Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 1 · Section 2
SECT. 3.4.5. Concerning the faithfulnesse of Christ and Moses. Heb. 3.2.
1. The Repl. once for all noteth, that the Def. his distributing of our confirmations, from Scriptures, fathers, and Protestant Divines, as if they were like in the intended confirmations, wheras the later are onelyonly used by occasiō of perverse praejudice in our adversaries who require suche thinges, and also in constant stiling the fathers testimonies, judgements, and others confessions, the Repl. I say noteth onelyonly that this is some wronge, except it be onelyonly idle Rhetorick. For this, the Rej. flieth in his face, saying he noteth himself an egregious wrangler, his notes are notorious Cavills, and wrangles, and shews what spirit he is of. I will not say this shewe…h what spirit D. B. is of: for I doubt not but his spirit is better then here is shewed. Yet this sheweth what spirit he took upon him with the person of a Rejoiner.
Is it so great a fault to suspect the Def. of some wrong-doeing, or of using Rhetoricke, without any moment, in variation of phrases? To doe some wronge unto an adversarie in propounding his allegations after another manner than he meant, is so ordinarie, that the suspicion of it, and that with exception, cannot be accounted so heynous a crime as those toothed termes import. Praejudice is as common fault, and all praejudice is some way perverse. The Rej. after p. 461. accuseth all those of aversenesse, by distraction, stupiditie or praejudice, which doe not feel that organiall musicke worke muche upon their affections (in and to Gods worship) though he knoweth as good mē as our adversaries denie it. Yet he would not have us, nor will wee, from thence gather, what spirit he is of. Rhetoricke is no more an ill word, then Grammar, or Logick. Idle is nothing but without use: and so the Rej. himself confesseth the Def. his variations to be, in making judgements and confessions all one. Neyther could he finde what to say against the former suspicion, without fayning a new objection, which the Repl. maketh not, of aequalling Divine and humane authoritie. The onelyonly fault was, that such things which might be well spoken to another, were spoken to a Bishop.
2. Concerning Heb. 3.2. (to omitte altercations about what was sayd or not sayd by the Def. and take what the Rej. will have sayd, or sayth himself.)
The Rej. sayth that a distinction is made, of Ceremonies whereof some are substantiall Divine, and Doctrinalls, and have particular determination in Scripture, some are not substantiall, called, Rituals, and mere Ceremonie… : the former have particular determination in Scripture, but not the later. Now (to let passe, that this distinction concerneth not …he proposition which formerly was sayd to be denied because there is no mention in it of any terme here distinguished) let any man of reason consider the sense of this distinction: Ceremonies are eyther substantiall, Divine, Doctrinall, that is, suche as have particular determination in the worde, or else not substantiall, that is, suche as have no particular determination in the word; the former have particular determination in the word; but the later have not. Which is as muche as to say; those Ceremonies which have no particular determination in the worde, have no particular determination in the word. This explication cannot be excepted against, except Divine and Doctrinall Ceremonies be not all one, with Ceremonies determined by doctrine Divine, which neyther the Defen. or Rejoynder or any considerate man for them, will denie. The Rejoynder himself for instance of substantiall, Divine, Doctrinall Cerem: putteth al those of Moses, lawe, many of which were no way suche, but onelyonly in that they were par…icularly appointed of God. And to put the matter out of a…l doubt, the Rejoynder p. 60. telleth us plainly: that the Def. useth, and all of his side doe use in this quaestion, the terme Doctrinall passively, for a thinge taught in the word.
3. For defence yet of this distinction of Ceremonies into dogmaticall, and Rituall, or meer Ceremoniall (though he confesse it is not formall) the Rejoynder nameth all our Divines, but citeth onelyonly D.A. as distinguishing betwixt Doctrinall and Ceremoniall points of religion. Whiche, if it be so, what make…h this for distinction of Ceremonìes, into Dogmaticall and Rituall, or meerly Ceremoniall? But let us view the places cited. The first is in Bel. Ener: tom. 1. pag. 66. Where it is sayd, that for the most part, the fathers by traditions, meane rites and Ceremonies, receyved without Scripture, concerning which, wee dispute not, and they were too l…berall, though when they judge out of Scripture, they plainly condemne unwitten traditions. What is here, that can help, the Rej.
The fathers spake of Ceremonies, which neyther Scripture, nor themselves, judging out of Scripture, did allow of: of them the quaestion was not in that place, though in other places it is handled by the same author, in the same book, as De Pontifice, De Sacraementis, De cultu Sanctorum:
Ergo the distinction of Ceremonies into, Dogmaticall and Ritual or mere Ceremoniall, is allowed.
The second place is in the 71. pag. of the same booke: the Apostles elsewhere have written nothing in the dogmatical kinde, which Paul had not preached to the Galatians. Where Dogmaticall is opposed to Prophetical… praedictions, suche as S. Ihon in the Revelation taught, as Bel. there alledgeth. And not to any thing, not particularly conteyned in Scripture, Ergo (sayth the Rej.) the distinction of Ceremonies into Dogmaticall particularly contayned in Scripture, and Rituall, not so conteyned, is allowed as good. The consequence is a baculo ad angulum.
4. The Repl. sayd that Ceremoniall is sometime opposed to morall, and sometime to Substantiall, but not to Doctrinall. Heerupon the Rej. concludeth, that therfore, the distinction of Doctrinall and Ceremoniall Ceremonies may be allowed, because (forsooth) as there be some morall Ceremonies, viz. all those which are appointed of God, and some other, so there bee some Ceremoniall doctrines, or doctrinall Ceremonies, and some other.
Where 1. the consequence is suche as the former: Sometime Ceremoniall is opposed to morall, and substantiall: ergo some Ceremonies are doctrinall, and some onelyonly Ceremoniall. 2. What a miscarying is ther in that assertion, all Ceremonies appointed of God are morall? Was there then no difference betwixt the morall and Ceremoniall law of God. 3. Ther neyther bee, nor can be suche significant teaching Ceremonies, as ours in q…estion, and not be Ceremoniall teachings, or tea…ing Ceremonies: which is all one with Ceremoniall …o…trines, or doctrinall Ceremonies.
5. The Hierarchie (being quaestioned to whiche of these heads it belongeth) is referred by the Rejoynder to both in severall respects. So then, the distinction is not reall, but rationall onelyonly, in respects.
I see not why all lawfull rites ordeyned by men, may not as well be referred to both. Neyther doe I thinke our Hierarchie would take it well if they should be called Ceremoniall Prelates: and Doctrinall for the greatest part they are not found to be actively, nor can so be proved passively, so farr, as they differ from those ministers many of whom they will not suffer to be Doctrinall, because they cannot be at their pleasure Ceremoniall.
6. Concerning the rest of the third section, all that is rejoyned, dependeth onelyonly upon the terme mereCeremoniall Ceremonies. This terme the Replier did not understand (as it seemeth) according to the Authors meaning; neyther can the Rejoynder interpret it, but with suche sense as was formerly declared. Mere Ceremonies are not onelyonly suche as the Rejoynder p. 33. called single Ceremonies, for in the same place, he maketh significant rites, having relation to a further worship, suche as ours are, double, or triple Ceremonies. So that this mere Ceremonie can be nothing else, but a Ceremonie which God hath not instituted for his worship: and so the Def. and Rejoynder mainteyne here onelyonly this assertion: those Ceremonies which God hath not instituted, are not instituted by God. Whiche is so evidently true, that it cannot escape the imputation of idlenesse, eyther to dispute for, or against it. OnelyOnly this I note, that by this distinction, God cannot appoint a mere Ceremonie in his worship, though man can: for if God appoint any Ceremonie, it is (eo ipso nomine) doctrinall, substantiall, morall. No merveyl therfor if God have not appointed mere Ceremonies, seing he cannot appoynt any suche, but man onelyonly can doe that.
7. Concerning Heb. 3.2. it is further answered sect. 4. that the faithfulnesse of Christ, and Moses was aequall, and alike in reall faithfulnesse, because they both did that which was commanded them of God. But howsoever this be true, yet if it were Gods revealed will, that more immediate meanes of worship should be instituted in the Christian Churche, then Christ hath instituted, who was ordeyned to institute the meanes of worship, and Moses (as is here supposed) instituted all suche meanes of worship in the old Testament, as God would have instituted, it followeth, that the faithfulnesse of Christ, was not so extended to all the necessities of the Churche, as Moses his faithfulnesse was.
8. Concerning faithfulnesse in Rituall ordinances, the Def. mentioned the ordeyning of two essentiall and necessarie Sacraments. Which allegation the Replier esteemed nothing to the purpose. Yes verely (sayth the Rejoynder) it is some thing. It is in deed something, but this something is nothing at all perteyning to mere Rituals. For so the Defend. and Rejoynder both confesse expresly, that these two Sacraments are not mere Rituals.
9. The Def. addeth, that as Moses appointed Ceremonies, so Christ removed them. Whiche explication of Scripture being blamed by the Replier, the Rejoynder answereth 1. That it is not an interpretation of the text, but an answer to an objection from the text. And yet the same Rejoynder in his Summe of the Def. his answer that it is a comparison of the fidelitie of Christ and Moses. And all the text, and objection, from the text, consisteth in this comparison. 2. It is a proper answer sayth the Rejoynder, for if Christ was faithfull in removing Ceremonies, before necessarie, then be neede not praescribe other Ceremonies then simplie necessarie, and so not all mere Ceremonies. Is not this a proper consequence? ther is no connexion at all betwixt the first and second part, the appointed Ceremonies are therfore onelyonly called simplie necessarie, becaus they were appointed by Divine authoritie: and yet of suche it is sayd, that Christ neede not appoynt other, wheras in deed he could not appoynt other; and that he needed not appoynt mere Ceremonies, that is Humane, which if he should have doen, it had implied a contradiction, mere Ceremonies (in the Def. and Rejoynders opinion being suche as are not appointed by authoritie divine. 3. It is added by the Rejoynder that the fidelitie of Christ appe…red in removing those Ceremonies of Moses, and the thing compared is fidelitie. Both whiche are true, but not to the purpose: because the comparison is not in fidelitie abstractly considered, but in fidelitie about the building and furnishing all the howse of God; of whiche, the abolishing of Mosaicall Ceremonies, is no substantiall part.
10. About the Repl: his answer to a place cited out of Calvin the Rejoynder observeth much irreligious way wardnesse, with falshood, and three grosse untruthes, in one short sentence. Whiche it pleased him to note also in the Table of his principall or most observable Contents: the Replier found guiltie of three grosse untruthes together. p. 15. This peal of terrible words make suche a noise in the readers ears, that he cā scarse hear, what may be spoken for the partie accused. But if he will hearken a litle, it shal be made plaine unto him that hastie passion onelyonly (in reasons absence) made all this ratling sound.
The first wayward, false, irreligious, and grosse untruth is, that the Def. should have dealt more plainly, if he had cited Bellarmine, and why (trow ye) is it so great a crime, for to say the Def. might have dealt more plainly? because (forsooth) no dealing could be more plaine, then to set downe the very words of Calvin, with the place, where they are to be found. Now be it so, yet it is not so heynous an offence to say some dealing, might be playner then that which is most playne, but as the Secretaries and Proctors of our Prelats cour…s doe in imitation of Criminall inditements (wherin always stand felonious etc.) aggravate every trifling accusation, and citatiō, especially those which concerne a Bishop, as ungodly, irreligious, false etc. so must he that writeth, against any thing praejudiciall to Praelats, secundum stylum Curiae, But the trueth is that any other mans words set down according to his meaning, is more plaine dealing, then to set down Calvins, beside his intention.
The second way ward, false, irreligious, and grosse untrueth is, that the same words, whiche the Def. citeth out Calvin, are found in Bellarmine, de Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. the contrary wherof, the Rejoynder doeth averre upon his credit. Now here is to be marked, that the Repl. spake not of every word the same, nor understood individuall samenesse, but like onelyonly, and so did the Rejoynder understand him, when he sayth upon my credite ther be no suche words any where in Bellarmin, of suche words is the credit pawned.
This being praemised, let these words of Bellarmin in that very place exstant, be well considered.
For as muchas the law of the OLD TESTAMENT was given to one people and for a certeine time onelyonly, as till the comming of Christ, Quia lex Testaments veteris dabatur uni tantum populo, & ad certum tempus, nimirum usque ad Christi adventum, votuit facile determinare omn…a in speciali, ut etiam secit. Nam in speciali praescribit omnia etc, At lex Euangelica datur toti mundo I. E. diversissimarum nationum populis, & duratura est usque ad finom mundi. E▪ iderco non oterat tam facile determinare emnia in speciali, ut non essent adhue necessariae leges aeliae. Neque enim possunt diversis…imi populi convenire missdem legibus & ritibus. Itaque Deus mil ius esse judicavit si in Evangelio traderet com…unissimas leges, de sacramentis a… …uarticulis fidei & alta magis specialia, pro locorum & temporum diverfitate, relinqueret instituenda, per Apostolos, corumque succ…ss…res.that law might Easily determine all things in Special, as in deed it aid, for in special it praescribed all things &c. But the law of the gospel was given to all the world i.e, to the peoples of Sundrie nations, and was moreover to endure to the end of the world, and therefore this law of the Gospel could not so easily Determin all things in particular as did the other, that no other lawes might be supposed necessarie then what are found in the new Test. Nor is it possible for diverse nations to agree together in the same lawes and rites, and therfore God judged it far better if he delivered in the Gospel the most general and commune lawes, leaving the more speciall things concerning the Sacraments and articles of faith to be ordered by the Apostles and their Successours according as circumstances of time and place should require.
Let ther also a comparison be made betwixt this, and that translation which the Rejoynder maketh of Calvins wordes.
Calvin sayth, that the Lord hath both faithfully comprised, and perspicuously declared necessaries. Bellarmine sayth, that God in the Gospel hath delivered unto us the most common laws, concerning the Sacraments, and Articles of faith. Calvin sayth, that Christ would not praescribe singularly and specially concerning externall discip…ine, and Ceremonies, for that he foresaw these thinges to depend on the occasions and opportunities of times, nor did he thinke one forme to accord with all ages. Bellarminus sayth, that all speciall thinges could not so easily be determined in the Gospel, so as more laws shold not be necessarie: because ther must be diversitie of laws and ritualls, according to the diversitie of Nations and Peoples, places and times. I doubt not but the Rejoynder upon consideration of this collation, will repent him of pawning his credit for no suche words in all Bel. but I esteeme D.B. his credit better, then I will hold it from his person, let onelyonly his Rejoyning credit be hence esteemed.
The third wayward, false, irreligious, and grosse untrueth is, that in that place of Calvin, ther is nothing at all, which without grosse aequivocation, will serve the Def. his purpose. If this were not true, yet I see no wool answerable to so great a crie.
But let us see what the Rejoynder can finde in Calvines words, for the Def. his purpose. First (sayth the Rejoynder) Calvin differenceth matters meerly rituall, from matters reall, as the Def. doeth. Whiche as the Def. doeth, is not true. For the Def. differenceth Ceremonies into substantiall and meerly Rituall, p: 7. wheras Calvin doeth not difference Ceremonies, nor maketh any mention of mere Ritualls.
Take away that as the Def. doeth, and then the Repl. doeth so also.
Secondly Calvin (sayth the Def.) sheweth that Christ hath left mere Rituals at the Churches choyse under generall rules onelyonly. Now heare that aequivocation which the …epl. spake of, for by Ceremonies, Calvin understandeth no suche thinge, as the Def. and Rejoynder doeth by mere Ritualls. The Def. and Rej. (as Bellarmine doeth) comprehend under that name Mysticall Ceremonies, which the Rejoynder calleth double or treble Ceremonies: but Calvin meaneth onelyonly single matter of order and Decencie. For this cause it was, that the Repl. sayd, the Def. should have dealt more plainly in citing of Bellarmin, then of Calvin.
11. About Calvins meaning the Rejoynder striveth muche, but cannot draw it to his purpose. 1. He granteth, that Calvin meant not to teache, that men may praescribe at their discretion mysticall signes in the Churche whiche is all that we desire. 2. His meaning is (sayth the Rej) that what Ceremonies the nece…sitie and utilitie of the Churche doe require, may be ordeyned by the Churche. This is expounded in Calvins own words, translated thus by the Rejoynder what soever the necessitie of the Churche shall require for order and decencie; which is the same that the Repl. sayd. 3. Some toleration of some Ceremonies like unto the Iewish, Calvin is sayd to give, sect. 14. But that which he speaketh ther obscurely, he doeth in this 36, sect interpret plainly:
Testor, eas demum Humanar constitutiones me probate, quae Dei authoritate fundatae, & ex Scripturis desumptae, adeoque piorsur divinae sunt. Exemplur… sit in gericulatione, d…m solemnes habentur proces.I witnesse that I do onelyonly approove such Humane constitutions which are founded by the authority of God, and taken out of the Scriptures and so altogether divine, let kneeling in Solemne prayer be an Example. 4. Because Calvin was interpreted out of himself, to speak of things necessarie in their kinde, the Rejoynder opposeth, that absteyning from bloud Act. 15. and suche like things are not necessarie in their kinde. I answer yes: because the kinde under which they were found, was absteining from scandall. So Calvin, sect. 22. (which place is alledged also by the Rejoynder for the institution of Ceremonies not necessary in their kinde, because it is there taught, that weak brethen first comming from Poperie, and not yet seing their freedom in some in different things, are not rashly to be offended, by publicke practise of suche thinges) Calvin (I say) answereth in the same place: Who but a calumniator, Quis, uisi callumniator, sic novam serri ab ess leg…m dicat, quos constat duntaxat, scandalis occurrere, quae sunt a Domino satis disertè prohibita? Nihilo autem magis & de Apostoles dici potest (Act. 15) quibus nihil aliud p…opositumerat off…nsio…u… materiam tollendo quam divinam urgero legem do vitanda offensione.Can say that, So a new law was made by them, who onelyonly as appeareth, went about to praevent scandals, expressly enough forbidden of the Lord? Nor can ought more be sayd of the Apostles Act. 15. who intended nothing els by taking away matter of offense then to urge the Divine law for avoyding offense. But Calvin sayth the Def. epist. 379. teacheth that some scandalous thinges must be borne with, And what is this to the allowing men to institute Ceremonies unnecessarie in their kinde, which is the quaestion in hand?
5. The Rejoynder objecteth further, that the particulars, and not generalls are appointed as necessarie. Which is the verie same that the Rep. said, the kinde is allwaies necessarie and the particular doe so varie by circumstances that some time they may be necessarie, and so appointed, sometime not necessarie, and so not to be appointed. 6. When the Rejoynder perceyved that this testimonie of Calvins maketh nothing for significant Ceremonies, he at last denieth the quaestion here to be of significant Ceremonies, but of Ceremonies. He might as well denie the quaestion to be of sacred Ceremonies, or as he calleth them of double Ceremonies, but onelyonly of Ceremonies. And thus is that very ambiguous aequivocation wherwith the Def. was charged, by his Rejoynder, confessed. For what is else but to aequivocate, when all men know the quaestion to be of one kinde of rites onelyonly, to bring an argument which concerne rites in deed, but not of that kinde?
12. After some pretye phrases of the Repl. his running away, looking backe, shewing his teeth angerly, the Rejoynder in answer to a sad argument, that Humane Ceremonies properly of religious nature use and signification, suche as Crosse and Surplice, are not necessarie in any Churche, nor any ways more necessarie for England, then for any other nation; or then holy water and suche other Ceremonies would, In answer (I say) to all this, the Rejoynder repeateth againe his confuse aequivocall terme of Ceremonie, denying the quaestion to be here of Ceremonies properly religious in theyr nature, use, and signi…ication. i. e. suche as Crosse and Sirplice are, as if we, disputed here of an indetermined idaea. And upon this miserable shift, not knowing what to answer unto the demands propounded, (without speaking directly against his conscience and knowen profession) he telleth the reader (both in text, and table) that the Repl. hath plainly abondoned Heb. 3.2. and so retireth again to his fort, of phrases, of demolishing his Castle, firing his Trenches, running away, & of his chaffe and stubble, caried away before the Def. his windie words, After all which, as a good Canoneer, he dischargeth (as he calleth it) one piece of ordinance after his flying enemies, which is this Basilisko: You (run aways) teache some Ceremonies to be unlawfull, though not forbidden, because they are not commanded. Ergo. But alas this shot hath no mettall of trueth or sense in it, and therfor will never hurt us.
Is any man so voyd of reason, as to teache any thing to be unlawfull, & yet cōfesse it is no way against law, or forbidden? Those that say, the Ceremonies are unlawfull, because they are not commanded, though they be not forbiddē, doe evidently mean, that though they be not specially and by name forbidden, yet they are generally forbidden, by that rule which forbiddeth man to adde any thing in Gods worship, unto that which God hath commanded, for suche a shot ther is no need of ordinance: as good may be made out of any bell that hath a clapper in it.