3. An action of another part of the body is no more forbidden to express the mind by, than of the tongue. God never said, you shall no way express your minds in things sacred or civil, but by the tongue. A change of the countenance may express it; a frown, or a pleasant look. (_Index animi vultus._) Paul did lift up the hand to the Jews when he would speak for himself; Christ made as if he would have gone further, Luke xxiv. Words are not natural signs, but invented and arbitrary in particulars, though the power of speaking words so invented and learned be natural. If it be lawful to use significant words, not commanded in worship, it is lawful to use significant actions (under due regulation). Therefore all the ancient churches, without one contradictor that ever I read of, did use many such. Though Augustine, Ep. ad Januar. sadly complaineth that then they were grown to an oppressive number; yet he never speaketh against the thing itself. To stand up at the creed is a significant expression of consent, which not only all the churches else, but the old non-conformists never scrupled, nor do the present as far as I can learn: whether to sit, stand, or kneel, at singing psalms, is left at liberty. To put off the hat is a significant ceremony or act in worship, not commanded in itself, nor used of old for the same signification as now. And where the covering of the head doth signify reverence, it is better than to be bare. In one country custom maketh standing up, in another sitting and hanging down the head, in another kneeling, in another prostration, to be the sign of reverence, which accordingly may be used in God's service. When covenants between God and the people are renewed, consent may lawfully be expressed either by standing up or by holding up the hand, (by which suffrages in things sacred were used to be given,) or by subscribing, or by voice. For God hath commanded us the expressing of consent, reverence, &c., but left the word, gesture, or expressing sign to liberty. He that affirmeth that God hath left no other signification of our minds in sacred things to our liberty, but tied us to words alone, must prove what he saith (which he must do against Scripture, against nature, and against all the judgment and custom of all Christ's churches and of the world).
III. If laying the hand on the book and kissing it be unlawful for any special matter or manner forbidden more than other significant acts, it is for some of the reasons named by you: which now I will answer.
I. _Object._ It savoureth of the Romish superstition. _Answ._ I. Not at all; prove that if you can. 2. Superstition is the feigning of things to be pleasing or displeasing to God which are not, and using or disusing them accordingly; whatever be the etymology of the word, _Superstitum cultus_, or _supra statutum_, &c. it is certain that the common use of it among heathens (as Plutarch at large) and christians was, for an erroneous, undue fear of God, thinking this or that was displeasing or pleasing to him, to be done or to be avoided, which was not so, but was the conceit of a frightened, mistaking mind. Therefore to say that God is displeased with this signification of the mind, when it is not so, nor can be proved, is superstition. And this is not the solitary instance of Satan's introducing superstition under pretence of avoiding superstition. 3. The sense of the law is to be judged of by the law, and by the notorious doctrine and profession of the law-makers and of the land; which here renounceth the superstitious use of it. But I confess I was more afraid that the papists had too much derogated from the Scripture, than given too much to it. And they profess that they swear not by a creature. Vid. Perer. ubi sup. in Gen. xxiv. 2.
_Object._ But Paræus, &c. in Gen. xxiv. 2, saith, _Non absque superstitione fit cum super crucifixum aut codicem Evangelii digitis impositis juratur, ut fit in Papatu_. _Answ._ 1. But that same act which _in Papatu_ is superstitious because of superstitious conceits and ends, is not so in all others that have none such. 2. It is no new thing to be quick in accusing our adversaries: but Paræus addeth not a syllable of proof; and if he had, it must have been such as touched not us, or else invalid.