Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 1 · Section 6
SECT. 15. Concerning Protestants arguing negatively from Scripture.
1. THe first quotation by the Def. chosen to answer, is out of D. Mortons Apologie: of which it is sayd by the Replier, that the Def. his answer is, he meant not matters mearly Ceremoniall, but doctrinall, and so he affirmeth the meaning of our argument to bee, if by mere Ceremonies, he mean mere order and decencie, as he interpreteth himself in the ende of this section, Heerupon the Rejoynder asketh, if we call this a Replie? I answer yea: because it sheweth, all that is opposed, though it be granted as true, nothing at all to crosse or contradict our argument, in the right meaning of it. Now marke what he hath to say, why it should not be called a Replie. 1. The Def. telleth not onelyonly what he meant, but where his meaning doeth appear, and the Replie sheweth not that he hath not meant as he sayd. As if eyther the place where a thing is spoken, did adde any weight unto the speache! or all, that mean as they say, doe speak to the purpose. 2. It is partialitie to take up the word mere in this place, and not sect. 3. But this doeth rather shew, that though the Replier took no knowlege of this me…e shift, when he first met with it, yet afterward, seeing it often repeated, marked some emphasis to be placed in it, and so did not spare it before, upon partialitie to one section more then another, which seemeth a strange conceit.
Howsoever this doeth neyther prove the replie none, nor yet non-sufficient. 3. He pronounceth it untrue, that the question here is not of mere Ceremonies and rites: which charge he groundeth upon the word specially in the service of God. But that word doeth shew the specialitie of our question to be about the matters of Gods service, or worship, suche as significant Ceremonies are, and mere order is not. 4. Hee is styled a deceyved man, that thinketh signification put upon a Ceremonie, doeth necessarily make it more then a mere Ceremonie.
To which I answer, that if he that thinketh so, is a deceyved man, then the Rejoynder doeth deceyve, when in his Manuduction, pag. 33. and 39. he teacheth that speciall instituted signification, doeth make a Ceremonie double or treble more then mere single rites of order.
2. The second quotation is out of D. Mortons Appeal, l. 2. c. 4. sect. 4. where is confessed, he speaketh of Ceremonies, but of Doctrinall onelyonly, suche as sopping in of bread into the cup, etc.
Wherupon question was made, why this Ceremonie should be accounted more doctrinall, or more unlawfull, then the Crosse in Baptisme.
To the former part of this quaere, the Rejoynder answereth that the Def. hee himself & all suche, in this question meane by Doctrinall, a thing taught in the word and that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is taught in the word. As if it had been asked, why the Sacrament is more doctrinall then the Crosse? and not if Sopping be so? But here it is diligently to be observed, how wee are deluded in this wholle argument, and other also, with the shadow of a wordly distinction, betwixt Doctrinall, and Rituall Ceremonies. Wee say, God hath appointed all Ceremonies properly religious, which are to be used. They answer, that this is true of all doctrinall Ceremonies, but not of rituall: that is to say, as here we are taught, God hath appointed all Ceremonies that he hath appointed, but not all that he hath not appointed. Wee say, it is not lawfull for man to adde unto Gods institutions, in religious worship. They answer, this is true of Doctrinall, but not of Rituall additions: that is, by this interpretation, Man may not adde unto Gods institutions, any of Gods institutions, but mans onelyonly. Let this be borne in minde for all answers that hange on the hinges of this distinction.
To the other part of the question, the Rejoynder answers that sopping of bread in wine is worse then the Crosse. 1. because the crosse maketh no alteration, of what Christ did ordayne saying doe this. 2. it is not substituted in the place of Baptisme, as sops in wine were by those Haerteikes in place of the Supper. 3. it is not esteemed an instrumentall signe of any grace given by the use of it, as they took their sops to be. 4. their sopping destroied the very Sacrament. And for these differences, the Repl. is bidden to hang downe his head, for asking suche a quaestion. But 1. Addition is as evill as alteration. For when Christ sayd, doe this, he meant as well, doe this onelyonly, as doe this all. Fac hoc totum: fac hoc tantum: as Zanchie expoundeth it. Addition also is some alteration, if not of the things instituted, yet of the institution, as making it unsufficient, or incomplete, by it self alone.
2. Sops and wine were not substituted in place of bread and wine, but were bread and wine. Neyther were they first or onelyonly, or (for any thing appeareth) at all▪ used by Haereticks, as the Rejoinder for his advantage, without ground, avoucheth, but by ancient Churches, at least in some cases: as is manifest out of Prosper, de Promissionibus, Dimidium temporis, cap. 6. Puella particulam corporis Domini intinctam percepit, etc. Sopping was so farre from being a matter of Haeresie, that as it seemeth, it was receyved among the Fathers, so longe as infants communicating in the Lords Supper, which was, as D. Morton confesseth, Appeale, lib. 2. cap. 13. sect. 3. for sixe hundred yeers.
3. Sopping of bread in wine, considered abstractly from bread and wine, was no signe instituted as an instrument of grace.
For so sayth Cassander pag. 1027. out of Ivo: this custome of Sopping prevailed onelyonly through feare of shedding and not by direct authority. 4. It is too severe a sentence,Invaluit hac intingendi consu…tudo, non aut…ritate, sid timore effusionis. against those ancient Christians, in Prospers time and (which is more) as Cassander and Hospinian judge, in Ciprians, that they destroyed the very substance of Sacrament. The setting forth of Christs death was not excluded, though some part of the bloud was representatively joined unto the body. A man is dead, that lieth in his bloud, though some of it soak againe into his body. The Fathers, sixe hundred yeers together, did not destroy the substance of the Sacrament. Hitherto therfor appeareth no cause for the Repl. to hang downe his head. Let us see if more cause be in the comparisons he maketh betwixt sopping▪ and crossing.
The first was, the bread and wine (the onelyonly things used in sopping) were ordeyned by Christ: so is not the Crosse. The Rejoynder answereth here nothing to the purpose, save onelyonly, that they were ordeyned to be used apart. From whence it followeth onelyonly that it is unlawfull to use them not apart. And so it followeth, that Baptisme must as well be used apart, orseparated from the Crosse: because it was ordeyned so to be used, and the Crosse was not ordeyned for any religious use, eyther apart, or with other thinges.
The second is, that sopping hath some agreement with reasō, Crossing hath none. The Rejoynder hence maketh two consequences: 1. Ergo Christ in ordeyning the Sacrament otherwise, hath doen some thing not agreable to reason, 2. Ergo the Churche in Crossing hath been void of all reason, fifteē hundred yeare. And upon these groundes, he crieth out of madnesse. But so madnesse may be found in any assertion, if it be first put out of the right wittes or sense, as this is. For the meaning was not, that Sopping is agreable to right reason in the Sacrament, but in civill use, where the aeriall Crosse hath none. Yet▪ it may be added, if it were lawfull for men to adde to Gods ordinances in the Sacraments, then ther would be founde more probabilitie of reason to bring in sopping into the use of bread & wine as a manner of food, thē a mysticall aereall crosse into the use of water which is no manner of washing. As for the Churche, it hath not universally used the crosse so longe, except the Waldenses, and others like unto them, were none of the Churche.
The same Churche, that used crossing, used also for divers hundreds of years, to give the Sacrament of of the Supper unto infants, without reason, and the continuation of the Crosse more hundreds of years, addeth no reason unto it, except reason in suche things doeth increase with their age. Many thinges have been used in the Churche without reason: or else ther is reason wee should still use all that have been used, caeteris paribus. If ther be any good reason in the crosse, let that be tried by reason, and not by slipperie conjectures taken from the persons using it.
The third comparison was, that Sopping was used by Christ, at the very table of the Supper, but Crossing was never so muche honored by him or his Apostles, as to use it at any time. The Rejoynder answereth, that this argument would prove as well, that the eating of a Paschall lambe before the Sacrament, to be better then Sprinkling of water on the fo…ehead of the Baptized. Because CHRIST did that, and not this. But this is not so well. For that 1. Sprinkling of water is no instituted ceremonie distinct from that washing which Christ and his Apostles used. 2. It is very probable that the Apostles goeing into the colder part of the world, did use sprinkling.
3. Concerning a Paschall lambe, used before the Sacrament, as a Ceremonie morally significant and reductively Sacramentall, I see not why it should not be praeferred before the Crosse or any suche invention, even because Christ did use it, if that Circumcision be now a lawfull Christian Ceremonie, as the Def. and Rejoynder professe and mainteyne, pag. 285. It is also crediblie reported a great Bishop, not long since living, that every Easter day, he used to have a wholle lambe, praepared after the Pascall manner, brought to his table. D. B. knoweth well who it was, and of whom he hath heard it.
The fourth comparison was, that sopping was no new signe, but Crossing is. The Rejoynder opposeth that it had been an abomination to eat the Pascall lambe sodden, but the addition of sitting or leaning on couches (though a new signe added by them selves) was lawfull etc. Of which speache, the first part is granted, viz. a sodden lambe had been an abomination: neyther isa sopping communion excused. In the second, ther is observable partiallitie, in that he calleth setting an addition to the Passeover, and yet in the same answer, with the same breath, denieth the crosse to be any addition unto Baptisme. The ground of all is rotten, viz. that sitting was a religious significant Ceremonie instituted by men.
These thinges considered, let any man judge what cause the Rejoynder had to talke in this place, of the Repl: his roome-conscience, contentious spirit, smitten with giddinisse, forsaken of wisdome?
In that which followeth about sopping, ther is no new matter to fasten any dispute on, proper to this place, but only why some ceremoniall sopping may not be used, as neare to the Communion, as the Crosse unto Baptisme? The Rejoynder answereth. 1. because it is not so safe, to use visible elementarie signes in holy actions, as a transient Character. 2. Because suche sopping were worse then the use of any other bodily element, as comming so neer to the very institution. Where 1. it is to be marked, that a religious Ceremonie, of soppes and wine, immediatly before or after the Communion, is not found unlawfull, but onelyonly not so safe as the Crosse. By the same proportion, Ceremonious eating of flesh, and fish, in the solemnitie of the Communion, is onelyonly not so safe, not unlawfull. Hath not the Crosse brought us to a faire market? 2. If the Crosse be not a visible elementary signe, what kinde of signe is it? Character noteth a most proper signe: aereall is elementarie: crossing is eyther visible, or else it is no sensible signe: because it cannot be heard, felt, tasted, or smelled.
If he meaneth a permanent substance, beside that he crosseth his owne definition of a Ceremonie, an action &c. in other places he defendeth images, in this very section, he leaned even now, upon couches, as upon safe Ceremonies amonge the Iews.
3. The outward neernesse or likenesse of a humane Ceremonie, to a Divine Sacrament, is allowed on elsewhere by the Def. and Rejoynder both: as when cap. 3. sect 7▪ they mainteyne as Christian, a Ceremoniall sprinkling of men with holy water, wherin, both water and sprinkling, have as great an outward neernesse unto the outward elemēts of Baptisme, as any thing cā have.
If the outward materiall shew of neernesse unto a Divine Sacrament, doeth make a Ceremonie unallowable, then muche more, suche a formall significant neernesse, as is betwixt Baptisme, signifying our putting on of Christ crucified, and the Crosse signifying our putting on of courage to fight under, and for Christ crucified.
See heer what further is to be sayd of Iuel, and Whitakers, after the Def. and they are conferred.
3. The Replier, affecting brevitie, and finding no new matter of dispute about the allegations out of B. Iewel, and D. Whitaker, passeth them over, with this reason: in excusing of them, nothing is sayd by the Def. which hath not formerly been confuted.
Now the Rejoynder doeth not goe about to shew that any new thing is brought forth by the Def. about thē, which had beē to the purpose, but onelyonly catcheth up that word excusing, and repeating the accusation, of impertinent alledging them for the negative argument from Scriptures, in case of Ceremonies, which they doe except, hee taketh upon him to discover an undoubted close meaning of the word excuse: and therupon accuseth not onelyonly the Repl. but I know not how many (they, them) of being scornfull out of pride of spririt. Who would have thought that one word (used according to the ordinary courteous fashion of those which in stead of plaine denying, use the phrase, (excuse me) could have stirred up suche a passion, or occasioned suche an injurious surmize? But to excuse this, which I hope we may doe without any offense, I will yeeld so muche unto his importunitie and challenge, as breifly to shew, that neythe B. Iuell, nor D. Whit. did excepte suche Ceremonies as ours, when they speak of the Scriptures fullnesse. Iuel in the first article sect. 29. alledgeth for the negative argument, Origen, concluding that in the Lords supper the bread is to be eaten, and not reserved unto the morrow, because that Christ did not commande that reservation to the morrow. Now that this reservation is a ceremonie, and a lawfull one also in D. Morton his judgement, appeareth plainely ou… of his Appeal, where (lib. 2. cap. 5. sect. 1.) he sayth plainely, that we may grant a longer time of reservation then two or three days, with a reference unto the intent of participating of it by eating.
D. Morton therfor cannot be defended in saying that Iuel excepted ceremonies.
For D. Whitaker his not excepting of significant Ceremonies from the Negative argument, may appear partly by his negative silence, and partly by his expresse assertion, de Sacramentis, pag. 203. for unto Bellarmine his assertion, that the Churche may institute new Ceremonies, for ornament, and for signification, he granteth that of ornament ▪ as he doeth after of order, but no suche consent is given of signification, but rather the contrarie: Rudes non sunt Ceremonijs erudiendi: dedit Deas, Scripturas, vt ex ijs rudes institutionem necess…riam haurirent. So in Oper: tom. 1. pag. 116. Augustinus nos illis paucissimis Ceremonijs contentos esse vult, quae in Canonicis Scri…turis cont…nentur.
The trueth is, that our Divines doe ordinarily reject the Popish Ceremonies, upon this ground, So Gallasius in Exod. 22.7.
(*Nihil tale a Christo aut factum, aut institutum. Ergo ne sapientiores nos ipso & Apostolis fore arbitremur.)
* There is no suche thing by Christ, either done or instituted, therefore let us not deeme our selves wiser then he or his Apostles.
4. Another omission, wherof the Repl is accused, for which he is called a gentle man, is, that the Def. in the ende of this Argumēt, recalleth the state of the question, distinguishing betwixt mere Ceremonies, & mixt, by mere meaning altogether indifferent, and by mixt, some way forbidden, All which (sayth the Rejoynder) the gentle Replier passeth by. Now sure he might also him self have passed this by, with more credit of the Def.
For what sense is in suche a stated question: whether the Scripture doeth condemne suche Ceremonies, as it leaveth indiff…rent, or onelyonly those which it some way forbiddeth? All that passe by, may see, that this was not worth the taking up.
Yet concerning the mixture of ceremonies with opinion of holinesse, justice, merit, efficacie, or reall necessitie, which here the Rejoynder maketh the onelyonly grounds of forbidding, he is now, in suche gentle manner as is requisite, answered, in the head of Difference betwixt popish Ceremonies and ours.
5. After this, the Repl. is charged with quarrelling, onelyonly because he sayth the Def. answered nothing to a maine poynt, upon which this first argument, in the Abrigement, doeth depende, namely the rules of Ceremonies, that they should be needfull, and profitable, for aedification, the more comely and orderly performance of Gods instituted service, which being wanting in our Ceremonies they cannot be innocent, though all were granted which the Def. mainteyneth. And why is this a quarell?
The Repl. (as it seemeth) can neyther by speaking, nor houlding his peace, gaine so muche favour with the Rejoynder as that in eyther he may passe without some shrewd censorious note. If he holde his peace, he is a gentle man, if he speak, he is a quarreller. But what are the reasons of blame in this place?
1. The Defender (forsooth) was not tied to the Abridgents order 2. It were idle to speak of directive rules, if all humane Ceremonies be unlawfull. 3. If God hath left rules for direction of his Churche in rites and orders Ecclesiasticall, then he hath not determined of them in his word. 4. The Defender hath mainteyned, that our Ceremonies are agreable to the rules of Gods word: so as no Friar dare denie it, nor the Replier professing his name. In all which there is nothing of any moment. For 1. though it were grāted, that the Def. was not tied to the Abridg, order, yet he may be tied to their matter, if he meant to give them a full answer. 2. Though it be needlesse to speak of directive rules in unlawfull Ceremonies as they are simplie unlawfull, yet seing rites of order and decencie, which are confessed lawfull, are by the Def. and others confounded with Cerem. by others esteemed unlawfull, it is very necessarie, that at least the conditions of lawfull Ceremonies should be Demonstrated to agree unto suche Ceremonies as are defended to be lawfull. 3. Though God hath left rules for rites of order and decencie, yet he hath determined of all Ceremonies significant by institution. 4. If the Def. had mainteyned our Ceremonies to be agreable unto these rules of Gods word, it had been the most compendidious way for the Rejoynder to have shewed, where, and how?
For that of the Friar, I easily beleive it. For not one friar of a thousend dare say that any allegation for Popish Ceremonies, though it be out of a leadē legend, is not as plaine a demonstration as any is in all Mathematickes. As for the Repliers concealing his name, that is a poor imputation, For I dare undertake, that the Rejoynder may have names enough for that which is sayd, and upon second thoughtes, he may professe his owne name among them, except he can shew, where and how the Def. hath indevored to prove our Ceremonies agreable to those rules about which this question is moved. If the Def. had performed this before, what need the Rejoynder to have made here a solemne digression, touching the rules for Ceremonies. Which digression of his, shall now have a hearing.
Concerning Rules for Ceremonies.
1. IN the first place, he taketh great exception against one rule propounded by T. C. Rep. 2. pag. 62. that Ceremonies offend not any, especial…y the Churche of God. To this, D. Witgifts mayne answer was, that it was a rule for private men, & not for the Churche. Of this the Rejoynder seemeth ashamed: and therfore seeketh after other exceptions. The first is, that the buisinesse for which this rule is given. 1. Cor. 10.32. was no matter of Churche Ceremonie, but of conversatien. Where he should have considered. 1. that some Churche Ceremonies had of ould their place in ordinarie conversatiō, so these two are not apposite one to the other. 2. that the eating of thinges offered to idols, was a heathenish Ceremonie, and therfor the absteining from it required in Christian Ceremonies. 3. that howsoever this rule is in this place applied, yet Rom. 14.15.20. it is by the same Apostle applied to some kinde of Iewish Churche Ceremonies.
The second exception is, that this rule is morall and generall, belonging to all our actions not particular, for Ceremonies. But if by particular, he meaneth proper, then he overthroweth by this exception, all those rules by himself acknowledged for good (edification, comelines…e and order:) because none of these are proper unto Ceremonies.
The third is that a negative (suche as not to be scandalous) may well be a caution, but not a rule. About which I will not contende.
It is sufficient for our purpose, if it be a caution strictly to be observed in Ceremonies, for suche a rule as is. Thou shall not murder.
2. Another rule urged by T. C. (that Ceremonies tende to the glorie of God) is also rejected by the Rejoynder as the former. But no new reason is brought, but onelyonly that it is a comon rule, not proper to Ceremonies, which in many words is inlarged. Now for this (being the same with that formerly objected about not scandalizing) the same answer which before was given is sufficient. Yet this moreover is to be observed for both these rules: that though they be not proper to Ceremonies, our Divines notwithstanding doe usually apply these and suche like generall rules unto Ceremonies, because the breache of these rules is common to (and as it seemeth inseparable from) humane significant Ceremonies proper to religion, taken from Papists. They tende not in their nature to Gods glorie, but rather to the glory of them from whom they have receyved their being. They are scandalous both to Protestants and Papists, as afterward is declared.
So Vrsine, tom. 1. pag. 365. giveth one rule for Ceremonies, that they be not impious, which is not proper to Cerem: as Bucanus among the receyved rules of Cer. maketh this one, that they be not opposite to the analogie of faith. Because many of the Popish Ceremonies are impious and opposite to faith. And the same Vrsine addeth among other rules, that they be not scandalous. Iunius also in his Hidelberg, theses de tradit. th. 58. requireth in a good Ceremonie, that it be to the glorie of God. So others many. D. Willet in his Synopsis, pag. 110. giveth 4. rules for Ceremonies: two of which are 1. that all thinges be doen to the glory of God. 3. that all thinges ought to be doen without offence.
Yet these rules in T. C. are suche as may not passe without the Rejoynder his censure, layd out in divers digressing pages.
Lastly the Rejoynder himself when he would give a rule for distinguishing good Ceremonies from bad, useth to make this one, that they be free from opinion of merit etc. And yet he will not say that suche opinions are proper to Ceremonies.
3. H. I. is in the last place brought in, as not holding the rules of T. C. Whiche (were it true) is litle materiall, or to the purpose. But what is noted out of H. I. repugnant? He injoineth the same rules to be observed in the determining of mere Circumstances eyther Civill, or occasionall, but denieth the Churc…e to have any power of appointing Cerem…nies meerly Ecclesiasticall. And this is in effect to take those rules away, removing the Ceremonies which should be fram…d by them.
Nay rather this in effect, and cause both, to acknowlege the rules, and onelyonly to point out the true objects to be ruled by them, and to give warning of abusive objects which have crept in under the colours of those true. Whether this discretion of his betwixt Circumstances, and properly religious Ceremonies, be justifiable or no, that question belongeth not to this digression, but to three wholle chapters of this dispute. But if the Rejoynder would know who doeth directly take these rules, and the other also which he acknowlegeth, as they are Scripture Rules, it is one to whome both he and the Defend. are muche beholding to Mr. Hooker by name, whoe p. 95. sayth plainely of one, as well as of other, they are Rules and Canons of that law, which is written in all mens hea…ts. The Churche had for ever, no lesse then now, stood b…unde to observe them, whether the Apostle had mentioned them, or no. Neyther sayth hee therin muche amisse, except that same no lesse bounde. So that as it seemeth, the Defend, and Rejoynder making suche courtesie of proving our Ceremonies agreable to these Rules can very hardly shew, that they are agreable to light & law of nature. After this light skirmish about 2. rules, the Rejoynder soundeth a retrait, and sayth, he will referre the consideration of the Agreement of our Ceremonies to the true Rules, unto a fitter place. But a fitter place can scarce be founde, for here it was challenged by the Replier, here it was promised by the Rejoynder when he craved leave to speak more fully of rules …o be observed: and this is registred in the table, Rules about Ceremonies shewed in a digression. Now after all this, to make onelyonly a few pragmaticall exceptions against 2. rules which he termeth irregular, and out of square, not once touching upon the rules which the Replier required satisfaction about (v. 13. if our Ceremonies be needfull, and profitable for the aedification of the people, by the more comely and orderly performance of that service, whi…h God hath expressely praescribed in his word) and so to put of the buisinesse unto another invisible and uncertain place, this is nothing else but to be the Def. his Second, in the fault he was accused for, but not in releiving of him at all. It was not for nothing that he called the challenge a quarrell, as insinuating it was not a thing fitte to be medled in. The truth is the Rej. in his Conscience, holdeth our Cerem. incommodious, or inexpedient, though not simplie unlawfull: and therfore can finde no place to shew, that they are needfull, and profitable for aedification. I doubt, whether another speciall Commande from the Kinge, would bringe him to printe a treatise about that question?