex perfecta in Sc. traditur in libris Moſis, ubi nulla Ceremonia ne minutiſſima quidem praetermiſſa eſt. Wh. de Sc. q. 6. cap. 14. Quod uni Judaeorum populo per Moſen diligenterſatis praeſcripta eſſent, &c. Janſen. cond. cap. 120. and Signifier of his Will, by things ſenſible in the Sacrament, and by words ſimilitudinary in the Scripture; to him it appertaineth to determine what ſigns muſt be uſed to ſignify. In the time of the Law, when ſigns reigned, none were lawful but ſuch as were ſhewed in the pattern upon the Mount; much more in the time of the Goſpel, when ſhadows are aboliſhed, what God hath not inſtituted is to be abandoned; Moſes durſt not add of his own head to thoſe ſigns that were appointed of the Lord, though to ends inferiour; as profitable onely to ſignify, not to exhibite; as matters of expediency to explain and declare what was repreſented, not of abſolute neceſſity: And what had been preſumption in him, is intolerable in us, being delivered from the Pedagogy of the Law: In thoſe things God hath preciſely determined; in thoſe actions, the whole form whereof God hath of purpoſe ſet down to be obſerved, we may not otherwiſe do than exactly as he hath commanded. Herein, what is not expreſſed, or by good conſequence enjoyned, is to be held unwarrantable: In this caſe, the deviſing of new Rites to ſignify the truths taught in Scripture, or ſealed in the Sacraments, cannot be deemed leſs than an unlawful Addition;Babing. in com. 2. pag. 95. upon this ground our Divines have caſt Images out of the Church, not onely for teaching ill, but for teaching at all; becauſe God alloweth no Teacher but himſelf, nor means of teaching but his holy Word and Sacraments. And when the Son of God hath inſtituted the Sacraments, and he hath commanded them to be adminiſtred in certain Rites, inſtituted of himſelf; It is a very hard Queſtion (ſaith Chenmitius) whether Man be permitted to add others over and above,Exam. Conc. Trid. part. 2. tit. de. rit. Bapt. under any pretence Dr. Willet reaſoneth thus againſt the Rites of Popiſh Confirmation: Willets Cont. 14. q. 1. par. 5. pag. 719. Col. 2.17. All of them are ſuperſtitious, having myſtical and typical ſignifications and ſhadows, which agree not with the Nature of the Goſpel; for all ſhadows are now paſt, the Body being come: It is contrary to the Rule of the Goſpel there ſhould be ſuch Types, Shadows, and Significations brought into the Service of God. Id. Cont. 12. q. 8. Arg. 1. pag. 504. Therefore we dare not allow of theſe deſcriptions of unlawful Additions before-mentioned, not onely becauſe they cannot be juſtified by Scripture, as all good Expoſitions Theological muſt and ought; but alſo the whole current of Scripture plainly ſheweth it to be too ſtrict, as may appear in part by that which hath been already ſaid, and remaineth to be proved more at large hereafter: Unde jus prodit, interpretatio quo que procedat. Decret. Grego. lib. 5. Tit. 39. cap. 31. Innocent. 3. Quis legum Aenigmata ſolvere idoneus eſſe videtur, niſi is cui ſoli Legiſlatorem eſſe conceſſum eſt. Cod. lib. 1. Tit. 14. leg. 9. & 10.11. & Tit. 17.

2. As in matters of Faith, ſo in matters of Ceremonies ſignificative pertaining to the Worſhip of God, an Argument doth hold from the Negative, to diſallow what is not found in the Scriptures expreſly, or by good conſequence: As to ſay, ſuch a thing is not expreſſed or revealed in the word; therefore it is no matter of Faith, nor ſuch as a man is bound neceſſarily to believe: ſuch a ſign is not warranted by the Scripture, therefore it is not to be uſed in the Worſhip of God.Jer. 7.31. & 19.5. Thus the Prophet Jeremiah reaſoneth more than once againſt the idolatrous men of Judah, who burned their Sons and Daughters in the fire to Baal; The Lord did not command you, he ſpake no ſuch thing, neither came it into his mind, Therefore this ye ought not to have done. The thing he reproved was not onely not commanded, but forbidden, and that expreſly; yet the Prophet chooſeth rather to charge them with the fault of making a Law unto themſelves,Hook Eccle • . Pol. lib. 2. Sect. 6. than the crime of tranſgreſſing a Law which God had made. For when the Lord himſelf had once preciſely ſet down a form of executing that wherein we are to ſerve him; the fault appeareth greater to do that which we are not, than not to do that which we are commanded: In this we ſeem to charge the Law with hardneſs only, in that with fooliſhneſs: In this we ſhew our ſelvs to be weak and unapt to be Doers of his Will, in that we take upon us to be Controllers of his Wiſdom: In this we fly to perform the thing which God ſeeth meet, convenient, and good, in that we preſume to ſee what is meeter and convenienter better than God himſelf: For theſe and ſuch like Reaſons, though the ſin of Judah was directly prohibited; yet it pleaſed the Lord by his Prophet to reprehead it, for that he commanded them not ſo to do. From theſe places ſome Divines do prove the perfection of Scripture againſt the Papiſts;Dr. Reynolds. theſ. Gatak. of Lots cap. 7. S. 16. Others, that in the Point of God's Worſhip, the Argument holdeth from the Negative for the Subſtance of it: And by the ſame Reaſon we may conclude, that no Ceremony ſignificant may be admitted in the Worſhip of God, which carry not the ſtamp of divine approbation; for the ground of the Prophet's Argument will bear all alike. The purpoſe of God was to teach his People, both unto whom they ſhould offer Sacrifice, and what Sacrifice was to be ſacrificed; therefore no Sacrifice is to be offered which God hath not commanded: The Lord hath determined how he will be ſerved; therefore upon our own Will and Pleaſure we muſt not add any thing unto it for Subſtance, or take ought there-from: And the Lord alſo hath appointed and determined what outward Signes ſhall be uſed to teach, ſignify, or repreſent by Analogy or Proportion. Therefore, no Sign is to have place in his Worſhip, which cannot ſhew deſcent from above:Numb. 15.38.39. The Lord, expounding the Uſe of the Fringes that he commanded the Iſraelites to make in the borders of their Garments, ſaith, It ſhall be to them for a Sign, that they may look upon it; and remember all the Commandments of the Lord, and do them; and that ye ſeek not after your own hearts, and your own eyes, after which you uſe to go a whoring. Therefore he willeth, that for ever they remember all his precepts, even thoſe that concern Ceremories or external Worſhip; and on the contrary, he will not that either in Ceremonies or external Worſhip they hear their own heart, or inſtitute thoſe things that ſeem good unto them in their own eyes,Nibil oporteat in rebus divinis facere, ſine Dei Verbo. Bell. de Sacr. lib. 1. cap. 19. or follow them; Nay, in the Worſhip of God, to follow that which is pleaſing to us, is to run a whoring from God, becauſe we follow them in the heat of adulterous Love. It may be ſome will anſwer, that Ceremonies of abſolute neceſſity, wherein the Subſtance of God's Worſhip conſiſteth, and which abſolutely binds Conſcience, muſt be inſtituted of God; but not thoſe that are appointed onely for ſignification, and as things in themſelves free and indifferent, becauſe theſe may be profitable to put men in mind of their duties to cheriſh Faith, and recall from ſin. But what ground is there in Scripture for this diſtinction; where is the liberty granted in the one, denied in the other kind of Ceremonies▪ Sicut owne aurum quodcu • que fuerit extra templum non eſt ſauctificatum. Wh • t. de Pont. q. 1. c. 3. & 8. q. 2. c. 2. & q. 4. c 1. S. 2. Orig. in Matth. Hom. 25. In Philoſophy no diſtinction is to be allowed, which Reaſon doth not confirm: In Theology, what hath not evident foundation in the Scriptures themſelves, what is not native and taken out of them, is to be held counterfeit and adulterate: The Rule is, where the Law diſtinguiſheth not, we muſt not diſtinguiſh; it is not ſufficient therefore ſo to diſtinguiſh, unleſs it can be ſhewd (which yet hath not been done) that the diſtinction hath footing in the Word of God. The Papiſts and Lutherans do in this manner plead for the Uſe of Images in their Churches; Images are Lay-men's Books, by them they are put in mind of the Death and Paſſion of Chriſt; they may ſee more at once repreſented by them than they can read in many hours. What Anſwer do our Divines return unto them but this, That the Word and Sacraments were appointed of Chriſt to teach,Conc. Seno. ſenſe. Harm. Conf. Helver. cap. 4. fol. Synt. Tom. 2. l. 6 7. 19. in ſecundo praec. Par. in Gen. 28.18. De ſecundo praec. tit. de Imag. c. 15. reſp ad Arg. 9. & 10. Faith cometh by hearing, not by ſeeing or gazing. Jew. art. ador. div. 10. Mart. in 1 Reg. 7. Gualter in Heb. 2.18. and that to add to them is preſumptuous againſt the Lord, in • urious unto his Ordinances; that teaching to the Eye is ſufficiently performed by the Sacraments, and that the Lord, for Inſtruction of his People, commanded his Miniſters to preach, not to paint. Faith, ſaith Zanchius, is to be promoted; but by what means, ſuch as God hath ordained, viz. The Word and the Sacraments: God would have us to be taught divine things, and all men as well vulgar as others to know things belonging to their Salvation; But whence or of what Inſtructors? Of thoſe that he hath given to be Teachers unto us, not of thoſe that do pleaſe our ſelves: He hath given unto us the Book of the Creatures, whence we may know many things of God: He hath given us the Book of the Scripture, which he would have continually to be read, and to be explained in the Church; What canſt thou deſire more? He hath given Sacraments, Glaſſes of divine myſteries: He hath inſtituted us a Miniſtry, and •• arged us to exerciſe our ſelves daily in the Law of God; Ought not theſe Books and Teachers to be ſufficient for us? Now, a ſignificant Ceremony is an Image, or a Repreſentation to teach by ſtriking the ſenſe; and what is ſaid againſt Images, muſt neceſſarily hold againſt them alſo; ſo that either we muſt take part with the Lutherans and Papiſts againſt the Worthies of our Church, or acknowledge the former diſtinction to be vain, and of none effect. Nay, let this diſtinction be of any weight, and the Papiſts muſt be acquitted in their Oyl, Cream, Salt, Spittle, Croſſes, Lights, Tabers, and the reſt of their rotten Cuſtoms, wherewith they have beſmeared and defiled the Ordinances of God; for none of theſe be held by them to be of abſolute neceſſity.

A ſecond Anſwer there is given to this Argument, of no more ſtrength than the former, viz. That to deviſe Signs of ſpirituall things is unwarrantable, but not to ordain Ceremonies that ſhadow forth ſome moral duty which Man oweth to God: But this is barely ſpoken, not proved by any paſſage of holy Writt, and may as eaſily be caſt off as it is brought forth. The Scripture doth not teach it lawful for Man to deviſe myſtical Signs appropriated to the ſolemn Worſhip of God, to repreſent moral duties; when it forbiddeth by any deviſed Sign of that Nature to ſhadow forth ſpiritual duties, and what we learn not thence in matters of this kind, we dare not receive. When the Lord was pleaſed to inſtruct his Church by Types and Figures; he himſelf appointed not onely thoſe that did prefigure Chriſt, but ſuch alſo as ſerved by their ſignification to teach moral duties: All myſtical Rites the Lord himſelf preciſely preſcribed,Exod. 25.9.38.39. & 39.42.43. 1 Chro. 28.12.19. 2 Chro. 29.25. 1 Chro. 24 19. 2 Chro • .8.14. laying a ſtrict charge upon Moſes, to make all things according to the pattern ſhewed him; which Rule was religiouſly obſerved by all religious and worthy Reformers of Religion afterwards, not one adventuring without ſpecial direction from the Word of God, to add any thing thereto, or alter ought therein.

Again, Duties moral and ſpiritual are parts of God's inward worſhip; and Ceremonies, ordained to teach either of them by myſtical Repreſentation, are parts of his outward Worſhip and Service; and ſo the matter is one, whether the Sign doth ſhaddow forth a morall or ſpiritual duty; for it is not the particular good thing ſignified by the Sign, but the Inſtitution of it to that end, that makes the Worſhip true or falſe: If it be appointed of God, it is true Worſhip, let the ſignification be moral or ſpiritual; if of men, it is falſe Worſhip, whatſoever it be ſet a-part to repreſent or teach, in our intention in the ſolemn Worſhip of God. In defence of Images it is objected, that Paulinus Nolanus Biſhop commanded the Hiſtory of the Old and New Teſtament to be painted in his Church, and that to this end, that the People might be drawn from ſurfetting and drunkenneſs, when they met together to banquet in that place, being buſied in viewing and beholding Images:See Jewel's Apol. par. 5. cap. 3. div. 1.2. Our Divines reply, that the Authority of man ought not to ſeem any thing againſt the plain and manifeſt Word of God; and Nolanus and his followers did offend the more grievouſly,Martyr. part. 2. c. 5. S. 23. that they adventured to do that which the former Fathers did alwayes diſallow: whereby we ſee what the judgment of Ancient and Modem Divines is, touching Images ſetup in the Church, to repreſent or put in mind of Moral duties. And if Images muſt be aboliſhed; ſignificant ſigns of mens deviſing, by the ſame reaſon, remain under condemnation: for they are Images, that is, certain figures having relation to the exemplar, or certain pictures with relation of repreſentations.

3. No Act, Ordinance, nor Inſtitution, contrary to a general Negative Commandment, is lawfull, unleſs that Act, Ordinance, or Inſtitution be in ſpecial warranted by the Word of God; for the Scripture ſhould not be ſufficient to make the man of God, that is, the Miniſter or Prophet, perfect to every good work, if an Act in ſpecial might be lawful without particular approbation, which is in general condemned as unjuſt and evill. If we find, that holy men of God did ſome particular things,1 Sam. 7.17. 1 King 18.32. D •••• 2.5, 6, 7, 13, 14. which were generally forbidden in the Law; as Samuel built an Altar at Ramath, Elias the Prophet on Mount Ca • mel; when by the Law it was not lawfull to offer any Sacrifice, but before the Lord, in the place which he ſhould chuſe. We muſt know, they did this by ſpecial direction, and extraordinary inſtinct. The Lawyers ſay,Generi per ſpeciem derogatur. Sext. de lib. 5. tit. de regulis Juris 33. Digeſt. l. 50. tit. 17. regul. 80. That a particular doth derogate from the general: And in theſe places, where a ſpecial fact doth not agree with a general Precept, there the Scripture is not repugnant unto it ſelf; but by the ſpecial, it is derogated from the general. But though it was lawfull for them that had ſuch an extraordinary Commandment contrary to the Law, at what time it pleaſed God after that manner to make known his pleaſure, to do what was ſo required of them; yet now the reaſon is not like, ſince God ſpeaketh unto us by his Word, according to which we muſt walk and worſhip him, and affordeth not that ſpecial priviledg to us, that he did to them. For God is free, ſubject to no Law;Zanch. de ſecundo praec. he commandeth us, not himſelf; he preſcribeth a general Law, not to himſelf, but to us, which it is never lawful to tranſgreſ, unleſs there be peculiar warrant from God for it. But the uſe and inſtitution of Ceremonies, ſignifying reſemblance in the ſolemn worſhip of God, is contrary to a general Negative Commandment; for the ſecond Commandment forbidding the making of any graven Image, or the likeneſs of any thing in heaven above, or in the earth beneath; doth alſo prohibit all outward forms deviſed by men for Religious uſe in the ſervice of God: It being a thing peculiar to the Lord, to preſcribe how his will and worſhip ſhall be taught, as what worſhip ſhall be given unto him. By the letter of the Precept onely, the making of graven Images, or Similitudes; and the adoration of them is condemned; but under that particular, we are charged to forge nothing of our own heads, in Ceremonies, or Rites ſignificant, but to be content with thoſe Ceremonies, and that outward Worſhip which God is pleaſed to preſcribe or appoint; whether they be Sacraments, Sacrifices, or other holy things: This to be the ſcope of that Commandment, is made evident many wayes.

Firſt, by the expoſition that is given thereof in other paſſages of holy Writ: It is an unqueſtionable truth, that the true meaning of every Precept is to be collected out of the writings of the Prophets and Apoſtles; and what we find in them commanded or forbidden, is to be referred to ſome one or more of theſe ten Commandments, though it be not expreſly mentioned in any one of them. Now then in the Law we read, That Moſes was commanded to do all things according to the pattern ſhewed in the Mount, without allowance to add one pin for reſemblance or ſhadow upon his own head.

To what Commandment can this charge be referred, but to the ſecond: And muſt it not then condemn all ſignificant Ceremonies forged by men unto themſelves for the ſervice of God; Nadab and Abihu are ſmitten with death,Levit. 10.1. Numb. 3.4. Lev. 1.7. & 6.12. & 9.24. Piſc. obſ. in Lev. 10.2. for preſuming to offer with ſtrange fire, which God commanded not; whence Divines obſerve, that the external worſhip of God is preciſely to be exerciſed according to the Preſcription of God; and that we may not depart one hair breadth from his holy Inſtitution upon any good intent; this their fact was contrary to the ſecond Commandment; and is it not manifeſt then that we are thereby enjoyned, neither to alter what God hath inſtituted, nor to deviſe of our own heads what he never appointed. What Precept did Ahaz tranſgreſs in commanding an Altar for burnt offering to be made after the pattern of the Altar at Damaſcus, but the ſecond? or by what reaſon can it be reduced unto it, unleſs we ſhall acknowledg that all things appointed by God in his ſervice, muſt carefully be obſerved without addition or detraction, and that all devices of men for worſhip, and inſtruction, are utterly unlawfull.

Secondly, The words of the Commandment do ſhew no leſs; for the former word Peſel doth ſignify any thing hewen, graven,Deut. 7.5. & 2.3. Deut. 7.25. Eſay 16.17. Hoſ. 13.2. Ezek, 8.10. Deut. 27.15. Eſay 30.22. Numb. 12.8. Pſal. 17.15. cut or carved; which is tranſlated by the Greek, an Idoll; the Caldee Paraphraſe, an Image; and the Thargum, called Jonathans, an Image or figure; under which name, all other ſorts are implyed, as Molten or Painted Images, or the like. The other word Temanah, is in ſignification, a ſimilitude or figure, and is opened by Moſes, by Semel, and Tabinth, words of the ſame ſignification, Deut. 4.16. So that all Portrai • ures, Shapes, Reſemblances, and Forms of things, Natural, or Artificial, Real, or Imaginary, deviſed by man for Religious uſe, worſhip, or inſtruction, are forbidden both by the ſcope, and letter of the Commandment. And if the words were not of that large ſignification, yet ſeeing all vices of the ſame kind are forbidden where one is expreſly mentioned; when material, cut or carved Images are prohibited, there all repreſenrations, material, aerial, real, imaginary, proper, and tropical, are condemned; For it is not the matter of the thing, but the form or application that is againſt the Precept, which is one and the ſame in repreſentations of what kind ſoever, in Pictures, proper, Metonymical, and Metaphorical: It matters not whether the Image be a thing truly exiſtent, formed of any viſible matter, Braſs, Wood, or Stone; or whether it have no other being but in the mind of men. If it be an Image deviſed by men for Religious uſe, it commeth under the ſentence of the Law:Martin de Sac. tract. 5. cap. 6. if we ask the conſent of learned Interpreters, they generally agree herein. Thus they reaſon againſt the Image of the Crucifix ſtamped upon the Popiſh hoaſt: the manifeſt Law of God diſalloweth all Images made for the cauſe of Religion, after what ſort ſoever; but Chriſt crucified ſet before our eyes in the Word and Sacraments, is life and Salvation. When our Adverſaries alledg in defence of Images, That Solomon in his Temple erected Cherubims on the Mercy-ſeat, where God was worſhipped: To this our Divines anſwer,Abbot againſt Biſhop. tract of Imag. SS. 8. Will. Cont. 9. q. r. Art. 2. alſo the ſecond Anſw. That theſe Cherubims were erected by the ſpecial Commandment of God, who had preſcribed both the form of them, and the place where they ſhould be ſet. For God commanded Moſes to make the Ark, and the Propitiatory or Mercy-ſeat, which was the Cover of the Ark, according to the faſhion that he had ſhewed him: withal, he appointed him to make two Cherubims, one at the one end of the Mercy-ſeat, and the other at the other end; ſo that with their wings ſtretched out, they ſhould cover the Mercy-ſeat. According to this Commandment Moſes did, but what was done with theſe Cherubims which Moſes ſet up, it is uncertain; but this is moſt ſure, that Solomon by vertue of the ſame Commandment,1 Reg. 8.5, 6. and to obſerve that which by Moſes was preſcribed, made two Cherubims to ſtand in the ſame place, as the other did, and to the ſame uſe. Inaſmuch then as God had by the Law directed in what ſort this ſhould be done, Solomon needed no further ſpecial direction for the doing of it, but had Treſpaſſed againſt God, if, being appointed to build an houſe unto God, he had not done it according to ſuch rules as the Law before had limitted for the doing of it. It is fitly anſwered (ſaith Martyr) That God gave the Law,Com. places, part, 2. cap. 5. S. 26. not to himſelf, but unto us; ſo then we muſt follow the ſame, neither may we bring him into order; if he otherwhiles would do any thing of ſpecial Prerogative, he muſt be ſuffered to do after his own will, but we muſt obey the Law that is made. Thoſe ſpecial Precepts of God (ſaith Urſinus) did as much derogate from the ſecond Commandment concerning Images,Urſin. tom. de Imag. pag. 43. as that ſingular Commandment in times paſt given unto Abraham concerning the offering of his Son Iſaac, may be ſaid to have detracted from the ſixth Precept of the Decalogue.Tert. de Idolat. Of old, Tertullian returned the ſame Anſwer to the like Objection; Well and good, (ſaith he) one and the ſame God, both by his general Law forbad any Image to be made, and alſo by his extraordinary and ſpeciall Commandment, willed an Image of a Serpent to be made; If thou be obedient to the ſame God, thou haſt his Law, Make no Image; but if thou have regard to the Image of the Serpent that was afterward made by Moſes, then do thou as Moſes did. Make not any Image againſt the Law, unleſs God command thee, as he did Moſes.

They add further, that they were types of ſpiritual things; which now have not place in the Church of God: Certainly (ſaith Martyr) theſe Images had ſome figurative meaning:Ubi ſupra. But they were not ſet forth, as an example for us to follow; and ſeeing they were external things, and had the Word added to them, they were (after a ſort) Sacraments of thoſe times: and it is only God, and not man, that can make Sacraments. And in Concluſion, they ſhut up their Anſwer with this,Martin. de 2. praec. pag. 166. Martyr. ubi ſupra. That we muſt attempt nothing without the Commandement and Warrant of God: For it is to be noted, That Solomon and Moſes, which made the Cherubins, durſt not make any other, they only made that, which was commanded unto them by God: They painted not upon the Walls the acts of Abraham, nor the doings of Adam, Moſes, or o • hers of the Fathers. By all this they ſufficiently declare, That, in their judgments, the erecting of Images in the Temple for ſignification only, without ſpeciall Warrant from God, is a breach and violation of the holy Law and Commandement of God. U • ſ. tom. 2. de diviſ. decalog. Fulk Rejoyn. againſt Martial. Perk. Arm. aurea. Martin. ubi ſupra. Lumb. l. 4. diſt. 1. T. Aquin. pag. 3. q. 83. a • t. 1. Jewels Apol. Angl. pag. 37. And in their Expoſitions upon this Commandement, they teach, That it condemneth all counterfeit means of Gods Worſhip, and requireth the obſervation of Rites and Ceremonies preſcribed by the Lord; in which only we ought to reſt: For it becomes us not to think our ſelves wiſer than God; who would not have his Church to be inſtructed with dumb ſigns, but with the lively preaching of the Word: The Sacraments are Images in the eyes of all the Learned, and unlawful by this Commandement, had not God himſelf commanded them. What? Are they unlawfull only as ſeals, and not as viſible ſigns of God's Will and Pleaſure? Yes; as ſigns alſo; for a ſign ſignifying by reſemblance, and an Image, are equivalent, and in largeneſs of ſenſe but one; and a ſign is a ſign from him that hath a power to inſtitute it. The affirmative part enjoyneth obedience to all the Worſhip appointed by God; all which was ſignificative, Heb. 8.5. & 8.1. But by the nature of the affirmative, we learn: Therefore we may conclude, that the inſtitution of ſignificant Ceremonies, is directly contrary to the Moral Law of God; and, without his warrant, is utterly unlawful.

The quality of the Negative. Nullum enim ſignum ſenſib • l • poteſt eſſe cauſa gratiae, nec illam infallibiliter ſignare, niſi ex Domini inſtitutione. Bell. de Sac. l. 1. c. 11. Atqui in Sacramentis ſignificare gratiam eſt eid • m Sacramentaliter conferre. Chem. de Sac. l. 3. c. 8.4. Whatſoever is not of faith, is ſin: But ſignificant Ceremonies not approved of God in his Word, cannot be inſtituted or uſed in faith. Man hath a twofold light given him for his guidance and direction, Natural Reaſon; and Super-natural Inſtruction; and what cannot be determined by the former, muſt be warranted by the other; otherwiſe it is unlawful, and conſequently not of Faith: But natural reaſon cannot determine what Ceremonies ſignificant are meet and fit to be uſed in the ſolemn Worſhip of God: For man hath neither power nor authority to bleſs, nor liberty to annex any ſuch forged or deviſed ſigns to the holy Inſtitution, nor wiſdom to diſcern what is fit and acceptable in that kind. He that is of authority to inſtitute a ſign to be the teacher of my underſtanding, and an inciter of my devotion, muſt be able to give vertue inherent, or aſſiſtance to that which ſhould be the cauſe of ſuch effects; elſe is the ſign vain and fruitleſs, the deviſer idle and preſumptuous. Now, man of himſelf can give no power to any Symbolical ſign of hi • deviſing,H • r. Con • eſs. W • tte n. breg. tit. de conſecrat. aquae ſalis. M • rtyr. Com. Places. p. 4. c. 9. Sect. 5. • un. de cult. Sanct. l. 3. c. 7. n. 12. to produce ſuch effects: For the vertue of things comes either from the Word of God put forth in the firſt Creation, or from his after-inſtitution, or from the Churches • mpetration; which obtaineth by prayer thoſe effects of things to which they ſerve by God's Creation and Inſtitution; not any creating or new conception of things to ſupernatural uſes: So that what force or vertue to ends or purpoſes ſupernatural, God hath not p • t into the creature, that, man by his inſtitution, cannot communicate unto it. Things natural, have indeed by creation an aptneſs in them to repreſent ſpiritual; and ſome agreement with them: But the determination of them to this purpoſe, the bleſſing of them in this uſe, is from Him only that gave them their firſt being. Man cannot give any bleſſing to his deviſes;Zepp. de Sac • am. l. 3. c. 12. Greg. 2. Nor hath he any warrant to begg Gods bleſſing upon them: for God will not be effectual by Traditions or humane Ceremonies, but by the order and mean • appointed by Himſelf; M • tth. 15.8. according to that, They worſhip me in vain by the Precepts of men: Therefore ſuch humane ceremonies can work no true devotion, no motions of heart pleaſing to God, no confirmation of faith, or ſerious repentance • but only have an opinion of wiſdome in voluntary worſhip.Col. 2.23.

Again: What underſtanding is there in man, to aſſure him that he may lawfully annex ſigns of his own deviſing to the Word and Sacraments, which God hath ordained for the full inſtruction of his Church?Levi • . 10.1. Deut. 1.18. & 17.3. 1 Reg. 16.14. 2 Reg. 17.26. God hath diſallowed the inſtitution of new rites not commanded: as Achaz and Manaſſes building new Altars in the houſe of the Lord, are reprehended for it. And is there any wit of man that can deviſe how we ſhould follow them in that kind; or in general do as they did; and not incurre the ſame rebuke? As the ſin of the Angels that fell, and the Sodomites, was one in kind, though different in its ſpecial nature; So is the ſin of building an Altar, and deviſing Sacramental rites in the worſhip of God. Is it not our duty to acknowledg God ſo wiſe and gracious in the ſigns that he hath choſen; as to hold it preſumption for any man to imitare him in deviſing of the like? Are not the Sacraments the ſeals of the heavenly King? and can any new print be added to the ſeal of a King, without high Treaſon? What Maſter of a Family in his houſe, What Prince in his Dominion, would grant power to any one, to change, alter, or reform any thing upon his own pleaſure? The ſigns which the Lord hath inſtituted for the inſtruction of his Church, are ſufficient, and do better ſerve for the purpoſe than any that man can deviſe: Therefore it is needleſs to forge any other; yea, it is a vilifying of the wiſdom of God. It is eaſie to ſhew, that the godly Learned in all Ages have diſliked the deviſing of new ſigns; howſoever, who men they have failed in ſome particulars, and ignorantly gone againſt what in general they ſoundly taught: He is too partiall, as will not acknowledg this in the Fathers themſelves, who did ſubſtantially maintain the perfection of Scripture, and the neceſſity of celebrating Divine Myſteries according to the preciſe inſtitution delivered unto them: and yet gave more power and vertue to vain inventions, and urged the neceſſity of Traditions, further than the Truth would permit; or can ſtand with their own doctrine and poſitions truly laid down in other places of their Writings. It is well known, the Papiſts have miſerably cor • upted the Simplicity of Gods Ordinances, by their ſinful, vain, and idle Ceremonies; yet ſome ſparkles of this truth doth ſhine amongſt them: Bellarmine would prove, that the Jews did not only deſire a corporal ſign of the true God,De Eccl. trimuph. l. 2. c. 13. Sect. At hoc. becauſe then they had no need to make a Calf; for they had a Cloud and a Pillar, which did lead them better than the Calf, which muſt be carried: In this reaſon, though weak and ſimple (for humane vanity doth many things both needleſs, and unlawful; elſe had their Oyl, Cream, Salt, Spittle, Ag • us Dei, never been deviſed) this truth is contained, That where God hath ordained ſigns profitable and ſufficient for the information of his Church,Si populo Ch iſtiano Apoſtoli Caeremonias vel Ritus divinitus traditos imponere noluerunt; quis, oro, ſanae mentis obtrudet illi adinventiones adinventas humanitus. Confeſs. Hel. vet. cap. 27. Con • . Wittemb. tit. de Baptiſ. Calv. opuſc. pa • . 59. It is needleſs and vain for men to deviſe and conſtitute others, or more, for that end and purpoſe. Again, the Ceremonies which were ordained by God himſelf, for the information of his Church by their ſignification, are now ceaſed; and cannot be continued without ſin: and what warrant then hath any man, upon his own will and pleaſure to inſtitute or ordain ſignificant Ceremonies in the time of the Goſpel.

When the Church was an Infant, kept under the Rudiments of the Law, ſhe was to be taught onely by thoſe ſhadows and figures that God preſcribed: And now, in the brightneſs of the Goſpel when all figures, ſhadows, vail, adumbrations; whether ſignifying things preſent or to come, be done away: Shall we think the light of reaſon ſufficient to direct, without the guidance of Scripture in m • tters of Rites and Ceremonies, appropriated to the ſolemn Worſhip of God for the Inſtruction of his People? Were the old figures taken away, Whit • k. de Pont. Rom. q. 7. c. 3. Art. 6. Idem. cont. Dura. l. 9. Sect. 59. p. 826. Rainold. Conf. with H • rt. c. 8. d. 4. p. 50. lin. 30. Viſin. tom. 2. tit. de Imag. 1 Cor. 11.23. Mat. 28.19, 28. Acts 10.47. Whitak. cont. Dur. Lib. 5. Sect. 21. & l. 10. Sect. 21. & l. 8. S • ct. 65. that there might be place for new? Were Divine aboliſhed, that Humane might ſucceed? Well then, may our Adverſaries triumph over the Forces that are ſent forth againſt their Superſtitions; burdenſome, Jewiſh, vain, and heatheniſh Rites and Cuſtoms. Our Writers diſpute thus againſt them: We muſt have no other ſigns in Baptiſm, than ſuch as the Scripture warranteth; They alledge that of the Apoſtle, What I have received of the Lord, that do I deliver; That of our Saviour, Go and Baptize, teaching them to obſerve whatſoever I command you; That of Peter, Can any forbid Water that theſe may not be Baptized; And generally, the practice of Chriſt and his Apoſtles: But if Cerimonies ſignificant be lawfull, which have onely Warrant or Approbation from the will or wit of Man; then muſt all theſe reaſons ſtoop to the Oyl, Cream, Salt, Lights, and Spittle, in uſe amongſt them; for all theſe have as much reaſon and ſhew of Wiſdom to Warrant them, as any other can that are ſimply of man's deviſing: And, what Underſtanding or Judgment can man have of himſelf to diſcern how, or by what means God will be Worſhipped? None at all. For the Scripture teſtifieth that every man is brutiſh by his own knowledge,Jer. 10.14, & 51, 17. nor more able to diſcern what in this caſe is fit and acceptable, than a blind man is to judge of Colours;Iſa. 8.20. Jer. 8.9. that there is no light in them that ſpeak not according to the Scripture, no wiſdom in them that reject the Word of the Lord▪ There is a certain light engraven in the hearts of men by Nature, whereby they know ſomewhat concerning God; as, that there is a God, that he is wiſe, juſt, good and bountiful, the Governour of all things; and they diſcern ſome things pertaining to juſtice, equity, temperance, honeſt commerce and dealing with men: but they are utterly ignorant how, or by what means God will be ſerved, what he will bleſs for the Inſtruction of his People. We ſee and know by experience, That is moſt perillous, unprofitable, and diſallowed of God, that doth beſt ſort with our vain conceptions: Carnal Obſervations,Col. 2.23. ſuch as, Touch not, taſte not, handle not; have a ſhew of wiſdom in voluntary Religion, and carry a glorious ſhew of holineſſe to our ſeeming; when the Word of God diſcovereth them to be fruitleſs, diſtaſtfull, odious. Whence grew the firſt contempt of God's Ordinances, the pollution of holy things with carnall Cuſtoms, that are according to this World; and not according to godlineſſe; the corruptions of the Truth with manifold Superſtitions and Idolatries; but from a fond admiration of Rites and Cuſtoms deviſed by others, or taken up upon our own Heads; which being once admitted into the Worſhip of God, did multiply and increaſe till they had obſcured, if not clean covered and aboliſhed the ſimplicity and glory of God's Ordinances, (as bad weeds overgrow the Corn) and ſecretly ſtollen the heart away from all due reverence and reſpect to the word of Life, and ſeals of our Salvation. For as a man is blind, carnall, impotent; and yet a Lover of his own devices: So are the ſigns deviſed by him, dark, vailing the brightneſs of the Goſpel; carnall, not ſpirituall; dead without Power; and yet better affected, more delighted in, than the Sacraments themſelves. No ſooner was the ſign of the Croſs added unto Baptiſm, and made a ſign like to the Lord's; but it preſently became greater than the Water which was Chriſt's ſign, and that in the Eyes of them who ſo advanced it. Moreover, admit Reaſon for an Umpire in this matter, and Images cannot be kept out of the Church: for no means is more profitable to inform the mind, confirm the memory, and move the affection, than is the ſight of a Picture artificially made, cut, or carved; if a man may believe himſelf, or give credit to his immagination: If the Will of God be not unto us inſtead of all reaſons, we ſhall be hardly drawn to diſlike that manner of teaching or worſhipping. A man that is enlightned with the knowledge of God's Will, and the myſtery of Salvation; may lawfully in his meditations make uſe of diverſe Creatures or things, that are apt and fit to repreſent Spirituall things unto him: but he muſt not take upon him to determine them to be uſed as ſigns for ſuch an end and purpoſe; for having no promiſe of God to come by that courſe, he can expect no bleſſing from God in that practice, but the contrary: Seeing therefore man is himſelf ignorant and unwiſe, neither able to receive the things of the Spirit, nor diſcern that which pertaineth to the Kingdom of Chriſt; (nor yet being enlightned with the knowledge of the Truth according to godlineſſe, to deviſe any fit or acceptable means whereby God ſhould be worſhipped, or his People taught in the wayes of holineſs): It followeth, That in the worſhip of God, ſigns not approved of him in his Word, cannot be inſtituted or uſed in Faith, and conſequently are to be held unlawfull.

5. Chriſt Jeſus, the great Doctor of his Church,Mat. 23.8, 10. Joh. 4.25. Acts 1.3. being called of his heavenly Father to teach to us perfectly, and at once, the whole Counſell of God, and the things that did pertain to the Kingdom of God to the end of the World, was faithfull in all his Houſe, as was Moſes; and made known unto his Diſciples whatſoever he received of his Father.Heb. 3.2, 5. But Moſes preſcribed the form of God's worſhip in every particular Ceremony ſignificant; and brought in none,Joh. 15.15. no not one into the Church, which the Lord himſelf did not inſtitute, giving charge to the Church of the Jews, That the • ſhould neither add thereto,Exod. 25.9, 38, 39, 40, & 27 19, & 39, 42 43. Deut. 12, 32. nor take ought therefrom. Therefore our Saviour Chriſt alſo taught his Diſciples what Ceremonies ſignificant ought to be uſed in the Church of God, to whoſe Ordinance nothing muſt be added, from whoſe Inſtitution nothing ought to be diminiſhed: The old Teſtament was indeed delivered unto one People only of the World; The Commiſſion of the Goſpel was, Go teach all Nations. But the liberty of Inſtituting Rites ſignificant was no greater to the Chriſtian Church, Viſ. Jun. Animad. in Bell. lib. 4. de pont. Cap. 17. than to the Church of the Jews: They had a preſcription of particular Ceremonies, moſt fitly agreeing to the polity of their Church and Common-wealth, and diſpenſation of thoſe times: So, hath the Chriſtian Church alſo: to which we are as preciſely bound, as ever was the Church of the Jews to the Ordinances appointed for that time and ſtate, as hath been ſhewed before; in Circumſtantiall matters concerning Time, Place, and Order of divine Service; And ſeveral Chriſtian Churches have liberty according to the generall Rules of Scripture to conſtitute what is moſt agreeable to the condition of the Country, and doth beſt tend to Edification: And in theſe things the Jews had Authority no leſs than the others. In Ceremonies and Rites ſignificant annexed to the Worſhip of God, the Jews were tyed to the written Law of Moſes and the Prophets; nor may any thing be attempted lawfully by the Chriſtian Church in things of this Nature, more than was or ought to have been by them. Though men be as different almoſt in Nature as in Nations and Languages, yet muſt they of neceſſity ſubmit themſelves to the uſe of Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper, which two Ceremonies onely are commanded by Divine precept; and are to be received of all Chriſtians, that in truth and ſoundneſs profeſſe the Goſpel. And ſeeing Chriſt Inſtituted no ſigns but theſe, the Apoſtles commended no other to the ſeverall Churches planted and dreſſed by them: What neceſſity is there, that difference of People to which the Goſpel is now preached, ſhould inferr a liberty of inventing new Signs or Rites never ſeen or allowed of Chriſt? Thoſe that God preſcribed for the Jews were fit for that Time, and for that People, none elſe might be deviſed; thoſe that Chriſt hath ordained for all Churches are ſufficient; moſt fit for them; what ſhall be brought in beſides and annexed to them, doth want both his Approbation and Bleſſing: As Moſes was faithfull in the Houſe of God as a Servant, both in thing: re • ll and rituall, as ſome diſtinguiſh; So was Chriſt alſo, as a Son, Neither did his faithfulneſs ſtand in removing the Law of Jewiſh Ceremonies, and disburdening all Chriſtians from the uſe of them; but in preſcribing Laws and Ordinances, whereby the Church is to be ordered and inſtructed untill his ſecond coming, and that as particularly and expreſly as Moſes had done unto the Iſraelites. To ſtand upon compariſon betwixt Moſes and Chriſt in perfection or reall faithfulneſs, (as ſome call it) is not to this purpoſe; for his perfection is one thing, his faithfulneſſe another: and whom He did exceed in perfectneſſe, He did every way equalize in faithfulneſſe in the Houſe of God: He did not onely teach a more excellent Doctrine than Moſes, but more full and perfect: He did not onely antiquate what Ceremonies were to be ſhadows of good things to come, and figures of man's Redemption by his Sacrifice upon the Croſſe; but he ordained alſo, with what viſible Signs and Tokens his Church ſhould be nourtured, and aſſured of his love and favour • As he died to bring Life to mankind, raiſed up himſelf from Death, aſcended, entred within the Vail, and hath taken poſſeſſion of the heavenly Manſion; for us: So did he give direction to his Apoſtles, and in them to all Churches, by what Statutes and Laws his People ſhould be Governed, by what Signs and Ceremonies they ſhould be taught and confirmed in Faith. Do we then leave nothing to the Arbitrament of the Church? Nothings but what was left to the Power and Authority of the Jewiſh Church: for we have a Canon as perfect, a direction as exact and particular as ever they had. Many honourable witneſſes of God's truth have judiciouſly obſerved, That Chriſt in holy Scripture hath not ſingularly and ſpecially preſcribed concerning externall Diſcipline and Ceremonies; for that he foreſaw theſe things were to depend upon the occaſions and opportunities of times, which muſt be determined by generall Rules given for direction in theſe caſes; whoſe Judgment we imbrace with reverence, & acknowledg conſonant to the words of wholeſome Doctrine, ſo it be underſtood according to their true intent and meating, Of matters meetly accidentall, circumſtan • iall, or naturall concerning Diſcipline or Worſhip: But thence to infer a liberty to ordain in ſubſtantial matters of Diſcipline & ſignificative Ceremonies whatſoever ſhall ſeem good in our own eys, without the approbation and warrant of Gods Word, is more than the Learned grant, or the Truth it ſelf will permit: As touching the Church (ſaith Martyr) ſhe altereth not her form.Loc. Com. part. 1. c. 11. Sect. 12. It is alwayes one manner of Common wealth, & nothing is hid from the underſtanding of God the Author of the Laws. The Lord of the houſe was not inferiour to the ſervant in fidelity: What our Saviour Chriſt heard and ſaw of the Father; that he manifeſted to his Diſciples, charging them to teach the Church to obſerve it: What they received of the Lord, that they delivered in great ſimplicity, without any addition of new doctrine to his Doctrine, or of deviſed ſymbolical ſigns to his Signs; never once intimating in their Epiſtles or Writings, any liberty that the Church ſhould have to multiply Rites or Ceremonies for myſticall ſignification, and to annex them to the holy things of God. And when we can neither hear from Moſes, Chriſt, nor his Apoſtles, that the forging and inventing of ſuch obſervations is allowed before God; what warrant can we have to bear us out therein? If Cities and Towns-Corporate plead Immunities and Exemptions from the Law, and aſſume to themſelves authority to make Decrees of this or that ſort: being impleaded by the King's Attorney for it; either they muſt ſhew their Charter to warrantize ſuch Priviledges, or incur Cenſure for their ſawcineſs and preſumption: So they that challenge priviledg to deviſe ſignificant Rites in the Worſhip of God, and annex them to the Signs which God Himſelf hath eſtabliſhed, muſt either ſhew their Charter ſigned with the authentique Seal of the Court of Heaven, or be caſt in Judgment when they be impleaded at his Barr.

6. If God be the only Teacher of his Church to inſtruct it by Word and Sign, then no Ceremonies ſignificant may be admitted into the ſolemn Worſhip of God for doctrine and inſtruction, but ſuch as bear his ſtamp, are marked with his Seal, are warranted by holy Scripture: For the chaſte Spouſe of Chriſt, who knowes the voyce of her Beloved, will not acknowledg unwritten Traditions for the Word of God: But God is the only Teacher of his Church both by Word and Sign.Jam. 4.12. Matth. 23.8. Act. 3.32. As the doctrine which is taught muſt be from above, ſo the means whereby it is taught muſt be of God: both he that teacheth new doctrines, and he that deviſeth ſtrange means to inſtruct the people of God in the knowledg of the truth according to godlineſs, doth run upon his own head.Mic. 7.16. Hoſ. 14.1. It is a truth without controverſie; That as to forgive ſins, receive into favour, and bleſs with ſpiritual bleſſings in Jeſus Chriſt, is proper to the Lord alone; ſo it is his peculiar,Eſay 7.14. & 38.7. to inſtitute ſigns and ſeals of his Covenant and Mercy. For none can ſign a Leaſe, who hath not power to let and demiſe it: nor annex a ſeal to any promiſe, that hath not authority to make it, and to confer the good promiſed. Jewel. Treat. of the Sacr. But it ſeems as lawful to deviſe new ſeals of Divine promiſes, as Symbolical ſigns of ſpiritual duties: ſeeing to teach the way to heaven, and to preſcribe what ſervice man ſhould perform to God; doth belong to him that hath Power and Soveraignty of life and death, who is able to ſave and to deſtroy. And if we may be bold to invent ſigns to teach man his duty; and link them to the means of God's Worſhip, ſo long as they ſignifie no other thing but what the Scripture teacheth. Bellar. de Sacr. l. 1. cap. 24. Sect. de Sacr. Why may we not bring in ſigns alſo to aſſure us of the truth of Gods promiſes, when nothing is thereby aſſured and ſealed, but what is promiſed in the written Word. As the Duty taught, and the Promiſe confirmed, are both from one Supream; ſo the ſign of Inſtruction, and the ſeal of Confirmation, do challenge the ſame authour, require the ſame authority. This will the better appear, if we ſhall conſider, That ſigns do not become ſeals by any ſpecial inſtitution; whereby they are diſtinguiſhed from ſigns in regard of the efficient cauſe, but in reſpect of the thing that they are appointed to ſign or ſignifie: Signs of Divine promiſes are ſeals, true or falſe; vain or behooveful, even from this, that they are determined to ſignifie ſuch a thing, whether the Inſtitution be of God or Man. Signs of mans duty, be ſigns only, from what authour ſoever they have their ordination. The reaſon is, becauſe duties are only taught, not aſſured as duties; but promiſes repreſented by ſigns are thereby ſealed. What is a ſeal,Baſting. Cate. q. 66. of the Sacram. but a ſign ſealing up a thing promiſed; or a print whereby a thing promiſed by Covenant is ſigned. Therefore if the Church may not preſume to add new ſeals to the promiſes of God, but is bound to reſt contented with them that are commended unto her by the Lord himſelf, She may not deviſe ſymbolical ſigns in the worſhip of God, for the inſtruction of her children in the wayes of holineſs. It may further be added, That a ſign is a viſible word: and therefore if no voyce muſt be heard in the Congregation but the Lords alone; no teaching ſigns muſt be admitted in his worſhip, but ſuch as he hath licenſed to ſpeak and ſtand in place.Syntag tom. 2. l. 6. c. 38. Polanus ſaith, Thoſe things are impious, which are directly oppoſed to the Commandement of God; of which ſort are many Traditions of the Papiſts; as, the abuſe of the Lords Supper, the Maſs, Invocation of dead men, worſhipping of Images, the law concerning Single life, Feſtival dayes dedicated to Saints, Images made for religious uſes, that is, that they might ſerve for the uſe of Religion, either that they might be worſhipped, or that holy things might be repreſented by them, or that God be worſhipped by them: For God willeth not this end of Images, but will have all men taught by his Word; Monumenta autem quibus res divinae repreſentantur ſunt ſola Sacramenta, non picta, aut ficta, aut ſculpta, ſed adminiſtrata et uſurpata legitimè In the Book of Homilies,Hom. for Whitſontide, part. 2. Fulk againſt Rhem. in Luc. 24. Sect. 5. all humane deviſed ſigns are condemned in Baptiſm, becauſe no ſigns ſhould burden the Church, ſave thoſe which the Lord hath left, which are not burdenſome. D. Fulk demandeth of the Rhemiſts, How is the ſign of the Croſſe a convenient memoriall of Chriſt's death, which is not ordained of Chriſt, nor taught by the Apoſtles to be ſuch?Cont. Bell. de cult. Sanct. l. 3. c. 7. Lambertus Danaus is reſolure; It is blaſphemy (ſaith he) to think that any outward thing may be made a ſign in the Church of any thing that is ſpiritual; unleſſe it be expreſly ordained in the Word, and commanded by God himſelf to be uſed to that end. Bucer condemneth them that deviſe any ſign for religious uſe: And this the Schoolmen themſelves ſaw and taught: It pertaineth only to the ſignifier to determine what ſigns muſt be uſed to ſignifie.

7. The Scripture is the ſole and ſufficient Rule of all immediate worſhip,Levit. 10.1. Jer. 7.31. Deut. 12.31, 32. Col. 2.23. internal or external, moral or ceremonial, as it is evident by the whole tenour of Gods Word, and the general Confeſſion of all Proteſtant Divines. The Lord never left it to the will and arbitrament of man, to worſhip him as ſeemed good in his own eyes: But in all Ages of the World, and ſtates of the Church, he ſtill preſcribed how he would be ſerved. The duty that Adam owed in the ſtate of Innocency, muſt be paid according to the preſcription: he was taught in what he ſhould ſhew his obedience, what time he ſhould ſet apart as a ſolemn day of reſt; the like may be ſaid of all the worſhip he was to perform. After the Fall, Was any worſhip allowed, which was not commanded? We read not of any expreſs Commandement that the Fathers had to offer Sacrifice, or to obſerve the difference of clean and unclean beaſts. But without queſtion, they received particular inſtructions from the Lord, touching theſe things, either by the inſpiration of his Spirit, or ſome Word, or both: For the Scripture ſaith, God had reſpect unto Abel, and his ſacrifice: But ſacrifice and burnt-offerings could not pleaſe him,Gen. 4.4, 5. Pſal. 50.9, 10. Heb. 11.7. Heb. 11.6. if they had not been offered in faith and obedience. Again, By faith Abel offered a greater ſacrifice then Cain; without which it is impoſſible to pleaſe God. But faith preſuppoſeth revelation, and obedience a Commandement. In other Ages of the Church it is moſt clear and evident, that the Lord ſhewed to his Church the whole form of worſhip, wherewith for that time he would be ſerved, unto which they might not add; from which they might not detract the leaſt jot or tittle. The Prophets, our Saviour Chriſt, the Apoſtles,Levit. 10.1. Jer. 7.31. & 28.14.47. & 12.30. & 29.26. & 31.20. Exod. 20.5. & 10.26. & 12.30. Judg. 10.10. 2 Sam. 16.19. 2 Reg. 10.18, 19, 21, 22. & 17.33. & 21.28. 1 Chr. 28.19. 2 Chro. 30.23. Jer. 8.2. Mal. 3.14, 15. Rainold. incenſ. Apoc. tom. 2. p. 244. do ſharply reprehend all Rites deviſed by man for religious uſe, though carrying never ſo great a ſhew of wiſdom, humility and care: which they would never have done, if will-worſhip had not been unlawful, and diſpleaſing unto God. To ſpend many words in the confimation of this Point is ſuperfluous, ſince it is a truth generally received by all Proteſtant Divines, That Ceremonies are unlawful, when they be impoſed, urged, or uſed with opinion of holineſs, neceſſity or worſhip. But to prevent miſtaking, it will be expedient here to ſhew, what Worſhip is, and what warrant each part thereof muſt have from God. The Hebrew word, Habad, which ſignifies to Serve, is commonly uſed for all that ſervice, good and bad, which is given either to the true God, or Idols: which two kinds of worſhip as they agree in one common nature of Worſhip or Service, ſo do they in their general or common nature, though they be oppoſite in their ſpecial nature, objects, and adjuncts: contraries we know muſt conſent in ſome third, as vertue and vice, hot and cold, black and white: the ſame is to be held of Divine worſhip true and falſe. For ſervice comprehending under it worſhip true and falſe, as the parts thereof, at leaſt analogical; of neceſſity the common nature of worſhip muſt agree to them both, elſe how could the ſervice of Idols, or falſe-worſhip of the true God, be called Worſhip: This hath been wiſely obſerved in other caſes not unlike, by our learned Writers againſt the common Adverſary. Bellarmine would prove, That the offering of Incenſe and ſweet Odours, is not a Sacrifice in the New Teſtament; becauſe it is not offered by the Prieſt only, nor only to the Lord. Our Divines reply, That there are many Sacrifices, to which that definition of Sacrifices cannot agree, viz. prophane Sacrifices which are offered by them that are no Prieſts; to devils, and not to God; after a manner deviſed, not preſcribed by God: and therefore ſeeing that of Sacrifices ſome be holy, and ſome prophane, in the definition of a ſacrifice in general, thoſe things only are to be put, which are common to both kinds. In like manner, when there is a true and falſe worſhip; an holy and prophane ſervice, thoſe things only are to be put in the definition of worſhip, which agree to both kinds. Divine worſhip taken in that latitude of ſenſe as to comprehend the ſervice of God true and falſe, (for to ſpeak of the worſhip of falſe gods, is impertinent) is an action or work commanded by Divine Authority, inſtituted by man, or deviſed upon our own heads, whereby God is worſhipped, his promiſes are ſealed; or obedience to his Will is taught.Zanch. de redemp. in ſecundum prec. Par. dradiaph. pag. 90. All actions that man performeth unto man, are not parts of civil worſhip: but every act that man performeth directly or immediately to God, is a part of Divine worſhip, and ought meerly to concern his glory: For it is impoſſible to conceive how the creature, who is infinite degrees inferiour to the Creator in excellency, and altogether unable to return the leaſt good back again to Him for the infinite bleſſings he hath received from him, ſhould perform any act immediately unto him but worſhip. A work commanded, is not large enough to comprehend the whole nature of worſhip, but doth diſtinguiſh true worſhip from falſe, as the uprightneſs of the heart doth ſincere worſhip from hypocritical and counterfeit. To ſay Man is a reaſonable creature alwayes enjoying ſound health, is not the definition of Man, but of a ſound man; becauſe there be many ſubject to infirmities and diſeaſes, who yet be men: So to define Worſhip to be a work commanded of God, is to ſhew what lawful and holy Worſhip is,Eſay 29.13. Matth. 15.9. not what worſhip in general: For many things are worſhip which God never required. That Worſhip is true which God commandeth: that falſe, which man deviſeth: that ſincere that proceedeth from an honeſt heart, a good conſcience,Pſal. 78.34, 35. and faith unfained: that hypocritical, which cometh from an halting, divided, double heart, or is performed by the outward man alone: But truth and ſincerity being ſpeciall adjuncts of worſhip appointed and commanded of God, cannot come within the definition of worſhip in general. And as the means that God hath appointed to ſeal his promiſes or teach obedience, be acts of divine ſervice: So the means that man ſhall deviſe or invent of himſelf for that end and purpoſe, muſt needs be worſhip alſo. If God be worſhipped when obedience is taught by the preaching of the Goſpel, or his promiſes ſealed by the uſe of the Sacraments: When the ſame duty is taught by viſible ſigns, or the promiſe confirmed by new deviſed ſeals, he is worſhipped and honoured: for every action whereby God is worſhipped, is worſhip; and every work whereby obedience is taught, is obedience or ſervice. From hence it appears, that the definition of eſſential worſhip, to be, [That which is neceſſarily required to God's ſervice, ſo as that the contrariety thereof muſt needs diſpleaſe him] is too ſhort, as that which agreeth not to all worſhip, but only to that which is true and ordained of God: For we know, many Traditions, Cuſtoms, and Ceremonial obſervations are obtruded upon the Churches as worſhip, the contrary whereof would pleaſe, and not diſpleaſe God. Were not the precepts of men reprehended by the Prophet Eſay, the Phariſaical waſhings taxed by Chriſt,Eſay 29.13. Matth. 15.9. Mar. 7.7. Col. 2.23. and other Ceremonial obſervations condemned by the Apoſtle Paul, as matters of worſhip, though falſe and erroneous? How could there be any will-worſhip, if all worſhip were neceſſarily required of God? Neither are thoſe Ceremonies only to be reputed eſſential parts of worſhip, that be urged with opinion of Sanctity, Neceſſity, Efficacy, whether true or falſe: but thoſe ſigns alſo that are deviſed to be means of ſpiritual inſtruction by their notable and myſtical ſignification: It being a part and means of his worſhip, to teach his worſhip. To place the worſhip of God in Faith, Hope, and Love only, and not in external Rites and Ceremonies, is contrary to Truth and Reaſon: For then the Ceremonies of the Law, & the Sacraments of the New Teſtament muſt be reputed no parts of Gods eſſential worſhip, which is moſt abſurd. Calv. Inſt. l. 4. c. 10. Sect. 9.12. The Papiſts are accuſed by the Learned of our ſide, to place the Worſhip of God in their vain Traditions and Obſervations. What worſhip do they in end, only acceſſary and accidental, as ſome call it? No, but eſſentiall and ſubſtantial: and yet they ſpeak of Rites and Ceremonies, which by the Canons and Conſtitutions of that Synagogue, are not mainained to be of abſolute neceſſity to ſalvation; as they plainly profeſs, and our Divines acknowledg: Whereby it is not hard to gather, what is meant by eſſential or ſubſtantial worſhip; that it ſtands not only in internal duties, but alſo in external Rite; and Ceremonies which are acknowledged to be of no abſolute neceſſity.

Now the better to conceive what warrant every part of Gods ſervice muſt have from the Scripture, three things are to be diſtinguiſhed in it.

The firſt is the eſſential worſhip it ſelf, whether concerning mans duty, or the means of his Inſtruction.

The ſecond, the natural Ceremonies, or voluntary compoſitions or geſtures of the body, as are with moderate deliberation uſed to ſhadow forth the hidden motions, affections, and diſpoſitions of the mind, that are begotten by the conſideration of Gods excellent Greameſs, Majeſty, Goodneſs, Love, &c.

The third, is the circumſtances, and order of performance (which is by ſome called accidental, or acceſſary worſhip), ſuch as concern time, place, perſon, and manner of performance; all which are required in the celebration of Gods worſhip. Thus Divines make a difference (and that neceſſarily) betwixt the ſubſtance of worſhip, and the things annexed to it as neceſſary circumſtances. And as we muſt diſtinguiſh the ſubſtantial means of worſhip from the external teſtifications of inward devotion by natural Ceremonies; ſo muſt they be diſtinguiſhed from bare and naked circumſtances of time, place, and manner of celebrating divine Myſteries: for circumſtances are meetly acceſſaries to worſhip, no parts thereof, if we ſpeak properly, according to the ordinary acceptation of the word,1 King. 19.18. Hoſ. 13.2. Ezek. 18. 6. in Claſſical Authors. But the geſtures of the body made, and purpoſely framed to ſhadow forth the hidden affection of the Soul, are external acts of adoration and worſhip. The true worſhippers of God are diſtinguiſhed from Idolaters by this, that they had not bowed the knee to Baal. Kiſſing, bowing to an Image, is condemned as a ſervice of the Idol; and the whole worſhip of God is oft-times ſignified by the terms of kiſſing,Pſal. 2.12. Eſay 45.23. Phil. 2.9, 10. Epheſ. 3.24. Joh. 4.20, 21. 1 Reg. 8.54. Ezr, 9.5. Deut. 4.19. Pſal. 95.5. Matth. 17.4. Matth. 2.1, 11. bowing, kneeling, adoring, falling down before him. In the old Teſtament, the worſhip of God is noted by this word, Carah, which ſignifieth the bending of the knees, or hams; Kadad, which ſignifieth to bow, or nod the head; Sagad, almoſt of the ſame ſignification; Schaphel, Schachah, and Shacack, which ſignify to bow the whole body, and ſometimes to fall flat upon the ground. In the New Teſtament, Gods Worſhip is noted by theſe words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which ſignifieth to bow the knee; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is to worſhip by kiſſing, and caſting down himſelf at the knees of another. What? that to adore, is to give honour with the geſture of the body, aſwell as with the mind or words: Priſcianus, and Nonnius, derive the word Adoratio of Ador, which ſignifieth fine flower, or corn whereof fine Cakes were made, which the Romans uſed in their Sacrifices. Valla derive it of oro, but yet he ſaith, Adorare nihilominus ſine ore ſieri, not, ſine flexu genuum ac geſtu corporis.

It implyeth in it three acts; firſt, An apprehenſion of the excellency of that which is adored.

Secondly, An act of the Will, deſiring to do ſomething to teſtify our acknowledgment of this greatneſs, and our ſubjection and inferiority.

Thirdly, An outward act expreſſing the ſame.

The two former are internal, the laſt is outward, bringing that to light that was hid in the heart; but the Hebrew, Greek, and Latine words, ſignifying adoration, do note an external humiliation, and either a proſtration of the whole body, or of ſome part, viz. the head, or the bending of the knee, or kiſſing of the hands, to ſhadow forth and expreſs the internal affection of the heart, which is the Soul and life of external worſhip. But if it be demanded what warrant theſe things muſt have from the Word of God, the anſwer is direct.

Firſt, The actions of worſhip it ſelf, whatſoever are not preſcribed and appointed of God, they are forbidden; for concerning them, nothing may be added, diminiſhed, or changed, but all things muſt be done according to Divine Inſtitution.

Secondly, Natural Ceremonies or Signes (as they are called),Bell. de ſacr. l. 2. c. 29. ſect. ſecund. part. Quaedam ſunt ab ipſa natura, &c. which are but inward demonſtrations of the ſecret diſpoſition of the heart, are ſufficiently warranted by the light of Nature, and the Word of God, though they be not required as abſolutely neceſſary, nor particularly preſcribed, as be the ſubſtantial means of worſhip. And though no preciſe geſture be of abſolute neceſſity in any part of Gods worſhip; yet are theſe Ceremonies ſo far Divine,Calv. Inſt. l. 4. c. 10. ſect. 30. that it is not in the power of any Church in the World, altogether to prohibite them.

Thirdly, Arbitrary Ceremonies concerning time, place, and manner of celebrating Divine Myſteries, are in the power of the Church, to be ordered as ſhe ſhall judg to be moſt convenient, and tending to edification; provided that all her Ordinances be ſquared according to the general rules of direction hid down in the Word of God, and nothing be done contrary to the integrity of Doctrine, the ſimplicity of Chriſtian Religion, the edification of the Church, good order, and the rules of love: and in all this, nothing is affirmed, but what is taught and maintained by Proteſtant Divines againſt the common Adverſaries of Gods Grace and truth; but ſigns ſignifying by proportion annexed to the ſolemn worſhip of God, are parts of his worſhip, not acceſſary, but ſubſtantial; proper, not accidental, in the ſenſe before explained.Cont. Fauſt. l. 19. cap. 16. et Tract. in 10.80. et de Trin. l. 3. c. 4. For Ceremonies ſignificant are viſible words (as Auguſtine calleth the Sacraments) teaching Doctrine true or falſe, as in ſignification they conſent or diſſent from the Word of God; and of neceſſity the Doctrine taught by Word, and Sign, muſt agree in one common nature. What is it to ſay the Sacraments are viſible words,Urſin. tom. 2. ad Flac. Sect. reſp. pag. 1433. but that they are Signes, Imagēs, Similitudes, Types, viſible Anti-types of the Word; or that the Sacraments as Signs, do repreſent that to the eyes, which words bring to the ears?

Now the publick reading of Scripture for the edification of the Church, is acknowledged to be a part of Gods Worſhip; ſo is the Preaching,Ut enim vocalis oratio eſt cultus, quia eſt ſignum mentalis; ita adoratio erit cultus, quia eſt ſignum internae adorationis. Bell. de ſacr. l. 2. c. 3. prop. 5. explaining, and applying of the Word; the text being the ſame for ſubſtance with the expoſition; And if to teach by word be a worſhip of God; to teach by ſign, whether ſignificative by the appointment of God, or declaratory by the invention of man, is worſhip alſo, when they teach one thing in uſe publick and religious.

Again, all Actions whereby ſpirituall Duties are taught in Gods ſolemn Worſhip, are Acts whereby God is Worſhipped, and all Acts whereby God is Worſhipped in his ſolemn Servivce, is Worſhip; as all Actions whereby he is obeyed, is Obedience. But ſignificant Ceremonies do teach ſpiritual Duties in the Worſhip of God; and conſequen ly God is Worſhipped by them, and they are Worſhip. Moreover, the Jewiſh Ceremonies Inſtituted by God, and Ceremonies ſignificative deviſed by Men, and annexed to the ſolemn Worſhip of God, do agree in the ſame common nature and uſe; both appropriated to the Worſhip of God, both outward ſhadows of myſtical ſignification to teach ſpirituall Duties: But the uſe of Jewiſh Ceremonies in the ſolemn Worſhip of God, was a part of his true and immediate Worſhip and Service: Therefore others alſo muſt be a part of his Worſhip; for agreeing with them in common nature and uſe, they muſt needs conſent in the common Nature of Worſhip, though they differ in their Adjuncts, true and falſe, as they diſſent in their ſpeciall Inſtitution; the one taking their Originall from God, the other ſpringing from Man's brain. The commandment of God, and the ſpeciall inſtituted ſignification of a Ceremony, makes it not barely to be Worſhip, but true and approved Worſhip; and the ſame thing practiſed to a like end, without Divine approbation, muſt needs be Worſhip, but falſe and erroneous: Incenſe offered to the true God according to his preſcription to an holy end, was an holy Sacrifice, pleaſing and acceptable; Incenſe offered to Saints without direction from God, is a Sacrifice alſo, becauſe both theſe are one in the common nature of a Sacrifice, but falſe and profane. Circumciſion, abſtinence from Blood, and other legal Rites obſerved according to the preſcription of the Law, was an immediate Worſhip of God; but now to abſtain in like manner, and for the ſame end, is Superſtitious. Now, to take up the uſe of legall Rites, is Will-worſhip; becauſe they are not required at our hands: A thing in it ſelf indifferent, being commannded of God for ſome ſpeciall end and purpoſe, becomes a neceſſary and immediate part of his Worſhip, though it was not ſo before; but if any man upon his own head ſhall uſe it to ſuch ends to which it is not appointed, or with the ſame opinion of holineſs and neceſſity; he ſtands guilty of deviſed Worſhip. Martyr ſpeaking againſt the popiſh Addition of Salt in Baptiſm; ſaith, So then that which is added to Baptiſm, is ſelf-worſhip; and no lawful and ſincere Adminiſtration of Baptiſm. Martyr. Com. pl. part. 4. cap. 8.5. In Inſtitutions which are means to an end, the reſpect of the end is alſo required to the end; but a right end not ſo. It had been ſimply indifferent to offer a Lamb ſpeckled or unſpeckled in Sacrifice, had not the Lord determined they ſhould bring one without ſpot for an oblation; but if to the ſame end for which God ordained it ſhould be without ſpot, any man had preſumed to appoint or offer a Lamb without ſpot; in ſo doing, he had forged a Worſhip unto himſelf: This is no new piece of Doctrine, but what hath been acknowledged, and is maintained by our Divines againſt the Adverſaries. Laſtly, ſigns Sacramentall are parts of God's Worſhip: But ſignificant ſigns by analogy or proportion, are Sacramentall; as ſhall be ſhowed in the next Argument.

8. No ſigns Sacamentall are warrantable or lawfull, but what are Inſtituted of God, and approved in his Word; Paul ſaith, Hereceived of the Lord, what he delivered to the Church of Corinth, touching the, Sacrament of the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11.13. which muſt be underſtood of all other alſo: The Baptiſm of John, was it from Heaven or of Men? It was not from Men, but God: He is the Ordainer of all Sacraments, new or old; Our Divines maintain againſt the Romaniſts, Gen. 9.13, & 17.19. Willet Con. 24. q. 4. Arg. 2. Divinum et integrum non eſſet miſterium, ſi quicquam ex te adderes. Chryſ. homl. 7. in 1 Corrinth. Bell. de Sacr. l. 1. c. 9.14. & de Script. l. 4. c. 5. Chriſtus in Eccleſia ſolus poteſt Sacramenta conſtituere. Mald. in Matth. 26.11. Zepper. de ſacra. lib. 1. The Sacraments were ordained to move, lead, and inſtruct our dull and heavy hearts, by ſenſible Creatures, that ſo our negligence in not hearing or marking the Word of God might be amended. Jewel's Treatiſe of the Sacraments. That the Sacraments are expreſly commanded of God in holy Scripture, and that in the Inſtitution of a Sacrament there muſt be expreſs mention of the material parts thereof, as it was in the Inſtitution of Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper; yea, the Papiſts themſelves acknowledge that Ceremonies Sacramental, muſt be Inſtituted by Authority, divine, not humane; though they refuſe to be judged in this by the Scripture, and fly to unwritten Traditions, which blaſphemouſly they make to be one part of the word of God, in authority equal to the holy Scripture: But ſigns appointed to ſignify by analogy or proportion, & annexed to the ſolemn Worſhip of God, are Sacramental. The antients define a Sacrament to be, A viſible ſign or form of an inviſible Grace, A ſign not naturall, but voluntary; not indicant, but analogicall; teaching or ſhadowing by repreſentation: So they call a Sacrament, a viſible Word, as in Scripture they are termed Signs or Memorials. In modern Writers, the name Sacrament is given to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; to the Altars, Sacrifices, Cherubins, Lights, and all Ceremonies ordained for ſignification in time of the Law; as well as to the Rainbow, Manna, the Rock, the Red-Sea, Circumciſion, and the Paſchal-Lamb: Some of which were inſtituted to teach Man his Duty, as others to ſeal and confirm the Promiſe of God, or if all of them were ſeals of ſome ſpirituall Promiſes, they were all Signs of ſome ſpiritual Duty, and Sacramentall in both reſpects. Whence we may conclude, That the common nature of a Sacrament doth agree to ſigns determined by repreſentation to teach any duty that man oweth to God (his abſolute Soveraign, and mercifull Father in Chriſt Jeſus) whether Supernaturall or Morall. The Precepts contained in the Book of Life, are, and do ſet forth the mind of God unto us, no leſſe than the Promiſes made therein; nor can any reaſon be given, why the repreſentation of ſome ſpirituall Duty [for all Duties that man is to perform unto God in Chriſt are ſpirituall Duties,] by a myſtical Rite, ſhould not as properly pertain to the nature of a Sacrament; as the ſhadowing or ſealing of ſome ſpirituall Promiſe.Quanquam ne profeſſi • quidem fidei. Nam attendendum non tantum quid velit qui profitetu • , ſed • tiam quid ••• ptum ſit ei, apud quem opertet profeſſio ••• • s; ••• . Ch. de Sacr. lib. 1. cap. 8. urſin. tom. 2. pag. 1630. What the Word doth bring to the ear, that the Sacrament doth exhibit to the other ſenſes: The whole Scripture doth teſtifie, That from the beginning of the World, the Lord did intend this in Inſtituting Ceremonies, that they ſhould repreſent thoſe things to the Eyes of men, which his heavenly Word doth offer to their Ears. But commandments are part of the Word as well as Promiſes; The Will of God manifeſting what he will do for us, is a myſtery; ſo is it preſcribing what Service he will have from us, and a viſible, corporal, material element determined to teach either of them, or both, is a ſign Sacramentall and myſticall, expreſſing ſome ſacred myſtery to the Eye, plac="marg" Signa cum adres divinas adhibentur Sacramenta vocantur. Aug. de Doctr. Chr. lib. 3. cap. 6. & ad Max. Ep. 5. as the Word doth to the ſenſe which receiveth the Voyce. We know no more what Service God will have a Chriſtian perform unto his Highneſſe, then we do what good he would have men to expect from him by a lively Faith; and it ſeems altogether as lawfull for man to deviſe ſigns for the confirmation of his Faith, as to admoniſh and teach his Duty. What difference can be made betwixt an addition to the means of inſtruction appointed of God, and to the means of our aſſurance preſcribed by him: The commandments and the Promiſes are ſo knit together, that it cannot be conceived how a ſign ſhould be appointed to teach man his Duty, and not to aſſure him of ſome good from God in the uſe thereof: For 〈◊〉 Will is made known by Covenant, wherein he freely bin ••• •• elf to bleſs us upon condition of ſincere and faithfull Obedie ••• •• s he obligeth us to be obedient to his Commandments that we may be bleſſed; and the ſigns added to the Word do teach both, as in the Word it ſelf both parts are publiſhed. Again, it is one proper end of the Sacraments by ſtriking the ſenſes by outward repreſentative Elements to teach the underſtanding, help the memory, ſtirr up the affections, and excite devotion: But for this end alſo are ſignificant Rites deviſed, unleſs we ſhall confeſſe them to be vain, idle, fruitleſs, abſurd and ſenſleſs; And thus agreeing with Sacraments in their nature and end; of neceſſity they muſt be confeſſed to be Ceremonies Sacramental: The Scripture doth not ſo diſtinguiſh betwixt Signs & Seals, or ſigns ſignificative & obſignant; as to make the one Sacramental, not the other: rather under the name ſign it expreſſeth the nature of a Sacrament, which conſiſteth in the analogy & proportion which is betwixt a ſign determined to ſignify, and the thing ſignified. The ſigns which it hath pleaſed God to add to his Covenant, are not bare, naked, empty ſhadows, but lively Seals of divine Grace Promiſed, & effectual Teachers of man's duty; ſigns of man's duty, Signs and Seals both of God's ſpeciall favour and mercy in Chriſt Jeſus, urſia. Catech. q. 65. explic. 1. Gen. 9.12. By the Sacrament man is bound to God; and by the ſame, God vouchſafeth to bind himſelf to man Jewel's Treatiſe of the Sacrament. See 1 Cor. 9.2. 2 Tim. 2.19. Apo. 7.2, & 9, 4 Matth 27.66. Viſ. Urſie. tom. 4. pag. 1614. & 1668. Urſin. pag. 1673. and in both reſpects Sacraments: Some ſigns are ordained meerly to aſſure and confirm unto us the Promiſes which God hath been pleaſed to make; Some both to teach viſibly what the Lord requireth and commandeth in his holy Truth, and to confirm our Faith in what he hath promiſed in his holy Word; but all are Sacraments in each reſpect, and what is a Seal, but a viſible ſign annexed to a Promiſe to teſtify or aſſure it: And how can a ſign be added to it but, it muſt teſtify or confirm? Even from hence that it is ſet to the Promiſe by him who hath Authority to make it, and Power to make it good, it is a Seal: So that the Word Seal doth rather note the ſpeciall nature and end of ſome Signs as they are referred to the Promiſes ratified & aſſured by them, than expreſs the common nature of a Sacrament. In orthodox Writers a Sign of God's Promiſe, and a Seal of his Will and Pleaſure; are put for one and the ſame: And whether we look to the truth of the thing it ſelf, or the Arguments which are brought to prove the lawfulneſs of deviſing ſymbolicall and analogicall Signs; we ſhall find it as lawfull to deviſe Signs obſignant of God's Promiſes, as ſignificative of his pleaſure and man's duty: For to be a Teacher of the Underſtanding, and Exciter of Devotion, requireth power ſupernaturall, no leſs than to be 〈◊〉 •• firmer of the heart; and he that hath Authority to ordain means ••• mal for any of theſe ends, can bleſſe them for all; he that ca ••• appoint them for any one, can do it ſo none, they being all ſupernaturall; exceeding the power of any Creature: Man hath as much power to ſeal what he cannot beſtow, as to teach by his own Sign, that which he cannot bleſſe to that end. The Inſtitution of means ſerving for the ſpirituall Inſtruction of the Church, pertaineth to him that bleſſeth them; to him it belongeth to ordain Seals of his Promiſes, that can confert the Grace promiſed, and both theſe are peculiar to one alone, the Lord of All. The arguments that are alledged to demonſtrate the liberty of the Church, to Inſtitute and deviſe ſignificant Ceremonies, do ſpeak for power to ordain Signs obſignant, if they conclude any thing at all. Solomon [they ſay] built a brazen Altar, and ſet it beſides the Altar of the Lord, offering thereon burnt Offerings:2 King. 18.22. Apo. 6.9. H • b. 13.10. Matth. 23.19. with Job. 17.17 Exod. 24.4. Here is a humane Invention, a new Ceremony, having neceſſary relation to Worſhip in Sacrificing: And was not the Altar, appointed for Burnt-offering, an eſſentiall part of God's Worſhip in time of the Law? was it not a Type and Sign obſignant of Chriſt and his Grace? was not this Altar erected by Solomon for the ſame principall and ſpeciall end and uſe, Jun. Innor. in Exod 24.4. Par. in Gen. 12.7. Mart. loc. com. part. 4. cap. 12. Sect. 21. Polan. Synt. tom. 2. lib. 9 cap 36. Fulk againſt Rhem in Mat. 23.19.8.7. Biza Epiſt. 8. Zepper. de Saer. l. 2. Maldon. in Jo. 20. Rhem. in 1 Tim. 4.14.18. Martyr thus reaſoach againſt the Popiſh Conſecration of Holywater; It is not the condition of men to inſtitute Sacraments at their own pleaſure, becauſe that is proper to God alone, and to none beſides him; for Sacraments be Inſtruments of the Holy Ghoſt. Mart loc. com. p. 4. c. 9. Juni. Annot. in Exod, 25. Aſſunſta adve •• atem rerun figurandam • nt coaſſun • pta, non propter ſiguram rerum ſed propter Naturam figurarum. for which God hath ordained the Brazen Altar to be erected? An Altar was a principal Inſtrument of divine Service (ſaith Martyr). The Altar in the Temple was a figure of Chriſt's only ſingular true Sacrifice once offered, and never can be ſacrificed again, ſaith Fulk our of Auguſtine.

Now, if the Church, in the time of the Goſpel, may take upon her to deviſe new ſignificant Signs in God's Worſhip, from this Example of Solomon, and that ſuch as be in kind different from them that are inſtituted of him; She may challenge Power to ordain Signs, to ordain obſignant Sign; of Chriſt, and his Grace, eſſentiall parts of God's immediate Worſhip, and in their proper and peculiar ends, one with Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper; as that Altar ſerved to the ſame purpoſe that the other did, which was builded by the expreſs Commandment of the Lord. Again, it is very uſual with Writers, proteſtant and Popiſh, to call external Ceremonies ſignifying holy things, by the name of Sacraments, Sacramentalls, or Sacramental Actions.

It is objected, If ſignification be a principall part of a Sacrament, then all the Moral Signs uſed in the Levitical Worſhip; as namely, Bells, Lavers, Lights, Candleſticks, and other Ceremonial Inſtruments, even unto the very Snuffers of the Tabernacle, ſhould (things taking their denomination from the principal parts) be properly deemed Sacraments: And the like may be ſaid of Hog's Fleſh, from touching the Corps of the dead, from Linſey-wolſey Apparel, and a hundred ſuch others, whereby diverſe Moralities are ſignified, but no Sacrament implied; but this nothing infringeth the ſtrength of the former Reaſons. For the Cerenionies of the Law were either taken to figure out the Truth of things, or co • flumed for the Nature of the Figures, not for the Figure of things; which were onely annexed to the Figures, but of themſelves did not figure o • point out any ſpiritual things: Of this ſort were many things pertaining to the Tabernacle, Ark, Altars, and Sacrifices; which did not by themſelves typify any thing, but onely pertain to the material conſtitution of the Type: And amongſt them are the Snuffers and Tongs of the Tabernacle to be reckoned; for it cannot be ſhewed that of themſelves they were ordained to repreſent any myſtical Promine or ſpiritual Duty, but did onely belong as neceſſary Ornaments to the Service of the Tabernacle. Therefore we may exclude them from the number of Sacraments, and yet hold the common Nature of a Sacrament to conſiſt in proportion betwixt the Sign determined to ſignify, and the thing ſignified. Secondly, amongſt the Signs here degraded, as unworthy the Name, and not participating in the Nature of the Sacraments; ſuch are mentioned as did ſeal and aſſure ſpiritual promiſes,Pſal. 119.105. Prov. 6.21. 2 Pet. 1.19. Rev. 4.5. and not barely teach or ſignify moral duties; The Gandleſticks and Lights, did they not ſignify the light of the Divine Word, and Holy Scripture, by the power of God's holy Spirit enlightning the Church of God? The waſhings in the Law, did not they ſeal the purging away of Sin by the Blood of Chriſt,Heb. 10.22. Pſal. 26.6. and that we being ſprinkled in our hearts from an evil Conſcience, and waſhed in our bodies with pure water, might draw near with a true heart, in full aſſurance of Faith? The High-Prieſt was a Type of Chriſt,Exod. 28.2. our Mediator, and the Bells of Gold that were placed upon the Ephod did ſhaddow forth the Voice of Chriſt, which was to be heard of the People in his Teaching and Inſtruction. Wherefore, if a Sacrament be a Sign of God's Grace or free Promiſe, the Lavers, Lights, Bels, Candleſticks uſed in the Levitical Worſhip may truly be called Sacraments:Heb. 9.2. And by Anthority from the Apoſtle,Heb. 8.5. & 9.24. calling things that pertained to the Service of the Tabernacle, Examples, Shadows, and Figures of heavenly things; worthy Divines have not ſpared to call them Sacraments: Thus writeth Auguſtine, De Catech. rud. c. 20. Ideo multis Sacramentis viſibilibus onerati ſunt, quo ſervili jugò premerentur in obſervationibus ciborum, & in Sacrificiis ammalium, & in ali is innumer abilibus, quae tamen ſigna erant rerum ſpiritualium ad Dominum Jeſum Chriſtum, & ad Eccleſiam pertinentium. Thirdly, we find the Name Sacrament given to thoſe Signs pertaining to the Levitical Worſhip, which of all others (if in truth that Title may be given unto any) might moſt properly be called Moral, by ſignification of Man's ſpiritual Duty and Obedience: The Shew-Bread,Exod. 25.30. & 39.36. 1 Chron. 9.32. & 23.29. called in Hebrew, Bread of faces, or of preſence; becauſe the Loavs or Cakes were to be ſet before the Face or in the Preſence of God continually; and, the Bread of ordering and diſpoſition, becauſe they were diſpoſed in certain order and time: In Greek,Mat. 12.4. Mar. 2.26. Heb. 9.2. the Bread of Propoſition; and, in a contrary order, The propoſition of Bread or Cakes; Did it not ſignify the Office of the godly, that they ſhould ſtand continually before God, receive his Commandments, and ſanctify themſelves to his Obedience: As the Ark ſignified the preſence of God in his Church, ſo his Table with the twelve Cakes, ſignified the Multitude of the faithful preſented unto God in his Church, continually ſerving him; It may be, this placing of the Shew-bread before the Ark might ſignify, that the Lord hath his Church continually in his ſight, and doth take care thereof: But the principal thing taught thereby was, the ſincerity and purity of them that walk in the Light, and preſent themſelves before God: What duty ſoever Man oweth to God, it is to be performed by vertue of the Coveuant that he hath made with Man; and ſo the Signs of God's Promiſe do imply Man's Duty, and the Signs of Man's Duty do imply God's Promiſe, though ſome do ſignify the one; ſome, the other. And from this we learn,Sacramentaſunt v • ſibilia ſigna, qu • bus doctrina illa declaratur & obſignatur. Mart. de Sacr. l. 1. c. 2. q. 8. what is a Sacrament in general, viz. A Sign Analogical of God's Will and Pleaſure; whether teaching what he requires, or repreſenting and fealing what he promiſeth: True Sacraments are Signs and Seals inſtituted of God to ſignify his Will, and confirm his' Promiſes: But divine Inſtitution is to be removed from the definition of a Sacrament in general, as that which doth diſtinguiſh true from falſe, and not explicate the common nature of the thing.

The diſtinction that ſome make of Signs moral, ſignifying the ſpiritual Obedience which Man oweth unto God, and myſtical or ſacramental, repreſenting and confirming the Promiſes of God, is not to be received: For Signs teaching to the Eye by repreſentation, what the Word bringeth to the Ear, are Sacraments ſignifying the ſame thing that the Word doth, as hath been ſhewed before. But Signs analogical muſt be diſtinguiſhed from negative Precepts, forbidding the uſe of this or that in it ſelf indifferent. Jewiſhabſtinence from diverſe Mears legally unclean, to ſhew that they were ſeparated from other Nations, to be a peculiar People unto the Lord, cannot properly be called a Sign ſignifying by reſemblance; For God in that Law ſeemeth not ſo much to reſpect the Nature of thoſe living Creatures prohibited to be eaten;Act. 1.15, 16, 17, 28. Juni. Annot. in Lev. 11. but by this external Sign he would have his People to be diſcerned and ſeparated from all other People. And if this figurative commanded Abſtinence ſhould be deemed ſacramental, what errour is therein committed? As by ſuch Abſtinence the Iſraelites profeſſed themſelvs to be the peculiar People of God, ſeparated from all idolatrous Nations round about them; ſo did the Lord by this Commandment ſignify and aſſute, that he had taken them to Covenant, and made choice of them to be his peculiar Treaſure. The reaſon whereby this commanded Abſtinence is urged, doth confirm thus much,Lev. 11.44. I am the Lord your God, ye ſhall therefore ſanctify your ſelvs, and ye ſhall be holy, for I am holy; neither ſhall ye defile your ſelves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth: For I am the Lord that brought you up out of the Land of Aegypt to be your God.

Theſe figurative Ordinances then were Signs of the Covenant, teaching what duty man owed to God, and aſſuring back again what favour they had with God: And when the Apoſtle, ſpeaking of Levitical Service,Heb. 8.9, 10. which ſtood onely in Meats, and Drinks, and diverſe waſhings, and carnal Ordinances, impoſed on them until the time of Reformation,Beza in Heb. 9.10. calleth them figures for the time then preſent; doth he not in effect ſay they were Sacraments? The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evill, is called a Sacrament, or a Sacramental Precept,K • cherm. Theol. lib 2. c 2. Polan. Synt. lib. 6. cap. 44. Chaimer. panſtrat. tom. 4. lib. 1. cap. 7. Si ne que propter ſe, ne que ex ſuanatura, certe & propter aliud & ex Inslitutione. by many excellent and worthy Divines, as it did ſignify to Man, that he ſhould have experience of good, ſo long as he continued in Obedience, and of evil or miſery if he did diſobey; and as it was a Sign whereby he was admoniſhed of his mutability, and tried in his Obedience: But if forbearance of the Tree of Knowledge was an Act Sacramental, much more Abſtinence from ſuch Me • ts as by the Law were forbidden unto the Iſraelites. Nor ſhall we need to fear the force of the Jeſuite, inſulting over Proteſtants by this Objection; viz. If Sacraments be onely Signs, then the Cruciſix is a better Sign to ſignify the death of Chriſt than the Sacraments. For we acknowledge our Sacraments not bare Signs of God's Promiſe, or ſignifications of Man's Duty; but holy Seals of what he promiſeth to us, and we by ſtipulation promiſe back again unto him. And this the Jeſuite himſelf doth and cannot but acknowledge, howſoever impudently againſt Conſcience he imputes unto us his own device for our Doctrine: But we may further tell this Romiſh Proctor, that a Crucifix made to teach by proportion or reſemblance, that Chriſt dyed for our ſins, or that God gave his Son to ſuffer death for our Redemption, is a Sacrament, or a ſacramental Sign, ſignifying by ſpecial Repreſentation, though falſe and erroneous, becauſe it is deviſed by man, not ordained by God: The greateſt Defenders of myſtical Signs, diſtinguiſh them into moral and ſacramental; which differ (ſay they) from the former, both as the Sacramental are ſignificant by ſpecial Repreſentation, and as they are obſignant by ratifying and applying of God's Covenant of Grace unto us: And from this we may gather, that Spiritual ſigus, which ſignify, by repreſentation, the promiſe of God (as the Crucifix doth) are Sacramental, elſe is the diſtinction it ſelf faulty, and the difference which is made betwixt ſigns Moral, and Sacramental. And yet we make not Signification the principal part of thoſe ſpecial Sacraments of the Old or New Teſtament, which it pleaſed God to add to his gratious and free Covenant; but Spiritual ſignification is ſo proper to the Sacraments, that whatſoever ſign is ordained to ſignify and repreſent any ſuch promiſe, it is thereby made a Sacrament. The Cherubims in the Law, are called Types, and Sacraments of thoſe times; in all reaſon, the Crucifix is in that ſenſe to be deemed a Sacrament of theſe times; but vain and falſe, becauſe it is deſtitute of Divine approbation. And what advantage hath the Jeſuite gotten by this wiſe diſpute? he hath notably diſcovered their impudent boldneſs, in preferring their own ſinfull devices, before the ſacred O •••• nances of God; and their notorious preſumption in attempring 〈◊〉 which they cannot but acknowledg to be proper to the Lord alone.

9. Experience teſtifieth, that ſigns ſignificant deviſed by men, have been the ſeeds, ſparkles, and inſtruments of divers errors,Whitak. de Sc. q. 6. c. 14. arg. ult. Calv. opuſc. de Neceſſ. refor. pag. 59.60. ſuperſtitions, and Idolatries; but they never did, or ſhall do, good in the Church of God. The bravery and exceſs that is ſeen in Popiſh Temples, doth affect, move, and draw the eye, but is of no worth to true Piety, devotion, and motions of mind, pleaſing to God. It hath been ſhewed before, and is further to be proved afterward, that no true Piety or ſincere devotion of mind can be ſtirred up in us by humane Traditions.

10. And leſt this truth confirmed by ſo many Arguments out of the Word of God, ſhould yet be caſt off upon ſuſpition of novelty, or not relliſh ſavourly to ſome palats for want of the ſauce of humane Authority; It ſhall not be amiſs to produce the teſtimonies of worthy Divines, to ſhew what hath been their Judgment in this point. Calvin ſaith, Nulla doctrina, In Matth. 21.25. viſ. Calv. reſp. ad verſipell. opuſc. pag. 413. In Tim. 4.14. SS. 18. nullum ſacrum ſignum debet inter pios admitti, niſi à Deo profecta eſſe conſtet; nec eſt in hominum arb • trin, quicquam excudere. Fulk againſt the Rhemiſts, The true Church of Chriſt ſubmitteth her ſelf to the Doctrine of Chriſt and his Apoſtles in all things, and is content with thoſe Ceremonies which Chriſt and his Apoſtles by his Commandment have left unto us. Dr. Raynolds ſpeaking of Popiſh ſignificant Rites, hath theſe words,Cenſur. Apoc. tom. 2. prael. 243. Simplicius multo veteres, quanquam et ipſi nimium peccarunt o • uſmodi myſteriis excogitandis, ut omnes propemodum ritus in Sacramenta converterent; non quin poſſint omnia, quae uſpiam oculis uſurpamus, merito ſuggerere nobis anſam earum rerum meditandarum qua faciunt ad pietatem; ſed, quod magna religione cavendum eſt in eccleſia, ne convertamus in morem Sacramentorum interpretationibus hujuſmodi, ut permiſceamus inſtituta humana cum inſtitutis ipſius Chriſti, at que ita horum authoritatem communiamus commentis hominum. In Heb. 8.5. Paraeus ſaith, Quicquid etiam Sacramentis divinis ornatus, vel perfectionis, vel ſignificationis auguſtioris gratia • ffingitur, qualia ſexcenta circa Baptiſmun • et Euchariſtiam habet papatus, exorciſmos, ſal, ſputum, chriſma, &c. id totum tanquam inane et evanidum oraculo hoc improbatur. Synopſis in 12. Con • . q. 8. Non poteſt ulles homo inſtituere Caeremon • am, adquam ſ • queretur gratia Sp. Sancti. Bell. de Sac. l. 2. cap. 24. Dr. Willet ſpeaking of the Ceremonies and Rites of Baptiſm, ſaith, It is contrary to the rule of the Goſpel, that there ſhould be ſuch types, ſhadows, ſignifications, brought into the ſervice of God, as the Papiſts make in Baptiſm; for ſeeing we have the body which is Chriſt, all ſuch ſhadows ought to 〈◊〉 boliſhed; In one Sacrament they (ſc, the Papiſts) have forged and found out many, as their Chriſm, Oyl, Salt, Spittle, &c. None of thoſe Ceremonies were uſed when Chriſt himſelf was Baptized; which notwithſtanding had been moſt fit, conſidering the worthineſs of his perſon, which was Baptized; neither did Chriſt give any ſuch thing in charge to his Diſciples, but biddeth them onely Preach and Baptize In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt. Nor yet were any ſuch Ceremonies in uſe in the Apoſtles times.Act. 10.4. St. Peter ſaith, Can any man forbid Water, that theſe ſhould not be Baptized. He calleth not for Oyl, Salt, Spittle, or any ſuch thing, but Water onely. And a little after he produceth the witneſs of two Martyrs againſt theſe Ceremonie.Act. and Men. Hauk. 1. Exam. Ann. 1555. Thomas Hauks, I deny (ſaith he) in Baptiſm all things invented by man, as your Oyl, Cream, Salt, Spittle, Candle, Con • uring of Water. John Denly, holy Martyr. The Eunuch ſaid to Philip, Act. and Mon. Denl. anſw. to art. 6. Anno. 1555. • nſti. l. 4. c. 10. ſect. 23. See here is Water. We do not • ead, he asked for any Cream, Oyl, Spit • le, Conjured Water; for it ſeemeth that Philip had Preached no ſuch thing unto him. Calvin ſaith, Unde colligimus, partem reverentiae quae illi defertur, in eo eſſe poſitam, dum in eo colendo ſimpliciter quod mandat, nullas noſtras miſcendo inventiones ſequimur. That he ſpeaketh of deviſed ſymbolical ſ • gns, it is evident by the inſtances he giveth in that, and the two Sections following. • oc com. p. 4. • . 4. ſect. 4. Martyr, Seeing God is altogether the wiſeſt, he hath no need that we ſhould by our imagination, or endeavour, prepare Inſtruments for him. And afterwards in the ſame Chapter;Sect. 16. Neither can they eaſily eſcape, which imbrace exorciſms, but that of one Sacrament they make many, ſeeing they make ſo many Signs, which they will have to be accounted holy; adding Oyl, Spittle, Exſufflations, and ſuch like. So as one Sacrament of Baptiſm doth degenerate into many. Neither muſt they be heard, when, to the intent to mock the ſimple, they feign a difference between Sacraments and Sacramentalls, which is altogether ſophiſtical; for diſtinctions are to be received gladly, but thoſe to be ſuch as are taken our of the very nature of the things, becauſe they bring much light to Controverſies; but thoſe diſtinctions which ſpring out of the brain of Sophiſters, onely for the ſhifting off of Arguments, are altogether to be refuſed.Conſeſ. Wittemb. tit. de Caerem. Eccl. The Judgment of the Church of Wittemberg is thus ſet down in the Harmony of Confeſſions, Nec licet vel veteres ritus legis reſtaurare, vel novos comminiſci ad adumbrandam veritatem Evangelio jam patefactam et illuſtratam: quales ſunt, interdiu accendere cereos, ad ſignificandam lucem Evangelii; aut uti vexillis crucibus, ad ſignificandam victoriam Chriſti per crucem; quod genus eſt univerſa panoplia veſtium Miſſalium, quam aiunt adumbrare totan • Paſſionem Chriſt • ; et multa id genus alia. Multo minus licet inſtituere Caeremonias aut ſacra, quorum meritis expientur peccata, et accipiatur reg • um coelorum: Nam de priori illo genere Caeremoniarum et Sacrorum, Chriſtus ex Eſaia concionatur; Fruſtra, inquiens, colunt me, docentes doctrimas, pracepta hominum: et Paulus, Nequis vos judicet in cibo aut pou • , aut in parte diei feſti, &c. The Church of France and the Low-Countries, Sect. 17. ad Confeſſ. Sax. Obſ. 1. Tom. 4. de 〈◊〉 Bapt. lib. 5. 〈◊〉 cap. 16. ſect. 27. Annot. maj. in Jo. 4.23. in their obſervations upon the Confeſſion of the Church of Saxony, write thus, Ac perinde ne myſticos quidem ullos, alioqui non impios; ut qui, &c. Sed in hoc capite (ſaith Cham. ſpeaking of Popiſh Rites in Baptiſm) merito damnamus, qui ea addiderunt, quibus myſteria affinxerint, prop • iaſ que ſignificationes; et quidem eorum affectuun • qui pertinent ad aquam Baptiſmi, &c. The Judgment of Bezd is well known, and more than once uttered by himſelf; Sacramentis (ſaith he) pront divinitus ſunt ab unico noſtro legiſtatore ordinata, quicquam vel detrahere, ac multo magis novas figuras vel umbras ullas in Eccleſiam invehere, • efariam eſſe audaciam, ex verbo Dei omnes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , tam expreſſe damnantis, et ignem externum olim altari ſuo inferre prohibentis, affirmanus. Haec noſtra eſt de Spirituali cultu divino ſententia, his Chriſti verbis conſenta •• a; niſi forte ſublatas, licet divinitus inſtitutas, Moſaicas figuras et umbras arbitramur, ut alia ab hominibus illarum loco ſubſtituerentur. De cult. Sacr. l. 3. c. 7. n. 12, 13. Junius aſſenteth unto the former; Quod ſi ad uſum inſtituere non poteſt quiſquam, profecto ne que ad ſignificatiorem homo legitime poteſt adhibere, niſi humano et irrogante inſtituto, ne in privato quidem, quanto minus in Eccleſia Dei et publica adminiſtratione ipſius. Danaeus is of the ſame mind.Cont. Bell. de cult. Sac. l. 3. cap. 7. It is Blaſphemy to think that any outward thing may be made a Sign in the Church, unleſs it be expreſly ordained in the Word, and commanded by God himſelf to be uſed unto that end.Eccleſ. l. 3. cap. 5. Junius again profeſſeth his Judgment in this matter; Res autem alias, ac non neceſſarias, ne que ordini convenientes, ſi volet quiſquam inſtituere; eum non pervicaciter velimus oppugnare, ſed tria tamen cum animo ſuo expendat cupimus. Primum qua authoritate exemplove adductus, ſanctam Dei Eccleſiam et ſimplicitatem myſteriorum Chriſti (Cujus ſolius vocem agnoſcunt et ſequuntur oves, quia ſolum audiri mandavit pater Jo. 10.27.) circumveſtiendam eſſe puter humanis traditionibus quas repudiat Chriſtus. Secundum, quem ad finem res ſuas adſui divinis judicet oportere: nan • ſi ut cum alii • conformetur, aequius foret alias Eccleſias tis conformari quae verbum Dei accedum proxime ex conſilio Cypriani, quam has ſe illis adjungere; ſi ut h • neſtiora ſint omnia, quid ſimplicitate Chriſti honeſtius, quid honeſtate ſimplicius? ſi voluntatem, Eſto ſane: at illud Tertulliani cogitandum, Voluntatem Dei eſſe neceſſitatem ſummam, nec Dei Eccleſiam in divinis rebus voluntatibus humanis obligari. Tertium, quis tandem eventus ex humanis traditionibus conſequatur, ut diuturna oſte • dit experientia.

Of the Surplice.

Attire or veſtiments may be diſtinguiſhed into ſour ſorts.THere is a fourfold diſtinction of Attire. 1. Natural. 2. Civil. 3. Eccleſiaſtical by Divine inſtitution. 4. Eccleſiaſtical by humane ap • ointment.

The Natural is ſuch, by which the difference of Sexes, of Ma • e, and Female is profeſſed;Calv. harm. in lib. Moſ. expoſ. 7. Precept. and others. Dr. Reynolds of the overthrow of Stageplayes, pag. 10. this is Moral and perpetuall, Deut. 22.5.

The Civil is, when for eaſe, ſpeedier diſpatch of ſome civil buſineſs, ornament, or politick differencing of degree in Office, Age, Trade, &c. diverſity of habit is uſed; and this is Arbitrary, and lawfull, ſo that the rules of modeſty be obſerved. Whitgift def. of anſw. to adm •• i • . tract. 7. cap. 3. diviſ. 1. pag. 264. Hooker Eccleſiaſt. P • li • . lib. 5. S. 78. pag. 424.

Thoſe are Eccleſiaſtical by Divine Inſtitution which the Lord, and Law-giver of his Church ordained to be uſed by Prieſts and Levites in the ſolemn worſhip of God,Exod. 28, 12.29, 30, 40, 41, 43. and in the place of Ceremonies: theſe veſtiments continued neceſſary in uſe, untill the abolition of the Levitical Rites, and then determined.

Such are Eccleſiaſticall by humane inſtitution, as man of his own head hath appropriated to Religious worſhip, or ſolemn Eccleſiaſtical uſe. Of this ſort and kind I take the Surplice to be, and therefore do make queſtion of the lawfulneſs thereof. My argument againſt it. I diſpoſe in this form.

All Veſtments appropriated to the ſolemn Worſhip of God, and appointed for ſignification of ſpiritual Duties by the Will of Man, without Warrant out of the Word of God, are unlawful.

But the Surplice is a Veſtment appropriated to the ſolemn. Worſhip of God, and appointed for the ſignification of ſpiritual Duties, by the Will of Man, without Warrant out of the Word of God. Therefore it is unlawful.

Propoſ▪ preved by ſix Reaſons.The truth of the Propoſition may be cleared by theſe Reaſons following.

1. All ſuch Veſtments as the Propoſition ſpeaketh of, are an external form of Worſhip; both becauſe that in their common nature or kind, they agree with the Levitical Veſtments, which I ſuppoſe will not be denyed to have been parts of their external Worſhip, as well as other Rites among them. Homil. againſt perill of Idolatry, part. 3. fol. 55. ſaith, All outward Jewiſh Rites wherewith God was honoured in the Temple, were Cultus. For what good definition can be given of Worſhip, which may not be predicated and affirmed of thoſe Rites? To be inſtituted of God, or of Man, doth not vary the common nature of Worſhip, but diſtinguiſh it into true and falſe, in which Adjuncts the common nature of Worſhip doth not conſiſt. Alſo, would not • arments of myſtical ſignification appropriated to ſolemn Worſhip, be Jewiſh in ſpecial, not in common nature onely, if the Mo •• High ſhould Authorize them? And if they be Worſhip, and deviſed by Man, then they are Will-worſhip which God condemneth.

2. If this Major be not true, what ſhould hinder, but that man may bring many of the Ceremonies of the Law of Moſes into the Church of the new Teſtament; for if one Jewiſh Rite may be brought in, why not any. It need not be doubted, but that Veſtments meerly Eccleſiaſtical and Myſtical, are Jewiſh, though not in number, (or perhaps in ſome other petty differences), yet in kind: and are they not then the ſame? Luke 14.18. Eph. 6.9. Dr. Raynolds Confer. with Hart. cap. 8. diviſ. 4. pag. 494, 495.

3. Either Veſtments meerly Eccleſiaſticall and Myſtical, inſtituted by Man,Exod. 25.9. & 39, 40, 42, 43, & 27, 19. 1 Chro. 28.12. 2 Chro. 29.5. are unlawful; or elſe it had been lawful for the Jewiſh Church to have deviſed to themſelves, and uſed, thoſe Prieſtly Robes that were in uſe among them, though God had not appointed them; or they might have invented others of the ſame kind afterwards, and have added to thoſe God appointed: but this they might not do. It's true, that this would increaſe the multitude of Ceremonies, and multitude of Ceremonies of one ſort, would make themDr. Morton proteſt. appeal. Lib. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 3. inconvenient, becauſe this carryeth with it change of circumſtances, whereon conveniency or inconveniency doth depend. But if one Ceremony be lawful, hundreds of the ſame kind be lawful alſo; for the definition of one is predicated of all of that ſort. It cannot be truly ſaid, That the Jewiſh Church had leſs liberty to deviſe Eccleſiaſtical Rites (whatſoever ſome ſay),Dr. Sparks Perſwaſions to uniformity. cap. 3.8, 5. pag. 11. Joſh. 22.10. than the Chriſtian Church hath; except the Chriſtian Church could under the Lord's Charter ſhew this Priviledge to be granted unto her. Add further, that the ſpeciall Ground that the maintainers of Ceremonies do or can bring in, for the now-urged Ceremonies, is the fact of the Reubenites building the Altar. If this Argument be of any force, muſt they not grant liberty to the Church of the Jews, as well as the Church of the new Teſtament? Therefore, if men deny the Jews that liberty which the Chriſtian Church may rightfully claim, they will prove themſelves to ſtand upon no Ground.

4. Such Veſtiments cannot be uſed in Faith, without which the uſe thereof is ſinful. Faith, in this place, is a firm aſſurance of mind and conſcience,Rom. 14.23. reſting on aſſured Ground, that the thing which a man doth, is allowed of God to be done by him: So that two things are here implyed.

1. That the Act to be done, Calvin. in loc. & others. Vid. Marlo. in loc. be allowed of God; otherwiſe the conſcience that doth it, how confident ſoever it be, is erroneous and faulty. Covel's anſ. to Mr. Burges Apol. pag. 9. citing Mooker. No man can do evil with a good conſcience.

2. That the mind of the Doer certainly apprehend a lawfulneſſe for the doing of it, elſe the conſcience ſinneth through doubtfulneſſe.

With this aſſurance of mind and conſcience, who can uſe ſuch Veſtiments as are meerly Eccleſiaſtical, Myſtical Rites, when he cannot find a •• firm Ground out of the Scripture, that God alloweth ſuch under the New Teſtament?

5. Whoſeover doth not admit the Propoſition, he openeth a gap unto Oyl, Cream, Spittle, Candles; holy Water, and other Popiſh Ceremonies to enter into the Church, which our learned Divine • reject; for this, that they are myſtical ſignificant Rites, deviſed by Man; as is to be ſeen, not by the Judgment of Forraign Divines onely; As of the Church of Wittenburg. Harm. Confeſſ. part. 2. artic. 32. de Corem. Eccleſiaſticis; The Churches of France; and the low Countries in their Obſervations upon the Harmony of Confeſſions. Ibid. Sect. 17. ad Sax • n. Confeſſ. Obſerv. 1. Calvin in Eſay 20.2. & Mat. 21.25. Beza Epiſt. 8. But alſo our own Divines, Dr. Whitgift, Defence of Anſwer to the Admon. Tract. 7. cap. 7. diviſ. 8. pag. 291. Mr. Perkins in his Commentary on Gal. 3.23, 24, 25. who diſſallow ſuch ſignification of Apparrel in Eccleſiaſtical uſe, as Peter Martyr in his Epiſtle to Hooper would put upon it. Loc. commun. pag. 1088. Edit. 1613.

And further, if the Propoſition be not true, Perkin's Demonſtration of Probl. in Title Apurten. to Maſſe. Sect. 6. Dr. Morton's proteſt. appeal. Lib. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 5. Pag. 58. Might not a man reaſon thus for the bringing in of Popiſh Rites of the ſame nature and kind? Veſtiments inſtituted by man, and appropriated to God's Worſhip, and of myſtical ſignification, are lawful: Therefore, Oyl, Cream, Spittle, Candles; and other ſuch like Popiſh Rites are lawful alſo.

6. To conclude, worthy Divines have condemned all Ceremonies when they have been parts of, and appropriated to, Worſhip; As Calvin. Inſtitut. Lib. 4. Cap. 10. Sect. 8. Perkins Reform. Cathel. p. 136. And doth not Dr. Abbott call all Prieſtly Garments, whereby they are diſtinguiſhed from the reſt of the Church, a ſpiritual Character of the Beaſt. Antichr. Demon. Cap. 11. Sect. 26.

And whereas for eight hundred years after Chriſt, there were but eight Veſtures uſed in the whole myſteries of Religion, and now among the Papiſts there be fifteen; ſix Prieſtly, and nine of the Biſhops; What reaſon is there to prove them, or ſuch of them unlawful; which our Law hath rejected, if this Propoſition be not true. The Aſſumption proved.

In the proof whereof it is requiſite, that I inſiſt upon theſe three Heads.

1. That the Surplice in our Church is appropriated to God's ſolemn Worſhip, as to meet to Eccleſiaſtial uſe. 2. That it is appointed for ſignification of ſpiritu •• Duties. 3. That this is done by Man, without Warrant from the Word of God.

The firſt of theſe 3 Heads is apparant by the Reaſons following.

1. Albeit young Students in the Univerſities, who by their matriculation, did receive their primam tonſuram into the Clergy:The Surplice to be appropriated to Eccleſiaſtical uſe. Queriſters in the Cathedrall Churches being antiently reputed of the Clergy; and ſome Clerks in ſome Parochial and Collegiat Churches, have heretofore, and ſtill do retein the Surplice: Yet we ſee that the uſe is ſtill reſtrained to Worſhip, (viz.) Prayers, reading Scripture, adminiſtration of Sacraments, &c. And out of that uſe it is not to be found, neither is there any civil uſe made of the Surplice. As for buriall of the dead, it is uſed by none but by a Miniſter, or one initiate into the Clergy, and that with ſolemn prayers accompanying: Who then can ſay, that the uſe of the Surplice in Burials, is a withdrawing of it from Eccleſiaſtical uſe. 2. I might urge what I obſerve out of Dr. Whitgift, who denying Pope Hadrian to be the Inventer of the Surplice, Spark's perſw • ſion to Uniformity. cap. 5. pag. 19. (Def. Tract. 7. cap. 6. Diviſ. 1.) would draw the Original thereof from Stepha ••• , Biſhop of Rome, whoſe teſtimony (if it be ought worth) proven that holy Veſtments are not to be touched of any ſave the Prieſt, (Ibid. cap. 5. diviſ. 2.) and conſequently that they are not of civi uſe. Socrates hominibus. Luc. Oſiand. Epitom. Hiſtor. Eccleſiaſt. Cent. 3. Lib. 3. Cap. 14. 3. In Popery the Surplice was appropriated to God's ſolemn Worſhip, without which no Prieſt might ſay Service. Miſſal. Rom. part. 1. Miſſa in Galli cantu, & Miſſa in die Nativitatis D •••• . Neither could Water or Bells, or any thing elſe be hallowed. Dr. Humphry his Antidiploma miſſal. Rom. part. 3. pag. 96. And if it were not of the eſſence of the Maſſe, that every Prieſt that ſayth it have a Surplice on, yet ſome Prieſt cannot ſay Maſs without it. Durand. rational. Lib. 3. Cap. 1. Numb. 9. Neither can any Prieſt make his breaden-god, except he have it on. Rh ••• a •• tat. in 1 Cor. 11.29.

This I omit to urge, though I muſt confeſs, that hough o • r Church hath varied and changed ſomewhat from out immediate fore-fathers the Papiſts, from whom it cometh to us; yet they did not remove it from Eccleſiaſticall Places and Services, or inſtituted a civil or ordinary uſe of the foreſaid Veſtment. Doth not the Stature in the firſt year of Queen Elizabeth appoint ſuch Ornaments in the Church to be retained (as were in the Church of England by Authority of Parliament in the ſecond year of Edward the ſixth,Cap. 2. untill other Order be taken by the Authority of the Queen, &c.) at the time of the Communion, and other adminiſtration, &c. Was Order taken? No. We muſt judge then, for what kind of uſe the Surplice by the Stature of King Edward the ſixth was inſtituted and allowed.

The words of the Book of Common-Prayer in the ſecond year of his Reign, are theſe; Upon the Day, and at the time appointed for the Miniſtration of holy Communion; the Prieſt that ſhall execute that holy Ministery, ſhall put on him the Veſtures appointed for that Adminiſtration, &c. If the uſe of the Surplice ſtand by Statute, it is, for any thing that I know, by this, which declares it to be retained for meer Eccleſiaſtical uſe: If it be ſo, as Dr. Sparks ſaith in his Perſwaſion to uniformity, Cap. 5. pag. 20. 21. That Queen Elizabeth by vertue of the ſaid Statute, by the conſent of the Arch-Biſhop, and High Commiſſioners, in the ſeventh year of her Reign, appointed the Surplice to be worn inſtead of the Albe; yet it hindreth not, but proves what I ſay in this Section.Can. Eccleſ. 14. & 17. But becauſe this I think is confeſſed, I paſs to the ſecond Head in the Aſſumption.

That the Surplice is ſignificant of ſpiritual Duties, is clear.

1. All our Eccleſiaſticall Ceremonies are ſuch;In the Treatiſe of Ceremonies prefixed to that Book. They are neither dumb nor dark (ſaith the Book of Common-Prayer) but apt to ſtirr up the dull mind of man to a remembrance of his Duty by ſome notable and ſpecial ſignification.

Mr. Hooker ſaith, Ceremonies deſtitute of ſignification, muſt be vain; alſo he calleth them viſible Signs,Eccl. Pol. Lib. 5. Sect. 55. Ibid. Lib. 4. Sect. 1. which are undoubtedly moſt effectuall to open ſuch matter, as when men know and remember carefully, they muſt needs be a great deal the better informed: Thus much alſo Dr. Covell doth avouch (againſt the Plea of the Innoc. pag. 58.)

2. To omit that the Papiſts ſay, All their Prieſtly Garments have myſticall ſignification. Bell. de miſſ. lib. 6. cap. 14. And that the Prieſt muſt be cloathed in White to ſignifie innocency and purity,Lindan de C • lebr. miſs. & ob reverentiam Salvatoris, & totius Coeleſtis curiae, quam Sacra •• into altar conſiciende, & confecto, non eſt dubium intereſſe.

Thoſe Learned men who were ſet awork in the dayes of King Edward the Sixth, and ſince (and who therefore were moſt likely to know the meaning of our Church in impoſing) have avouched, That it is, Hook. Eccl. Pol. lib. 5. Sect. 29. and ought to be continued, for ſignification. Bucer. opera Anglican. pag. 682. Pet. Mart. Loc. Comman. pag. 1088.

Now concerning the third Head. The Surplice, in that foreſaid uſe and ſignification, is without warrant of the Word of God. It may thus be proved.

1. The Surplice being a garment of a ſpecial nature, and uſe, in that it is a meer Eccleſiaſtical and Myſtical Rite, ought to have a ſpecial Divine Inſtitution, as ſuch garments have had in the Church of the Jews: for Reaſon requires that the ground be ſuitable to the nature of the thing. But ſuch a ground it hath not, neither can any ſhew any ſpecial Inſtitution.

2. There is not ſo much as any general warrant for it in the Book of God. Firſt, there is none in the Old Teſtament: The Prieſtly garments were tyed only to the place of Ceremonies,Exod. 28.43. Ezek. 42.14. Mornaeus de Euchariſt. not uſed in any of the Synagogues of the Land, nor in any of thoſe 460 which are reported to be in Jeruſalem: Were typical, (wherein it ſtands not with the nature of the times of the New Teſtament to mitigate them,Ezek. 42.13, 14. & 44.15, 17, 19. 1 Chron. 15. Spark perſwaſ. to uniformity, cap. 5. pag. 22.) Neither were they uſed in the Peoples ſight, except once extraordinary by occaſion of the preſence of the Ark before the People. So that if there had been any further uſe of them (viz.) for glory and comelineſs, as one ſaith, Spark. Ibid. not conſidering, that in the uſe alſo they were typicall, yet they cannot poſſibly warrantize Veſtiments in the ſight of the People.

If the Prophets did uſe ordinarily any apparel whereby they might be known from other men, (which doth ſeem doubtfull to ſome that read 1 Sam. 9.18. 1 King. 20.41.) yet that which they did wear, was of common and daily uſe, worn in Town and Field, &c. 2 King. 1.8. Eſay 20.2. Zach. 13.14. So that it matters not in this caſe, Whitg. def. tract. 7. cap. 2. pag. 262. though the Prophets were diſcerned by a peculiar form of Cloke, ſeeing it was not of Eccleſiaſtical and Myſtical ſignification, and withall was extraordinary as their Function was. Our Divines condemn the Popiſh Maſſing Garments, becauſe they are Jewiſh. To ſeek ground for the Surplice out of the Levitical Law, is it not then to overthrow our own grounds?

Further,Matth. 3.4. in the New Teſtament, there is no ground for the Surplice: The habit of John Baptiſt was daily and common, not Eccleſiaſtical and Myſtical. That Chriſt or his Apoſtles did uſe, or inſtitute any Myſtical or Eccleſiaſtical attire, none can ſhew by the holy Scriptures: and the relation of other Hiſtories is but humane and fallible; not the ground of faith. The Apoſtle Paul, 1 Cor. 14.40. requiring all things to be done decently and in order in the Aſſemblies of the Saints, did give commandment for the right and ſeemly performance of ſuch Ordinances as were before eſtabliſhed; but laid no ground for the inſtitution of myſtical Rites in religious ſervices. This ſpeech of the Apoſtle is a Precept, and hath a Divine binding power; which not to obey, is death. How can this concern the inſtitution of the Surplice, which is no ſuch matter, but reputed indifferent by the Urgers. What the Apoſtle commands, is neceſſary and indiſpenſable by Man: But the Surplice and other Rites are arbitrary, and may be diſpenſed with, and utterly aboliſhed. D. Morton in Proteſt. Appeal lib. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 2. numb. 3. pag. 54.

The Surplice is confeſſed to be but an humane tradition: Spark. Perſwaſ. to Uniform. cap. 5. pag. 21. Who can prove hence, that there is any better ground for the Surplice, than for the 15 Prieſtly Robes uſed in the Church of Rome?

Thus doth it appear, that the Scripture affordeth not any warrant for the Surplice in our uſe. I know many Teſtimonies are cited forth of the ancient Writers: but their teſtimony being but humane, proveth not that God doth allow and warrantize the Surplice. Yea, ſome of them do not at all concern Eccleſiaſtical Veſtiments. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 33. Such is that teſtimony, that Euſtathim was deprived of his Biſhoprick, for not wearing decent apparel befitting his place. Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 20. Such alſo was that white rayment that Semius the Novat. did wear; and that under-garment of white Linnen, in which Cyprian the Martyr ſtood apparelled after he had given his Cap or Byrrhus, to the Executioner; and his upper garment called Dalmatica, to the Deacon.Vide Concil. à Binnio Collect. Conc. Gang. cap. 12. part. 385. Such is the garment ſpoken of by the Council of Gangris, as he that conſiders it, may ſee.

So that theſe places are miſ-alledged by D. Whitgift, Def. tract. 7. cap. 4. diviſ. 1. pag. 208. &c. And that likewiſe of Chryſoſt. Homil. 6. ad popul. Antioch. who ſheweth, That the dignity of the Miniſtery ſtandeth not in going up and down the Church in a white garment, that is, as a gallant white attire being a garment of honour, both in the E ••• parts,Perk. Probl. t t. The Appu. ten. of the Maſſe. and in the Weſt among the ancient Romans. Sigon. de Jud. lib. 3. cap. 14.

As for that which the Apoſtle John is ſaid to went, called a Miter, but ratehr a thin plate, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth ſignifie, either Euſebius doth thereby (alluding to Moſes's Law,Hiſtor. Eccleſ. lib. 3. cap. 25. Secundū aliam div ſionem 31. Conference with Hart, cap. 8. diviſ. 4. pag. 516. Exod. 28.36.) mean, that John entred into the Sanctuary, as it were, with Prerogative, and had the very Myſterie of God revealed to him, Rev. 1.1. as Dr. Rainolds doth underſtand; or elſe, if this relation deſerve credit, ſeeing Euſebius Pamphilus lived Anno Domini 320, about 200 years after the death of him of whom he writeth, and ſaith, John was a Biſhop, which agrees not with the Apoſtle's Office and Commiſſion, that was univerſal; yet this habit was a common and daily habit, as the words of the Author rather import.

Moreover, ſome Teſtimonies urged do concern the Jewiſh Veſtiments, as that of Jerom in Ezek. 44. The Religion of God hath one habit, (as Mr. Hooker confeſſeth. Eccleſ. Pol. lib. 5. Sect. 29.)

Laſtly, though ſome teſtimonies quoted may ſhew, that anciently there were ſome Linnen garments in Eccleſiaſtical uſe, as Theodoret, lib. 2. cap. 27. ſpeaks, of a baptizing robe given by Conſtantine to Macarius, Biſhop of Jeruſalem. Lib. 1. adverſ. Pelagium. And Jerome makes mention of Linnen garments uſed in adminiſtration by Biſhops, Prieſts, and Deacons. And the Councel of Carthage, Can. 41. (where there were 214. Biſhops, of whom Auſtine was one) decreed, Diaconus tempore oblatimis tantum, vel lectionis, Albâ induatur. Yet none of theſe prove, that theſe were inſtituted for myſtical ſignification; or, if they were, that there was warrant from the Word of God for ſo doing.

Thus the Aſſumption being confirmed, the Concluſion neceſſarily followeth, That the Surplice may not lawfully be uſed.

Of the ſign of the Croſſe in Baptiſm.

THat the uſe of the ſign of the Croſſe in Baptiſm is unlawful, I prove by this Argument:

No Rite meerly Eccleſiaſtical, and of myſtical ſignification, having no Warrant from the Word of God, can be uſed without ſin.

But the ſign of the Croſſe in Baptiſm is a Rite meerly Eccleſiaſtical, and of myſtical ſignification, having no warrant from Gods Word:

Ergo, It cannot be uſed without ſin.

The Propoſition of this Argument, being in effect the ſame with the Propoſition of the Precedent Argument, (the Croſs and Surplice being Homogenea,) is confirmed by the Reaſons of the foregoing Propoſition. I will therefore with great brevity confirm this Major.

Firſt, Such Rites as are meerly Eccleſiaſtical and myſtical, having no warrant from Gods Word, are falſe worſhip: Otherwiſe we ſhall never be able to convince the Papiſts of Will-worſhip in their Superſtitious Rites. Alſo, all actions, whereby religious duties are taught in Gods publick ſervice, are Worſhip: otherwiſe how can the preaching of the Word be worſhip. But Rites, meerly Eccleſiaſtical and myſtical, &c. do teach us ſpiritual and religious duties. Are they not Worſhip then? Yet not true, for they are not divinely warranted. Of neceſſity therefore they muſt be falſe Worſhip.

Secondly, Such myſtical Rites are Sacraments not approved of God. Sacraments they be, for they are viſible ſigns of an inviſible grace, and have both the parts of a Sacrament, which are ſet down in the common Catechiſm authoriſed by Law. But theſe are not true Sacraments, when God the Author of the Covenant doth not inſtitute them.

Thirdly, Such Rites as are meerly Eccleſiaſtical, and Myſtical, are not diſcernable to be good by the light of Nature; and therefore are to have approbation from Gods Word the rule of Faith: otherwiſe with ſafety of conſcience they cannot be received.

Fourthly, Our Learned Divines ſay, That to bring inſignificant Ceremonies into the Church, is plain Judaiſm. Dr. Reynolds Conference with Hart, cap. 8. diviſ. 4. pag. 521. Willet Synopſ. 2. gen. Cont. 24.2. part of the Qu. pag. 110. Edit. 1614.

The Aſſumption now remains to be proved; and in it three things. 1. That the ſign of the Croſſe is meerly Eccleſiaſticall. 2. Of Myſtical ſignification. 3. Without warrant out of God's Word.

Firſt, There is not the leaſt ſhew, to deny the ſign of the Croſſe to be meerly Eccleſiaſtical: For other uſe of the ſign of the Croſſe, than in Baptiſm, we deny. Indeed, anciently it was ordinary in common uſe, as well as in Eccleſiaſtical. So likewiſe it is with the Papiſts: but ordinary Croſſing, morning and evening, is condemned by our Divines: and the Law requireth, urgeth, and alloweth only the uſe of the Croſſe in Baptiſm: wherein if it be not of meer Eccleſiaſtical uſe, what can Ecclefiaſticall uſe be defined to be?

Secondly, Can there be produced any likelihood, or ſhew of truth, to deny the ſign of the Croſſe to be of myſtical ſignification, ſeeing all our Ceremonies are ſuch, as was before ſhewed: and the words of the Common-Prayer-Book do teach as much, ſaying, We receive this Child into the Congregation, &c. and do ſign him with the ſign of the Croſſe, Can. 30. in token that hereafter, &c. And the Canon ſaith, That the Child baptized, is dedicated to God by the ſign of the Croſſe. Theſe things, I ſuppoſe, do prove the ſign of the Croſs to be of myſtical ſignification.

Now it remains, that I ſhew, That this myſtical Rite is without warrant out of the Word of God. This may be proved by theſe Arguments following.

Though the Croſſe, being a Rite of a peculiar nature, ought to ſhew for it ſelf a peculiar and ſpecial Inſtitution; yet it is ſo void of that, that there is not ſo much as a general warrant for it in the Book of God. As the examination of the places cited by the Papiſts, or Proteſtants, will manifeſt.

I omit to mention in this ſhort abridgment,Juſt. Martyr in Tryphone. ſome Inſtances for the Croſſe, though uſed by the Ancients, which have not ſo much as a colour of the truth, and will produce theſe few Inſtances.

(1.) The mark which was ſet in the forehead of the mourners, Ezek. 4.9. is urged to prove the ſign of the Croſs lawful.

Anſw. 1. Tau, tranſlated a mark, doth ſignifie in common any ſign, as Arius Montanus, and Paguin, in their Dictionaries, ſhew. The Vulgar Greek, called the 70, tranſlate it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

2. The form of Tau being this η, makes nothing for the Croſs.

3. This was an inviſible mark, and peculiar to the Elect; ſuch as that was, Apoo. 7.3. & 9.4.

(2.) Proteſtarts Object the Altar built on Jordan's bank; the Altar built by Solomon; the Muſick uſed in the Temple; the Love-Feaſts which were in uſe in the Primitive Church; and the Kiſſe of love, as grounds to warrant our uſe of the ſign of the Croſs. To all which Inſtances, I anſwer in order.

Firſt, The Altar that ſtood on Jordan's Bank, was not of Eccleſiaſtical, but of Civil uſe.Biſhop Babbington on the ſecond Commandment. The Tribes confeſs that they had indeed grievouſly ſinned, if they had determined an Altar to the ſame uſe, for which the Lord had ſet up one before. It was a memorial, that they were one people with their brethren, entitled to, and eſtated in the Priviledges of the Lord with them: but it was no myſticall ſign of Chriſt and his grace.

Secondly, Ma. Sutclif. contr Bellar. de Sum. Pont. lib. 1. cip. 6. Franc. Jun. Contr. 3. lib. 4. cap. 17. nota. 4. If Solomon built not his new Altar by extraordinary Inſpiration as a Prophet (as one ſaith): Yet he did it out of the equity of Moſes, s Law it ſelf, and was no addition at all of a diverſe kind. And it it moſt certain, That God who by his viſible deſcending, did approve of the whole work of the Temple when it was done, did authorize him for the doing of it; which David's words may alſo confirm, 1 Chro. 28.19.

The Muſick uſed in the Temple, was ſpecially appointed of God, 1 Chron. 16.4. & 2 Chron. 29.5. and both the Altar and it were Typical, tyed to the place of Ceremonies, and continuing but with them.

As concerning the Love-Feaſts, if they were of Apoſtolick Inſtitution, (ordained by the Apoſtles, as they were immediately guided by that Spirit which infallibly did aſſiſt them in their Miniſterial Function) they were Divine, (for it is not Apoſtolick in that ſenſe, and divine the ſame? Dr. Abb. anſwer to W. Biſh. cap. 7. of Tradir. Sect. 4. Fran. Junius animadv. in Bellar. lib. 4. cap. 2. not. 6.) and had a ſpecial appointment from God; which the Croſſe hath not. But if none knoweth by whom they were brought in, yet they are abrogated there by the Apoſtle; where we find firſt mention of them: neither were they of myſtical ſanctification, and are not yet proved to be of meer Eccleſiaſtical uſe.

To conclude, Oſculum pacis, Juſt. Marti Apoc. 2. ad finem. Durant. de rit. lib. 2. cap. 54. Sect. 7. which went before the Solemnity of the Supper, to prepare men to the worthy receiving in Charity, was in tract of time diſliked, and degenerated into the kiſſing of the Pax. This I ſay was a natural indicant Sign of Peace and Reconciliation, as embracing, ſhaking hands, &c. and other the like actions be.

If the Sign of the Croſs be in ſome ancient Writers called Apoſtolick, they are to be underſtood in no other ſenſe than as they called Lent-Faſts, the Creed, Saturdaies, and Wedneſdaies, Faſts-Apoſtolick. Et praecepta Majorum (ſaith Jerom) unaquae que provincia leges Apoſtolicas arbitratur. Jerom. Epiſt. ad Luc.

Moreover, whereas it may ſeem that Conſtantine's Viſion was a divine ratification of the uſe of the Croſs; I anſwer,

1. The Narration is humane and fallible.

2. The words of the Hiſtorian be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,Euſeb. de vitâ Conſtan. l. 1. c. 22. Soc. lib. 1. c. 1. which do rather import, In this Chriſt, than in this Sign.

3. The ſight which appeared was, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 made after the faſhion of a Croſs, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , A maerk of Chriſt's Name.

The mark containeth the two firſt Letters of Chriſt's Name, ΧΡ, So that Ρ was made, and Χ by croſſing (as it were) a Spear aſlope, after this manner ΧΡ. Nothing hitherto hath proved the Sign of the Croſs to be warranted by the Word of God; and that which follows will prove that it is meerly humane, if not worſe.

Was not the Heretick Valentinus the begetter of this Sign, who gave it the ſame effective Power that the Papiſts do,Dr. Fulk Arg. in Rhem. Teſt. Luc. 22.5. ex Iraen. l. 1. c. 1. Magdeburg. Cen. 3. cap. 10. as our learned Writer ſaith? Was not Montanus the firſt that gave it credit? Was not Tertullian the chief Inſtrument under him, that ſo much commendeth it, (a man well known to be infamous after his Fall)? Deering on the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, Lect. 2. And did not the Superſtition of the People further the breeding of it up: D. Royn, Confer. with Hart. cap. 8. diviſ. 4. pag. 504. Ambr. in Epiſt. ad Rom. cap. 8. So did it appear, when it was ſaid, Signatos Cruce in morte ſecunda Diabolus tenere non audet: Care ſignatur, ut Anima muniatur. Tettul. de Reſurrect. carnis.

If this be the original of the Sign of the Croſs, the creeping of it into Baptiſm cannot be by divine appointment.

But to conclude, if this Sign be indifferent (as it is acknowledged by the maintainers of it,) then the inſtituting of the uſe of it cannot be more than humane. Out of theſe premiſes it is eaſy to conclude the unlawfulneſs of the Croſs in Baptiſm.

Of Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacramental Bread and Wine.

I Acknowledge that the Supper of the Lord ought to be received with all due Reverence, yet ſo that the rule and meaſure of that reverence be the Word of God, not the Will and Wit of Man: To which rule, becauſe I know not how this kneeling doth agree, therefore I dare not ſubmit to the practice of it.

My Argument againſt it I thus diſpoſe.

No bodily religious Adoration of God, before any Creature, with reſpect unto it, having no allowance from God, can be lawfully uſed:

But kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacramental Bread and Wine, is a bodily religious Adoration of God before a Creature, with reſpect unto it, having no ſpecial allowance from God.

Ergo, It cannot be lawfully uſed.

The Propoſition may be juſtified by four reaſons.Propoſition.

1. The Scriptures are ſo perfect in matters of Worſhip, that they ſhut out all humane Inventions: Therein God blaming what is not according to his Commandment, Lev. 10.1. Jer. 7.31. and 195. his revealed Will being the All-ſufficient Rule of Worſhip, Dout. 12.31, 32. which both ancient Writers (Chryſoſt. in Epist. 2. ad Corinth. Homil. 13. Baſil Epiſt. 80.) and modern alſo do avouch, while they maintain the Scriptures to be the total Rule of Faith and Manners: Proteſtant's Appeal. l. 2. c. 25. Sect. 11. Theſ. Joh Reynolds Theſ. 1. Sect. 3. White's Way, Sect. 5. Digreſ. 3. And many other.

2. Such Worſhip the Propoſition diſalloweth,Hook. Eccleſ. Pol. l. 5. Sect. 3. as Will-worſhip or Superſtition; which is a Religion forged by Man, the root whereof is Ignorance of mind, miſ-guided zeal, and falſe fear. This is and hath been condemned and puniſhed by the Lord, Deut. 12.8. Iſa. 1.12. & 29.13. Mat. 15.9. Lev. 10.1, 2, 3. Numb. 3.4. and judged flat Idolatry both by ancient and modern Writers,Aug de Conſen Evan. l. 1. c. 18. both Orthodox and Popiſh. Dr. Bilſon. Apol. part. 4. pag. 344. Vaſq. de Adorat. lib. 2, Diſput. 1. cap. 3.

3. The ſecond Commandment doth condemn relative Adoration of God without ſpecial Warrant: For it requireth that we worſhip the true God purely, according to his Will. For the better underſtanding of it, obſerve two things to be forbidden in this Commandment.

1. The making of an Image for religious uſe, and under this by a Trope (wherein a part is put for the whole) all Forms of Worſhip deviſed by Man, are forbidden. 2. The adoring of an Image, or Form of Worſhip of his own head: So that if a man make an Image for ſacred uſe, though he do not actually adore it, yet is he a Tranſgreſſor of this Law. If of his own head he bow down to any form of Worſhip, though he did not deviſe it, yet is he an Offender.

If any ſhould ſay, That the Lord hath forbidden making of an Image or Form of Worſhip, and the worſhipping and ſerving of that onely which he deviſed, but not the adoring of God's own Ordinance; he doth ſo ſtreighten the ſenſe of the Law, that Popiſh Adoration of the Sacrament would eſcape the cenſure of this Law,Proteſ. Appeal. l. 4. c. 29. S. 3. White's Way pag. 519. and ſo ſhould be unjuſtly blamed in the Papiſts: Alſo he openeth a gap to the Jews to have worſhipped Manna, and all the Sacrifices of the Law; and to Chriſtians, with religious Worſhip bodily to adore the Bible, Baptiſm, yea, the Miniſter himſelf, without Impeachment of this Commandment: It cannot then be denyed, but that relative Adoration of God before his Ordinances, with reſpect to them without ſpecial licence, is here forbidden. Learned Divines have laid this down as an Axiom in Divinity,Dr. Reynolds of Stage-Playes. That a Negative precept ſtandeth in all the parts of it in force, except the Lord of the Law lay down ſo plain a diſpenſation of the Law, or any branch of it, that a Man's Conſcience upon good grounds may reſt perſwaded, that God doth exempt him from the Power of his Law, in this or that particular caſe; Pſal. 99.5. C • lv Piſcat. Vatabl. Muſcul. in loc. as the Jews were diſpenſed with by ſpecial Appointment, requiring they ſhould worſhip their God before the Ark and Temple, in ſuch a ſenſe as they did not before their Sacraments, and other legal Rites. Fulk againſt Rhem. in Heb. 11. • . De lib. Concord. Admon. Chriſt. cap. 11. Perkins Treatiſe of Divine and relig. Worſhip.

4, The Brazen Serpent, ſet up by the appointment of God,Numb. 21.8. Joh. 3.15. Exod. 32.4. Judg. 3.13. 2 King. 10.26, 27. Dr. Re • nolds lib. 2. de Idol. cap. 2. S. 5. was a lively Type of Chriſt, was reſerved as a memorial of ſpecial divine Mercy, and in proceſs of time the Jews did worſhip God reſpectively before it, not determining their Worſhip in it; as may be gathered from Examples in Scripture compared, and from the Judgment of the learned: yet becauſe they offered Incenſe before it to God, without ſpecial Warrant, their Fact was condemned, and the brazen Serpent demoliſhed.

The Propoſition being confirmed,Aſſumpt. the Aſſumption is to be proved. In the proof whereof four things are to be inſiſted upon.

1. That kneeling in the Act of Receiving, &c. is a Worſhip. 2. No civil but a religious Worſhip. 3. That it is a relative Adoration of God, before a Creature with reſpect unto it. 4. There is no ſpeciall Warrant, nor Appointment from God for it.

Concerning the firſt branch, That kneeling is a Worſhip.

1. It is a geſture of the body, uſed to teſtify, ſignify, and ſhadow out the inward and hidden Act of the mind to ſome perſon or thing. Perkins Caſe of Conſc. l. 2. cap. 11. Sect. 1. This the learned acknowledge to be Worſhip.

2. If a man ſhould bow in ſuch ſort, as he doth in the Sacrament unto God, Pſal. 95.6. to his Prince, 1 King. 1.23, 31. to his Parents, Exod. 20.12. to the Chair of State; to an Angel, Gen. 18.2. & 19.1. Rev. 19.10. to his Superiour, Gen. 33.3, 6. & 42.6, 9. compared with 37.7, 9. yea, to an Idol, is he not ſaid to give Worſhip to that whereto he kneeleth?

3. Reverend kneeling and bowing of the body is expreſſed by ſuch words in the Scripture, that ſignify outward Worſhip,Scultetus de Precatione par. 2. & Concor. Graec. de voce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Gen. 18.2. & 23.7. Mat. 2.8, 11.

4. The Evangeliſt Mark recording the Story of the Leper that came to Chriſt, ſaith, that he kneeled down, Chap. 1.40. Luke ſaith that he fell on his face, Chap. 5.12. and Matthew, that he worſhipped, Chap. 8.2.

Laſtly, Kneeling in the act of receiving is not intended by urgers, or obeyers, for eaſe, or civil furtherance. It's no geſture of neceſſity, as it is in them, who being lame, kneel,1 Sam. 9.22. becauſe they can do no otherwiſe. Neither is it a geſture of order to kneel at a Feaſt, whether Spiritual, or Corporal; and what order can there be when moſt do ſit or ſtand to attend the Word read, to ſing Pſalms, meditate, &c. that the perſon communicating ſhould kneel. But if that be true which ſome have ſaid, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . that the Greek words uſed by the Evangeliſt, ſpeaking of the geſture uſed by the Lord Jeſus in his Paſſover, and conſequently alſo in his Supper, do rather ſignify kneeling than ſitting; a man might have ſome colour to avouch, that nature, reaſon, and cuſtome, taught rather to kneel at ſome Feaſts, than to ſit or ſtand. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But the truth is, that the Evangeliſt uſe two words to expreſs the geſture of our Saviour. The one is ordinarily rendred, ſitting, as may be ſeen in theſe places, Matth. 9.10. and 26.7.20. Mark 14.18. and 16.14. Luke 11.37. and 22.27. Joh. 6.11. or gueſts, Matth. 22.10, 11. or ſuch as are at a Table, Joh. 13.28. and ſcarce more than once it's tranſlated lying down, Mark 5.40. and once leaning, Joh. 13.28. The former of theſe not concerning any geſture, and the latter ſhewing their nationall manner and faſhion of ſitting.

The other word is tranſlated, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſitting, Matth. 15.35. Mark 6.40. and 8.6. Luke 11.37. and 14.10. and 17.7. and 22.14. Joh. 6.10. and 13.12. and, it may be, not above once otherwiſe, Joh. 21.20. Theſe words are tranſlated ſitting by our Engliſh Tranſlators,Joh. R • yn. plect. 79. pag. 941, 942. Annot. Bez. in Joh. 13.23. as in the late Tranſlation in the Geneva, and in that of the great Bibles to which we were tyed by Law to ſubſcribe. Beza, Piſcator, Arias Montanus, the vulgar Interpreter, the Doctors of Rhemes, do thus tranſlate them: and do not Grecians know, that theſe words do properly note the geſture of ſitting? Indeed the faſhion of ſitting in the Oriental parts,Perk. Caſe of Conſc. l. 2. c. 11. S. 1. And Com. in Matth. 4.9. was different from that that is uſed in the Northern Climates; but National circumſtances carry not the nature of geſture. I conclude then, that ſeeing this kneeling is not a geſture of neceſſity, eaſe, order, or civill furtherance; it is a geſture of reverence and worſhip.

Secondly, kneeling in the act, &c. is a Religious worſhip; for all bodily worſhip is Civil, or Religious. Civill is ſuch as is performed to the Inhabitants of the ſame ſociety, as of man to man in reſpect of ſuperiority in office,Perk. Caſe, l. 2. c. 11. Sect. 1. age, or gifts. This is performed by man, but to ſuch with whom he doth converſe, and then onely to Angells when they had viſible communion with man. Such civill adoration, kneeling in the act of receiving, is not: for what finite ſocial object is there preſent at the Communion, to which kneeling ſhould be performed? To worſhip man at that time with ſuch ſolemn worſhip, is to worſhip God by the halves, if not to give that to man which God doth appropriate to himſelf. Humane Authority commanding this geſture, doth not make it civil, no more then it makes Prayers, &c. civill actions, by enjoyning them to be made. Seeing this is not a civill geſture, it muſt needs be Religious.

2. Religious adoration, as it is an oppoſite member to civil, is Spiritual and unlimitted in all places, at all times, and in all thing • , cauſing him that worſhippeth to adore before that which is worſhiped, and this is performed to God, or ſomething that is reputed and worſhipped as God. Of this kind is the kneeling in queſtion, as the chief Patrons of conformity do aver, ſaying,Whitg. def. p. 598. tract. 15. c. 1. Div. 2. that it is the meeteſt and fitteſt in reſpect of Prayer and Thankſgiving.

It is a geſture of Piety, and more neceſſary in this act than in any other. Hook. Eccleſ. Pol. lib. 5. S. 68. Cov. againſt Burg. p. 143. Of this kneeling, the Book of Common Prayer Authorized by King Edward the 6th, ſaith, it is commanded for ſignification of the humble and gratefull acknowledgment of the benefits of Chriſt given to the worthy receiver. Add further, that ſuch kneeling as this, done to Idolls, would be an Idolatrous worſhip; which could not be, except it were a Religious worſhip.

To conclude, bowing the knee doth ſometimes in the Scripture note the whole worſhip of God. Pſal. 95.6. 1 King. 19.18. Eſay 45.23. Rom. 14.10. Phil. 2.11. Epheſ. 3.14. Hoſ. 13.2. From all this, the concluſion may be inferred, that kneeling in the act of receiving is a Religious worſhip.

This kneeling is a relative adoration of God before a Creature, with reſpect unto it. The Sacrament is a conſecrated Creature, and before the Sacramental Bread and Wine, we are required to bow. In the intention of the Law, and in the opinion of the moſt people, there is a relation had in the very act of bowing unto the Sacrament, though it be not the object in which they purpoſe their adoration ſhould determine. Is there not the like reſpect as the Papiſts have, when they kneel, or knock their breaſts before a Croſs, or Crucifix, &c?

The act of kneeling, and the Circumſtances thereof, do convince, that there is ſuch a relation: for we are allowed to ſit, or ſtand meditating, or ſinging Pſalms, &c. untill we be about to receive the Sacramental Bread and Wine, and when it is given by the Miniſter to be received by us; Law requires that we ſhould reverently fall down on our knees, and the practice of moſt is ſutable ther • to. Searce is there (if any) more viſible ſign and token to the eye of the ſpectator, to convince the Papiſts of adoration of the Sacrament, than this our bowing at this time is to declare that there is an actual reverence had to the Sacrament when we kneel to God before it. If a man were not onely to bow before it, but to it, what could he do more? If, in this ſenſe, and after this manner, a man ſhould bow to an Image; would not wiſe men judg this act an adoring of the Image, or of God before it? The Book of Common Prayer of Edward the 6th, enjoyneth this poſture to avoid the profanation of the Sacrament.

The urgers and maintainers of kneeling,Th. Hutton. part. 2. p. 54.56. Eccl. regim. p. 140. Spar. perſwaſ. to unifor. c. 4. Th. Hurt. part. 2. pag. 62. tell us in plain tearms, That kneeling is done to the Bread and Wine, not ſimply, but as reſembling Chriſt; that none is ſo ſottiſh to adore the ſign, but the thing repreſented by that ſign; that our bowing is an outward reverence meet to be performed, becauſe of the holy action in hand; that its done to keep the Sacrament in reverence, &c. and that we kneel to put difference between ordinary Bread and Wine, and theſe Sacramental, to which we give more reverence, becauſe its more then ordinary Bread and Wine; and partly to ſtir up in our ſelves and others a more Religious eſtimation of theſe Divine Seals, partly to remove all profane thoughts of contemners and deſpiſers of the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord Jeſus; partly to put a difference hereby from our common bread and Wine which we take in our houſes, and at our Tables; and partly to teach us to lift up our hearts to God to bleſs his own Ordinance. In a word, Articles have been put into, and allowed in Eccleſiaſticall Courts, which have charged the Miniſters to have delivered the Sacrament unreverently to the people, not kneeling. To omit the opinion of the vulgar, who come, as they ſay themſelves, to receive their Maker; or who place holineſs in the outward bowing, and have relation to the Sacramentall Signs, which yet addeth ſome ſtrength to the matter in hand.Eccl. Pol. l. 5. Sect. 5. I conclude with Mr. Hooker, who ſaith well, In actions of this kind, we are more to reſpect what the greateſt part of men is prone to conceive, then what ſome few mens wits may deviſe in conſtruction of their own particular meaning.

Now it remains that I aſſay to prove, that kneeling in the act of receiving, hath no ſpecial warrant from the Word. This geſture being proved to be a relative adoration of God before a conſecrated Creature, it is of a ſpecial and peculiar nature and uſe, and therefore ought to have a peculiar warrant from God to authorize it, otherwiſe geſtures of this kind cannot be uſed in Faith; for theſe are not diſcernable by the light of Nature; neither can the general rules of the Scripture yield ground for ſuch. When the act done is of ſpecial nature, it muſt have a peculiar direction. The Jews did not worſhip towards the High Prieſt, or his Attire,Exod. 12.11. Exod. 15.16. Exod. 12.11. 1 Cor. 5.7. and 10.3, 4. towards the Paſchal Lamb, the Manna, the water of the Rock, or their Sacrifices, in that ſenſe as they did before the Ark of the Covenant, or the Mercy-ſeat in the Tabernacle, or in the Temple, although theſe holy things were Types of Chriſt. Nature could not teach, neither yet any general rules in the Scripture why, before one rather than before another, they ſhould bow; therefore for this peculiar adoration, there was a ſpecial appointment.Numb. 21.8. When the Iſraelites alſo were ſtinged with fiery Serpents, they looked up at the Brazen Serpent which was a Type of Chriſt, that they might be healed, but this was by ſpecial direction.

Now as for kneeling in the act of receiving, who can ſhew any peculiar inſtitution. Moreover, Canonical kneeling is not authoriſed by Gods Word, nor by any general rule.

1. Both maintainers and urgers of this geſture, ſay, it is indifferent; and that it was ſo reputed by the State, appears by this, that in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, ſtanding was ordained at Coventry and Northampton, by vertue of her Highneſs Commiſſion, and kneeling aboliſhed.

2. Chriſt and his Apoſtles at the firſt inſtitution of the Communion, did not kneel; which they would have done,Matth. 26.20, 26. Mar. 14.18.22. Luk. 22.14.17. Joh. 13.12. if this geſture had been divinely ratified.

3. The Apoſtles after Chriſt's Reſurrection delivered nothing concerning the Lords Supper, but what they received of the Lord. 1 Cor. 11.23. and yet delivered the whole counſell of God, Act. 20.20.27. but yet ſay nothing of kneeling; which doubtleſs they would have done if it had been a divine Ordinance. Kneeling is not of that antiquity to have ground or inſtitution by the Apoſtles. That mention which may ſeem to be of it in Origen, Homil. 5. in diverſ. Evang. loca. is nothing, the book being counterfeit. Rob. Cocus in Cenſuram quorundam veterum Script. pag. 13.

Gorgonia, her bowing before the Communion Table, or Altar, was in the night intended for Prayer,Sozem. lib. 8. cap. 5. not to receive the Sacrament.

About the year of our Lord 157, Euſeb. Hiſt. Eccleſ. lib. 7. cap. 8, or 9. Bez. Tractar. the large Vol. 3. Part. 183. De Coron. milit. cap. 3. Can. 20. De Spir. Sanct. cap. 27. Gentillettus exam. concil. Triden. lib. 2. Sect. 4. pag. 44. Dr Fulk. anſw. to Rhem. 1 Cor. 11.29. Sect. 2.4 Jewel's reſp. artic. 8. diviſ. 1. Zach. Urſ. common. Chitr. conſid. error. 3. conſid. Bale in the Life of Honorius 3. Tho. Mort. Pret. Appeal. lib. 4. cap. 29. Sect. 3. Hiſpin. Hiſt. Sacra. part. 1. lib. 4. Francis While's anſw. to the Treatiſe called, White dyed black part. 2. p. 347. Perk. Idol. of laſt times, laſt particular, &c. Willet Synopſ. contr. 13. q. 4. pag. 649. edit. 1614. John White's way to the true Church Sect. 50. Num. 9. Stat. 1. Eliz. cap. 2. it may appear that Standing was uſed at the Communion.

About the year 160, Juſtin Martyr giveth not the leaſt inkling of this Geſture, but mentioneth the Peoples coming to the Table.

Tertullian (who was about 180 or 200 years after Chriſt) reports, That in his time they uſed not to kneel at prayer upon any Lords Day, or upon any other Day between Eaſter and Whitſuntide.

In the Council of Nice 327, a ſolemn Decree was made, That none might pray kneeling, but ſtanding, upon the Lords Day: This continued in Baſil's time, (if that Book was his) Anno Domini, 380, and was afterward confirmed by the ſixth Council holden at Conſtantinople. So that either the antient Churches never received the Sacrament on the Lords Day (which is without controverſy moſt falſe), or they uſed a Geſture of greater reverence in receiving the Sacramentall Bread and Wine than they did at prayer, (whereof there is no likelihood); or elſe it muſt be granted, That they were accuſtomed to receive the Communion with ſome other Geſture than kneeling.

Anno 380, in Gregory Nazianzen's time, the People ſtood at the Communion about the Table. I will for brevity omit other pertinent Teſtimonies for this purpoſe which he that will may read in the Acts and Monuments in the difference between the Church of Rome, that now is and the antient. The ſum of Paul's Doctrine delivered to the Gentiles, &c. Alſo in the Dialogue between Cuſtom and Truth, pag. 1264. Edit. 1610.

To draw to an end, very many of our learned Worthies do affirm, That odoration, or bowing before the Sacrament came into uſe, in the dayes of Honorius the third. But whatſoever the Original of it was, That which I have ſpoken ſheweth that it is but a humane Tradition. Seeing therefore that kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacramentall Bread and Wine, is a religious adoration of God, before a conſecrated Creature with reſpect unto it, having no ſpeciall Warrant out of the Word of God, it cannot be uſed without ſin.

Hitherto of the Arguments directly concluding the unlawfulneſs of the controverted Rites. Now follow the conſiderations for which our requeſt not to be urged unto conformity, may ſeem reaſonable.

1. It was not the intent of the Statute by which the Ceremonies ſtand in force to perpetuate the uſe of them, but onely to tolerate them out of hope of a fitter time of reformation. This Law was not intended to be reverſed, or the benefit thereof to denyed,In the Procla. prefixed, and ſet before the Book of Canons. though the Proclamation of his Highneſs did ratify the Authority of the Biſhops to make Eccleſiaſtical Canons, as the words of that Proclamation do import; — moſt humbly deſiring us to give our royal aſſent unto the ſaid Canons.

2. Non-conformity proceeding from fear of ſinning againſt God,Treatiſe of Ceremonies prefixed before the Book of Common-prayer. And Stat. 1. Eliz. cap. 2. B. Bilſon. ag a. Apol. part. 2. pag. 349. Mort. anſw. to the Popiſh demands. Demand. 30. is neither contempt, nor ſcandall; and therefore may be allowed favour in the eye of the Law. If a bare omiſſion of a Rite were contempt, then all that uſe Bowling which the Law diſſalloweth, and do not were Caps and ſuch Habits as the Statute enjoyneth, ſhall be Contemners. Where we dare not do, we are ready without reſiſting to ſuffer; and ſuffering is as ſure a Sign of ſubjection, as obeying. In ſome caſes, the Law is ſatisfied by ſubmitting a mans ſelf to the Mulct. Neither is forbearance a ſcandall, becauſe it afford, no hurtfull concluſion, which may be naturally and neceſſarily thence deduced; except as much and more, may be deduced from ſome Conformities, that do not uſe the Ceremonies ſo oft as the Law requireth. The rayling Inferences of ſome malicious Papiſts, are but meer inconſequences; and do not proceed from our forbearance, but from their malice.

3. The uſe of Ceremonies ought to be free. This the Law ſeemeth probably to import, Jewel of the private Maſs tract. 2. div. 9. in the end of his anſw. Stat. 13. Eliz. cap. 12 which enjoyneth ſubſcription with this exception to the Articles of Religion, which onely concern the confeſſion of the true Chriſtian Faith, and the Doctrine of the Sacraments. This practice (onely) limits ſubſcription to the things expreſſed, leaving as it may ſeem other things at liberty. Neither was there any hurt that came to the Church of God by the free uſe of the Ceremonies in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign.Sir Edward Cook his ſpeech at Garnet's Arraignment. P. Mart. Epiſt. cuidam in Angl. Scripta an. 1559 Vide loc com. p. 1225. Bucer. cenſura. Mr. Caſaubon Mr. Hooker. Eccleſ. Pol. 1. Lib. 5. Sect. 67. For the ſpace of 10 years Papiſts came generally to the Church, but ſince the urging of theſe Rites, they have not been ſo forward. This God hath not bleſſed the impoſing of them, as the leaving of them free.

4. Worthy men, the maintainers of theſe Rites in the Dayes of King Edward; (viz.) Peter Martyr, and Bullinger, upon better conconſideration, did retract their Judgments.

Forraign Divines diſallow theſe Rites, and may not we be ſuffered to doubt of them?

5. Since the urging of theſe Ceremonies, theſe Points have ſprung up for the defence of them; (viz.) The Churche's Authority binds the Conſcience, That it's not to be enquired into, whether Chriſt be preſent in the Sacrament by Conſubſtantiation or Tranſubſtantiation, and that it doth no way hinder or further us, however it ſtandeth. That relative adoration of God before a Creature with reſpect unto it, without ſpeciall Warrant, may be lawful, &c. May not this breed ſome doubt of the quality of the cauſe, that is by great Schollars thus maintained?

6. As yet we have nothing to ſettle our doubting-conſciences upon, but th • ſe two Points, which yet are not without ſome doubt.

1. That the Rites impoſed are indifferent. 2. That in ſuch things, the Churche's or Magiſtrate's Authority binds the Conſcience.

Yet are we taught that no individual Action is indifferent, (Thom. Mort. Apolog. Lib. 1. Cap. 47.) indifferency reſting in the general Nature, (Aquin. 1.2, 18. Artic. 97. That, particulares Magistratuum leges mullum habent in conſcientias dominatum. Whitak. contra Duraeum. Lib. 8. Sect. ultim. That no man incurreth the guilt of Damnation, but by breaking the Laws of God. Dr. Pield of the Church, Lib. 4. Cap. 33. to which purpoſe ſome other Worthies do write: Perkin's Treatiſe of Conſcience, Cap. 2. Sect. 7. in the end. If it ſhould be ſaid that the uſe of the Vail, 1 Cor. 11. may afford Warrant unto us, for ſuch Rites as are in Queſtion. We are to conſider, That the uſe of the Vail was in ordinary uſe, not in meer Eccleſiaſtical uſe, Gen. 24.65. Alſo it was not not a Symbolicall Sign, but a Natural indicant Sign of modeſty. This conſidered, doth not our humble ſuit ſeem reaſonable, that till theſe Propoſitions be better cleared, we may be foreborn?

7. Reſolution in matter of Ceremonies is not eaſy, becauſe the holy Scriptures which in weightier matters is clear, is more dark in things of leſſer moment. So that the Media to be uſed in Argument either for, Calvin. inſtit. Lib. 4. Cap. 10. Sect. 8. Beza Epiſt. 24. Zanch. de operib. Redemp. cap. 4. de cultu •• tern. qu. 4. Dr. White's defence. p. 287. or againſt, the Ceremonies are difficult to be found out: Hence it is, That from the beginning there have been great Controverſies, and that among the greateſt, in matter of Ceremonies; as Bellarm. ſaith, De effect. Sacram. Lib. 2. Cap. 3.

8. Are learned Proteſtants deceived or not, when they ſay, Popiſh Ceremonies are to be condemned, becauſe there is an opinion of holineſs, neceſſity, and worſhip annexed, wherewith they are urged? Or can our's be freed from this holineſs or neceſſity, ſeeing they are reputed religious Rites, and urged under a great penalty, both upon Miniſter and People, as the Canons ſhew.

9. Laſtly, If this Propoſition be true that is given and agreed of by the Learned; Rites of meer humane Invention, of no neceſſary uſe, antiently abuſed to Idolatry, now ſuperſtitiouſly uſed among many ignorant perſons, are to be aboliſhed: It is a worthy labour to reſolve us that our Ceremonies be not ſuch. We are taught,Dr. Willet Synopſ. 2. Gen. Contr. qu. 3. part. 2. p. 110. Edit. 1614. Tho: Rogers his expoſ. of the 39. artic. Act. 20. pag. 101. 102. that Ceremonies to be in the Church, muſt not be in nature impious, in uſe ſuperſtitions; for their weight not over heavy, and grievous to be born; that for their worthineſs in the eyes of the Ordainers, they be neither of an equall prize, nor of more account then the Ordinances of God, ſo as, for the performance of them, the Law of God muſt be left undone; that they be not againſt the liberty of Chriſtians, or any way contrary to the Commandment of God: but tend both to the nouriſhing and increaſe of Love, friendſhip and quietneſs among Chriſtians, and retaining of God's People in God's holy fear, &c.

FINIS.