Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 2 · Section 4
SECT. 2. Concerning Vrsines and Zanchies judgement, about w…ll-worship.
1. HEere (for brevitie sake) the question was repeated, in these words: whether all willworship, wh…tsoever, is to be condemned, or no. The Rejoynder upon this, first accuseth the Repl. of falsifying and changing the proposition. Now he cannot meane this of words: because the veritie and falsitie of a proposition, doeth not consist in words. And the sense he cannot denie to be falsified. For humane Ceremonies, imposed and observed as parts of Gods worship, must needs be worship proceeding from mans will, or will-worship. This therfore is but a blushing at the name of that which without blushing is defended. 2. The Rejoynder himself doeth, in the very next words, confesse so muche, when he professeth, that some will-worship is not condemned.
But I wonder from what good Divine he ever learned this assertion? The Papists are ordinarily charged by us for teaching, and practising of will-worship: yet diverse of them are ashamed to professe the defense of suche a monster, in plaine termes. ESTIVS upon the Epist. to the Col. Cap. 3. ult. disputing against some one or two Iesuites, that had been forced to let fall suche a speache, sayth of them, as we say of the Rejoynder, Docere non poterunt foreign usquam accipi in bono. They can never shew, that will-worship is taken in good sense, … wed of and not condemned. All our Divines might here be opposed to these two Doctors opinions. But it shall suffize, to allege onelyonly two for the contrarie, and they are Vrsin, and Zanchie, whose authoritie are so muche urged by the Def. and Rejoynd. in this section, Vrsin in the place quoted by the Def. upon the 2. Commandement sayth thus: All fained worship is forbidden: all worship which is not of God, Prohibitur omn…s … fictitius, omnis cultus qut non a Deo, sed ab hominibus est instirutus, cum ve o Deo cultus, seu honor fingitur prastari, aliquo opere quod ipse non praecepit.but sett up by men, when worship or honour is fained to be done to the true God, in some work which he hath not enjoyned. Zanchie also upon the same Com. q. 4. thus: We may not worship God with any other worship (though it be in the kind of ex…ernall and Cerem…nia…l worship) then with that which he hath required in the holy Scriptures to be worshiped of us by. 3. Concerning the examples,Nullo alio, etiam externi & Ceremonialis cultus genere, colere Deum licet, quam quo ipse in sacris …teris se colt a nobis juss…t. Apostolus Col. 2. omaes damnat foreign. 1. e. voluntarios, extra verbum Dei, excogitatos & electos ab hominibus cultus. which are here brought forth of warrantable will-worship, free-will offerings, vowes, and kneeling in publick prayer, enough hath been answered before. Yet briefly againe free-will offerings were onelyonly to be made of suche thinges as were manifestly knowen to be praescribed by Gods revealed will: and so not the offering, but undertaking of it, at suche a time, or in suche a measure, was left unto the free choise of men, according to occasion.
It is no will-worship, to pray thrice or seven times in a day, or to preache thrice in one Lords-day upon speciall occasion. Some vowes are no more worship, for the matter of them (and that onelyonly is left unto choise, no… the manner) then fighting in a lawfull warr, upon the bonde of an oath, is religious worship. Kneeling in prayer is expresly allowed by Gods revealed will: and the determination of it to this or that time, is to be ruled by occasion. 4. As for that conclusion which the Rejoynder draweth from the former groundes, viz. that order comelinesse and edification. 1. Cor. 14. give power to men, for to appoint accessorie parts of ext…rnall worship, first, it hath no connexion with them, as hath been shewed in part, and may further be observed by this, that the inference is, from free-will-offeringes, vows, and Kneeling, that therfore the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. doeth give Churches power to appoint suche formalities as our Crosse, and Syrplice: which is to tie harp and harrow together with a rope of sande. Secondly, suppose it had, then it is not fully and resolutely expressed: because from will-worship of free will-offeringes may as well be concluded essentiall, as accessorie will-worship to be in the Churches power for to appoint it: because they were as essentiall offerings, as other sacrifices, which were by name commanded. If by accessorie worship, he meaneth that which is appointed by man, in opposition to essentiall, as appointed by God (which his manuductive interpretation beareth) then in stead of a conclusion, we have a mere confusion: the Churche may appoint that will-worship which God hath not appointed, but man doeth. Thirdly, the appointing of this or that, doeth not follow upon the practise of free-will-offerings, and vowes, except it be understood, that the Churche might have appointed men, what, and how many free-will offerings they should offer, which were to turne free worship into forced.
2. About Vrsines testimonie, wee have suche turnings, and windings of words obtruded upon us, as aff…rde no matter capable of sad dispute. It shall be sufficient therfore to note onelyonly the passages, which seem to looke towards the question. The Rejoynder pag. 179. tould us, that the Def. offered to confute, out of Vrsine, this proposition: All human Ceremonies which are imposed, and observed, as parts of …ods worship, are unlawfull. Now first upon this, the Repl. brought forth the maine assertion of Vrsin, in the place alledged, viz. that humane Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies, not onelyonly are not the worship of God, but also they binde not the conscience. To this the Rejoynder answereth, that Vrsin in his answer to an objection made against this assertion, sayth, that suche Ceremonies are not worship in themselves, therfore (addeth the Rejoynder) his meaning is, that ther is some true lawfull worship, improperly, and by ac…ident.
Which is as if from these words: mans clothes, or armour, are not a man by themselvs, one should conclude, that therfore they are affirmed to be a man improperly, and by accident.
Secondly, the Repl. noted diverse words of Vrsin, sounding wholly to the deniall of the honorable title of good worship unto human institutions. VponUpon which the Rejoynder complaineth, of willfull omitting these words of Vrsin: worship properly so called doeth so please God, that the contrarie of it would displease him. Where (sayth the Rejoynder) we have an exact description of worship properly so called. But he is herin deceyved. For if this be an exact description of proper worship, then whē a child honoreth his father, he doeth properly and immediatly honor and worship God: because suche an act doeth so please God, that the contrarie of it (dishonoring of ones father) must needs displease him.
And so, in very deed, was the meaning of Vrsin, to call the morall duties even of the second table, worship properly so called. Which forme of speaking, though it cannot be excused from great improprietie, yet maketh it nothing for, but rather against the Rej. because Vrsin heerby denieth human Ceremonies so much to participate the nature & name of worship, as any mean moral dutie of the second tabledoeth, no not so much as the hang-mans office, in the due execution of it.
Thirdly the Repl. observed, that the Def. concludeth the very same thing out of Vrsin, which we mainteyne, and he undertooke to confute, viz. that divine worship properly so called, is that which is ordeyned of God.
To this the Rej. answereth (after an angrie charging the Repl. with a contradctious spiri…, that this is not alledged, because wee denie it, or to confute our proposition, in the sence of Vrsine, but to shew what sence we must holde of it.
Now did not the Rejoynder himself tell us pag. 1794. that the Def. offered to confute out of Vrsin, our proposition? How can this be excused from contradictions (I will not say spirit, but) dealing, to say, and unsay the same thing, in the breath of one and the same section?
Fourthly, to that which the Def. sayd, of Ceremonies, in a large sense, to be helde worship, the Repl. answered, that thts should be proved. The rejoinder is, that the large sense it set downe, viz. as circumstances apperteyning to the setting out of divine worship.
As if we had not required a proofe, but onelyonly an explication. Yet this explication hath no more truthe in this large sense, then if one should say, that all circumstances appertayning to the setting out of a man area man.
But (sayth the Rej.) Vrsin, or at least Pareus sayth, that the genus commune nature of these Cerem. as well as of civil laws is morall, and therfore worship. What could he have sayd more to confute both Defendant, and Rejoynder… they are worship, (and that onelyonly in their generall nature) just as civill things: that is not otherwise then all good deeds are worship. So forbidding, or hindering of false worship (which may be doen by Atheists) is worship, in this uncouth manner of speaking.
One argument yet is of the Rejoynder his owne invention: Suche thinges doen to the honoring of an Idoll were idolatrie, as to build a temple, to the honoring of an Idoll. Therfore the same thinges doen by the rule, to the right ende, are some way a worship to God. Wherin ther are two ambiguous phrases observable: 1. suche thinges. 2. to the honoring of an idoll.
If by suche thinges, he meaneth suche as crosse and surplice, we not onelyonly grant, but urge, that suche thinges doen to the honoring of an idoll, are idolatrie, and therfrom conclude, that suche thinges doen to the honoring of God, are (not some way but) properly, latria, or worship of the true God, though (being destitute of his allowance) false, or superstitious worship. But if he meane suche as circumstances of time, and place, then he accuseth all Princes, that ever granted time, and place, for idolatrous worship, to be Idolaters. Let him consider, how farre this stretcheth.
Secondly, if by to the honoring of an Idoll, he meaneth a devout intention of suche an honor, wee grant, that the taking up of a straw directly to suche an immediat ende, is idolatrie. For howsoever suche intention is not necessarie to externall worship, yet the praesence of it doeth make that worship which otherwise were none.
Yet all circumstances of time and place, which are occasionally applied to idolatrie, are not idolatrie, eyther essentiall, or accidentall. For then the same circumstances, should be (in diverse Ci…ies) both Idolatrie, and also true worship of the true God, as being circumstances of both.
3. Concerning Zanchie. His name is by mistaking, muche abused. For howsoever he distinguisheth worship into that which he calleth essentiall, and suche thinge as are annexed unto it, yet under these annexions, he comprizeth suche thinges as God hath commanded, all which the Def. and Rej. call essentiall worship. His words are these: Things annexed to worship are holy ordinances which among the Iewes were very many, as their temples, Altars, persons, garments, vessels, times &c. And afterward Ministers, Elders, Deacons, Lords Day &c are the holy things of the Christian Church. Annexa cultui sunt s…cra, qua apud Iudae…s permulta erant templa, altaria persona, vesti…enta, vaesa, tempora, etc. et postea: Mini…ri, Praesbyteri Diaconi, Dies Dominicus, etc. sunt sacra Ec…lesiae Christiana.So that Zanchie calleth those annexed, which these men call essentiall worship: what an unhappie witnesse is he, that doeth not agree with them of whom he is produced: But to take all that the Rejoynder would have, this is the summe: If human Ceremonies be some part of externall worship, and yet not of that worship which is essentiall, as Zanchie sheweth, then (in a large sense) Ceremonies applied to religious actions, may be called parts of Gods worship, though not essentiall.
To which I answer, that according as Ramus sheweth, about distribution, sometime adjuncts of a thing may (in a large sense) be called parts, and yet they cannot have the abstractive name of that subject attributed unto them: because the adjuncts of a man cannot (with any sense) be called men. The consequence …herfore of this argument is rotten at the root.
But suche a reason, as that from the adjuncts of a man, to a man, was thus propounded by the Repl. the crosse is annexed to a Sacrament. To this the Rejoynder answereth, that the Crosse is not annexed to the Sacrament, but onelyonly to the solemnitie of the Sacrament, and so it is not a part of the Sacrament, but of solemnitie.
Now here let any man of reason judge, 1. If the Crosse in Baptisme, be not so muche as a circumstance a Ceremonie, or Rite (which all Papists, Lutherans, and our Conformists ordinarily, acknowlege) annexed unto Baptisme? Common use of speache calls that annexed, which is joyned unto another thinge, as an adjunct. Now who can doubt, but the Crosse is so joyned to Baptisme?
2. If the Crosse be not an essentiall part, or member of the solemnitie, and therfore not an annexed adjunct of it, no more then a mans hand is to be esteemed a thing annexed unto him, or his bodie?
3. If this being granted, that the solemnitie of Baptisme is annexed to Baptisme, it doeth not follow, that the Crosse, a maine part of that solemnitie, be not also annexed to the same Sacrament? Such figleaves, so ill-favoredly sowed together, cannot cover the nakednesse of will-worship.