Chapter 52

children by prayer and imposition of hands; for as Maldonat saith rightly,(830) _Hebreorum consuetudinem fuisse, ut qui majores erant et aliqua polle bant divina gratia, manuum impositione inferioribus benedicerent, constat ex_ Gen. xlviii. 14, 15, _hac ergo ratione adducti parentes, infantes ad Christum afferebant, ut impositis manibus illis benediceret_. And as touching this blessing of children and imposition of hands upon them (saith Cartwright),(831) it is peculiar unto our Saviour Christ, used neither by his disciples nor his apostles, either before or after his ascension, whereunto maketh that the children being brought, that he should pray over them, he did not pray for them, but blessed them, that is to say, commended them to be blessed, thereby to show his divine power. These being also yet infants, and in their swaddling clouts, as by the word which the evangelist useth, and as by our Saviour Christ’s taking them into his arms, doth appear, being also, in all likelihood, unbaptised. Last of all, their confirmation is a notable derogation unto the holy sacrament of baptism, not alone in that it presumeth the sealing of that which was sealed sufficiently by it; but also in that, both by asseveration of words, and by speciality of the minister that giveth it, it is even preferred unto it.

_Sect._ 5. The act of Perth about kneeling would draw some commendation to this ceremony from those words of the psalm, “O come let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker,” Psal. xcv. 6. Which is as if one should argue thus: We may worship before the Lord, therefore before a creature; we may kneel in an immediate worship of God, therefore in a mediate; for who seeth not that the kneeling there spoken of is a kneeling in the action of solemn praise and joyful noise of singing unto the Lord? I wish you, my masters, more sober spirits, that ye may fear to take God’s name in vain, even his word which he hath magnified above all his name. Dr Forbesse goeth about to warrant private baptism,(832) by Philip’s baptising the eunuch, there being no greater company present, so far as we can gather from the narration of Luke, Acts viii.; as likewise by Paul and Silas’s baptising the jailer and all his in his own private house, Acts xvi. Touching the first of those places, we answer, 1. How thinks he that a man of so great authority and charge was alone in his journey? We suppose a great man travelling in a chariot must have some number of attendants, especially having come to a solemn worship at Jerusalem. 2. What Philip then did, the extraordinary direction of the Spirit guided him unto it, ver. 29, 39. As to the other place, there was, in that time of persecution, no liberty for Christians to meet together in temples and public places, as now there is. Wherefore the example of Paul and Silas doth prove the lawfulness of the like deed in the like case.

_Sect._ 6. Hooker muttereth some such matter as a commendation of the sign of the cross from these two places, Ezek. ix. 4; Rev. vii. 3; alleging, that because in the forehead nothing is more plain to be seen than the fear of contumely and disgrace, therefore the Scripture describeth them marked of God in the forehead, whom his mercy hath undertaken to keep from final confusion and shame.(833) Bellarmine allegeth for the cross the same two places.(834) But for answer to the first, we say, that neither the sign whereof we read in that place, nor yet the use of it can make aught for them. As for the sign itself; albeit the ancients did interpret the sign of the letter _Tau_, to have been the sign of the cross, yet saith Junius, _Bona illorum venia; Tquidem Graecorum, Latinorumque majusculum, crucis quodam modo signum videtur effingere, verum hoc ad literam Haebreorum_ Tau _non potest pertinere. Deinde ne ipsum quidem Grcaecorum Latinorumque T, formam crucis quae apud veteres in usu erat quum sumebantur supplicia, representat._(835)

Whereupon dissenting from the ancients, he delivers his own judgment, that _tau_ in this place is taken _technicos_, for that sign or mark of the letter wherewith the Lord commanded to mark the elect for their safety and preservation. And so there was no mystery to be sought in that letter more than in any other. As for the use of that mark wherewith the elect in Jerusalem were at that time sealed, it was only for distinction and separation. It had the same use which that sprinkling of the posts of the doors had, Exod. xii. 7, only the foreheads of men and women, and not the posts of doors were here marked, because only the remnant according to election, and not whole families promiscuously, were at this time to be spared, as Junius noteth.

But the use of the sign of the cross pretended by Formalists, is not to separate us in the time of judgment, but to teach that at no time we ought to be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ.

Shortly, the sign wherewith they in Jerusalem were marked, was for preservation from judgment; but the sign of the cross is used for preservation from sin. Thus we see, that neither the sign nor the use of it, had any affinity with the cross. Now, the surest interpretation of that place, Ezek. ix. 4, is to take _Tau_ for an appellative noun, signifying generally and indefinitely a mark or sign, so that there is no mark determined by this word; only there was a commandment given to set a certain mark, some sign or other, upon the foreheads of the elect. So have our English translators taken the place.

This exposition is confessed by Gasper Sanctius,(836) to be followed almost by all the Hebrew masters, and by the most ancient interpreters, to wit, the Septuagint, Aquilla and Symmachus. The word beareth this gloss, even according to the confession of those who expound it otherwise in this place, to wit, for an image or representation of the cross. _Tau_ (saith Sanctius) _commune nomen est, quod signum indefinite significat_.(837) _Tau_ is expounded by Bellarmine(838) to signify _signum_ or _terminus_. Well then: our adversaries themselves can say nothing against our interpretation of the word _tau_. We have also Buxtorff for us, who in his Hebrew Lexicon turneth _tau_ to _signum_, and for this signification he citeth both this place, Ezek. ix. 4, and Job. xxxi. 35. _Taui signum meum._

Lastly, If _tau_ be not put for a common appellative noun, signifying a mark or sign, but for the figure or character of the letter _tau_ as an image of the cross, by all likelihood this character only should have been put in the Hebrew text, and not the noun fully written; _vehithvith a tau_, and mark a mark. As to the other place,(839) Rev. vii. 3, Pareus observeth, that there is no figure or form of any sign there expressed, and he thinks that seal was not outward and visible, but the same whereof we read, 2 Tim. ii. 19, and Rev. xiv. 1, which cannot be interpreted _de signo transeunte; nam Christianum semper nomen filii, et patris in fronte oportet gerere_, saith Junius.(840)

Dr Fulk, on Rev. vii. 3, saith, that the sign here spoken of is proper to God’s elect, therefore not the sign of the cross, which many reprobates have received.

_Sect._ 7. Bishop Andrews will have the feast of Easter drawn from that place,(841) 1 Cor. v. 8, where he saith, there is not only a warrant, but an order for the keeping of it; and he will have it out of doubt that this feast is of apostolical institution, because after the times of the apostles, when there was a contention about the manner of keeping Easter, it was agreed upon by all, that it should be kept; and when the one side alleged for them St. John, and the other St. Peter, it was acknowledged by both that the feast was apostolical.

I answer, The testimony of Socrates deserveth more credit than the Bishop’s naked conclusion.

“I am of opinion (saith Socrates(842)), that as many other things crept in of custom in sundry places, so the feast of Easter to have prevailed among all people, of a certain private custom and observation.”

But whereas Bishop Lindsey, in defence of Bishop Andrews, replieth, that Socrates propoundeth this for his own opinion only:

I answer, that Socrates, in that chapter, proveth his opinion from the very same ground which Bishop Andrews wresteth to prove that this feast is apostolical. For while as in that hot controversy about the keeping of Easter, they of the East alleged John the apostle for their author, and they of the West alleged Peter and Paul for themselves, “Yet (saith Socrates), there is none that can shew in writing any testimony of theirs for confirmation and proof of their custom. And hereby I do gather, that the celebration of the feast of Easter came up more of custom than by any law or canon.”

_Sect._ 7. Downame (as I touched before) allegeth the fourth commandment for holidays of the church’s institution. But Dr Bastwick allegeth more truly the fourth commandment against them:(843) “Six days shalt thou labour.” This argument I have made good elsewhere; so that now I need not insist upon it. There are further two examples alleged against us for holidays, out of Esth. ix. 17, 18, 27, 28, and John x. 22.

Whereunto we answer, 1. That both those feasts were appointed to be kept with the consent of the whole congregation of Israel and body of the people, as is plain from Esth. ix. 32, and 1 Maccab. iv. 59. Therefore, they have no show of making aught of such feasts as ours, which are tyrannically urged upon such as in their consciences do condemn them.

2. It appears, that the days of Purim were only appointed to be days of civil mirth and gladness, such as are in use with us, when we set out bonfires, and other tokens of civil joy, for some memorable benefit which the kingdom or commonwealth hath received. For they are not called the holidays of Purim, but simply the days of Purim,—“A day of feasting and of sending portions one to another,” Esth. ix. 19, 22. No word of any worship of God in those days. And whereas it seemeth to Bishop Lindsey,(844) that those days were holy, because of that rest which was observed upon them; he must know that the text interpreteth itself, and it is evident from ver. 16 and 22, that this rest was not a rest from labour, for waiting upon the worshipping of God, but only a rest from their enemies.

_Sect._ 9. But Bishop Andrews goeth about to prove by six reasons, that the days of Purim were holidays, and not days of civil joy and solemnity only.(845)

First, saith he, it is plain by verse 31, they took it in _animas_, upon their souls,—a _soul matter_ they made of it: there needs no soul for _feria_ or _festum_, play or feasting. They bound themselves _super animas suas_, which is more than _upon themselves_, and would not have been put in the margin, but stood in the text: thus he reprehendeth the English translators, as you may perceive.

_Ans._ The Bishop could not be ignorant that _nephesch_ signifieth _corpus animatum_, as well as _anima_, and that the Hebrews do not always put this word for our souls, but very often for ourselves. So Psal. vii. 2. and Psal. lix. 3, we read _naphschi_,—_my soul_ for _me_; and Psal. xliv. 25,—_naphschenu, our soul_ for _we_; and Gen. xlvi. 26, _col-nephesch_—_omnis animae_, for _omnes homines_.

What have we any further need of testimonies? Six hundred such are in the holy text. And in this place, Esth. ix. 31, what can be more plain, than that _nighal-naphscham, upon their soul_, is put for _nghalehem, upon themselves_, especially since _nghalehem_ is found to the same purpose, both in ver. 27 and 31.

If we will make the text agree well with itself, how can we but take both these for one? But proceed we with the Bishop. Secondly, saith he, the bond of it reacheth to all that _religioni eorum voluerunt copulari_, ver. 27, then, a matter of religion it was, had reference to that: what need any joining in religion for a matter of good fellowship?

_Ans._ There is no word in the text of religion. Our English translation reads it, “all such as joined themselves unto them.” Montanus, _omnes adjunctos_; Tremellius, _omnes qui essent se adjuncturi eis._ The old Latin version reads it indeed as the Bishop doth.

But no such thing can be drawn out of the word _hannilvim_, which is taken from the radix _lava_, signifying simply, and without any adjection, _adhaesit_, or _adjunxit se_. But let it be so, that the text meaneth only such as were to adjoin themselves to the religion of the Jews, yet why might not the Jews have taken upon them a matter of civility, not only for themselves, but for such also as were to be joined with them in religion. Could there be nothing promised for proselytes, but only a matter of religion?

Alas! Is this our antagonist’s great Achilles, who is thus falling down and succumbing to me, a silly stripling? Yet let us see if there be any more force in the remnant of his reasons.

For a third, he tells us that it is expressly termed a _rite_ and a _ceremony_, at verses 23 and 28, as the fathers read them.

In the 23rd verse we have no more but _susceperunt_, as Pagnini, or _receperunt_, as Tremellius reads it: but to read, _susceperunt in solemnem ritum_, is to make an addition to the text.

The 28th verse calls not this feast a rite, but only _dies memorati_, or _celebres_. And what if we grant that this feast was a rite? might it not, for all that, be merely civil? No, saith the Bishop, “rites, I trust, and ceremonies, pertain to the church, and to the service of God.”

_Ans._ The version which the Bishop followed, hath a rite, not a ceremony. Now, of rites, it is certain that they belong to the commonwealth as well as to the church. For _in jure politico, sui sunt imperati et solemnes ritus_, saith Junius.(846)

Fourthly, saith the Bishop, they fast and pray here in this verse (meaning the 31st), fast the eve, the fourteenth, and so then the day following to be holiday of course.

_Ans._ The Latin version, which the Bishop followeth, and whereupon he buildeth this reason, readeth the 31st verse very corruptly, and no ways according to the original, as will easily appear to any who can compare them together. Wherefore the best interpreters take the fasting and prayer spoken of verse 31, to be meant of the time before their delivery. Now, after they were delivered, they decreed that the matters of their fasting and crying should be remembered upon the days of Purim, which were to solemnise that preservation, _quam jejunio et precibus fuerant a Deo consequenti_, as saith Tremellius.

But Fifthly, saith he, with fasting and prayer (here), alms also is enjoined (at ver. 22), these three will make it past a day of revels or mirth.

I have answered already, that their fasting and praying are not to be referred to the days of Purim, which were memorials of their delivery, but to the time past, when, by the means of fasting and prayer, they did impetrate their delivery, before ever the days of Purim were heard of, and as touching alms, it can make no holiday, because much alms may be, and hath been given upon days of civil joy and solemnity.

If the Bishop help not himself with his sixth reason, he is like to come off with no great credit. May we then know what that is?

Lastly, saith he, as a holiday the Jews ever kept it,—have a peculiar set service for it in their _Seders_, set psalms to sing, set lessons to read, set prayers to say, good and godly all,—none but as they have used from all antiquity.

_Ans._ 1. The Bishop could not have made this word good, that the Jews did ever and from all antiquity keep the days of Purim in this fashion.

2. This manner of holding that feast, whensoever it began, had no warrant from the first institution, but was (as many other things) taken up by the Jews in after ages, and so the Bishop proveth not the point which he taketh in hand, namely, that the days spoken of in this text were enacted or appointed to be kept as holidays.

3. The service which the Jews in latter times use upon the days of Purim is not much to be regarded. For as Godwin noteth out of Hospinian,(847) they read the history of Esther in their synagogues, and so often as they hear mention of Haman, they do with their fists and hammers beat upon the benches and boards, as if they did knock upon Haman’s head. When thus they have behaved themselves, in the very time of their liturgy, like furious and drunken people, the rest of the day they pass over in outrageous revelling. And here I take leave of the Bishop.

_Sect._ 10. Thirdly, We say, whether the days of Purim were instituted to be holidays or not, yet there was some more than ordinary warrant for them, because Mordecai, by whose advice and direction they were appointed to be kept, was a prophet by the instinct and revelation of the Spirit, Esth. iv. 13. _Non multum fortasse aberraverimus_, saith Hospinian,(848) _si dicamus hoc à Mordochcæo et Hesthera, ex peculiari Spiritus Sancti instinctu factum_.

Bishop Lindsey believeth(849) that they had only a general warrant, such as the church hath still, to put order to the circumstances belonging to God’s worship, and all his reason is, because if the Jews had received any other particular warrant, the sacred story should not have passed it over in silence.

_Ans._ Thus much we understand from the sacred story, that the Jews had the direction of a prophet for the days of Purim; and that was a warrant more than ordinary, because prophets were the extraordinary ministers of God.

_Sect._ 11. Fourthly, As touching the feast of the dedication of the altar by Judas Maccabeus, 1. Let us hear what Cartwright very gravely and judiciously propoundeth:(850) “That this feast was unduly instituted and ungroundly, it may appear by conference of the dedication of the first temple under Solomon, and of the second after the captivity returned from Babylon. In which dedication, seeing there was no yearly remembrance by solemnity of feasts, not so much as one day, it is evident that the yearly celebration of this feast for eight days, was not compassed by that Spirit that Solomon and the captivity were directed by; which Spirit, when it dwelt more plentifully in Solomon, and in the prophets that stood at the stern of the captivity’s dedication, than it did in Judas, it was in him so much the more presumptuous, as having a shorter leg than they, he durst in that matter overstride them, and his rashness is so much the more aggravated, as each of them, for the building of the whole temple, with all the implements and furniture thereof, made no feast to renew the annual memory, where Judas only for renewment of the altar, and of certain other decayed places of the temple, instituted this great solemnity.”

2. The feast of the dedication was not free of Pharisaical invention. For as Tremellius observeth out of the Talmud,(851) _statuerunt sapientes illius seculi, ut recurrentibus annis, octo illi dies, &c._ Yet albeit the Pharisees were called _sapientes Israelis_, Bishop Lindsey will not grant that they were the wise men of whom the Talmud speaketh; for, saith he, it behoved those who appointed festivities, not only to be wise men, but men of authority also.(852)

But what do we hear? Were not the Pharisees men of authority? Why, saith not Christ they sat in Moses’ chair? Matt. xxiii. 2. Saith not Calvin,(853) _In ecclesiæ regimene et scriptura interpretatione, hæc secta primatum tenebat_? Saith not Camero,(854) _cum Pharisæorum præcipua esset authoritas_ (_ut ubique docet Josephus_)? &c.

Doth not Josephus speak so much of their authority, that in one place he saith,(855) _Nomen igitur regni, erat penes reginam (Alexandram) penes Pharisæos vero administratio_? And in another place,(856) _Erat enim quædam Judæorum secta exactiorem patriæ legis cognitionem sibi vendicans_? &c. _Hi Pharisæi vocantur, genus hominuum astutum, arrogans, et interdum regibus quoque infestum, ut eos etiam aperte impugnare non vereatur?_

There is nothing alleged which can prove the lawfulness of this feast of the dedication.

It is but barely and boldly affirmed by Bishop Lindsey,(857) that the Pharisees were not rebuked by Christ for this feast, because we read not so much in Scripture; for there were many things which Jesus did and said that are not written in Scripture, John xxi. 25; and whereas it seemeth to some, that Christ did countenance and approve this feast, because he gave his presence unto the same, John x. 22, 23, we must remember, that the circumstances only of time and place are noted by the evangelist, for evidence to the story, and not for any mystery, Christ had come up to the feast of tabernacles, John vii., and tarried still all that while, because then there was a great confluence of people in Jerusalem. Whereupon he took occasion to spread the net of the gospel for catching of many souls. And whilst John saith, “It was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication,” he gives a reason only of the confluence of many people at Jerusalem, and showeth how it came to pass that Christ had occasion to preach to such a great multitude; and whilst he addeth “And it was winter,” he giveth a reason of Christ’s walking in Solomon’s porch, whither the Jews’ resort was. It was not thought beseeming to walk in the temple itself, but in the porch men used to convene either for talking or walking, because in the summer the porch shadowed them from the heat of the sun, and in winter it lay open to the sunshine and to heat. Others think, that whilst he saith, it was winter, importeth that therefore Christ was the more frequently in the temple, knowing that his time was short which he had then for his preaching; for in the entry of the next spring he was to suffer. Howsoever, it is not certain of what feast of dedication John speaketh. Bullinger leaves it doubtful;(858) and Maldonat saith(859) that this opinion which taketh the dedication of the altar by Judas Maccabeus to be meant by John, hath fewest authors. But to let this pass, whereas the Rhemists allege,(860) that Christ approved this feast, because he was present at it. Cartwright and Fulk answer them, that Christ’s being present at it proveth not his approving of it. _Non festum proprie honoravit Christus_, saith Junius,(861) _sed cætum piorum convenientem festo; nam omnes ejusmodi occasiones seminandi evangelii sui observabat et capiebat Christus_.

_Quasi vero_ (saith Hospinian(862)) _Christus Encænoirum casua Hierosloymam abierit_. Nay, but he saw he had a convenient occasion, _ad instituendam hominum multitudenem, ad illud festum confluentiam_.

Even as Paul chose to be present at certain Jewish feasts,(863) not for any respect to the feasts themselves, nor for any honour which he meant to give them, but for the multitudes’ cause who resorted to the same, among whom he had a more plentiful occasion to spread the gospel at those festivities than at other times in the year.

I had thought here to close this chapter; but finding that, as the parrot, which other while useth the form of a man’s voice, yet being beaten and chaffed, returneth to his own natural voice, so some of our opposites, who have been but erst prating somewhat of the language of Canaan against us, finding themselves pressed and perplexed in such a way of reasoning, have quickly changed their tune, and begin to talk to us of warrants of another nature nor of the word of God. I am therefore to digress with them. And I perceive, ere we know well where they are, they are passed from Scripture to custom. For if we will listen, thus saith one of the greatest note among them, Bishop Andrews(864) I trow they call him: “We do but make ourselves to be pitied other while (well said) when we stand wringing the Scriptures (well said) to strain that out of them which is not in them (well said), and so can never come liquid from them (well said), when yet we have for the same point the church’s custom clear enough. And that is enough by virtue of this text” (meaning 1 Cor. xi. 16). And after he saith, that we are taught by the Apostle’s example in “points of this nature, of ceremony or circumstance, ever to pitch upon _habemus_, or _non habemus talem consuetudinem_.”

_Ans._ 1. The text gives him no ground for this doctrine, that in matters of ceremony we are to pitch upon _habemus_ or _non habemus talem consuetudinem_, so that he is wide away, whilst he spendeth the greatest part of his sermon in the pressing of this point, that the custom of the church should be enough to us in matters of ceremony, and particularly in the keeping of Easter; for the custom of the church there spoken of, is not concerning a point of circumstance, but concerning a very substantial and necessary point, namely, not to be contentious: neither doth the Apostle urge those orders of the men’s praying uncovered, and the women’s praying veiled, from this ground, because so was the church’s custom (as the Bishop would have it), but only he is warning the Corinthians not to be contentious about those matters, because the churches have no such custom as to be contentious. So is the place expounded by Chrysostom, Ambrose, Calvin, Martyr, Bullinger, Marlorat, Beza, Fulk, Cartwright, Pareus, and our own Archbishop of St. Andrews, in his sermon upon that text. And for this exposition, it maketh that the Apostle, in the preceding part of the chapter, hath given sufficient reasons for that order of covering or veiling the women; wherefore, if any would contend about the matter, he tells them they must contend with themselves; for they nor the churches of God would not contend with them,—they had no such custom. But if we admit Bishop Andrews’ gloss, then why doth the Apostle, after he hath given good “reason for the veiling of women, subjoin, if any man seem to be contentious,” &c. The Bishop resolveth us, that the apostles saw that a wrangling wit would elude these reasons which he had given, and he had no other reasons to give, therefore he resolves all into the church’s practice,—enough of itself to suffice any that will be wise to sobriety. _Ans._ If any seem to be blasphemous, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. What! shall a wrangling wit elude the reasons given by the Spirit of God, in such sort, that he must give some other more sufficient proof for that which he teacheth? Then the whole Scriptures of God must yet be better proved, because the unstable do wrest them, as Peter speaks, 2 Pet. iii. 16.

(Transcriber’s Note: There is no section 12 in the original book.)

_Sect._ 13. 2. The custom of the church is not enough to pitch on, and it is found oftentimes expedient to change a custom of the church.

Basilius Magnus(865) doth flatly refuse to admit the authority of custom: _Consuetudo sine veritate_ (saith Cyprian),(866) _vetustas erroris est. Frustra enim qui ratione vincuntur_ (saith Augustine),(867) _consuetudinem nobis objiciunt, quasi consuetudo major sit veritate, &c. Nullus pudor est ad meliora transire_, saith Ambrose(868) to the Emperor Valentinian. _Quaelibet consuetudo_ (saith Gratian),(869) _veritati est postponenda._

And again,(870) _Corrigendum est quod illicite admittitur, aut a praedecessoribus admissum invenitur_. A politic writer admonisheth(871) _retinere antiqua_, only with this caution, _Si proba._

Calvin(872) (speaking against human ceremonies) saith, _Si objiciatur, &c._ “If (saith he) antiquity be objected (albeit they who are too much addicted to custom and to received fashions, do boldly use this buckler to defend all their corruptions), the refutation is easy; for the ancients also themselves, with heavy complaints, have abundantly testified that they did not approve of anything which was devised by the will of men.” In the end of the epistle he allegeth this testimony of Cyprian: “If Christ alone be to be heard, then we ought not to give heed what any man before us hath thought fit to be done, but what Christ (who is before all) hath done; for we must not follow the customs of man, but the truth of God.”

What can be more plain than that antiquity cannot be a confirmation to error, nor custom a prejudice to truth?

Wherefore Dr Forbesse(873) also despiseth such arguments as are taken from the custom of the church.

_Sect._ 14. 3. There was a custom in the churches of God to give the holy communion to infants; and another custom to minister baptism only about Easter and Pentecost. Sundry such abuses got place in the church.

If, then, it be enough to pitch upon custom, why ought not those customs to have been commended and continued? But if they were commendably changed, then ought we not to follow blindly the bare custom of the church, but examine the equity of the same, and demand grounds of reason for it.

St. Paul (saith Dr Fulk(874)) doth give reason for that order of covering women’s heads: “By whose example the preachers are likewise to endeavour to satisfy, by reason, both men and women, that humbly desire their resolution for quiet of their conscience, and not to beat them down with the club of custom only.”

4. Whereas the custom of some churches is alleged for the ceremonies, we have objected the custom of other churches against them; neither shall ever our opposites prove them to be the customs of the church universal.

5. A great part of that ecclesiastical custom which is alleged for the ceremonies, resolveth into that idolatrous and superstitious use of them which hath long continued in the kingdom of antichrist; but that such a custom maketh against them, it hath been proved before.(875)

6. If it were so that we ought to pitch upon the church’s custom, yet (that I may speak with Mr Hooker) the law of common indulgence permitteth us to think of our own customs as half a thought better than the customs of others.

But why was there such a change made in the discipline, policy, and orders of the church of Scotland, which were agreeable to the word of God, confirmed and ratified by general assemblies and parliaments, used and enjoyed with so great peace and purity? Our custom should have holden the ceremonies out of Scotland, hold them in elsewhere as it may.