Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 1 · Section 7

Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship · Part 2 · Chapter 1 · Section 7

p. 51SECT. 16. Concerning Order, and Decencie,

1. Cor. 14.40.

The onelyonly place (by the Rejoynder his confession, for Ecclesiasticall power, in constituting Ecclesiastical Ceremonies.

THe Defender beginning to confronte and confute our tenent, neyther bringeth, nor can bringe any Scripture, for the authoritie of p. 52Churches to ordeyne Ceremonies, but onelyonly this one, 1. Cor. 14. He sayth, in deed, that he nameth onelyonly this place, not to trouble us with any other at this praesent. But the Rejoynder more ingenuously confesseth, that this is the onelyonly place in the New Testament, by which all Divine… doe conclude, that a power is given to the Churche, to constitute Rites &c.

This place is all the answer they give, or can give, to those that are wonte to trouble them with a quo warranto.

If this place then faileth them, or serveth not their turne, are not our Ceremonies confessed to be appointed without any warrant of the word, at least in the New Testament?

1. Now that it doeth not make to the purpose, it was first shewed, from this, that the Defend. himself concludeth no more from thence, then that the Churche may by vertue of this permission, ordaine any Ceremonies that may be fit for the better serving of God. Which maketh nothing to the purpose, except first it be proved that God is better served with our Ceremonies, then without them. The Rejoynder here 1. denieth this to be his Conclusion, and yet they are his owne wordes, & no other conclusion is mentioned by him, as appeareth in the Rejoynder it self, pag. 74. But by this (sayth the Rejoynder) hee undertakes to prove another thing. Let it be so, yet he must first prove this, which he immediately draweth out of the text, which he doeth not.

Neyther doeth he so muche as name that other thing p. 53which he undertaketh to prove, muche lesse performe his undertaking. This was therfore no fitte place for him to vente his phraze, of shooting beside the Butt. 2. He accuseth the Repl. of insult…ng, because he denied the Consequence, and gave a reason of it: and yet referreth the answer of that reason, to a fitter place I know not where. OnelyOnly he repeateth the often exploded evasion, that the question is whether all lawfull thinges be particularly, or expressely commanded in the word, which none of us ever writte, sayde, or thought. Yet we must be troubled with this groundlesse, uselesse repetition, over and over againe.

2. The onelyonly backe of the Consequence made out of this place, is that all Fathers, and all Divines, (the Rej. addeth, of whatsoever Religion not excepting Socinians, nor yet Anabaptists, whom he useth to acknowledge adversaries to his Conclusion) doe use this place for one and the same conclusion.

Now this is easier to say, then to demonstrate, I doe not finde this place muche used to any suche purpose by the Fathers. Chrysostome expoundeth it of morall vertuous carriage, opposite unto suche perverse walking as if a man goe upon his handes, with his feet upward. Ambrose extendeth it no further then to things mentioned, in that Chapter: secundum ordinem suppra dictum Oecumenius also maketh it a recapitulation of thinges formerly mentioned, of speaking by course, and womens being covered etc. foreign. He Summarily gathers together all that wēt before. Basil p. 54expoundeth it of time and place, ed. gr pag. 530. foreign, and of proportion to be observed betwixt divers members. pag. 459. These are some Fathers▪ Hen…stè, …, ut uno oquente, alij taccant, & mulieres in Ecclesia non loquantur, &c Secundum ordinem, … e. ut primo unus & posteà a…rus loquatur & perpartes, &c.and (as I amperswaded) more then eyther Def. or Rejoynder can bring, so to argue from this place, as he doeth▪ Amonge the ancient Schoolmen, it is hard to finde, where any one of them doeth conclude Ceremonies proper to religion, out of this place. Thomas in his Comm. upon it, doeth so interpret it, that he leaveth no ground for any suche conclusion: Honestly] 1. e. while one Speakes that other be silent,Quemadmodum praescripsi, cuncta siant cum deco…o & ordine, n. quid …urpstudinis, aut tum…ltus exoriatur Paraph and that woemen speak not in Church. in order] 1. e. that first one and then another speake. etc.

Erasmus consenteth: Decently and in order that no uns…emelines or tumult arise.

In locis suis titulo, de tradi…nibus humanis, e…tat verba hac Apostols (omnia honesta somnia honeste & secum dum ordinem fiant) ut comprehet traditiones Episcoporum quibus etc esse anthenticat & cum consciē tia obedientia servandas. Verum non est praescriptum hec Apostoli ad quasvis Episcoporum traditiones referendum, s…d ad ca qua ips… Ecclesijs trad…derat.Amonge later writers, these words are often applied to rites, but in a diverse manner. The Papists, and some other doe prove from hence, theyr double treble, analogic…ll Sacramentalls, as the Rejoynder calleth them. See Hosius his Conf. de ritib. Bap. c. 37. Bell. de effect Sacram. l 2 cap. 31. Balthasar Chavassius. l. 1. cap. 21. and l. 2. cap. 7. where from hence they dispute against Calvin by name. …ccius (sayth Musculus upon this place) In his Commune places, in the title of humane traditions citeth these words of the Apostle let all things be done &c. To justifie the traditiōs of the Bishop… as authentick & su…h as ought to be kept with a C…nsciencie of obedience, but this praescript of the Apostle is not to be applied to any Episcopall traditions, but the Apostles owne, to wit such as he had delivered to the Churches.

p. 55Our Divines (f…w of note excepted) doe onelyonly from hence conclude rites of mere order and decencie. And some of the graver, Papists,Ad decentiam pertinet no mulieres in Ecclesia loquantur ad ordinem, ne plure, simul loquantur. to this day can finde no more in it as Esius in his Comm. upon the place: It belongs to decencie that women speak not in the Church, to order, that many speak not at once. What is now become of All Fathers, All Divines, for one and the same conclusion? M^r. Hooker, pag. 95. doeth directly oppose the Def. his conclusion, contending that the Rules set downe in this place, are the Rules of naturall reason, and not of the Apostle, or properlie of the Scripture, For if this be true, then that is false which the Def. so confidently averreth, that the Apostle doeth here grant a generall license and authoritie to all Churches, to ordeyne Ceremonies: except the Apostle did give Churches licence, and authoritie, to doe that, which by the law of nature, they might doe, and by the light of nature, know they might.

3. The Def. was requested to shew, by what Logick he formeth his consequence from order, decencie, and aedification, unto suche Ceremonies as ours?

The Rej. hath no other Logick to shew for it then this: Sundrie Divines doe manifest the Consequence, because the same particular circumstances, wo…ld not be comely and to aedification in all places and times, the Churche must have power to institute and alter them. But 1. this is not the consequence, meant by the Repl. expressed by the Def. The Apostle sayth. let all thinges be doen orderly, decently, and to aedification. Ergo, he granteth a generall licence and authoritie to all Churches, to ordeyne any Ceremonies, that may p. 56be fitte for the better s…rving of God. 1. e. suche as ours are.

Neyther yet is the Consequence, which the Rej. would have implied by the Def. upon supposition of the former: The Apostle hath granted a generall licence, and authoritie, to all Churches, to ordayne Ceremonies, that may be fit for the better serving of God. Ergo, all Rites and Ceremonies, which are beside the prescription of the word (suche as ours are) are not unlawfull. It is in deed, the very same sentence, which the Rejoynder did so spurne from him, pag. 72. when it appeared under the name of M^r. Iacob: in the distinction, betwixt mere Circumstances, Civill, or Occasionall, and Ceremonies meerly Ecclesiasticall. What a miserable cause is this that our Opposites defende, which deeply concerneth the Consciences of all that urge our Ceremonies, or allow of their urging, and yet cannot be fathered, but on one onelyonly place of Scripture, and that with an invisible and inexplicable consequence?

Concerning an Argument against our Ceremonies, out of 1. Corin. 14. Which is acknowledged to be the onelyonly place in all the New Testament, that can be alledged for their imposing.

1. THe Replier, seeing that all the cause (on the imposers part) dependeth on this place of Scripture, & finding nothing by any Logick p. 57could be drawne from it for our Ceremonies, thought good to trie, if there may not, from the same place be formed a better argument against them. This the Rej. calleth beating up of a new Hare, and loosing the way: as if all the Def. his Retortions, and all the Rejoynder his paper shot which he maketh after the Repl. when he imagineth him ro flie, or runne away, were new Hares, and exorbitations. I know not else what privilege he hath, to use a weight and a weight, one for the Defend. with him self, and another for the Replier.

2. The Argument is thus put together, by the Rej. pag. 77. All that is left unto the Churches libertie, in things pertayning to Gods worship, is to order them in comely manner. But to appointe and use the Ceremonies as wee doe, is not to order in comely manner any thinge perteyning to Gods worship. Therfore, to appointe and use the Ceremonies as we doe, is not left to the libertie of the Churche, I. e. it is unlawfull. The Rejoynder answereth first to the proposition, and then to the assumption, but so as he mingleth both together, in many words: Yet I will follow his order.

3. First of all he denieth the proposition to be found, in the Repl. his meaning. But I can see no reason of this deniall. 1. Hee sayth, that Order and Ordering is taken sometime largely, for all discipline, or policie, sometime strictly, for rancking of persons and actions handsomely one before, and another after, and so is opposed onelyonly to confusion, as in this place, 1. Cor. 14.40. Now this is far… from overthrowing the proposition, in the Repl. his meaning. For the Repl. meant order in the strict sense, p. 58which maketh also for his purpose: and this the Rej. granteth to be the meaning of the Apostle in this place 1, Cor. 14.40. Which place the same Rej. pag, 75. confesseth to be the onelyonly place (in the N. Test.) by which power is given to the Churche to constitute Cerem: Frō both which layd together it necessarily followeth that all which is left unto the Churches power under the title of order, is ordeyning in the strict sense, 1. e. rancking of persons and actions handsomely, as the Rejoynder expoundeth it. Yet immediatly after he accuseth the Repl. for saying order to be the right placing and disposing of thinges instituted, for time, place, etc. not shewing why this disliketh him, or wherin differeth from his owne explication. OnelyOnly he sayth that etc. often by the Repl. put to time, and place, is a blind. Whiche is not so, for by etc. is meant all circumstances of like nature with time and place, as number, measure, vicissitude etc. How many Psalmes shall be sunge, or chapter read, what, and how muche Scripture shall be at this or that assemblie expounded, how one part of worship shall succeed another etc. without a blinde.

4. In the next place, the Rejoynder findeth a wrong meaning in the Repl. his use of the phraze (in comely manner:) because afterward in the ende of the Assumtion, he sayth, that comelinesse is nothing but the seemelinesse of order. For (sayth the Rej.) beside that comelinesse of order, ther is other comelinesse. Now this the Repl. professeth immediatly after the words quoted: other where comelinesse may conteyne all naturall and civil handsomenesse. etc. Neyther will I contend about this, p. 59but it implieth so muche in this very place. So that the Rejoynder hath not given any reasō, why the Proposition, or first part of the Argument should not be admitted. Yet after that he hath fathered it upon M^r. Iacob and made the Repl. his disciple, he commeth to examine the proofes of it, though he himself (as is now shewed) hath given sufficient assent unto all conteyned therin.

5. The first proof is, that it is manyfestly collected out of the place in question, 1. Cor. 14. and the Def. seemeth to grāt as much. To which the Rej. answereth. 1. that in that place, three distinct thinges are propounded, Edification, Decencie, Order: and these three cannot be one. But edification being the ende, Decencie and order the meanes, they may well be conteyned in one: decent order, tending to edification, or (which is as much to our purpose) in two: decencie, and order, for edification. A holy Sacrament, decently, and orderly administred, for edification, is not fowr distinct thinges, but one. His 2. is, that these words are the conclusion of the wholle Tract. beginning at the eleventh chap. wherin are handled some thinges onelyonly concerning Decencie, some more properly perteyning to Edification, and some which belonge more peculiarly to Order. Ergo more is commanded in these words, then the comely placing of one thinge after another. Let this be granted, yet it followeth not, that more is left unto the Churches libertie, then order, and decencie, unto edification. For all thinges that are commanded, are not left unto the Churches libertie.

p. 60But that speaking in unknowē tongues which the Rej. doeth referre to edification as distinct from order and decencie, is by good Divines accounted to offende against the order and decencie, spoken of c. …4. and 40. So D. Whitaker, de Script. q. 2. c. 18. disputeth against the use of an unknowen tongue in Gods service, out of this very place: pugnat hoc vero cum foreign quam maxime. 1. Cor. 14.40. 1. e. this mightly overthrowes that good order which he so much stands for. His 3. is, the Defend doeth no way seeme to grant the proposition: because the Repl. undertaketh by argument to rescue this place out of the Def. his hands.

But this nothing at all argueth, that the Def. and the Repl. doe not agree about the proposition, though they dissent about the place, as it is handled in the assumtion. The Papists grant us, this proposition: No phraze is used by Christ, in those wordes: this is my body, but a Sacramentall one. Yet because they denie the assumtion: transubstantiating wordes, are not a Sacramentall phraze, we undertake by argument to rescue this place out of their handes. So the Def. requiring no more, then order and Decencie unto Edification, to be left unto the Churches libertie, for the establishing of our Ceremonies, doeth seem at least to grant, that all which is left to the Churches libertie is order and Decencie unto edification, though he denie these to conteyne no more then mere circumstances, which is the assumtion. Of Edification ther is not mention made in the proposition, because that as an ende, is out of question, and allways included.

p. 616. Peter Martyr is cyted, out of D. Whitaker, de Pontif. pag. 841.844. as agreeing with that which the Repl. would have. Here the Rej. inlargeth himself much for the sake (as he sayth) of those that are unlatined.

1. He telleth us that P.M. doeth distinguish, though not divide, comelinesse from order. Which wee doe also, For take the Repl. his wordes in the most rigorous sense you cā, yet comlinesse of order, doeth distinguish cō linesse from order, no lesse then comelinesse of a man, doeth distinguish it from a man. 2. He addeth, that P. Mart. doeth there instance in the Ceremonie of thrise dipping, and in the observation or institution of Feasts. But let the Reader know, that those words, Ceremonie, observation, institution of feasts, which the Rejoynder hath set downe in a differing letter, to be noted as P.M. his words, are not to be found in the place of P.M. but are added by the Rejoynder for advantage. P.M. expoundeth the meaning he had in all his instances by what place, what time, what manner. If therfore the Repl. did not looke upon that place,Quo loco, quo tempo…, quo mod…. but tooke it on trust, from the trustie hande of D. Whitaker (as the Rejoynder objected to him) yet it proveth good and fitting. So that the Rejoynd. forgetteth himself muche, when upon this uncertaine, and momentlesse conjecture, he compareth the Repl. to a hungrie creature (or dogge) that runneth away with a bare bone. D. Morton once (at the least) alledged some testimonies on trust: and therfore, being challenged for them, he confessed that he had them from M^r. Stocke. Yet the Popish adversarie (author of the Sober reckoning) did not compare p. 62him to a dogge, but onelyonly sayd, that he sente to stockes and stones, for satisfaction about them. Whiche I doe not allege to the disparagement of eyther D. M. or M^r, St. but onelyonly to shew by comparison how the Rej. doeth sometime overflow, in his termes. 3. For D. Whitaker, he telleth us, that hee onelyonly sayth, that Ecclesiasticall laws belonge onelyonly to order, or orderinge, but not as it is distinct from comelinesse. As if any of us did so. The Repl. his words: ordering in comely manner, doe not (I hope) referre all to order, considered a part from all comelinesse.

This is the full summe, of all that Rejoynder had to except against the first allegation. And yet heere upon this nothing, it pleaseth him to accuse not onelyonly the Repl. but these men, of haughtie and Magistrall fashion, gulling, and deceiving, great and shame…ull sinne, and the poor Repl. at the least, for a man destitute of common honestie. It seemeth he was very angry at something. Let the understanding Reader guesse, at what?

6. For more manifestation of the Repl. his vacuitie of comon honestie, the Rej. referreth us to the second testimonie out of Iunius, against Bell. cōt. 3. l. 4. c. 16. n. 86.87. and cap. 17. n. 9.10.12.13.

Omitting therfore unnecessarie repetition, let us heare the reasons of extraordinarie dishonestie, 1. Iunius ca. 16. n. 86.87. sayth onelyonly first, that those humane lawes are onelyonly necessarie, in the Churche, which tende to this, that all thinges may be doen decently, and in order, 1. Cor. 14.40. Secondly, that these are improperly called lawes in the Churche, being more properly constitions, or Canons.

p. 63Now out of the first saying, the Repl. concluded, that Iunius did judge the Apostle to leave no more to the Churches libertie, then to order Gods ordinances in decent manner: And out of the seconde, he inferred the same conclusion: because any Constitution, above ordering in decent manner that which before was injoined, is properly a law. What ex…raordinary dishonestie is here? 2. Iun…u cap. 17. n. 9. sayth onelyonly that to make new laws in divine thinges is to decline 1. c. in poyntes of fayth or necessarie rules of sanctimonie. But Iunius maketh no mention at all, eyther of faith, or sanctimonie, or necessitie, Nor Bell. himself in that place. Neyther is the question there handled, of poyntes of faith or thinges absolutlie necessarie to sanctimonie. All double treble Ceremonies reductively Sacramentall, and worship, are by the Rej. his owne dictates double sacred: and that is it which Iunius meaneth by divine. 3. Bell sayth that the addition forbidden Deut. 4. is of lawes contra…ie to the law of God. Wherunto Iunius n. 10. answereth, t…at any lawes at all, added to Gods laws, are contrarie to the law of God, speaking of proper laws, without any backing of Gods law, binding the Conscience, as he sheweth cap. 16. n. 86.8. Here 1. the Rej. left out those words of Iunius, neyther cantrarie nor beside the word: which if he had translated, then the Readers memorie might have recalled, how this place cited before for the defēce of that phraze, was but shifted by the Rej. p. 46.2. It is to be marked, that the Def. and Rej. there answer to Deut. 4. is the same with Bel. p. 134.3. That exposition of laws without backing, is of the Rej. his owne forging. No suche thinge is founde in the places quoted, nor yet did Bel. professe to defēde any suche thing.

p. 64Of binding the Conscience, enough hath been sayd in the head of Difference betwixt our Ceremonies and Popish.

4. Iunius n. 12. answering to Bellarmines his saying, that God (in the N.T.) gave onelyonly the common laws of faith and Sacram. leaving the specialls to the Churche etc. affirmeth Gods laws to be perfect re, ratione & modo, and those of the Churche to be but Canons and disposings of conveniencie, for better observing of divine lawes.

Where note 1. an example of an etc. for a blinde, or blindinge, which the Rejoynder formerly tould of. For in that ete. is conteyned, pro locorum & temporum diversitate: quia non possunt diversissimi populi conuenire in ijsdem legibus & ritibus. 1▪ e. for this cause, speciall laws of rituall thinges, are left to the Churches libertie, because of varietie, which falleth out now by occasion of times and places: Which is the very thinge that the Rejoynder pawned his credite, Bell. never sayde, pag. 15.16. Note also 2. that Iunius doeth not in this place mētion Canons, as the Rej. pleaseth to alter his words in reciting of them. But Cautions, and dispositions. Now a Caution about the performance of any thing, is not an institution of a new thing. 3. Iunius is found to say as muche as he was alledged for, and to the contrarie we have from the Rejoynder a nihil dicit.

5. Iunius n. 13. sayth onelyonly that Christ is the onelyonly law-giver, that is, to give lawes, that in themselvs and by the very authorite of the law-maker, doe binde the conscience. As if Iunius in confuting of Bell. did onelyonly say the very same thing, with him that he goeth about to confute! p. 65for Bellarmine in that very place sayth: Christ is the cheife law-giver who by his owne Authority can judge and make lawes.Christus solute… legislator crima…us, qui potest suâ propriâ authoritate judicare & leges ferre.

Now out of all these allegations, the Rejoynder maketh his interrogatories. 1. Where be these words all that is requisite, as spoken of Rites and Ceremonies? Answer the sense of these words as spoken of all Ceremonies above mere order and decencie, is cap. 16.86.2. Where finde you in Iuníus that the Churche may constitute no new thinge? Ans. cap. 17. n. 9. this in things Divine is to turne aside, Hoc in divini… rebut est declinate.for the Rejoynder his interpretation of those words, that they mean poynts of faith, and necessarie rules of sanctimonie, is confuted, by conference of Bellarmines words there opposed, who in that place instanceth in Ceremonia…l and Iudiciall laws, and speaketh not at all of faith and necessarie sanctimonie. 3. Where are those words, ordering in seemly manner? Ans. cap. 16. n. 86. those onelyonly humane lawes are necessarie in the Churche, which make that all thinges be doen decently and in order. 1. Cor. 14.40, 4. If the Churche may appoint no new thinge, but onelyonly see to decencie and order, then sayth the Rej. what patent hath she to make particular ordinances for time, and place? unlesse these be no new things. I Ans. 1. Time and place considered as mere occasionall circumstances, are no more new thinges in Gods service, then concreated time and place, were new things in Creation, distinct from the created world. And Calvin inst. l. 4. cap. 10. sect. 22. severely censureth those, that call suche kinde of determinations new lawes: Quis nisi calumniator, sic novam ferri…b ijs legem dicat, quos constant duntaxat p. 66scandalis occu…rere, quae sunt a Domino satis diserte prohibita? If procuring that scandals be avoided, be no new thinge, then neyther is procuring that disorder, and undecencie, for time, place, etc. be avoyded, any new thinge.

As for a patent to appoint double, treble, sacred Ceremonies, it is a vayn thing for them to plead it, that cannot shew it under the great Seal. I doe not thinke, that any earthly Kinge would have his subjects submit thē selves to that power, which is fetched out of a Patent, invisible, and onelyonly avouched by conjectures.

7. A reason was given of the foresaid proposition, out of Iun. de Transl. Imp. l. 1. c. 2. n. 26.27.31. viz. that the Churche hath onelyonly a Ministerie, to observe suche thinges as Christ hath appointed, not authoritie of appointing new thinges. Here the Rejoynder 1. observeth, that those words, (new things) have no foot steps in Iunius. As if new things could be appointed lawfully without authoritie of appointing. Surely, he that denieth all authoritie of appointing, and leaveth onelyonly ministeriall performance of things appointed, he denieth appointing of new thinges. 2. He argueth thus: If the Churche have a ministerie to appoint and doe suche thinges as Christ hath commanded, then must she needs have a Commission legative to appoint and use rites serving to order and decencie. Adde to this onelyonly, and then it is not onelyonly that, but all that which we require. 3. He crieth out of miserable perversion, eyther by grosse negligence, or mistaking.

p. 79And why so I pray? Because (forsooth) all that Iunius sayth is good to prove, that no Ecclesiasticall person hath any power by his calling over temporall Princes. But this is nothing against their delegated dependant power, by Commission. But 1. these are very strange distinctions: they have not any power by their calling, but some by commission. They have not any power over temporall Princes (though they be members of the Churche) but over the Churche they have. 2. The Rejoynder maketh Iunius onelyonly to denie that which Bellarmine never affirmed, viz. absolute independent power of Ecclesiasticall persons, as supreme Lords. Nay Bellarmin answereth to Calvin in the very same manner that the Rejoynder doeth: The Pope is not the cheife lawgiver but the vicar of Christ, Pontisex non est legislator primarius …ed Vicarius Christi, & Christi authoritate leges condit De Pontif. l. 4. cap. 17.& by Christes authority maketh lawes. 3. He addeth that Iunius disp. de trad. distinguisheth betwixt decencie, and the seemlinesse of order alone.

As if this were the maine question? Or any part of the Proposition! or denied by the Repl. at all. The Rejoynder having litle to say that was to the purpose, cacheth hould of one word in the ende of the Assumtion used by the Repl. seemlinesse of order (which yet is immediatly there differēc…d frō other decencie, as well commanded as this) and that he maketh the maine matter of the proposition: whereas the meaning is, that nothing is left unto libertie in Gods worship, above decencie and order, for which these testimonies are brought, and not for the other.

p. 688. For more full support of the foresaid Proposition, a reason is added, from the fullnesse of a perfect law, which leaveth no more unto Ministeriall judges, then needs must.

For answer, the Rejoynder 1. observeth, that some cases are …f necessitie variable, and so left. So the occasions of different Rites and Cerem…nies a…e so various, that if our Lord had fixed any one certayn fash…on, he should have made rather snares then l…ws for his Churche. As, if he had appointed sitting at a table in t…e Communion: or kneeling in prayer. This is strange stuffe. 1. So much is granted, as is desired, viz. that God hath left nothing (about his worship) undertermined in his word. 1. e. uncommanded, and unforbidden particula…ly, save onelyonly that which he could not commande or forbid. Now let any man think▪ and judge, whether it had not been possible for God in his word, eyther to have commanded, or forbidden the signing of those that are Baptised with the signe of the crosse all so well, as Baptizing of them with water? 2, How can that too too bolde and inconsiderate assertion be excused: if our Lord had fixed (or commanded) any one certain fashion of Ceremonies, he had made rather snares, then laws for his Churche. If it had pleased God to commande or forbid the signe of the Crosse in particular, what snare had it been? When God appointed all the Ceremonies of the olde Testament, he did not (I hope) make snares for his Churche, though he did lay a burthen upon it. 3. Wheras the Rejoynder maketh sitting at a table, in the Lords Supper, and kneeling at prayer, to be suche thinges as the Lord could not p. 69command, but as snares, because sometime a table may be wanting, or something to sit on, or abilitie to sit, and so of kneeling, this is as poor a snare to cache any man of understanding in, as one sh…l lightly see made. For 1. Many affirmative commandements of God ther are, which in extraordinarie cases cannot be fullfilled, and cease to binde: as praying unto and praising of God, with our voyce: which is no snare, to him that cannot speak.

The appointing of wine for the Supper, is no snare, though some Countries have it not, and some mē cannot wel drinke it. See Beza ep. 2. Pareus and Symb. Sacram. l. 1. cap. 9.2. I would know, whether it had beē a snare, if God had appointed sitting at the Table, with exception of suche extra ordinarie cases? if yea, then m…che more when men appoint kneeling, sirplicing, and crossing, if no, then our Argument may proceed.

Kneeling in publicke prayer, might have been appointed without snaring, as appearing before the Lord thrise in the yeer, was appointed to every Male in Israel. Deut: 16.16. For (without doubt) many men in Israel, were, by accident, more unable to travel up to Ierusalem, then any Christian that hath knees, is to kneel.

After this observation, of which the Rejoynder sayth it may be as we will, he answereth, that our Lord hath left nothing absolute to the will of his Officers: but hath left even ambulatorie Rites, under generall rules, which will trie them as perfectly, as if every one had been named, and with lesse cumber. But 1. this is nothing to the purpose: because so the imperfectest law that is in any nation upon the earth, if it be worthy the name of Law, leaveth nothing p. 70so absolute to the will of inferior Officers, as that it should be without the generall rules of justice, common good, etc. Nay not without the rules of order & decencie. 2. Concerning the comparison of perfection, betwixt generall and particular rules, though enough hath been sayd before, upon like occasion, yet this I will adde.

If he meaneth, that a generall rule if it be perfectly understood and applied, doeth as perfectly trie as particulars. I grant it to be a trueth. And so was the olde Testament as perfect a rule of Christian faith as the New, thou shalt love thy neighbour, as perfect as the six Commandements of the second Table. But if he mean that a generall rule is as fit and full for our direction of us imperfect men, as particulars are, then I think no man conscious of humane frailtie, will beleiv him.

Neyther doe I beleiv, that he himself is so fully perswaded in Crossing the Baptized, by any rule which he hath out of Gods word, for that, as he is for Baptizing, by the rule of that.

9. The Repl. having (as he thought sufficiently grounded the generall, that a perfect law leaveth nothing more then needs must, unto inferior Officers, goeth on to assume, that in the worship of God, all, but particular Circumstances of order, might easily, be (as indeed they, were) appointed by Christ, and therfore need not be left to the Churches wisdome. VponUpon this, it pleaseth the Rejoynder to say litle to the purpose, in many words. 1. He sayth, that Circumstances of order were not harder to determine, then those of p. 71decencie. Now it is plaine enough, that the Repl. here, naming Order, did also understād Decencie, though he named Order onelyonly. 2. He asketh, what School of Divinitie hath taught the Repl. to say, that our Lord forbore the determining of suche circumstances, because all else was easy. I Answer, no rule of Divinitie did eyther teache the Repl. to say so, nor yet the Rejoynder to impute unto him, which he never sayd.

But if he meaneth (as it seemeth he doeth) because it was not so easie to determine circumstances of time and place as reall worship.

I then answer, that this (as I thinke) the Replier learned out of that Divinitie School, out of which the Def. and Rejoynder learned. That which they cite out of Calvin, pag, 15.16. Iunius is cited to the contrarie, out of Cont. 3. l 4. cap. 17. n. 12. (which place the Rej. looked upon, by occasion of the Repl. his former citation of it.) But hee in that very place, distinguisheth betwixt laws, properly so called, and cautions, leaving onelyonly cautions to the Churches libertie, which is the very same that the Repl. meaneth. The plaine trueth is, that supposing Gods will to be, we should worship him in any place, and any time fitting, it was necessarie, that the particular choise of fitting time and place, should be left undetermined to any particular time or place, exclusively.

Calvin also is cited, as more comely expressing the cause to be, that Christ would not, then that he could not determine suche matters.

p. 72Now though Calvin, being so excellent in his expressions, may easily be granted to have expressed the same meaning in more comely manner then the Repl. yet here was no cause of noting disparitie. For the Repl in saying, all things but particular order and decencie may be easily appointed, did not say what Christ could doe, but what might be easily for us appointed, or with our ease, or with the ease which we doe conceyve of in law giving, or of an ordinarie law giver, having suche authoritie as Christ had. And who doeth not see, that it is not so easie, to appoint every particular place, and time, wherin God shall be worshiped, throughout all the world, then with what worship he shall be served? For that particular description, a thousand books, so great as our one bible, would not have suffized.

The world (as Iohn sayth) would not be capable of the Volumes that must have been written. The Rej. himself pag 89. telleth us of cumber, and much adoe, that would have been, in naming every particular, is not this as much as lesse easy? Yet it pleased him to seek matter or altercation about this phraze, and that (which agreeth not) immediatly after he had without reason accused the Repl. of picking quarrells pag. 88.

10. A Second reason, of the Repl. his proposition, was, that whatsoever in worship is above order and decencie, is worship. Bec. whatsoever is acted by him that worshippeth, in that act, beside ordinarie civilitie, must eyther be an act or meanes of worship, or an orderly decent disposing of those acts, or else at the least idle, and so unlawfull. The Rej. answereth 1. that a significant p. 73Ceremonie for edification, is lawfull, yet commeth not under any of those heads. But he himself confesseth a significant Ceremon: instituted of God, to be essentiall worship, and instituted of man to be worship, though not in it self, of which distinction, enough hath been sayd, in the head of worship. Yet this by the way: A significant Ceremonie for edification, is the same, in it self, by whomesoever it be inst…tuted: because institution is extrinsicall to the thing instituted, and alters it not in it self, internally. If therfore it be essentiall lawfull worship, in it self when it is instituted by God, it is also essētiall (though not lawfull) worship, in it self, when it is instituted by man. Beside that Ceremonie whose proper sole ende is edification, toward God, is properly doen to the honor of God, and so properly divine worship.

His 2, answer is, that comlinesse grounded on civill humane considerations, is not mere civilitie, in sacred actions, and use, but sacred by application. W…ich is very true if civill application be meant by mere civill, but then it is nothing to the purpose. For sacred by application is seemly clothing, put on for to goe to Churche in, and yet is in it self mere civill. The question is not of application, but of internall nature.

Sacred thinges applied to Civill buissinesse, doe not therfore become Civill, for who will say, that Prayer, at the beginning of a Parliament, is a Civill act, though it were used in the Vpper, and lower house, and applied to that Civill meeting, as it ought to be? And why then shall application of Civill decencie unto p. 74Sacred buisinesse, make it alter the nature or name of it?

His 3. answer is, that all meanes of worship are not worship. But he knew well enough, that this was meant of proper means of worship.

His fourth is, that ordering and manner of disposing, is ill divided from comelinesse. Neyther did the Repl. intend so to divide, but rather to conjoine them, understanding by that manner of disposing, comelinesse. But if the Rejoynder had not cached up some shew of confounding comelinesse with order, which was not intended by the Repl. he had been in this argument wholly at a losse.

His 5. and last answer is, that by Basils leave some thinges, in themselfs, may, and sometime must be tolerated. But he should have remembred, that the question here is not of toleratíng, but of appointing and using.

Now if it be lawfull, to appoint and use emptie and unprofitable Ceremonies in Gods worship, let those Worshippers judge, that tremble at the Majestie of God, and are afrayd in any manner to appear emptie and unprofitablie before him.Mandata inutilia prorsus, & vana, inutiles, & frivolae Ceremonia solo spiritu humano adiaventa. Nay (to passe by our Divines) let the Papists themselvs judge. Bellar. de Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. ad 4. confesseth those Ceremonies to be forbidden, which are unprofitable altogether, and vaine praecepts, unproffitable & frivolons Ceremonies, onelyonly by humane Spirit invented. Inanes & inutiles. Estius in Tit. 1.14. Supervacanca, etuibil ad piet item condu…evic….Titus 1:14And de effect. Sacrament l. 2. cap. 32. empty and good for nothing. Morethen needs, and not a jot tending to any Godines, and who not?

p. 7511. Thus farre concerninge the Proposition of our Argument: the Assumtion followeth, which is this: To appoint and use the Ceremonies as we doe, is not to order in comely manner, any thing pertayning to Gods worship. The reason is, because order requireth not the institution or usage of any new thinge, but onelyonly the right placing and disposing of thinges formerly instituted.

1. The Rejoynder answer 1. that order requireth new time, place, and measure: which is a Sophistrie in the Proposition before abused, and confuted.

2. His second is, that ordering in comely manner, or comelinesse requireth the institution of suche formalities, as shall be sutable to the dignitie and varietie of divine actions. Where the terme formalities is not so formall, that a man may spie in it the difference it hath from other thinges, the Rejoynd. in his manuduction, pag. 36. appropriateth it to Bishops Roshe…s etc. evē as they are distinct from Surplices: the Bishops went before the Hearse in …heir formalities, the Clearks in their Surplices. So that it seemeth to mean some Ceremonies of state, and dignitie: of which kinde neyther Crosse, nor Surplice is any. Howsoever, unto ordering of one thing doeth not require another new thing, but onelyonly disposing of that one. For if it did, then that new thing (because that also must be ordered) would require another new thing, and that also for order sake another, so that no one thing could be ordered, without an infinite heap of new thinges.

p. 76As for the Dignitie of divine actions, that is best suited with mans reverent and humble simplicitie, not with outward shews of dignitie, invented by man. The womans ordinarie vaile was more suitable to the dignitie of Gods worship, then if she had adorned her self with golde, and pretious stones.

Pauls plaine cloak was more suitable then the richest Coap in all Rome. If Order requireth outward shews of dignitie, then Rome, which is a confused Babel, may be to all Churches an imitable exāple of religious order, for the Councel of Trent sess. 22. professeth, their masse Ceremonies to be invented. That the Majesty of such a Sacrifice might be set out.

Quo Majestas tanti Sacrificij commendaretur.12. To shew further that Order requireth not suche Ceremonie as ours, the notation of the word was brought in, signifying no suche thing. Now the Rejoynder granteth that originally the word doeth not conteyne within the compasse of it, suche kinde of Ceremonies, though by usage it may. Which is very true: but helpeth not, except the Def. or Rejoynder whose principall Argument is taken from this place, and onelyonly retorted by us, can prove, that in this place, the word order is extended beyond his originall signification. He will not therfore stand with us, about the signification of the word in this place: let order (sayth he) in this place signifie no more then placing. But he maketh his retrait to the word Comelinesse: asking if comelinesse be nothing? I answer yes, it is some thing: but the Replier did not insist in that word, because he p. 77tooke the force of the Def. his Argument from this place principally to lie upon order.

But seeing the Rejoynder hath given up Order, I will adde a word or …wo concerning Comelinesse.

I take this for granted, that seing the Rejoynder confesseth Order heer to be taken in strict signification, as opposed onelyonly to confusion, pag. 78. he will also consent with us, that Decencie in the same place and sentence, is to be taken in strict signification, as opposed onelyonly to the vice of undecencie. Now hence it followeth, that Decencie requireth nothing but that which is necessarie to the avoiding of undecencie.

I aske therfor, if undecencie in Gods worship cannot be avoided, without double, treble, sacred significant Ceremonies, of mans inventing? If not, then the Apostles did muche forget themselves, in their publicke worshipping of God, before men had invented suche Ceremonies, for that is no answer which the Rejoynder after giveth: all Churches are not bound to this or that particular way of Comelinesse. All Churches are bound to avoide undecencie, and to doe that which Decencie requireth, or bindeth them unto. If yea, then Decencie doeth not require suche kinde of Ceremonies.

Neyther doeth it in deed, any more thē Order.Decentiae est cum cultut Dei, idone…t atque convenientibut temporis loci, personae & gestus cire… stantijs absolvitur. De ha… Decentia, Apostolus loqui tur. 1. Cor. 14.4….1 Cor 14:4 So M^r. Perkins, lat. to. 2. p. 888. Decency is, when the service of God is performed with convenient and fitt circumstances of time, place, person, and gesture, and heereof the Apostle speaketh. 1. Cor. 14.40.

The plaine simple trueth, without Ceremoniall affectation, is, that Decencie is (in this place) nothing p. 78but good civill fashion,D…rum apponitur vanita…i, sordibut, …uxni: non est in casuli…, cappl…, aut ceremoniarum lar…is, etc. agreable not onelyonly to worship, but also to any grave assemblie. Decencie (sayth Pareus upon the place) is opposed to vanity, Spottes, ryott it stands not in hoods, Caps, or vizardes of fond Ceremonies. etc.

I dare appeall to D.B. his conscience, if Baptisme be not as decently administred without the Crosse, as with it? and publicke prayers made as decently without a Surplice, as with it? Let Conscience here speak, and the Rejoynder hearkening unto it, wil (without doubt) confesse, that Decencie in this place doeth no more require eyther Crosse or Surplice, then Order, and that both of them together doeth no more require those Ceremonies, then a hundred other, which in England (though not at Rome) are denyed unto them.

To this purpose, M^r. Attersoll, in his second book of the Sacram. cap. 5. sayth well: If they referre all this trash and trumperie (of humane Ceremonies in Baptisme) to order and comelinesse, as Hosius doeth, doe they not therby blasphemously accuse the Baptisme of Iohn, and of the Apostles, of uncomelinesse and disorder? wheras the comelinesse and dignitie of the Sacraments is to be esteemed by the word of God, by the institution of Christ, by the simplicitie of the Gospell, and by the practise of the Apostles: Nothing is more comely, decent, and orderly, then that which Christ commandeth and alloweth: nothing is more uncomely and unseemly, then that which man inventeth in the service of God, and in the celebration of the Sacraments, p. 79therby inverting and perverting the holy ordinances of God.

12. The receyved definitions of Order are brought in to the same purpose, by the Replier. And the Rejoynder yeeldeth so muche as they importe, viz. that order in strict signification doeth not implie suche Ceremonies as ours.

He must therfore eyther prove, that in this place. 1. Cor, 14.40. that word is not taken strictly, which he himself formerly granted, or give up this place which is (by his owne confession) the onelyonly place of all the New. Testament, for warranting of suche Ceremonies, or flie to Decencie, upon which he cannot any more fasten then upon order, as hath been shewed.

Nothing materiall is added in the rest of the Rejoynd. his answer unto this Argument (where our Divines are observed, to distinguish order and decencie from mysticall Ceremonies, the context of the chapter. 1. Corinth 14. Is declared to respect no mysticall Ceremonies, the phrase of Scripture is shewed to consent,) nothing (I say, and the Reader may see) is added: but onelyonly the same thinges are repeated about Order, and Decencie which are now sufficiently discussed.

So that the Rejoynder hath nothing to say to the contrarie, but that wee may safely conclude, Ergo, to appoint and use the Ceremonies as we doe, is not left to the libertie of the Churche, 1. e. it is unlawfull.

p. 58If ther were nothing else against them, in all the Scripture, then this place, beside which the Def. and Rejoynder can finde none in all the New. Testament, for them, any indifferent man would say they are not allowed.

Those that are devoted to the Ceremonies, may shufle up and downe, first to order, and when they are beaten thence, to Decencie, and from Decencie, when they can defend that no longer, to Edification, as the Rejoynder doeth: but all will not helpe. Let them pitch or insist upon one of these grounds, without starting, I will pawne my head, their anchor will come home to them againe as finding no fast grounde, eyther in Order, or Decencie, or edification, for double significant Ceremonies (suche as ours) to ride at.

The Def. could frame no Consequence out of any of these words, the Rejoynder sayth ther is one, but he cannot shew it. To the contrarie consequence nothing is answered of any moment.

And is not this a miserable cause, which hath no place in all the New Testament, which the best Advocates can allege for it, but onelyonly that; out of which it is utterly confounded? To the Defend. and Rejoynders mainteyning such a cause, this testimonie may be given that they would willinglie, so farre as they can, favour thinges which the times favour, and therfore strive to make somthing, of that which maketh nothing for them. In the former section, when Order, Decencie, and Edification, should have been handled as Rules, according to the title of the digression, the Rejoynder soddainly p. 81breaketh off, referring them to a fitter place. Now here in this place, he was constreined to touche upon them, but so softly and sparinglie, that it appeareth he founde this no fitter place then the former, for those reserved considerations. When shall we come to the fitter place?