in like sort the decent and orderly ceremonies of the Church though abused in one place yet in an other be restored vnto their right vse especially the abuse which is offered in ceremonies being but only secunda idolatria as Tertullian noteth but a second and inferiour degree of idolatry whereas that which is offered in the creatures is often-times the principall they beeing honored for very Gods Where finde you Gods creatures in this case of idolatry to haue any greater priuiledge then the Churches ceremonies If they after they haue beene made idols in the highest degree may yet haue their vse in the seruice of God why may not the other too which can be made idols but in an inferiour degree If the idolatrie with creatures do not destroy the vse of the same indiuidua why should the idolatry of ceremonies which is a lesse abuse destroy the vse of all the whole species the translators of our Geneua Bible in setting out the picture of the golden Calfe insinuate these two things First that the abuse offered to one idol of that kind though it were idolatry in the highest degree yet hath not so corrupted the whole species of it but that other may both lawfully and profitably bee vsed Secondly that though that idols were but a mans inuention had bin so notably abused vnto idolatry yet that it is not debarred from helping vs euen in the seruice of God for that must needs be the end of their figuring it in that booke Beza as you heard before goeth further for hee alloweth the very same alter which hath beene the instrument of an idolatrous sacrifice to be vsed as an instrument of our christian Sacrament In which iudgement diuers martyrs in Queene Maries time concurred who were content to vse the same Surplices and Chalices which had beene abused in adolatrous masses The like did the christians in the primitiue church they conuerted the same temples into the houses of God which had beene consecrated to the seruice of abhominable idols yet are both idolatrous Temples and Alters mans owne meere inuentions and not Gods eyther creatures or ordinances So that though our crosse were the same which was abused and but a mans inuention yet might it by these examples be defended But secondly I answere vnto your consequent That if it were granted that the signe of the crosse were but a mans inuention yet can it not bee granted with any truth that the protestants crosse is the same which the Papists haue abused ours differing from theirs both in the Agents and in the ends of the action two very great and materiall differences Thirdly I demand how those men which condemne all humaine inuentions which haue idolatrously beene abused do agâ—ee with them selues when they condemne kneeling and commend sitting at the holy communion making this to bee a significant signe of our eternall rest which is both meerely an humaine inuention and hath notably beene abused vnto idolatry Ob. Perhaps you will say that sitting is agreeable to Christs owne institution and that he himselfe sat at his last Supper Resp. But that is not so hee vsed an other site of his body as distant from sitting as kneeling is He leaned and so did the rest of his Disciples according to the custome and fashion of those times Looke Clauis Scripturae in voce sinus Stuckius de ritibus conuiuialibus lib. 2. cap. 34. Ob. But happily you thinke that sitting hath not beene so wickedly abused vnto idolatry as kneeling hath Resp. Nay much more and to more horrible idolatry too For in the kingdomes of Calecute and Narsiâ—ga and in diuerse other prouinces of the East and West India where they worship the diuill in a most deformed image they represent him alwayes sitting and they worship him not kneeling but prostrate So that they which reiect kneeling and retaine sitting whilest they auoide the iesture of Christian idolaters they imâ—tate the iesture of Heathen idols Therefore where sitting is allowed I know not why either kneeling or crossing should be abolished Then to recapitulate the summe of this long answer If neitâ—er wee our selues nor the papits our aduersaâ—ies doe thinke our crosse auaileable to the driuing away of diuils nor to the sanctifying of our selues nor yet do adore it with diuine or holy worship then is not our crosse made an idoll either by our owne practise or by their opinion and therefore not to be debarred from the seruice of God by force of your first argument Againe if our crosse be either no humaine inuention but rather an Apostolicall tradition or being an humaine inuention yet hath neuer beene abused vnto idolatry then is it not excluded from the seruice of God by vertue of your second argument But the first of these is true as I haue shewed in the body of this answere Ergo the second also The fift obiection For as much as our profession of Christ is a part of the couenant Rom. 10.8.9 I haue doubted how man may appoint the signe of the crosse as a token of our profession This being Gods owne prerogatiue as to ordaine the couenant so to ordaine meete signes for it Gen. 17.7.11 Answer This fift obiection is very intricate but I gesse that â—t may be explicated thus No man may adde signes to the couenant of God Gen. 17.7.11 But our profession of Christ is the couenant of God Rom. 10.8.9 Ergo no man may adde signes to our profession of Christ. And by consequent the signe of the crosse may not bee added to our profession in baptisme In which argument the Maior must be answered by distinction That the outward signes of our profession or couenant with God bee of two diuers natures for either they bee sacramentall or ceremoniall signes For sacramentall signes wee plainely confesse that they must needs bee of Gods owne institution and haue his owne promise annexed vnto them and therefore no man hath any power to ordaine them but this as you truly say is Gods sole prerogatiue But â—or rituall and ceremoniall signes made either for the ordering of the Church within it selfe or for the distinguishing of it from other assemblies the case is farre otherwise such thinges may bee made by the Churches constitution without any incroching vppon Gods prerogatiue by the iudgement of the most Diuines both old and new I reffere you for breuities sake vnto the ninety fiue page of Bishoppe Whitgifts booke continuing vnto page 128. In which long and learned discourse hee citeth many testimonies of the ancient fathers declaring many rites ceremonies to haue beene ordained in the primitiue Church by hir owne authority without any expresse warrant of the word for them sauing onely that generall warrantize of Saint Paule Omnia decenter et ordine fiant In which rule he naming not the seuerall particulars but leauing them to the Churches discretion he giueth it power to ordaine lawes and ceremonies so that these conditioÌ„s be not transgressed
the Church doth not tyrannize ouer mens consciences in ordaining significant rites and ceremonies but these men would tyrannize ouer the Church who would spoile her of that her lawfull authoritie especially they not being able to produce any Scripture whereby shee is abridged of that power Ob. But though the Church should haue power to ordaine rites and ceremonies for priuate order in it selfe yet hath it no power to appoint any out-ward signe to bee a note of our generall profession but that is GODS owne peculiar prerogatiue Gen 17 7.11 Resp. That the Church hath authority in greater matters then either in adding significations to ceremonies or outward notes to our profession very many instances doe notably declare First that whereas Christ instituted his supper at the time of supper it hath changed that time from the euening to the morning which is an altering in circumstance of Christs owne institution Secondly whereas the Apostles decreed in a generall councell that Christians should abstaine from bloud and from stranglers that hath it likewise altered and so cancelled an Apostolicall constitution The like authority they shewed in altering the ancient day of the Sabboth and administring Baptisme vnto children in this they wanting the commandement of Christ in that they changing the commandement of God From which instances we may argue as from the greater to the lesse That if they erred not in those fore-named ordinances much lesse haue they erred in adding significations vnto their ceremonies by the same reason why hath not the church as great a power to adde outward signes vnto our profession as to ordaine other ceremonies concerning our Ecclesiasticall administration Is the signe the lesse lawfull because it is a signe of our profession Why then is none at all lawfull for not onely this signe of the crosse but also all other Ecclesiasticall ceremonies as Aquinas teacheth vs are signes of our profession Hee saith that Omnes ceremoniae be protestationes quaedam fidei Tertullian being newly conuerted vnto Christianity forsooke his old habit which was a gowne and betooke him to a new which was a Cloake that so with the change of his garment hee might notifie to the world the change of his profession which certainly hee would neuer haue done if he had beene perswaded that the adding of such a signe vnto his profession had beene an incroching vpon GODS owne prerogatiue and peculiar iurisdiction The Christians likewise in the primitiue Church euer from the time of the very Apostles haue vsed this same ceremonie of the crosse which is now in question as a marke and a signe of their profession and yet did neuer either they themselues thinke it or the greatest aduersaries that they had impute it as a presumption and incroching against Gods owne prerogatiue as Saint Basil obserueth Nec his quisquam contradicit saith hee speaking of the traditions and ceremonies of the Church Quisquis sane vel tenuiter expertus est quae sint iura ecclesiastica So that this obiection of yours if it be good condemneth not onely our vse of the crosse now after it hath beene abused by the Papists but euen the vse of it in the primatiue Church before it was abused Or if it be weake it is weake against vs as well as against them For the vse of it now is no more an incrochment vppon Gods owne prerogatiue then it was in that time Ob. But you proue by that place Gen 17.7.11 that God onely hath power to adde signes vnto his couenant and by consequent that they which adde any such signes presume to enter vppon Gods owne prerogatiue Resp. But this proofe which you alledge hath two great faults in it First that it is not ad idem and secondly that it is not concludent in the cause not ad idem thus To proue that the Church may not adde any ceremoniall signe vnto our profession you produce a place of scripture which speaketh onely of sacramentall signes It is circumcision which was a sacramentall signe that God in that place did adde vnto his couenant Such signes I do yeald that God onely may institute But as for the crosse wee make it not a sacrament but onely a ceremonie And wee may truly say of it as Saint Augustine doth of the birth day of Christ Non in sacramento celebratur sed tantum in memoriam reuocatur Secondly if your proofe were ad idem and proper to the purpose yet is it inconcludent For by what rule of reason can this consequent follow God added a sacramentall signe vnto his couenant Ergo man may not adde a ceremoniall signe if God added signes vnto his couenant to assure vs of his faithfull performance of his part why may not wee adde signes vnto our couenant to assure him of our faithfull performance of our part Tertullian saith that Licet omni fideli constituere quod deo congruat quod disciplina conducat and quod saluti proficiat Dicente domino cur autem non et a vobis ipsis quod iustum est iudicatis marke et a vobis ipsis Iosua when he had heard the people make an earnest profession that they would serue the Lord not any other God he rested not in their bare profession but sealed it by this ceremonie by pitching vp a great stone vnder an oke which hee sayd should witnesse against them if they brake their couenant as Iacob before by the like ceremonie had sealed the couenant betweene him and Laban So that wee are not debarred by that place of Genesis but that we may adde signes if not seales vnto Gods couenant if Gods couenant and our profession be Synonima as you seeme to make them in your Maior proposition Now for your Minor That our profession of Christ is the couenant of God it may in some sense bee allowed to bee true although as you know the couenant betweene God and man doth passe in some-what an other forme viz. That he should be our God and we should be his people where the Prophet expoundeth our part of the couenant to bee the faithfull obeying of him and not the outward professing of him As for faith confession which you alledge out of the Rom. cap. 10.9 to be the whole sum of our profession and of our part of the couenant with God that is not true they bee partes indeede of our couenant with God but our whole part they be not vnlesse you take both faith confession in a very large signification faith not only for beleeuing with the heart but also for working with the hand And confession not onely for the speeches of the tongue but also for the gestures and behauiours of the body By which meanes though not there nominatim expressed yet our God ought to bee serued and the truth both of our faith and confession to be testified So that vnto those two points of beleeuing and confessing we not onely may but also must adde
He bringeth also the iudgement of diuers new writers which confirme the same Caluin who with them is Instar omnium saith that a sette forme of rites and ceremonies bee the nerues and sinewes of the Church without which it needs must be disolued And those constitutions which are made by the Church hee bindeth all the members thereof to obserue condemning not onely such as contemne and reiect them but also such as pretermit and neglect them adding this for a reason of our vniforme obedience in such outward matters Quantarum ricarum semen futura est earum rerum confusio si pro vt cuique libitum sit mutare liceat que ad comunem statum pertinent Quando nunquam futuram sit vt idem omnibus placeat sires velut in medio positae singulorum arbitrio relictae fuerint so that hee affirmeth that whereas there is not vniformity in ceremonies there can neuer bee vnity in affections but must needs bee iarres and great contentions Yea euen T.C. him-selfe expresly affirmeth that the Church hath power to make orders in these things which are not specified and precisely determined in the word And hee addeth that if they bee profitable for the Church and bee not repugnant to the word they are to bee receiued as beeing grounded vpon the word and as thinges which God himselfe by his Church hath commanded Marke I pray you what power euen this aduersary of ceremonies ascribeth to the Church enough to authorize both the crosse and surplice and all the other ceremonies which hee him-selfe impugneth none of which are repugnant vnto the word of God but all of them profitable for the Church as the Church it selfe in ordaining them determineth and therefore by his owne rule bee grounded vppon the word and so ought to bee receiued as Gods owne commandements ordained by the Church Further the practise of all Christian Churches in the worlde doth manyfestly showe that the Church hath power to ordaine Rites and ceremonies though not expresly prescribed in the word for there is no Church in Christendome without such as namely orders for sitting kneeling standing place for reader preacher and administer for the sacraments time for praiers sermons sacraments and such like Ob. But though the Church haue power to ordaine orders for conueniency and comelinesse yet hath it no power to ordaine any signes with their significations neither can there any such example be produced Resp. If the Church haue power to ordaine vnsignificant ceremonies then much more such as are significant for vnsignificant ceremonies can not edifie as I haue formerly shewed but significant may if their signification be expressed as it is in our crosse where these words be added I signe him with the signe of the crosse in token that hereafter he shall not bee ashamed to confesse the faith of Christ crucified and manfully to fight vnder his banner c. what can bee more plaine or more profitable not onely to expresse the duty of the child then presently receiued into the Church by baptisme but also to admonish euery one in the Church what profession they themselues did make at their baptisme Now that the Church hath power to ordaine such ceremonies hauing so good and profitable significations to let Tertullians iudgment passe who sayth that licet vnicuique fideli concipere et constituere quod deo congruat quod disciplinae conducat quod saluti proficiat euen T. C. his former rule doth sufficiently proue for hee sayth that those things which are not against the word and profitable for the Church ought to bee receiued as things which GOD by his Church doth commande and as grounded vpon the word of God But it is more profitable for the church to haue significant then vnsignificant ceremonies and these be no more against the word then they are and therefore by T. C. his rule such ceremonies ought to be receiued as Gods owne commandements sent vnto vs by his Church Now for examples that the Church hath ordained many such it is great ignorance in Storie if a man do doubt it To begin with Saint Paule likewise he ordained that women should come vailed or couered to the Church by that ceremonie to signifie their subiection to their husbands Which example Peter Martyr doth peremptorily alledge as a proofe that our ceremonies ought to haue their significations Let vs descend lower vnto the primatiue Church In it these significant ceremonies were generally obserued First in baptisme they were dipped three times into the water Secondly they were anoynted with oile Thirdly they were signed with the signe of the crosse And fourthly they were clothed with white garments All these ceremonies are recorded by Dionisius Areopagita in his booke of Ecclesiasticall hierarchie The significations of all which ceremonies he afterwards expoundeth in the Contemplation annexed vnto that chapter Yea and diuers other fathers both of diuers Churches and of differing ages in their writings declare that not onely these ceremonies were vntil their times continued but also their significations receiued First for that threefold dipping into the water S. Hierom saith that it was done to signifie that the sacrament was ministred in the name of the whole trinity Secondly for that anoynting with oyle Saint Augustine saith that it was done to signifie the inward anoynting of the holy Ghost 3. for that signing the forehead with the signe of the crosse S. Augustine againe saith that it was done that we should not be ashamed of the crosse of Christ. Fourthly for that change of their apparrell and putting on white raiments S. Ambrose saith that this was done to signifie that we had now put off the old man 1. the couerings of sin put on the garments of chastity and innocency Vnto these I might adde many other Christian ceremonies recorded by Basil in his booke de spiritu sancto as namely that they praied towards the east to signifie that they sought that paradise by praying which they lost by sinning That they prayed standing vpon the Sunday to signifie that as that day was the day of Christs resurrection so they were risen againe with Christ and now sought those things which are aboue with diuers other like reckoned vp in that place which he affirmeth to be apostolicall traditions All which examples doe euidently declare the iudgement of the primitiue Church that both it had power to ordaine ceremonies and also to giue them their significations and consequently the want of iudgement in those men which affirme that neither the Church hath any such power nor histories affoord any such example Herevnto I may adde the opinion of the very Reformers themselues who preferre sitting before kneeling at the communion because sitting betokeneth rest and an end of all legall ceremonies in Iesus Christ which reason they would neuer haue alleadged if they had thought that the Church had had no power to ordaine significant ceremonies and rites Therefore
Angel Michael about the body of Moses hoping to haue gotten the honour of this day and to haue glorified himselfe against God himselfe by it in the ouerthrow of his Church But God was too strong for him and so hath gotten the day from him making this day for euer both honourable to himselfe and comfortable vnto vs by our preseruation which he thought to haue made most horrible dismall by our vtter destruction And therefore as the Iewes vpon a like occasion haue eternized the memorie of their Purim by making it A statute in Israel and a law in Iacob as the Psalmist speaketh in this place so is it both wisely and religiously ordained by vs that it should be both a Statute and a Law in England too a Statute-law to nobilitate and eternize the blessed remembrance of this holy day which I pray God may for euer be better obserued then many other of our good statutes be which haue formerly bin made And so for this time I here conclude The fourth Sermon at the Court Nouemb. 15. Anno 1607. 2. TIM 3. VER 8. As Iannes and Iambres resisted Moses so doe these men resist also the truth OVr Sauiour Christ affirmeth in the Gospel of S. Luke that when the Sonne of man shall come to iudge the world there scarcely shall be found any faith vpon the earth A heauie censure of these times of ours but yet thaâ— prophecie of his is notably confirmed by the testimony of his owne disciple in this place For the Apostlâ— foretelling in the beginning of this chapter what the state and condition of the world shall be in this last and worst age of it hee numbreth vp sinnes and iniquities so fast and packeth them so close together that a man would indeede thinke it were vtterly vnpossible for so excellent a plant as the vertue of faith is to spring and grow vp in so great a throng of vices which like noysome weedes so thicke shall ouerspread the face of the whole earth and choke vp whatsoeuer is wholsome in it In which catalogue of the Apostle you may obserue this difference That all other sinnes are but onely named by him a word for sinne and so away as though hee hasted forward vnto some greater matter and so be continueth a short conglobation for the space of foure whole verses together the foure first of this chapter Men shall bee louers of themselues couetous proud boasters heady haughty treacherous and so forth with as great a Laconismus and as perfect a breuity as can possibly be deuised but when he commeth to the sinne of Hypocrisie he doth not so sleightly passe it ouer but there sets downe his foote and to the full describeth it paiâ—â—ng out all the guises of these disguised Hypocrites which in these latter times shall abuse the world and seduce the simple people with their fained shewes of godlines being notwithstanding destitute of al the power therof as the Apostle expresly and in plaine wordes affirmeth So that he bestoweth more cost more paines to make vs know this one sinne of Hypocrisie alone then to know all the sinnes of the whole world beside For in them he reciteth but onely their bare names in a short enumeration as fast as one word can follow after another but in this hee representeth the whole and perfect nature in a long description continued in fiue whole verses together The reason of which his paines-taking is this Because the sinne of Hypocrisie is in some respects both more hatefull vnto God and more hurtfull vnto men then any other sinne in the whole world is More hatefull vnto God because as S. Augustine noteth Simulata sanctitas est duplex iniquitas quia iniquitas Simulatio Fained holines is double wickednesse because there is both wickednesse and a faining ioyned with it two sinnes bound together as the wise man speaketh More hurtfull vnto men because as S. Chrysostome noteth Malum sub specie boni celatum dum non cognoscitur non cauetur Whilest wickednesse is couered with a fained shew of godlines because it can not be descried it cannot be declined And such a sinne is the sinne of Hypocrisie It is indeed true wickednes which is couered ouer with a false shew of godlines It is sinne in a mysterie as the Apostle Paul speaketh It is masked vngodlinesse and therefore can hardly be descried For which cause the Apostle to helpe vs in this point hath taken great paines to describe this sinne at large and to represent vnto vs as it were in an Embleme the true and perfect nature of those men which in these latter dayes shall be resisters of the truth disturbers of the Church seducers of the people and opposers of themselues vnto the Prince and ciuil Magistrate speaking euill of all those men which are in authority as S. Iude noteth directly and yet couering all this foule masse of corruptions vnder a most specious visar and shew of religion And this he performeth from the beginning of the fifth verse vnto the end of the ninth in fiue whole verses as before I noted Of which though I purpose to insist but vpon one yet must I pray your licence to recite them all that so I may shew you more fully and plainely that whole mysterie of iniquity which the Scripture noteth vnto vs by the name of Hypocrisie The Apostle in this chapter descibeth it in this manner They haue a shew of godlines but haue denied the power thereof Turne away therefore from such For of this 〈◊〉 are they that creepe into houses and lead captiue simple women laden with sinnes and led with diuers lustes Which are euer learning and yet neuer able to come vnto the knowledge of the truth As Iannes and Iambres resisted Moses so doe these men also resist the truth men of corrupt mindes and reprobate concerning the faith But they shall preuaile no longer for their madnes shal be euident to all men as theirs also was Thus farre extendeth the Apostles description most graphicall and liuely Which discourse of his consisteth of three partes The first is A definition of the nature of an hypocrite in the fifth verse of this chapter which may be thus collected An hypocrite is a man that hath a shew of godlines but yet denieth the power therof A definition so exact and so exquisite in all his partes that if it were examined by the strictest rules of Logicke I doubt whether any could be found more perfect The second is An admonition to decline and auoyde them giuen in the person of Timothy vnto all the godly in the same verse Turne away therefore from such The third is A description of a double conflict which the hypocrite entertaineth with two sortes of people the first of them with women in the sixth and seuenth verses the second of them with men in the eighth and ninth In both which his conflicts the Apostle
confirmeth it by two notable instances the first of them Historicall taken from the former times Moses was resisted by Iannes and Iambres two notable inchanters the second of them Propheticall giuen to the latter times So shall the truth also be resisted by these men that is inchanting hypocrites Which two examples the Apostle onely nameth not for lacke of other store for the continued succession of Romane Bishops which is so much stood vpon hath beene oftener interrupted and for longer space then the succession of Heretickes and Schismaticks and such like resisters of the truth hath beene as appeareth by Chronologistes and writers of stories But he setteth down these two by way of Synecdoche putting a part for the whole and a few examples for a many to avoyd prolixity In which few notwithstanding by this his comparing of the first times with the last and of that which hath beene with that which shall be this appeareth to be an irrefragable Axiome that The truth shall alwayes be resisted For first if we take the name of Truth in his largest and most extended sense for the generall speaking of the truth as the Apostle Paul doth in his former vnto Timothie I speake the truth in Christ Iesus and lie not the truth in this sense is so commonly resisted that it passeth in euery mans mouth as a common prouerbe that Veritas odium parit The reward of speaking the truth is onely hatred Of which vnequall measure the Apostle Paul complaineth vnto the Galatians Am I therefore saith he become your enemie because I haue spoken the truth vnto you And our Sauiour Christ likewise vnto the Iewes Ye goe about to kill me a man that haue spoken the truth vnto you Secondly if we take the name of Truth in a particular and more restrained sense for the truth of Gods religion and the doctrine of his word as our Sauiour Christ doeth in the Gospel of S Iohn Sanctifie them with thy truth thy word is truth in which sense I take it to be taken in this place the Truth is in this sense so naturally resisted by all that are not the Truthes owne naturall children that Tertulian hath giuen vs this generall obseruation Simulatque apparuit veritas inimica esse coepit The truth saieth he no sooner peeped out and appeared but by and by it began to be hated yea and that by two contrarie sorts of people as hee noteth in that place Extranei à quibus quotidie obsidetur and proprij à quibus quotidie proditur The first sort of those resisters of the truth are strangers and aliens from the common wealth of Israel such as openly professe not only the resisting but also the vtter subuerting of it such as were Nabuchâ—donoser and Antiochus in the time of the law the persecuting Emperours in the time of the Gospel and the Turke in our time professed and sworne enemies not onely of the faith but also of the very name of Christians The second sort of those resisters of the truth and they much more dangerous are dissembling Hypocrites of whom this text more poperly speaketh such as pretend to assist the truth but intend to resist it by secretly supplanting it and planting manifold errours vnder the name of it Of which sort of persons the Apostle Paul foretelleth vs that euen of our selues there shall such men arise speaking peruerse things to drawe disciples after them Such as doe veritatem non veritate docere as S. Augustine speaketh They sometimes speake the truth but seldome truely which is a peruerse thing for as Tertullian noteth in the forealleadged place Ne tunc quidem cùm aliquid veri afferunt sine mendacij vitio sunt They seeke to deceiue euen whilest they speake the truth because they speake the truth but with a lying heart as they did in S. Paules time who preached the truth but onely for contention and a many like in our time who oftentimes abusâ— the speaking of the truth but onely to the venting of somâ— priuate affection which preuaricating kind of speaking of the truth is indeede nothing els but a resisting of the truth it is nothing els but only ars fallendi vt per bona facilius per suadere possint mala as Vincentius Lirinensis noteth that is an Arte of deceiuing that so vnder the countenance of a few smaller trueths they may bring the better credit to a many greater errors Of which hypocriticall resisters of the truth there be two diuers kinds The first of them are such as hold the truth in small things but resist it in greater matters as euen now I noted such as were false Prophets in the the time of the law and deceitfull heretikes in the time of the Gospell both which the Apostle Peter yoaketh together in one sentence As there were false Prophets amongst the people so shall there be also false teachers amongst you which priuily shall bring in damnable heresies The second sort of hypocriticall resisters of the truth doe seeme to be cleane contrarie vnto the former for they hold the truth in greater matters but resist it in smaller about which notwithstanding they stirre vp no small stirres Such as the Chuch calleth Schismatikes who contend for trifles as it were for life and lims making a great coÌ„science where they should not but none at al where they should as diuers men amongst vs doe who for Cappes and Surplices Holy daies and Crosses and such like smaller matters belonging only vnto order external regiment haue made in our Church a dangerous faction and rent making head against their heads and crying out like vnto Libertines or rather indeede like seditious Tribunes that all our Christian liberty is vtterly betraied because in these matters the priuate fansie of euery idle head may not countermaund the authority of a publike law and yet couering all this their grosse disobedience vnder an outward cloake of religion and conscience But howsoeuer those men may seeme to please and applaud themselues in making a conscience to resist the Magistrate whom the Apostle Paul coÌ„mandeth them euen for Conscience to obey yet sure I am of this that Saint Augustine is so farre from allowing of this their disobedience to be conscience that he openly pronounceth it to be indeede nothing els but onely a true resisting of the truth Cui nisi ipsi veritati resistitur saith he cum regi ex veritate iubenti resistitur What doe men resist but onely the very truth when they resist the lawfull commandement of their Prince A wise and a true censure Thus you see that the truth shall surely be resisted both by many men and by many meanes And therefore no man ought to be so weak minded as to cal the truth of the truth in questioÌ„ because he seeth it to be resisted or heareth it to be boldly contradicted For as S. Hierom truely noteth Haec est conditio veritatis vt
eam semper inimicitiae per sequantur This is the state yea and the fate of the truth that it alwayes shal be persecuted by the tongues of his enemies And this contradiction against it is one speciall note to know it And therefore the speaking against the truth though with neuer such confidence and vndertaking yet ought not either to scandalize or discourage any man which truely and sincerely seeketh after the truth Because if you examine the reasons of such contradictors as euery wise Christian ought to doe you shall find them Most deceitfull vpon the waightes yea and altogether lighter then vanity it selfe As notably appeared in that renowned Conference which was held for the reducing of our resisters of the truth wherin all the great chalenges of their greatest vndertakers were found to be iust nothing but swolne and windy bladders Builatae nugae as the Poet speaketh This briefly for the first position That the truth shall alwayes be resisted Let vs now come to the second How the truth shall be resisted which as you see must be done by a kind of paterne As Moses was resisted by Iannes and Iambres Let vs therefore now examine who this Iannes and Iambres were and after what manner they resisted Moses for it is not throughly agreed vpon by all expositors Some take this Iannes and Iambres to be Corah and his consorts who resisted the authority of Moses in the wildernesse Now the manner after which they resisted him was this they being high minded and ambitious persons and euen burnt vp with enuie of other mens honours and preferments which they themselues affected and thought themselues more worthie of if they might be their owne Iudges they made a great Schisme and a dangerous commotion about the rule and authority of Moses and Aron and so gathering a great companie of their owne condition and quality they intended flat rebellion if God himselfe had not stayed them telling Moses and Aaron that they tooke too much vpon them in making themselues Lordes ouer the rest of their brethren And adding this for a reason that the whole congregation was as holy as they and that God was with one man as well as with an other Yea and one of their grand exceptions was this as Iosephus reporteth that they did Sacerdotium absque Populi suffâ—agio gerere That they were not elected to their places by the people though they could not be ignorant but that they both had beene elected by God himselfe before So that the maine ends which especially they aymed at were principally two Parity and Popularity the two deadly banes of all good order and of ciuill policie and the beaten pathes to confusion and Anarchie In which their commotion this is worthy the noting that those great reformers which sought thus to pull downe both Moses and Aaron as two vsurpers sought to set vp themselues into the selfe same places as Moses directly obiecteth vnto them Seemeth it a small thing saith he vnto Corah that God hath seuered thee from the multitude of Israel and all thy brethren the sonnes of Leui with thee and do ye also seeke the office of the priest Marke the Leuites cry out against pride and ambition of Priests as certaine male contented Ministers doe likewise against Bishops whom God hath made their rulers but what is the drift and end of such their declamations onely that which was theirs that these being displaced they might creepe into their roomes So that it is not humility but it is another pride which driueth such men so hotly to declame against pride And this was the resisting of Iannes and Iambres in the former times if by them be meant Corah and his mutinous companions Let vs now looke downe into those latter times and see whether the truth hath not beene resisted after the selfe same manner with vs heere at home that it was then with him Haue there not stood vp amongst vs certaine ambitious and seditious Corahs of the tribe of Leui who bursting with enuie at the honour and preferment of the reuerend Fathers and Gouernours of our Church who sit in Moses chaire haue both by word and writing indeauoured to resist them and thereby to extenuate or rather indeede exterminate all their lawfull authority and iurisdiction vnder the pretence of a new reformation Haue they not told them plainely that they take too much vpon them in setting vp themselues aboue their fellow Ministers who ought to be al equalles 2. Haue they not brought for theÌ„selues the same allegation that those seditious persons did that al the people of God are holy and that euery Minister is as good as a Bishop and ought to haue as great authority as he Is it not one of their chiefest greeuances that the election of Ministers is not subiected vnto the peoples suffrages who are their great masters and whom they seruilely obserue with all addicted obsequiousnes Haue they not made as great and as dangerous a schisme in this owne Church about these matters as euer the other did in the Church of the Iewes And that which is the prime point of all the rest doe not their owne writings declare that all that rule and authority which they would take away from our reuerend prelacie they would assume againe and cunningly conuay vnto themselues vnder the name of the Presbyterie All this is more then manifest vnto men of any reach if they haue but with halfe an eye lookt into the peremptorie dealing and practice of their presumptuous Consistorie and of that enormous and vnlimited claime which it layeth vnto all authority both Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill But the same God which denied successe vnto that Schisme hath also restrained the proceedings of this his name be praised for it for the very ground fouÌ„dation whereupon these men builded their imaginarie Babel and towers in the aire hath begunne long agoe to sinke vnder their feete as it did wiih those mutiners so that a great part of them are swallowed vp by it and the rest are fast following vnto the center of Shisme onely the cry of a few of the hindmost may still be heard amongst vs as they are in sinking downe which can not much longer be irksome and tedious because they be in the way to silence And thus much for the former application of this storie if by Iannes and Iambres bee vnderstood Corah and his seditious companie Now other expositors and those the greater number doe expound this otherwise affirming this Iannes and Iambres to be those two Egyptian sorcerers which resisted Moses in the presence of King Pharao Now the manner after which they resisted him was this When as Moses Aaron were sent into Egypt to deliuer the Israelites from their slauery and bondage they auouched to King Pharao that The Lord God of Israel had sent them on that message and for the proofe of their assertion they confirmed their Ambassage by diuers signes and strange wonders
side which led you vnto disobedience then vnto the other which led you vnto dutiful and Christian obedience That way which you went you had nothing to carry you but only the blast of a windy opinioÌ„ yea not that neither for your opinioÌ„ was not setled that other way which you left you had two great waightes so sway you viz. the authority of the law both spirituall and temporall and the practise of the Church both ancient and moderne a very heauy counterpoise therefore I wonder how you could set them so light especially you hauing no such waighty authority to vncertain you as the Churches exaÌ„ple might haue bin to resolue you which eueÌ„ in this particular case of the crosse hath both traditioneÌ„ auctricem and consuetudinem confirmatricem therefore oughâ— to haue fidem obseruatricem as Tertullian in the fore-cited booke obserueth So that surely you strained at a gnat swallowed vp a Camell when you were so superstitious in not offending against your own priuate opinion and so little religious in offending against the Churches publike direction Ob. But perhaps you will say that you will not be led by the examples of men nor pin your conscience vpon other mens sleeues Resp. I answere first for the examples of men that though they be not alwaies to be generally followed without all exception nor rashly without due examination yet in scruple of conscience when wee lack the direction of the word of God I do not thinke that the breach of law contempt of the churches example is the safest way to keepe a good conscience S. Augustine had so high an estimation of the Churches example that in the maine foundation of all religion that which led him especially vnto a resolution was the example authority of the Church Ego vero saith he Euangelio non crederem nisi me caetholicae ecclesiae coÌ„moueret authoritas This great opinion had he of the Churches example that in a matter of greatest waight it preuailed more with him to gaine his assent then any other reason or argumeÌ„t could do And therfore in such intricate and doubtfull suspension hee giueth vs this good rule for our direction Quae vera perspexeris tene quae falsa respue quae dubia crede donec aut respuenda esse aut seÌ„per credenâ—a vel ratio doceat vel authoritas pracipiat A very sound rule fit to be obserued in euery Church by al the particular meÌ„bers of it wherin he prescribeth no more vnto vs theÌ„ he had subscribed vnto himself as euidently appeareth out of the former place whose iudgment practice concurring both togiâ—her ought not be so lightly estemed of vs especially we hauing in this case of the crosse beside his authority the example of the Church both rationem docentem and authoritatem praecipientem either of which in his iudgment were sufficient argumeÌ„ts to lead vs to obedience Ob. But you say you will not pin your conscience vpon other mens sleeues Resp. I answer that in matters of faith where you may haue the light of the holy Scripture for your full instruction it is not simply good to pinne your conscience vpon the sleeues of men though how farre Saint Augustine did yeeld euen in this case I haue before declared But in matters of order and obedience such as the obseruation of the crosse is the scriptures themselues do pinne your conscience vnto other mens sleeues For in things in different commanded for orders sake where the authority of the Magistrate goeth before there the conscience of the subiect ought to lead him after as if it were pinned vnto the Magistrates sleeue by the concurring iudgements of the two chiefe Apostles Peter and Paul of whom the one commandeth vs to submit our selues to all ordinances of men for the Lords sake the other to obey them euen for conscience sake Therefore to shut vp this first obiection I conclude with Plato Si positioni non credis reprobare debes Si reprobare non potes positioni credes Either prooue you that the crosse is a thing against conscience or else yeeld obedience vnto it for conscience sake The second obiection Whereas order and comlinesse are the grounds of such things as the Church may adde I haue doubted that this signe exceedeth both these because there is giuen it a spirituall signification of our valour in confessing Christ boldly Answer The signe of the crosse as we now vse it is neither against comlinesse nor against good order but very consonant vnto both euen by Caluines owne description of comlinesse and order and therefore by your owne rule grounded vpon Saint Paul may lawfully be added and vsed by our church Now if besides these two forenamed commodities it haue also a third to wit a spirituall signification yea and that such a one as hath not onely beene allowed but also affected in the primitiue church this ought not to debarre the vse of it amongst vs but rather to inferre that it ought to be in vse For the very same Apostle which prescribeth the two former rules of order and comlinesse in the very same chapter prescribeth a third of greater importance then they both to wit that they tend vnto edification And except our ceremonies be thus conditioned they ought not in any Christian church to be vsed as Caluine himselfe noteth Totum obseruationum vsum finem ad ecclesiae aedificationem referamus saith he referring not onely their intended end but also their dayly vse vnto the edification of the church Ob. But you say that to haue a spirituall signification is to exceede the nature of a ceremonie and to draw it vnto a higher quality Perhaps you meane vnto the nature of a sacrament For that is T. C. conceipt from whom I gesse you borrowed it Resp. But therein you greatly mistake the matter For not onely Sacraments but also ceremonies too ought to haue their spirituall signification of which if they be destitute they vtterly degenerate into vaine and idle gesticulations neither is there any reason why such should haue any place in the Church The Apostle saith of ceremonies that they be shaddowes of things to come of good things and of heauenly things Saint Hierom saith that they be not onely shaddowes but also eminencies too hee calleth them imagines and exemplaria futurorum which ought no lesse to bee obserued in our Christian ceremonies then it was in the Iewish For as Saint Augustine obserueth Whosoeuer obserueth any ceremonie or signe and not vnderstandeth what thing it doth signifie hee doth seruire sub signo hee is a slaue a seruant vnto the outward signe but he that obserueth it knowing the signification of it he serueth not the signe but the thing wherevnto it is referred Yea and Caluin allowing ceremonies in all christian Churches requireth these three conditions in them that they haue In numero paucitatem In
it for a good reason that the rule could not be good because it is fetched out of the Canon-law was no better but a Popes-decree But wee will not vse such peeuishnesse but leaue that to our aduersaries Let vs heare what the law sayth and how farre it maketh for you Per hoc magna authoritas est habenda in ecclesia vt si nonnulli ex praedecessoribus et maioribus nostris fecerint aliqua quae illo tempore potuerunt esse sine culpa et postea verâ—untur in errorem et superstitionem sine tarditate aliqua et cum magna authoritate à posteris destruantur In which sentence there be two things to be considered of vs. The first is the quality of the persons of whoÌ„ he speaketh the second his qualified maner of speaking For the persons heere ment by the name of Posterity it must needs be vnderstood of men in authority not of any priuate persons The words of the decree are most plaine pregnant These ought to be of great authority in the church Why that if things wel begun do degenerate into euill by that great authority they may bee destroyed whereby hee implyeth that hee which will do the worke of Ezechias in destroying things abused he ought to haue the authority of Ezechias Otherwise if therbe a disparity in the agents there wil certainly follow a disparity in the actions For if that clause in the latter end of the decree cum magna authoritate a posteris destruantur bee so construed as some men haue wrested it that the very example of Ezechias in destroying the brazen serpent which before he had alledged doth giue great authority vnto euery other man to do the like it is not onely a manifest peruerting of the Gramatical coÌ„struction but would also proue the subuerting of all ciuill constitutions For what authority doth the example of magistrates which orderly repeale inconuenient lawes giue vnto priuate men disorderly to breake them whilst they stand in force Or how doth the action of the Magistrate who hath his authority inuested in himselfe as a publike person authorize priuate men to do the same worke by their voluntary immitation If this licence were granted it would proue not the taking away of abuses but the sowing of ten thousand abuses for one Saint Augustine speaking of this fact of Ezechias saith that he destroyed this serpent by his publike authority not by any priuate fantasie He did religiosa potestate deo seruire Caluin vpon the second coÌ„mandement expounding that place of Deuteronomie yee shall destroy all the places wherein those nations serued their Gods yee shall ouerthrow their altars and breake downe their pillers and burne their groues with fire c. He citeth the iudgement of S. Augustine who saith that this commandement was not giuen vnto priuate men but to the publike Magistrate And hee commendeth his iudgment to bee very sound and wise Wolphius likewise who handleth this question ex professo Whether priuate men may destroy the monuments of idolatry He pereÌ„ptorily denieth it Priuatis hominibus vt haec agant pius ac sapiens author est nemo Speaking euen of this very fact of Ezechias in destroying the brazen serpent And he strenghneth his iudgment by the example of Gedion who all the while that he was a priuate man he indured the Alter the groue of Baal laid no hand to pull downe that idolatry but when he once was called vnto the magistracie furnished thereby with lawfull authority then hee did the deed he did it throughly So that the magistrate beeing the person whome the decree vnderstandeth by the name of posterity his example can bee no warrant for any man to do the like if he lacke the like authority Now for the qualification of the speech which was the 2. thing to bee considered in the law the forme of speech which it vseth is but onely permissiue granting a liberty and not preceptiue imposing a necessity leauing place for the Magistrate with aduisement to consider whether the abuse be such as doth necessarily require such an vtter destruction The law saith That posterity may destroy them You say that posterity must destroy them From May to Must is no good consequence That Logike rule as you know is growne almost into a prouerbe A posse ad esse non valet argumentum we yeeld that posterity may destroy them if the abuse can hardly bee reformed that it must destroy them if it can not be reformed at all But neither of these can bee said of the crosse whose abuses wee haue reformed with very great facility and yet not destroyed the right and true vse of it as experience sheweth plainly And therefore those men which match our crosse with the brazen serpent thinke it as necessary to bee destroyed as that they truly fall into that censure of Caluin that praecisé vrgendo quod per se medium est sunt nimio rigore superstitiosi Ob. But happily you will say that if this sentence of the Canon law do not inforce the abolishing of the crosse yet the example of good King Ezechias doth For if he destroyed the brazen serpent being GODS owne ordinance because it was idolatrously abused then much more ought wee to abolish the crosse which is but mans inuention it hauing bene likewise idolatrously abused Resp. This example of Ezechias is very much stood vpon and therefore it would be the more narrowly examined Your argument is inforced A maiori ad Minus and it may be framed thus Ezechias spared not the ordinance of GOD but destroyed it because it had beene abused Ergo much lesse ought wee to spare the ordinance of man but destroy it if it haue bene likewise abused I answer that your Antecedent which is the ground of your argument is not true Ezechias in destroying the brazen serpent did not therein destroy the ordinance of GOD. For in the brazen serpent there be things to be considered Viz the first erection for the healing of the people and the preseruation for the remembrance of that benifit The first erection was indeed the ordinance and iniunction of GOD himselfe but the preseruation was the meere inuention of man It issuing from the good intent of the people without any warrant or commandement from GOD. Now that worke beeing finished in the wildernes for which GOD erected it that which Ezechias destroyed was but onely mans inuention to witt the preseruation of it So that if the crosse be but onely an humane inuention and not Apostolicall tradition yet euen so that thing in the serpent which Ezechias destroyed was no better And therefore the ground of your argument A maiori faileth it beeing rather a false presumption then a true position Ob. But happily you will say that the brazen serpent had yet a further vse ordained by GOD namely to be a figure of our sauiour CHRIST And so ought to
commandement But the signe of the crosse is a religious image Ergo It is forbidden in the second commandement For your Maior proposition if by religious images you had vnderstood onely such as are made to bee religiously adored wee should quickly haue agreed but you taking the name of Religious in a sense of such enormous largenesse viz. for any thing that any way may helpe vs in religion as appeareth in the exposition of your Minor I must needs require some better reason then your owne coniecturall conceipt that all such images are in that commandement forbidden Otherwise your proposition I deny as false and that for these reasons First because I dare not condemne all those famous and renowned churches which euen from Christs time vnto ours haue vsed the crosse to haue beene idolatrous nor those ancient learned and godly Fathers which haue thought and taught so reuerently of it to haue beene idolaters which absurdity must needs follow if either this obiection or your fourth haue any waight in them Secondly because I finde the whole streame of expositors to bee against you amongst whom I haue giuen instance both in Caluine and Beza and of our owne translators of the Geneua Bible pag. 21. Whose instances I wish you more deepely to consider of and how farre their iudgement differeth from your proposition Thirdly I finde the practise of God himselfe to be against you in commanding the Cherubines to bee placed in the Tabernacle which as Bishop Babbington truly collecteth must needes make GOD contrary vnto himselfe if all religious images were so simply forbidden in the second commandement as you affirme in your proposition Fourthly to come to our owne particular instance if the signe of the crosse were simply forbidden in the second commandement then were not only Gods practise contrary to his precept but also one precept were contrary to another For he commandeth expresly in the prophecie of Ezechiel to marke certaine men in the fore-head with the signe of the crosse which there he calleth Signum Tau which being by Character expressed as there it is commanded hath none other forme then the signe of the crosse as S Hierom expresly expoundeth that place Thau litera crucis haebet similitudinem quae in Christianorum frontibus pingitur Therefore this second commandement doth neither particularly forbid the signe of the crosse nor generally all kinds of religious images but onely in ordinatione ad cultum to which purpose the crosse is not vsed in our Church where as you know it is not worshipped Now for your Minor that our crosse is a religious image that is more false then the former was An image our crosse cannot be called but in a very constrained sence seeing that in making it we do not intend either to expresse or to honor that materiall crosse wherevpon our Sauiour suffered whose image you would insinuate that signe to be but onely to testifie by that outward signe that we are not ashamed of the sufferings of Christ. As for the outward scheme representation of the crosse it more properly may be called a character then an image as I shewed you before in the letter Tau whose character is the perfect forme of the crosse as is likewise the Romane T. as Tertullian obserueth seeing that we referre it not eiconically to represent the crosse of Christ but Symbolically to represent his passion by that character Now that characters and images bee of two diuerse natures the Turkes plainly shew vs who are most superstitious in auoyding of images yet they do willingly admit of characters as appeareth in their coines So that the crosse can no more propperly be called an image then the letter T. can Yea euen the Papists themselues deny it to bee an image as appeareth by their distinguishing of imago crucis from signum crucis which is much more true in vs whose signe of the crosse is made rather to represent the sufferings of Christ then the crosse whereon he suffered But if our signe were a perfect resemblance of that crosse yet as long as we vse it not in any such sense it ought not as an image to bee obiected vnto vs. The Hieroglyphiks of the Egyptians were in their shape and proportion the images of birds and beasts and other creatures amongst which was also the crosse as Ruffin reporteth vnder which they signified the life to come but yet because they vsed those figures but only as Characters they are there to bee reputed not as images but as letters And therefore the signification of images is stretched and strained very far when such a poore character cleane contrary to the vse of it yet is fetched within the compasse of them I haue beene the more carefull to vindicate the crosse from this opinion of beeing an image not that it would hurt or preiudice the cause any whit if it were granted to be one but because I do see that T.C. and his followers haue such an notable art in making of images idols that if they happen to myslike any thing whatsoeuer they can presently transforme the same into an idol make it as cōtrary vnto Gods commandement as it is vnto their owne priuate fantasie and conceipt In this place you make the crosse an image and in your 4. obiection you make it an idol So likewse T. C in one place maketh the surplice an idoll calling it a wouen image in an other place he calleth a Bride an idol because her husband saith with my body I thee worship And thus euery thing which they misconceipt is by and by mishaped into an idol Wheras it is most true that they make an idol of their owne idle fancy and priuate conceipt for the honor of which bable they despise magistrats violate lawes force the very scriptures themselues But to returne You cal the crosse not only an image but also a religious image and yet as you know we do not worship it nor place any holines or religion in it more then in other ceremonies neither make we it a substancial part of Gods seruice but onely circumstantiall vsing it only as an ecclesiasticall ceremonie appointed in our church by humaine authority and not inioyned by God vpon mere necessity And therefore whensoeuer our church whom wee ought dutifully to obey in all things as our mother shall cease to command vs the vse of that ceremony we may then cease it lawfully neither euer wil call for it as a matter of necessity but will truly professe with Minutius Felix nos crucem neque adoramus neque optamus In the meane season if we vse it whilest it is commanded wee do not offend against the second commandement but they which refuse it offend against the fifth of not honoring with obedience their lawfull magistrates The eleauenth obiection I desire to haue it opened vnto mee by the word of God how this signe can bee affirmed to bee an honorable badge
cannot see how the crosse can be said to bee left vnto vs by them vnles you thereby intend that we haue as it were wrung it out of their hands and that so they left that to vs which they could not with-hold from vs. If you take this phrase left vnto vs in a sense so prodigally and prodigiously large that you count all that to bee left vnto vs by those men which haue vsed the same things before vs then may both the sunne and the moone and all the elements bee said to bee left vnto vs by idolaters and consequently to be The monuments of idolatry and so what is there any where which in this so large and so laxe a sense may not be called A monument of idolatry As for this point therefore we truly professe that wee borrow not this ceremonie from the Romish Synagogue though they haue more lately vsed it but from the primitiue Church who first ordained it So that as it cannot truly bee said that the Papists haue left vs either the Lords praier or the Apostles creed or the holy sacraments but that wee take all these by our owne right out of the holy scriptures which are open to vs as well as to them so can it not truely bee sayd that the Papists haue left vnto vs the crosse but that we do borrow it from the primitiue church whose customes the Papists haue no more authority to ingrosse vnto themselues then the Protestants haue but may as freely be vsed by vs as by them for Patet omnibus veritas nondum est occupata But if it were granted that this ceremony of the crosse though left vnto vs by the primitiue church yet were brought vnto vs by the hands of Papists doth that presently make it a monument of idolatry if one should receiue a token by the hand of a Pagan which were sent vnto him from a Christian is it therefore made a monument of idolatry because he that brought it was an idolater Holy orders were giuen vnto the first Protestants by the hands of Papists doth this so defile the orders of our ministery as to make them presently the monuments of idolatry Surely though the Papists haue very foule hands yet do I not take them to bee so vgly foule as the Harpies feete were which defiled all things that they once had touched non mihi persuadeo sayth Peter Martyr papatus impietatem esse tantam vt quicquid attingit contaminatum reddat quò bonis vsui sancto concedi non possit In whose Christian and charitable iudgement I doe willingly sit downe Ob. Now for your third obiection That the change of our end in the vse of the crosse doth not make any change in the nature of the thinge Resp. I wonder you will affirme a thing so contrary vnto the rules of Logike and reason Who knoweth not that of all the causes it is only The end which maketh all actions to be either good or euill especially in things of indifferent nature Tertullian doth giue vs some instances to this purpose et ego mihi gallinaceum macto non minùs quà m Aesculâ—pio Socrates saith he et si me odor alicuius loci offenderit Arabiae aliquid incendo What is the reason then that his killing of a cocke and his burning of incence beeing all one action with that of the idolaters yet is not idolatry as their action was He answereth it himselfe quia vsus ipsius administratio interest And againe that he did these things nec eodem ritu nec eodem habitu nec eodem apparatus quo agitur apud idola So that it was his difference in the end which made such a difference in the actions For as Saint Augustine to the same purpose obserueth non actibus sed finibus pensantur officia which our Sauiour also declareth by three notable instances in the Pharisies viz fasting almes praying al which good actions were in them corrupted by their euill ends because they did them to be seene of men So that the end as you see not only exempteth an action from sinne but also infecteth an action with sinne Ob. But you say That then by altering of the end wee may bring back againe euen heathen idols too Resp. I answere that the comparison is very vnequall For heathen idols are most euidently forbidden and condemned in the scripture which the crosse is not And yet that there may bee such an alteration in the end that euen heathen idols may haue some vse in Gods seruice I haue shewed you before out of Saint Augustines iudgment A reply to fortifie the tenth obiection Ob. All outward formes and liknesses in Gods worship ordained by man and that to edifie teach sturre vp mens affections towards God they are forbidden in the second commandement This is by the very text necessarily consequent Exod. 20 4. But the signe of the crosse is such a likenesse For Maister Hooker an authentike expositor of our ceremonies condemneth all as vaine that are not significant And your selfe shew that to be your iudgement in your answere Ergo c. That of Saint Paul that all ought to be to edifying I pray to haue it considered whether it bee vnderstood of such spirituall gifts onely as God gaue to his Church and as be there named 1. Cor. 14.26 Answere That all outward formes and likenesses ordained by man in the worship of God to edifie teach or sturre vp our affection towards God should bee forbidden in the second commandement I doe vtterly denie and I wonder that either your selfe or any other Christian should affirme it no word of the commandement making for it and the minde of the commandement making cleane against it The iudgment both of Caluin and Beza and of other Diuines I haue shewed against you pag. 21.45 The place which you cite Exod. 20.4 Thou shalt make thee no grauen image c. if you distract it from his meaning which followeth in the next words Thou shalt not bowe downe to them nor worship them doth make rather against the making of all images which errour I thinke you will not maintaine then against the applying them to so good an end as you in this place seeme to condemne Should any thing whatsoeuer be thought vnlawfull which instructeth our mindes and sturreth vp our affections truly towards GOD Surely if you were able to make good that euen Heathen Idols could truly and properly produce these effects I would not doubt to affirme euen them to bee lawfull So farre am I from thinking that any thing is in this commandement forbidden which either inlightneth our vnderstanding or inflameth our affection towards God I rather hold it for a certaine truth that Idols are here forbidden vpon a contrary supposition namely that they blinde our vnderstanding and auert our affection away from God And therefore your proposition wanteth some better proofe then your bare assertion for as I said I doe simply deny