as little cause to insult and boast to see our Ceremonies now purged from their former superstition as they should do to see some of their Brothellers conuerted by vs vnto honesty and holinesse of life SCET. XI Their second Obiection of Scandall by our Ceremonies is in respect of profane persons The profane will draw Arguments from hence to contemne all Religions Our Answer From whence I beseech you From the seemely apparrelling of Religion or rather from the stripping her naked of her lawfull and accustomed attire Nay and you may easily coniecture whether the profane are more likely to draw arguments for their neglect or contempt of Religion and Pietie rather from a decent vniformity in lawfull Rites than from an horride disparity in them through your daily dissentions He that doubteth hereof may as well question whether the Saw or the Citharen maketh the better Musick SECT XII Their third Obiection of Scandall by our Ceremonies is in respect of the weake Brethren These cannot but be a scandall to the weake brethren and to the wicked to the weake brethren by being drawn thereunto against their conscience or else doubtingly Our Answer You haue heard our answer touching the wicked now heare a little concerning the weake These whom Christ would not haue to be scandalized hee doth point them out to be pusilli little ones meaning such as are newly wained from the world and called to feed on the Manna of the word And such babes in Christ were those Proselites whom Saint Paul did so much tender in matter of Scandall vntill they should become more ripe and strong in the knowledge of the mysteries of faith Now would we faine vnderstand who be these weaklings whom you so much respect in this Case Are they not for the most part such whom you haue most diligently catechized and whom you therefore iudge to haue more vnderstanding in the mysteries of Christ and knowledge in the reuealed will of God than others If then these whom you thinke to be more exactly seene in all essentiall parts of Christian learning must concerning points of things indifferent be counted weake then do you greatly wrong your owne iudgements by whose examples they are made weake Nay euen you selues my brethren are become these weake-ones in not being able to disgest these Ceremonies which by the confession of all Diuines are in their owne nature indifferent though you would hardly take it well that any should ranke you in the number of weake ones Yet if you be not such why do you make this a Reason to mooue the Church to respect and free you from all scandall occasioned by Ceremonies or if you be indeed weake persons why exercise you your strength in nothing more than in opposing the wisdome of the whole Church by your most scandalous contradictions We are perswaded that strength of knowledge could not take any offence at matters of Indifferencie And therefore that the guilt of your weaknesse should cause you to seeke direction from them vnto whom you owe your obedience SECT XIII Their fourth Obiection of scandall by our Ceremonies is in respect of their vnconformable Congregations and Parishâ—s But especially are these Ceremonies dâ—ngerous when they shall be brought in vpon Congregations which haue once refused them then by no reason can they be called indiffereâ—t Our Answer Your meaning is knowne to wit that by Congregations refusing them you vnderstand particular Parishes whereof your selues are Rectors or Lecturers neuer consideâ—ing that the great Congregation which is the whole Church of England in her representatiue body of Synod haue all by that authoritie whereunto you are otherwise bound to obey prescribed vnto particular Parishes and Congregations the vse of these Ceremonies he therfore that shall ascribe more power to particular Congregations for the refusing than to the great assembly of the whole kingdome in imposing a determinate vse of things indifferent may by the same with iustifie any by-lawes deuised by honest men in particular Parishes with refusall and contradiction of Parliament Lawes and Statutes enacted by the whole kingdome and ratified by his Maiesties Royall assent But seeing you are more in loue with the Lawes of a Parochiall assembly than of a Nationall Synod I would know for it is materiall by whose Suffrages and voyces you would haue Ceremonies approued or condemned in your Congregations whether by men or by women If by men of what condition must they be whether of Gentrie or Yeomanrie or c. Thinke not that I am idle in these Interrogatories seeing that they tend to bring you to the sight of your error which is indeed intollerable for what is this else but to preferre sheepe before their Pastors that is ignorance before knowledge in the policie of gouernment of the Church not to speake of the vnreasonablenesse of your manner of reasonning which is à minore ad magis affirmatiue whereby you giue vs occasion to inuert your owne Argument against you thus If a small Congregation may haue power to determine of the indifferencie coÌ„ueniencie of Ceremonies then the constitution and ordinance of a greater Congregation and that also by lawfull authoritie predominant such as euery Nationall Synod is ought much more to haue power to the same effect Howsoeuer when the refusall of your Congregation is rightly examined it will be found that before any voice or Suffrage is propounded for receiuing or reiecting any of your Lawes the Minister in the Parish will first in the Pulpit giue the definitiue sentence Whence it will consequently follow that each of your Congregations must in effect conclude from but one voice Thus farre of the weake SECT XIIII Their first Obiection of scandall against our Ceremonies in respect of the vnconformable Ministeâ—s themselues And as there is danger in the vse of these Ceremonies in all Congregations so especially if they shall be brought backe againe into those where they haue bene long out of vse and receiued by such Ministers as are knowne to haue refused them heretofore For where he should prouide by all good meanes that his Ministrie be not desspised by this meanes he shall giue euident occasion vnto his people to blame his Ministrie and to call into question the truth of all his Doctrine Our Answer If you shall as duely discerne as I shall truly discouer the manifold crimes which you seeme to bewray in this one supposition I suppose that you will be ashamed to haue published such I shall say no more then I meane to prooue a false presumptuous irreligious partiall and pernicious a pretence as this is First I haue aduentured to call it false and I thinke vpon good ground because most of you haue once at your Ordination into the Priesthood and many of you also the second time at your Institution into your Benefices subscribed vnto the lawfulnesse of these Ceremonies here in question which now vpon a pretence of strictnesse of conscience you do so vrgently
things that haue bene once superstitiously abused thus The wickednesse of man cannot so farre pollute the good creatures of God Why The abuse of such things doth not cleaue to the things themselues but vnto the minds of them that do abuse them What then As it is superstition to place holinesse so it is to place vnholinesse in them To conclude This doctrine is Contrary to the intention of Christ and to the Libertie of the Church of Christ. The last which is of Not vsing any bodily reuerence at the holy Communion Thus Outward reuerence is requisite in Communicants both for the dignifying of Christs mysteries and for the increase of our Christian deuotion In a word to deny the Church power to choose her gesture of Reuerence is Contrary to the libertie allowed her by Christ. All these with diuerse other authorities and reasons are more expresly mentioned in the Treatise it selfe If you desire not to take vp your ware by retaile you may haue it in a generalitie For to instance but in one Ceremonie be it the Surplice the Reformed Churches although they vsed it not yet did they so certainly iustifie our practise thereof that as it is confessed If we shall condemne these indifferent things we shall condemne infinite Churches which are honoured of vs as most commendable Or thus We shall condemne all Churches of impious boldnesse Not to returne vpon you the many Parlaments and Conuocations which by the generall consent of the learnedst Diuines and the most wise and religious Gouernours in this kingdome haue established these Rites Before I shut vp this Epistle let me acquaint you with some other of your errors which may chiefly require your second thoughts I shal need but only to point at theÌ„ One is your often alleaging of Scriptures Fathers and other Authors and your open mistaking of their meanings as will euidently appeare The next is the many Repugnancies vnto your selues by such an extreme difference betweene your Swearing and Praying your standing and sitting your hands and tongues your heads and your knees c. as if there were some mile distance betweene you and your seluâ—s Not to mention your many obiectionâ— which make against your owne conclusions The third is the extreme iniurie that you do vnto the Church But you pretend peace because forsooth you preach not against Conformitie As though there were not a Preaching as well in the eare as on the house-top or not as well an exemplarie as there is an oratorie seducement else could not Saint Paul haue said concerning onely the Exemplarie Cogis eos Iudaizare And that which herein doth double your offence is that your opposition is grounded vpon a sinister conceit that our Church obserueth these Ceremonies in an opinion of Holinesse and Necessitie which is altogether contrarie to her owne expresse protestation Howbeit if her meaning in this case were but ambiguous or doubtfull yet would wel-conditioned children take things from a Parent with their right hands but your deprauing of her professed and plaine doctrine what can it else argue in you then an earnest bent to contention against the generall custome of the Church not vnlike vnto the Accipencer which vsually swimmeth against the streame The last is your notorious Scandals giuen vnto them that are without and them that are within the Church to the weake and to the strong yea and to the Church of God it selfe by breaking the hedge of peace and opening a gap for the wilde Bâ—re out of the Romish Forrest to enter in and â—oote out that goodly vine which many Pauls the industrious Bishops and Pâ—stors haue plainted and many Apollo's the faithfull Martyrs of Christ haue watered with their bloud And yet more specially that Scandall which you commit against your owne selues I meane so many of you as acknowledge the Innocencie of our Ceremonies fully cleared and your owne consciences sufficiently conuinced and do notwithstanding resolue I can scarce for honor mention so execrable a resolution to continue in opposition only for feare of discrediting your Ministerie which this Treatise proueth to be altogether false presumptuous partiall and pernicious Diuerse other things might haue bene obserued but to conclude Be you exhorted beloued brethren if there be in you a due hatred of Superstition any ioy in the Spirit of vnitie any zeale of the successe of the Gospell or any conscience of truth embrace the peace of the Church and the God of peace replenish your hearts with all spirituall Graces and preserue vs to the glorie of his Sauing Grace TO THE READER BE thou aduertised Christian Reader that the Obiectors in this Treatise are principally the Assembly of the Lincolnshire Ministers in their booke called the Abridgement c. printed 1605. The other in the Margent who for the respect I haue vnto them are but halfe-named are the Ministers in the Diocesse of Chester whose Reasons of their Refusall of Subscription so many as they could either borrow of others or inuent of themselues I keepe by me in writing and haue as methodically as I could ranged them into order in this Treatise Good Reader studie the peace of the Church and eschue all differences touching these matters which are apparently in their owne nature Indifferent Pag. 37. lin 4. Obiect 1. c. Dele the whole line Pag. 49. lin 5. after iudicious Diuines adde 4. Reasons Pag. 61. Sect. 9 after 5. Their owne practise adde 6. Reasons Pag. 100. lin 3. for Their reade Our Answer Pag. 1â—8 lin 26. reade Maozim Pag. 1â—2 lin vlt. in marg dele 1. Pet. 2.8 pag. 294. lin 30. râ—ade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE CONTENTS OF THIS ENSVING TREATISE PART 1. It consisteth of Two parts 1. A general Defence of the Ceremonies aboue mentioned 2. A particular Defence of each one seuerally CHAP. 1. In the first Part the Non conformists vse sixe Arguments against the foresaid Ceremonies Their first generall Argument is because Euery Ceremonie should haue Special warrant froÌ„ Scripture which as they say these haue not The PropositioÌ„ of this Argument they labour to proue by Scriptures Their I. Text is Heb. 3.2 of Christs faithfulnesse in Gods house Our Answer Sect. 3. c. II. Text 2. Sam. 7.7 God saying to Dauid Shalt thou build me an house Our Answer Sect. 6. c. III. Text Ier. 7.22.23 I commanded not your fathers concerning Sacrifices c. Our Answer Sect. 8. c. IV. Text Esa. 1.11 Who required these things at your hands Our Answer Sect. 11. V. Text Ier. 7.31 God saying Which I commâ—nded you not Our Answer Sect. 12. Their second proofe for their Negatiue arguing from Scriptures is from the iudgement of ancient Fathers Our Answer Sect. 13. c. Their third proofe is from the Testimonies of Protestant Diuines Our Answer Sect. 15. Our generall Confutation of their first Argument in disputing Negatiuely from Scripture in the question of Ceremonies by Reasons Our I. Reason
you will also Ceremoniall Constitutions which are mingled with some false and corrupt opinion so did they vniuersally iustifie prescribe and practise Traditions such as ours are which were meerly Ceremoniall as you well know by the Canons of their Councels which your selues do obiect and your owne hearts can tell you that you oppose the Fathers against vs in this case not as their ingenuous children seeking to follow their iudgement but as men aduersely sinisterly affected as if in confuting vs you meant to condemne them if you could by their owne sayings As might haue easily appeared by their Testimonies if you would haue insisted vpon particulars SECT VI. Their last proofe from the Testimonies of Protestant Authors That Ceremonies imposed as parts of Gods worship are vnlawfull may appeare by the iudgement of the most iudicious Diuines who haue all by this Reason condemned the Ceremonies of Papists Caluin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 10. Sect. 8. Pet. Martyr Chemnitius D. Mort Apol. part 1. cap. 89. and others Our Answer The true vnderstanding of the two acceptions of this phrase Parts of Gods Worship might easily haue rectified your iudgements for it is sometimes taken in Authours more strictly and properly for that essentiall forme and manner of worship wherein there is placed an opinion of Iustice Sanctitie Efficacie or Diuine necessity and so we hold it sacrilegious for any Church to impose or to admit of any such Ceremonie proceeding from humane institution Sometimes againe the same phrase is taken more largely for euery circumstantiall Rite which serueth for the more consonant and conuenient discharge of that essentiall worship of God and thus we hold it a peece of Christian libertie belonging to the Church to ordaine Ceremonies which may tend to Decencie Order and Edification as hath bene already shewen and acknowledged Herein therefore doth your inexcusable abuse of your Authors bewray it selfe that where they condemne onely such Ceremonies which are invented by men and brought into the Church by Papists and others with an opinion of such holinesse efficacie and necessity as whereby God is as properly worshipped as with the formes which he himselfe hath ordained thereupon you vrge and inforce them to the confutation of onely Circumstantiall and Accidentall Additaments vsed without all such superstitious respect Come we now to the examination of your witnesses 1. M. Caluin saith indeed that All those Constitutions are wicked in the obseruation whereof men place any worship of God Where by Worship he meaneth not any circumstance either of time place person or gesture which are required in the celebration of Gods worship but the inward vertue of worship which consisteth in an opinion of holinesse and iustice c. As you might haue learned from M. Caluin himselfe if you would haue taken out his next lesson where he condemneth the Papists but why Euen because they do conclude Ipsissimum Dei cultum in suis ritibus contineri Gods worship it selfe meaning the very essentiality of the worship of God to consist in their Rites And refuting it by the Scripture of Esay 55. In vaine doe they worship mee teaching c. expoundeth what hee meaneth by worship saying that The Papists in ritibus suis iustitiam quam Deo opponant quâ se ante tribunal sustineant quaerunt they seeke that righteousnesse in their Ceremonies which they may oppose vnto God and wherewith they may vphold themselues when they shall be called to answer before his Tribunall Surely there is no Protestant who will not call euery such figment of mans braine a very Idoll wherewith Gods worship is impiously profaned 2. Chemnitius also in the place alleaged speaking of the reseruation of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper sheweth that Antiquity vsed a Reseruation as-well as the Papists but yet with a great difference For Tridentini docent c. The Doctors of the Councell of Trent teach this Reseruation to bee a custome necessary and altogether to be retained but the ancient Fathers who had great reasons in regard of those times to obserue that custome yet did they not hold it necessary So that hee likewise condemneth that which is made an essentiall part of worship 3. Peter Martyr speaking of Ceremonies although hee verifieth your phrase of speech § 3. saying that Diuine worship doth not depend vpon the will of man but on the counsell and will of God yet doth he crosse and as it were controule your meaning of the word worship you vnderstanding thereby any Ceremonies which may serue for a complementall performance of that Diuine worship although it be not held as necessary hereunto But he saith expresly Licet Ecclesiae c. The Church hath power to prescribe and make Constitutions concerning the place time and manner of receiuing the Sacrament of the Lords Supper whether at morning or at night whether standing or sitting By this you see that he condemneth not the institution of the Accessarie and Accidentall parts of Gods worship but plainely approueth of them Your last witnesse answereth for himselfe that He in that place confuting the superstition of the Church of Rome doth not simply condemne all her Ceremonies but Farraginem tarbam onus Ceremoniarum to wit the immoderate multitude and intollerable burthen of her ceremonies in Feasts and Fasts in Gestures c. And you M. H. I trow in reprouing a man for a surfer or drunkennesse do not thereby meane to depriue him absolutely of his meate and drinke SECT VII Our generall Confutation of their former generall Propoposition especially from their owne witnesses The authority which the Church doth challenge or appointing circumstantiall and accidentall parts of Gods worship is from the liberty which she hath granted vnto her in magna Charta to wit the booke of holy Scriptures which expresly hath giuen vnto her authority to constitute such Rites as belong to Decency Order and Edification as hath beene already proued But because the Non-conformists are so frequent in alledging of witnesses I shall desire them to consult with two such whom they haue especially and namely appropriated vnto themselues in this whole controuersie who I make no question will answer their obiection Wee beginne with Vrsinus who hath catechized them well where first bringing in the obiection viz. Quae ad gloriam Dei c. â—y those things which are done to the glory of God God is worshipped Bâ—t the Constitutions of the Church are done to the glory of God ergo God is worsâ—ipped by the ordinances of man He thus answereth and resolueth that Those things which are done to the glorie of God to wit per se of themselues that is such as are commanded by himselfe to the end that by them wee may expresse our obedience vnto him those acts are the worship of God But not those which accidentally do serue to the glory of God that is to the performance of those things which are commanded of God And a little after to this
to conclude from the lawfull vse of Ceremonies in our Church to an appropriation of the Romish abuse of them gaue me iust cause to call your Consequence vnconscionable for as much as your owne hearts can tell you that our Church is not so earnest to entertaine the vse of any one Ceremony formerly obserued in the Church of Rome as it is zealous to abhorre her superstition in all her abuses some of them being Brutish and Sencelesse some Childish and ridiculous some Heathenish and Idolatrous wherby such their Ceremonies respectiuely are become to be most properly Popish Thirdly you argue that if these viz. Surplice Crosse Kneeling at the receiuing of the Communion be iustly vsed then there is a iust cause that these to wit Oyle Spittle Images and the Priests sprinkling of water may likewise be had in vse because all are equally for Remembrance We confesse that Spittle was vsed by our Sauiour Christ in the healing of the Dumbe and Oyle by the Apostles in curing of many other diseases yet both miraculously but to imitate the worke of a Miracle without the Miraculous power is but an Apish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to hold such a miraculous Ceremony after the vertue be gone is but to preserue a Carcase because it had beene once possessed of a soule We come to your other Instances in the vse of Images and that which they call Holy-water to the end that you may the better discerne your owne iniurious and odious comparison For first the true vse of Images with vs is onely for Historicall commemoration but in the Popish Church it is for a superstitious adoration by kneeling vnto them praying by them and by determinating a kinde of religious worship in them and therefore onely in regard of such their superstition is to bee called Popish The second which is their sprinkling of water vpon the people for remembrance of their Baptisme if it were applyed onely for to make them often mindfull and careful to keep their Vow of Christianity made once vnto God in Baptisme it might be called a Morall Ceremony and Christian But that sprinkling of water as it is vsed in the Romish Church not onely as significatiue but also as operatiue with an opinion that it hath power both of purging veniall sinnes and of driuing away deuils is in that regard also Popish execrable For what is this else but to take vpon her to constitute a new Sacrament seeing that a Sacrament is a signe of representing and of exhibiting and conferring of a spirituall Grace Shee therefore who hath made the profession of the definite number of but Seuen Sacraments an Article of Faith hath by this new inuention of Holy-water made vp Eight I may not pretermit a Witnesse who hath made you an answer long since vnto this Obiection which notwithstanding you regest againe as if this Cole-woort had neuer bene sod before The Authour is Peter Martyr Neque mihi dixeris c. Neither may you say vnto mee saith Peter Martyr speaking of the vse of the Surplice there shall be now a gap open for all abuses to water sprinkled by the Priests Incense and infinite such other abuses because your Aduersaries will answer you that there must a meane be kept that the Church of God be not burthened with these kind of things and that no worship or efficacie of Religion be placed in them as we see there is in that water-sprinkling and Incense c. So he And do you not furthermore see by happy experience that Open gappe of many Ceremonis whereof you spake to be now through the wisedome and prouidence of our Church quite shut vp seeing that she is contented to admit of so few and no more Lastly you can with as little reason diuest a Church Christian of her liberty and power of ordaining of significant Ceremonies because it is possible that she may abuse that power by instituting vnfit superstitious and burthensome Rites as it were to seeke to depriue a Ciuill Magistrate of all power of Nomotheticall authority in making of lawes because there is a possibility he may abuse them Thus much in answer to your Generall Proposition SECT VIII The Assumption of the Non-conformists But these Ceremonies in question are ordained by the will of men to teach some spirituall dutie by their mysticall signification for thus the booke of Common Prayer speaketh of them that they are neither dumbe nor darke but apt to stirre vp the dull mind of man to the remembrance of this duty to God by some speciall signification Our Answer Will you still oppugne Ceremonious signes which are mystically significant euen because they are significant is a mans speech lesse reasonable because it hath sence or is it therefore ill for that the signification thereof is good Yet this is in effect your exception against our Ceremonies Wee therefore remit you to your owne witnesses with whom you may contend some whereof will bee found to condemne the Papists for vsing of Dumbe Ceremonies without significations and darke beyond mens capacities some to admit of Symbolicall Ceremonies as incitements to the better performance of spirituall good things and some also to approoue of signes and remembrances of spirituall Duties But if you would be loath to wrastle with so learned Diuines then wee send you to expostulate with your owne selues who confesse in the end that you are not altogether destitute of some such like Symbolicall significations Finally I shall not need in this place to set before you those Mysticall Ceremonies which are to be exemplified from diuers Instances in Patriarches before the Law holy men vnder the Law Apostles in the New Testament after them in the state of primitiue Antiquity And lastly in the whole current of succeeding times SECT IX Our generall Confutation of the generall Argument of the Non-conformists by proouing the lawfulnesse of Ceremonies which are of morall Signification yB 1. Scriptures 2. Fathers 3. Reason 4. Witnesses of the Non-conformists themselues 5. Their owne practise Our proofe by Scriptures Of Examples taken from Scriptures some are before the Law some in the time of the Law and some after the Law in and about the time of the Apostles Examples of significant Ceremonies before the Law in Abraham Abraham commanded his seruant that hee might haue security of his faithfulnesse in a businesse of importance to wit for the prouiding of a match for his sonne to lay his hand vnder his thigh sweare vnto him c. What one point is there in their generall proposition which is not fully satisfied by this Example Your first point is that our Ceremonies are humane So heere the laying of his hand vnder Abrahams thigh was humane if by Humane you vnderstand that which a godly man deuiseth by his own reasonable Iudgement For Abraham appointed the foresaid Ceremonie without any speciall reuelation from God so farre as by Scripture is reuealed vnto vs. The second point is that the Ceremony
is appointed vnto Diuine seruice So here likewise for there is not a more Diuine Seruice then vpon iust occasion the due and lawfull swearing by God This is a worship which God doth appropriate to himselfe Thou shalt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worship the Lord thy God how and sweare by his name The last point is the Ordaining of the Ceremony to teach any spirituall duty by mysticall signification And what more spirituall duty can you require than is the confidence in Christ the Messias who is the foundation and life of all Diuine Mysteries which by the iudgement of all ancient Fathers and for ought that euer I could learne of all their children the Orthodox Diuines of the Church after them is this viz. That Christ the Messias and Sauiour of mankind was to issue out of the thigh and loynes of Abraham according as God had promised vnto him saying In thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed The Moralitie then of the signe to the seruant was this that as he beleeued to haue any life by Christ the Author of life which was to descend from Abraham by Isaac and his seed so he would be faithfull vnto him So that this oath was vnto his seruant a signe as of his faith to God so of faithfulnesse towards Abraham his Master SECT X. Our second proofe to confirme the lawfulnesse of a signe of morall signification is from the Examples of the old Testament vnder the Law The Obiection of the Non-conformists In the time of the Law when God saw it good to teach his Church by significant Ceremonies none might be brought or receiued into the worship of God but such onely as the Lord himselfe did institute This reason is vsed against the Popish Ceremonies by M. Caluin Iunius Lubbertus and others Our Answer And this Reason is good against the Popish abuse of Ceremonies which is to bee discerned from our vse of such in these two points first in their significations whereby that Church doth commonly teach some new doctrine not warranted by Scriptures secondly in their application by her superstitious opinion of necessity and holinesse whereby they are made essentiall parts of Gods worship as by your witnesses will be manifestly shewen In the meane time we pursue this point by our seuerall examples SECT XI Our first kind of Examples is by instancing in the Ordination of Festiuall dayes 1. Instance in Mordecai and Ester Although God had assigned diuers solemne Feast-dayes for his more frequent worship yet did Mordecai appoint the Feast called by the Hebrewes the Feast of Pur that is of Lottes for a continuall and thankefull remembrance of their generall deliuerance from that cruell Massacre whereunto the heathen had then allotted and designed them And accordingly our State and Church hath ordained a set Feast-day which wee may likewise after the Greek call the feast of Pûr euen by the same word retained in our English Fyre wherein we celebrate the remembrance of Gods mercifull and miraculous preseruation of vs from that Fyery and Hellish Powder-plot machinated by the sonnes of Belial for the consuming of our most religious and gracious Soueraigne together with the whole state of the Kingdome SECT XII 2. Instance in the Feast of Dedication by Iudas Machabaeus 1. Machab. 2.59 There was appointed an anniuersary Feast of the dedication of the Altar ordained by Iudas Machabaeus And this Feast as your owne witnesse Danaeus confesseth seemes to be approued by our Lord Iesus in that he did grace it with his owne blessed presence Now all solemne Feasts of this kind are of a Ceremoniall nature and in asmuch as they haue their institution from man may rightly be called Humane neuerthelesse so farre as they serue to magnifie God for some speciall mercie as else to excite man vnto a thankefull commemoration of the singular fauours which he hath receiued at the hands of God in these respects they are truely called Diuine Hence therefore you see it is good cause why they ought to be called significant So then you haue by these Examples as it were the Anatomy of your proposition through euery ioynt viz. 1. A Ceremony of humane inuention by Iudas Machabaeus 2. Appropriated vnto Gods seruice in a solemne Feast 3. Ordained to teach a spirituall Duty of thankefulnesse 4. Significant for benefits or blessings receiued And all these as you see stand iustifiable by Analogie from the example alleged SECT XIII Their first Replie The Church may appoint holy-dayes in certaine cases but it is one thing to restraine part of the day and another to restraine the whole day Our Answer If any man shall require of you some euidence to prooue that Christ hath so cantled out his Churches high Commission for Ecclesiasticall causes as to affoord it a power to appoint one halfe of an Holy-day and to deny vnto it liberty of ordaining the other halfe I suppose you would alwayes remaine indebted for an answere For did not God vse to haue as well his Euening as his Morning sacrifice and shall it now be lawfull to serue God onely by halfes howsoeuer euen this halfe which you haue haue granted doth sufficiently establish the whole matter in question for if the Church in this case haue power to ordaine a Ceremony which doth implie a signification of the dutie of a thankefull remembrance how should any Ceremonies be onely therefore held vnlawfull because they are significant SECT XIIII Their second Replie Howbeit the example out of Ester 9. of the two dayes which the Iewes instituted in the remembrance of their deliuerance is no sufficient warrant for these feasts in question For first as in other cases so in this case of dayes the estate of Christians vnder the Gospell ought not to be so Ceremonius as was theirs vnder the Law Secondly that which was done there was done by a â—peciall direction of the Church of God either through the Ministery of the Prophets which they had or by some other extraordinary meanes which is not to be followed of vs. Our Answer Firsâ— vnto the first part of your Replie we say that if an institution of a new Ceremonie were lawfull vnder the estate of the Old Testament when the people of God were so pressed with Rites that the Apostle called them an importable Yoke then doublâ—sse the addition of one or two Ceremonies in the state of the Gospel may not so rigidly be iudged vnlawfull Your second Assumption which we may rather call a Presumption is that you imagine some speciall Direction from the spirit of God vnto them without any certificate reuealed to your selues for proofe thereof Whereunto I onely say as Saint Hierom speaketh of the like imagination Eâdem facilitate reijcitur quâ obijcitur SECT XV. Our second kind of Examples is from the like ordaining of Ceremonious Instruments belonging vnto the worship of God by 4. Instances 1. Instance is in the Altar Iosh. 22. We
as he was of Ordinances and Ceremonies in the Ecclesiasticall and that the same authoritie of God was equally predominant in them both this may induce vs to thinke that mans inuention imployed for the better preseruation of Gods will and worship may not alwaies be censured as a thing vnlawfull in it selfe SECT XXIII Our Third generall proofe is from the Examples of the Apostles It is time for vs to depart from Ierusalem wherein we haue had ample proofe for mysticall Ceremonies of Humane Inuention Now let vs draw neere to the Citie of Antioch where the faithfull did first receiue their Surnames of Christians that we may likewise try what ground we may finde in Christianitie for the proofe of our former Conclusion The Apostolicall Examples are Three First the Feasts of Charity There were certaine Christian Feasts called Agapae ordained and vsed by the Apostles without any prescription from Christ. SECT XXIIII Their first Answer If thâ—y were Apostolicall then were they of Diuine Institution Our Reply If you take Diuine for Godly as opposite to prophane and wicked your Position is true but if you vnderstand Diuine as in opposition vnto all Constitutions which are not commanded of God then could you not haue vttered a more vnlearned Position than to say that all Apostolicall Ordinances were of Diuine institution For the Diuines of all times haue distinguished of Constitutions and Traditions Diuine Apostolicall and Ecclesiasticall accounting such Diuine as were ordained for perpetuall vse in the Church and esteeming such Apostolicall as were appointed by the Apostles with a liberty to alter and change them vpon iust occasions such as these Agapae were and those to be Ecclesiasticall which the Church of God after the Apostles times in whatsoeuer age or Countries did or shall appoint vpon like occasions which are likewise subiect to alteration according to the different condition of times and places Which distinctions passe so currant that when we come to the particular Examination of our Ceremonies you shall then find them to haue the approbation of your owne Witnesses SECT XXV Their second Answer These Agapae were abrogated by the Apostles themselues Our Replie If they were indeed iustly abrogated afterwards then may you not say that they were of Diuine Institution Thus your second Answer confuteth your former so slipperie is the foundation whereon you stand Secondly they being once instituted of the Apostles were abrogated by the Apostles Ergo there is in the Church a power both to institute and also to abrogate such kind of Ceremonies according to the conueniences or disconuenices of the Church SECT XXVI Their third Answer But these were not of mysticall signification nor yet meerely of Ecclesiasticall vse Our Replie Should not the Vse be properly called Ecclesiasticall which was ordained to bee practised in the solemne feasts of Religion and appropriated to accompany the celebration of the holy Communion and also of a mysticall and spirituall signification it being instituted both for signification and preseruation of Christian Loue Concerning these Loue-feasts the ancient Histories doe credibly informe vs that they were at first vsed in Sacris conuentibus sometime before and sometime after the receiuing of the Eucharist And this the Apostle sheweth 1. Cor. 11. Where we find so great an abuse of them that by the profanenesse of some the Feasts of Loue were turned into Banquets of intollerable pride and dispite whereupon the Apostle indeed reprooueth the abuse but doth not remoue and abrogate the right vse of them for we find that these Feasts were continued long after the Apostles yea in some places vntill the time of Chrysostome and the Councell of Gangris in which there is an Anathema denounced vpon them Qui noluerint communicare huiusmodi vacationibus SECT XXVI Our second Apostolicall Example is in Osculo pacis The Apostles times together with their Loue-feasts had their Loue-kisse called Osculum pacis that which S. Paul doth so often commend vnto all professed Christians Their Answer This was not of mysticall signification but a naturall indicant signe of Peace and Reconciliation as is imbracing or shaking of hands Our Answer Let vs take with vs the light of Antiquity for our better direction in this point Iustin Martyr and Origen say heereof Precibus finitis mutuò nos inuicem osculo salutamus Tertullian calleth it Signaculum orationis the seale of Prayer The words of precation therein vsed being Pax tecum Peace be vnto thee Cyrill termeth it Signaculum Reconcilationis quo in sacris vtimur i. The signe of reconciliation vsed in Diuine Seruice And Clemens Alex. saith of it Quod oportebat esse mysticum id Sanctum vocabat Apostolus i. That which should be mysticall the Apostle calleth holy Which saying is vsed by the same Clemens to the reproofe of such as did abuse it because that which is holy must be vsed after an holy manner and not to wantonnesse and lasciuiousnes as was the fashion of some Is there now any point in your generall Proposition which is not particularized in this Holy Kisse First the institution so farre as it was not commanded by Christ was humane Secondly the property of it Significant Thirdly the vse was in Sacris to wit in the time of holy and publike worship Fourthly the end was signification of Christian loue So that in this Instance you haue a full contradiction to your first Proposition As for your conceit of Imbracing and shaking hands whereby ye would shake off all mysticall signification and make that holy kisse to be nothing else than a naturall Ciuill salutation it is but your proper fancie seeing the mysticall obiect in this outward Rite was immediatly that mutuall charity which Christians possessed not simply amongst themselues but grounded primarily vppon the relation to the attonement which we haue by Christ wherein consisteth all Christian Peace These premises doe argue that the Author of this Answer was not so spirituall as Ciuill or rather vnciuill in making such an homely interpretation of this Apostolicall Rite which had so singular an Epithet as holy so blessed an obiect as Peace which were neuer applyed in Scripture to any action or gesture of onely ciuill vse SECT XXVIII Our third Example is the Apostles Ceremonie concerning the couering of the head at Diuine Seruice 1. Cor. 11. Likewise the Apostle is vrgent about an other Ceremonie of Hauing the man vncouered and the woman couered in the Church and this also is significant and that mystically of Spirituall things and dueties for the man being vncouered signifieth thereby his immediate subiection to the ordinance of Christ who hath constituted him to be head ouer the woman and the woman being couered doth thereby expresse subiection to her husband Ver. 9. and 10. To which purpose Tert. describeth the fashion thereof to haue beene this viz. Quantum crines soluti capere possint by hauing their haire loose Which is
euen as we being gathered together in these earthly temples do magnifie him and therfore these our earthly temples ought to raise vp our mindes to the contemplation of the celestiall Which vse is profitable and not to be contemned Thus much Zanchius Wherefore if you will allow such kind of Ceremoniall significations you consent with vs if you reiect them then you doe dissent from all ancient and primitiue Christians Yet many of you are not so farre falne out with Symbolicall Ceremonies and the vniuersall practise of Antiquitie but that you doe willingly obserue the Ceremoniall Festiuals of Ester Pentecost c. now celebrated in our Churches as likewise the dayes not so much fatals as natals of the Apostles Now in the solemnization of these Anniuersaries you cannot but reflect on the remembrance of some spirituall things as these to wit the power of Christ his Resurrection the donation of the gifts of the holy Ghost made in visible signes of fiery tongues the glorious Ascension of our euer-blessed Sauiour into heauen together with the admirable constancy of the Apostles in suffering for the profession of the holy faith heereby admonishing vs to imitate their Example of Constancie and faithfulnesse vnto death that with them we may obtaine the same glorious Crowne of euerlasting life SECT XXXIII Our fift and last Proofe for the Confutation of the Generall argument of the Non-conformists by Reason We cannot want Reasons to prooue that our Ceremonies may be significant which our Common Prayer booke doth signifie so to be and is therefore condemned by the Non-conformists Their Opposition to our Communion-Booke The Communion Booke saith of these Ceremonies that they are neither darke nor dumbe but significant which is vnlawfull SECT XXXIIII Our Confutation of the Non-conformists by Reason confirming the lawfulnesse of Morall signification from the Confession of their owne Witnesses Because the Non-conformists haue pleaded thus absolutely against Significant Ceremonies by the same ReasoÌ„ if that may be called Reason which fighteth against it selfe we are to shew that no Ceremonie can be properly so called if it be altogether destitute of signification for to require Ceremonies without all signification is all one as to imagine day without light or fire without heate For were it not so M. Caluin had no reason to inueigh so much against the Papists because that many of their Ceremonies are non-significant Furthermore saith M. Caluin is not this fault worthy our inueighing against non intellectas Ceremonias ostentant c. They make a pompous shew of Ceremonies that are not vnderstood as if it were some stage-like dumbe shew or else some magicall incatation For some Ceremonies in Popery are separated from doctrine that they may hold the people with signes void of all signification Thus Caluin The same exception doth P. Martyr take against some Romish Ceremonies euen because Their significations are often vnknowen not onely to the beholders but to the Actors themselues who being asked of the meaning of diuers of their Rites either say nothing or if they answer any thing they contradict one another which is a certaine argument that there is no truth in them Now amongst other Rites of this nature wee may ranke that of their Priests muttering of the words of consecration in secret which Doctor Raynolds doth iustly condemne as being Against the practise of Churches of Fathers Apostles and of Christ himselfe But they say saith Doctor Rainolds of this dumbe shew which crept into the Church that it was ordained by the holy Mother Church lest those wordes so holy and so sacred should come into contempt And can there be a better Example of a Dumbe Ceremonie or more iust reason of casting it out then because it is dumbe In briefe all these Considerations Proofes and Examples aboue mentioned drawne from the religious persons of the old Testament both before and vnder the Law from the Apostles in the new from the vniuersall practise of all Churches that are within the horizon of Ecclesiasticall Record from the testimonies of their owne Witnesses from the practize of the Non-conformists themselues and lastly from the necessary consequence of Reason may sufficiently free our Ceremonies from any guilt as they terme it of superstition as though they were therefore superstitious euen because they are significant CHAP. IIII. The fourth generall Argument vrged by the Non-conformists against the foresaid Ceremonies is taken from a pretence that they haue been abused to Popish Superstition SECT I. Their Argument Maior No Ceremonies which haue beene notoriously knowne to haue been of old and still to be abused to Idolatry and Superstition especially if there be now no vse of them in Gods Church can bee lawfull but must be abolished whether they haue beene the Ceremonies of Pagans Iewes or Heretikes Assumption But these Ceremonies haue beene Idolatrously polluted by Papists namely the Surplice Crosse in Baptisme and the gesture of kneeling at the Sacrament Ergo they ought to bee remooued and abolished Our Answer IF you require that Ceremonies so abused be abolished as if there were no other Cure for such sores but onely abcision and cutting off the members by the ioynt then wee deny your Maior But if you vnderstand such things as in their owne nature are not ill but indifferent or by excepting things necessary you meane an absolute and not a conuenient necessity we denie your Assumption And now that you see your markes looke to your aime and first proue if you can your Proposition then afterwards your Assumption for otherwise you can conclude against our Ceremonies iust nothing at all SECT II. The Proofes vsed by the Non-conformists against such Ceremonies which haue beene Superstitiously abused Their Proofes are from Examples of the abolishing of Ceremonies that haue beene either Heathenishly Iewishly or Heretically abused Their first Obiection concerning heathenish Ceremonies by diuers Instances in Scriptures This may appeare by Godâ— word forbidding all prouocations vnto spirituall fornication and commanding vs to separate our selues from Idolaters aâ—d to â—e as vnlike them as may be especially in their religious obseruations and Ceremonies and Instruments of Idolatry that so wee shew our vtmost detestation of them and to cast out the very memory of them and to cast away euen such things as had a good originall if they be not still necessary and commandâ—d of God when once they are knowne to bee defiled by Idolatry or abused by it according â—s for example sake God commandeth Leuit. â—8 not to be like the Heathen c. And Leuit. 19.28 c. Our Answer In this place of Scripture are forbid three kinde of things which were in vse among the Heathen the first was the sinne of Incest the second the fashion of Rounding their heads and cutting their flesh for the dead the third their sowing of their grounds with diuers seeds and letting their beasts of diuers kindes to ingender together Now wee know that Incest was forbidden as
which they giue vnto God Our Answer But our Church vsing that Signe of the Crosse with no such superstition either by vsing it as a speciall Badge of any Idolatrous Religion or by ascribing vnto it any miraculous power of driuing out diuels or of curing Diseases or by sanctifying persons that are marked therewith or yet by offering the worship of Latria yea or so much as Dulia vnto it And contrariwise professing that she hath purged this Signe from all Popish superstition and errour and to vse it onely as primitiuely it was vsed that is onely as a Token whereby there is protestation made of a future constancie in the profession of Christianity You your selues could not but discerne hereby as great a difference betweene the Church of England and the Church of Rome as betweene religous deuotion and blind superstition light and darkenesse God and Belial I passe ouer the maine Argument taken from the former Abuses and Scandall which are said to be occasioned by this Signe because I will not trouble my Reader with needlesse repetitions of that Answer which hath more then once bene giuen to this kind of Obiection SECT IX Their fourth Accusation against the vse of the Signe of the Crosse about the time of Baptisme is from the consequent Licence of ordinary Crossings of the body in other parts and vpon other occasions If crossing vpon the fore-head be lawfull then that which is lesse ill is lawfull viz. the crossing vpon the breasts c. which is the manner of the Papists Our Answer I perceiue that if we had no other Aduocates to pleade our cause against the Papists than such Obiectors then might the Papists presume of a victorie not so much by their owne strength as by your imbecillity For it had bene an easie matter for you to haue answered the Papists by telling them that there is a great difference betweene the manner of Protestants crossing the foreheads of Infants and the Papists crossing their Breasts c. because euen if there were no other oddes the practise of the Protestants is ioyned with an interpretation of their meaning shewiâ—g to what end the Crosse is vsed namely in a Morall Token of Christian courage that the child shall not be ashamed of the Crosse of Christ c. which declaration of the godly vse and end thereof may be a sufficient instruction vnto the people to free them from that superstition But the other kinde of crossing the breast practised by Papists without any words of Interpretation to manifest their meaning except it be to nourish their superstitious confidence therein may easily draw ignorant men into some Idolatrous conceits As it is a farre greater safety and security for a Trauellour passing through any Desart to reade written on Marble Stones or Pillars in a High-way according to the custome of some Countries the direct path from Citie to Citie than if he shall be left wholy vnto his owne imagination voyde and destitute of any direction Otherwise if that the people were fully instructed in the right vse of Crossing their breasts according to the primitiue vnderstanding thereof to keep themselues in a Christian moderation this also could not be iustly excepted against whereof we are to speake in the 13. Section SECT X. Their fift Accusation against the Crosse vsed in the time of Baptisme is from the pretended Authour thereof whom they name to haue bene Valentinus Irenaeus saith that the Heretique Valentinus was the man that first aduanced the Crosse to any religious vse Our Answer Sooner shall you be able to extract Lead out of a Marble-stone than to draw any such saying yea or sence out of Irenaeus This Father discouering the hereticall speculations of this grand Heretique Valentinus among others reckoneth his opinion concerning that Crosse whereof he speaketh which some times he called Stauros Crux and sometimes Horos terminus attributing thereunto a double vertue one Confirmatiua that is of confirming and strengthning a Christian in his profession the other Diuisiua that is of diuiding and separating him from the world The first vertue Valentinus gathered out of the words of Christ He that taketh not vp his Crosse and followeth me is not worthy of me signifying that the Crosse doth establish a Christian and ioyne him vnto Christ in following him The other diuisiue vertue he collected out of that speech of Christ He hath his fanne in his hand and will purge his floore and gather his Wheate into his Garner but the Chaffe will he consume in vnquenchable fire noting what the nature of persecution is namely to separate and distinguish the faithfull Professor from the Hypocrite In all this here is not any mention or meaning at all Vel ligni vel signi Crucis either of the Wood or of the Signe of the Crosse but onely of the persecution of Christians for the name of Christ which Christ himselfe called a Crosse. This is most euident by the verie place of Irenaeus For first Christs words alledged by Valentinus concerne euery Christian man to take vp a Crosse but not that whereupon Christ did suffer for then the words of Christ should haue stood thus Except a man take vp crucem meam my Crosse c. Which were to make euery true Christian a Simon of Cyrene who was compelled to take vp Christ his Materiall Crosse. But the words are these Qui non tollit crucem suam He that takâ—th not vp his Crosse that is his owne Crosse of suffering persecution for the name of Christ whensoeuer occasion shall require cannot be accompted the disciple of Christ. This meaning of Valentinus is yet more manifest by the second vertue of that same Crosse which he calleth diuisiua that is a power of diuiding in which respect Christ did call persecution Ventilabrum a fanne to winnow and seuer the chaffe from the wheate Now Valentinus saith Irenaeus Ventilabrum illud crucem interpretatur Doth interprete that Fanne to be the Crosse whereof he spake Who then can be so silly or senselesse as not to discerne at the first sight that this Fanne doth signifie no other Crosse than persecution SECT XI Their Reply There was some cause why Irenaeus did reprehend the Heretique Valentinus whom he reproued saying Talia enim c. Such things the Valentinians speake seeking to apply the good speeches of Christ vnto their owne wicked Inuentions Therefore the words of Valentinus had some euill meaning concerning the Crosse. Our Answer The reproofe which Irenaeus vseth against Valentinus doth more fully conuince you of an egregious abuse of your Authour because Iraeneus doth plainly iustifie the former sayings of Valentius concerning the Crosse of persecution calling them Benè dicta Good sayings and how shall they be otherwise being the very words of Christ himselfe but he condemneth onely the application of those sentences saying of the Valentinians Bene dicta adaptare cupiunt hijs quae malè sunt ab ipsis inuenta
That they did apply those good sayings vnto their owne wicked inuentions namely to that Pleroma that is according to their owne Interpretation vnto God but yet such a God as those Heretikes had moulded in their owne phantasticall braines farre differing from the infinite and absolute nature of God Wherefore vpon due examination of the testimony out of Irenaeus grounded vpon the words of Christ you may by your Obiection as well make Christ as Valentinus the first Inuentor of the Signe of the Crosse. SECT XII Their sixt Accusation against the Signe of the Crosse is because as is pretended the Hereticke Montanus was the first Countenancer thereof among Christians That Montanus gaue it first credite amongst Christians the Centurists seeme to affirme saying Et quideÌ„ Ceremonias mutuatas a Montanistis induxit Tertullianus auxit vt vnctionem externam signum crucis â—blationes pro defunctis quas consuetudines fatetur non esse institutas in sacra Scriptura Our Answer Not that Montanus may be said to haue bene a more countenancer of the Crosse than of threefold dipping in Baptisme which Tertullian being then a Montanist did there mention following Montanus in the obseruation of such Rytes which had bene vsed of Orthodoxe Fathers before euer Montanus was borne who liued about the yere 173. But some of the Ceremonies which together with the Crosse are related in that place of Tertullian were long before that mentioned by Irenaeus Iustin Martyr and Ignatius There is nothing more easie than defamation by calling any child a Bastard especially when it doth not certainly appeare who was the right Father thereof yet what need such iealousie in this Case concerning the Father of this Signe may it not be sufficient for vs to know infallibly that the mother was an honest woman for such was that ancient Church of Christ wherein the Signe of the Crosse was first vsed and practised as we are bound to prooue in the Section following SECT XIII Their seuenth and last Accusation against the Signe of the Crosse is because of the superstitiousnesse which ancient Fathers are pretended to haue had therein The Canons professe to vse and esteeme of it as the Fathers of the Primitiue Church did but sundry of them put holinesse in it and wrote of it very superstitiously Some telling vs that it was a terror against Diuels attributed a power thereunto of working miracles afterwards it was vsed in Italy in signum salutaris expeditionis whence it tooke then the name of Cruciata expeditio such as some record that Constantine and Theodosius had taken vp before What shall we say but that the Crosse hath beene as superstitiously abused by the Fathers as by the ranckest Papists sauing that Papists haue rancked it with Diuine worship and so bestowed more honour vpon it then euer the Fathers did afford it but the Church of England Can. 30. doth professe to maintaine it in the same vse which it had with the ancient Fathers therefore it must needes follow that the Signe of the Crosse is superstitiously vsed Our Answer If I should note any man to be as rancke a Traitor as euer was Rebell in Ireland SAVING THAT he doth acknowledge his due obedience vnto the King would not any thinke that I bewrayed thereby both malignancie and folly And how doth this differ I pray you from your censure of the Fathers noting them to haue as much abused the Signe of the Crosse as the ranckest Papists Sauing that they did not bestow diuine worship on it Howsoeuer the matter go we must iudge the Fathers by your Censure to haue bene superstitious But it would haue became the children of those ancient Fathers to haue acknowledged that Orthodoxe sence in their writings which Protestant Diuines of principall note and your owne Witnesses haue obserued There was indeed often mention made among the ancient Fathers of the Signe of the Crosse but Chemnitius willeth you to marke what kind of Signe it was In the Primitiue times saith he there was not any Image or figurature of the face of man hauing his armes spred out and nayled to the Crosse but in the dayes of Tertullian and afterwards the Christians did fashion a Transuerse figure as it were a Crosse and did Signe themselues but this was not a signe for worship or Adoration non enim tunc aliquid subsistens erat for there was not any thing really subsistent in that signe but it was onely professio commonefactio a profession and remembrance that they should beleeue in Christ Crucified and put all their hope and confidence in him Thus farre Chemnitius to let vs vnderstand the integritie of Antiquitie in this point because there cannot be the like superstition in the Crosse as it is a signe Transient which there may be in it as it is permanent Secondly Zanchie distinguishing of the Histories concerning Images some he calleth true and some fabulous and in the true obserueth that Things Speaking of the Signe of the Crosse were not then turned into superstition which were tollerable saith he in those times when as there was no such danger of Idolatry After he confesseth that At the signe of the Crosse the Diuell was repelled yet not by power or vertue of the Crosse but by faith in Christ crucified euen as grace is conferred vpon vs by the Sacraments not through the power of the Sacraments but by our faith in Christ crucified whereby we receiue those Sacraments but Papists attribute an efficacie vnto it ex opere operato euen by the power of the signe And lastly speaking of the principall cause of the Signe of the Crosse in the forehead addeth saying praecipua causa ea non reprobanda the chiefe reason which we may not disallow was to testifie that they were not ashamed of Christ crucified So he whereby you see he freeth the ancient Fathers from the imputatioÌ„ of Superstition approueth the reason of their Vse of the Crosse in Token that they should not be ashamed c. Which reason our Church hath expresly specified as the onely and sufficient cause why she hath retained the Vse of this Ceremonie P. Martyr dissenteth not from the former Witnesses so much almost as in Syllables and afterwards iustifieth the placing of the Crosse in Banners Coynes and Crownes of Kings and Emperours which saith he was done without any Superstition to testifie that they defended the Christian faith Zepperus reckoneth many Ceremonies which had bene anciently vsed in Baptisme and among others the Signe of the Crosse and exorcisme which he calleth superstitious but yet confesseth that they were vsed in those ancient Churches nulla cum superstitione without all superstition being voyde of opinion of worship merit or necessitie but in a good intent thereby to gaine more reuerence and admiration vnto this diuine Sacrament and to exercise the deuotion of mens minds in the celebration thereof vntill at the length they grew to that height of impietie and