A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's worship. Or a triplication unto. D.…A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's vvorship. Or a triplication unto. D.…

11. About material formal sameness, the Replier refused to dispute: that was (saith the Rejoinder) because if he had, he must either have opposed all learning and common sense, or else have yielded to the Defendant, that change of essential form maketh the same material to become another thing; as in the changing of water into wine. But 1. with consent of all common sense, we may say, that our Cross differeth not so from the Popish Cross as the wine did from water, Joh. 2. 2. It were no opposition to all learning (whatsoever Aristotle teacheth) if one should say, that not the form only, but also the matter was in a great part changed, when water was turned into wine. 3. Opinion, and intention, is not the essential form of a ceremonial Cross. For one and the same ceremonial Cross, is used by Papists, to divers intentions, as to represent a Mystery, to cure diseases, to drive away devils, &c. Bellarmine in the fore-cited place. And opinion belongeth to the efficient or making cause, not to the form. 4. The very making of a Cross▪ in such a manner, or with such circumstances, as put upon it a relation to religion, maketh both matter and form of that Ceremony: and so after idolatrously abused, carrieth with it at least a show of an Idolatrous Ceremony. But this show the Rej. referreth unto the fifth chapter: ⟨p. 485⟩and here opposeth only, that likeness and sameness are not one. Which is true of individual or singular sameness, not otherwise: for those things are like which have one and the same quality. But he himself will not say, that only the same individual or particular Ceremonies, which Idolaters abuse, are forbidden to us. He hath hitherto in all this section declined the defence of that absurdity. This quiddity therefore is not to the purpose.

11. About materiall formall samenesse, the Replier refused to dispute: that was (sayth the Rejoynder) because if he had, he must either have opposed all learning and common sense, or else have yeelded to the D•fendant, that change of essentiall forme maketh the same materiall to become another thing; as in the changing of water into wine. But 1. with consent of all common sense, we may say, that our Crosse differeth not so from the Popish Crosse as the wine did from water,