Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 2 · Section 1
SECT. 1. Concerning worship, distinguished into proper, or essentiall, and unproper, or accidentall.
1. THe Def. sayth, that by proper and essentiall worship, he understood Ceremonies so necessarily required to Gods service, as that the contrarie therof must needs displease him.
Hereupon the Repl. inferred, that all Ceremonies, which serve for decencie, and edification, must needs be proper and essentiall worship: because the contrarie of decencie and edification must needs displease God, in his worship.
Marke now the Rejoynder his answer: The contrarie of decencie and edification displeaseth God. But the contrarietie of particular Rites, serving to decencie and edification, doe not displease him: because they fall into one and the same generall kinde, without contrarietie therto, or therin. As fire & water are not contrarie to an element, nor blacke and white, to colour, nor reasonable, and unreasonable, to a creature: so contrarie orders, contrarie formalities of decencie, and contrarie meanes of edification, are not contrarie to order, decencie and edification. All this answer dependeth upon a distinction betwixt generall, and speciall.
Now 1. This is a certain, infallible rule: what essence soever is founde in any generall, that must needs be in every speciall, conteyned under it. Ther is no essence in an element generally taken, which is not both in the fire, and water, none in colour so taken, but is both in blacke and white, none in the notion of a creature, which is not in man and beast. From hence therfore it necessarily followeth, that if Order and decencie in generall, be essentiall worship, every true speciall of them must needs be so.
2. It is not of, or for nothing, that the Rejoynder doeth so waver in his speache: contrarie Ceremonies serving to comelinesse, and edification, contrarietie of orders, contrarietie of formalities of comelínesse, and meanes of edification. For this meanes, all his answer is at least put out of comely order serving to edification. For that which serveth to comelinesse, and order, all formalities of them, and all meanes are not specialls, under the genus or generall of decencie, order, edification, but under the generall of meanes, formalities, etc. So that the wholle distinction is confounded, by this wordy explication of it. 3. Contrarietie of orders he confesseth, and yet denieth them to be contrarie to Order: As if order contrarie to order, were not contrarie to order! He will say no, not to order in generall. But then that order in speciall, must have some specificall difference, not conteyned in the generall of order, making the contrarietie: which should (if it could) have been declared. By the same proportion, also as he acknowledgeth contrarie orders, he must also acknowledge contrarie decencies, and edifications: and this hath need of declaraiion, because it is a new inventiō ▪ not to be trusted, before it be tried. 4. By order, in this place, must needs be meant good order, otherwise, it were as well order, to set the carte before the horse, as the horse before the carte. Now in good order, the thinges ordered may be someway contrarie, as blacke and white horse set before the carte, and yet the order one and the same: and so in decencie. Edification is onelyonly an ende. But good order, and decencie of the same thinges, in their particular or inviduall use, can be no more cōtrarie to any good order, & decencie of the same thinges in the same use, thē blackto black & white to white. 5. The playne trueth is, that order and Decencie (as they pertaine to our question) doe arise out of the outward disposition and temper of thinges, as health doeth out of the inward disposition and temper of the body, and therfore doeth admit no more contrarietie, then good health doeth.
2. Because the Def. in his distinction, placed Edification onelyonly on the part of Accidentall worship, that was noted as a flaw. To which the Rejoynder answereth, that essentiall parts of worship serve also to edification, and worship of themselves. But 1. this can be no more gathered out of the Def. his words, then that all essentiall worship serveth for decencie: for he placeth these two together, as endes of accidentall parts of worship, that they serve for decorum, and edification. 2. This is but to help a broken legge, with a broken crutche. For essē tiall worship tending to worship of it self, is as broken a phraze, as the former was a distinction.
3. It was noted also, that the Def. confounded appurtenances, and parts of worship. The Rejoynder answereth, that those thinges which are appurtenances onelyonly in proper, simple, and strict sense, are partes of worship improperly, and in a sorte. So in deed at the Vniversitie, amonge Sophisters impropriè, laxè, modo quodam, quodammodo, are woont to helpe at a dead lift. But that which is onelyonly an appurtenance of worship, is no more worship, then a Bishops Rochet, is a Bishop.
4. About the same distinction, a question was made how any worship can be not essentiall, that is, not having the essence of worship in it. The Rejoynder answereth, that these appurtenances have in them the essence of accidentall worship, but not the essence of substanciall. So then, they are essentiall accidentall worship: and why not as well substantiall a…cidentall? A Rochet hath no more in it the essence, then the substance, of an accidentall Bishop.
5. The Repl. his last, was, that those which the Def. calleth accidentall parts of worship, have not (by his owne expresse confession, in this sect.) so muche communion with the essentiall, as the haire of the body (which is but an excrement) hath with the body, and therfore cannot be accounted a part of worship. The Rej. here. 1. answereth, that they are in deed no part of essentiall worship, but of the complement of worship, as garments are of mens externall honour. So that now we are come to have that expressed, which before was implied, the Ceremonies may be called worship, as a Bishops Rochet, or other Bishoply garment may be called a Bishop. Though it might be also further inquired, if Ceremonies be parts of the complement, what the other parts of that complement may bee? Certes he that divided worship into essentiall and accidentall parts, did not mean worship, and the complements of worship, muche lesse, parts of essentiall worship, and parts of complement. If he did, his speache, and meaning, doe not well agree together. 2. He taketh great exception against the terme of excrement, as not well appliable to the hair of ones beard, savouring of a spirit full of rancor, to be judged of God as a reproche, tending to breed scorne and abhorring of these Ceremonies, in the mindes of ignorant mē. At all which a mā might have laughed, if Gods name had beē spared, in so frivilous a matter. All Philosophers, that ever I I heard, or read, heathen, and Christian, call and define the haire of mens bodies, an excrement. All Divines, when they speak of hypocrites in the Churche, compare thē to the hayr of a mans body, under the terme of excrement. I therfore would not be loath to hear one call the hayr of my beard, an excrement. Neyther can I smell any savor of a rancourous spirit, or any reproche, in that phrase. As for breeding of scorne in the mindes of ignorant men, one would thinke, it should not be objected by him, that a litle before spake of Parish-omnipotencie, and stuffeth his booke with suche termes, as I am loath (for his sake) to repeate, but that they cannot be more gently refuted, then by bare repeting, after the occasion of them is discussed.