Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 1 · Section 10
SECT. 20.21. Concerning Reasons against the Negative Argument from Scripture.
1. THe Def. his first reason is: Whatsoever is unlawfull is a trangression of some law revealed in the word. Ergo against it. Ergo not onelyonly beside it. The Repl. granteth all: and sheweth, that it is a meer fantasie, before confuted, as a cavill, in the Replie, and longe since, by Mr. Cartwrights, 2. Rep. p. 56. not agreable to the very words of the Argument, to which it is opposed. VponUpon this the Rejoynd. powreth out words He turneth head: O strange! a Babe owned from the birth, suckled by many Scriptures, an ill favoured faced brat, absurd, contradictorie, when he is taken in a snare, he sa…th he is mistaken. And what reason hath he to back or bear out all these words with? If the Scriptures (sayth he) condemne what soever is doen not onelyonly against, but beside t…e direction therof, then doeth it condemne something as unlawfull for being onelyonly beside it, and not any way against it. To which I answer, that it doeth not follow: because a thing may be onelyonly beside the word some way, and yet some way against it. OnelyOnly beside the particular praescript of it, and yet against the generall command of it.
If a Father charge his sonne, or a Maister his servant, first that for a certain time, he doe nothing beside that which he shall bid him: and then commande him for that time, to read in a certain booke, if that sonne, or servant, shall beside reading paint antick f…ces in his booke, he shall doe onelyonly beside the particular commande, and yet against the generall charge, & both ways censurable. Let the Rejoynder therfore spare his words, and see better to his Argument, or rather eat both, that others be not troubled with them.
2. The second reason, brought by the Def. was: Nothing that is indifferent, can be pronounced simplie unlawfull. But some Ceremonies of mans invention are indifferent. Ergo, not to be pronounced simplie unlawfull. All whiche is granted of circumstances of Order, if by invention, be meant determination; otherwise, the Assumtion is denied. Though it was added also (exsuperabundante) that thinges indifferent are sometime taken so generally, that in that sense, the proposition may be denied. Against this, I cannot discerne what materiall thinge is Rejoyned. He sayth, that it is easy to say the Assumtion is false, and not to shew wherin. But I have hitherto thought that it is sufficient for answer to any Argument, to denie the Assumtion, untill it be proved: and that the falsitie of any sentence, doeth consist in this, that it pronounceth otherwise then the thinge is, and therfore in saying an assumtion is false, it is not needfull, to shew wherin.
He sayth also that the largest sense of thinges indifferent, doeth make no variation of thinges indifferent. But the Author, and place, was named to him: Sopingius in his Apologie ad lib. Anonym. pag. 166. Where the case is very pertinent. For Doctor Sibrandus was challenged by a Remonstrant, who intituled his book, Bona fides Sitrandi, that as in an Epistle Dedicatorie to the Arche-Bishop of Canterbury, he had, to winne his favour the more against Vorstius, and his, declared his judgement of the Hierarchie (and Ceremonies) of England, to be thinges indifferent, so he spake of the Magistrates power, under the same terme unfitly, Sopingius, a godly learned man, whoe had beē a Scholler under Sibrandus, and so desired to help him out of this brier, had no other way to doe it, but by saying that all those thinges are sometime called indifferent, which are not necessarie to salvation, or without whiche a man may be saved.
Now in this sense, the Repl. sayd, the proposition might be denied: viz. that nothing indifferent 1. e. not necessarie to salvation, is unlawfull. The Rejoynder …it seemeth) had not the booke, and so ventured to contradict he knew not what.
3. The third argument was: There must needs allways be varietie of Ceremonies in severall Churches. Ergo all are not praescribed.
The Repl. answereth, that ther neyther need, nor ought to be any varietie, but onelyonly in particular circumstances of order, for time and place etc. Here the Rej. (complayning of Coleworts, and of not caring to say any thinge, so it be in opposition) bringeth in to the contrarie some examples of civill decencie, variable according to times and places. But all suche thinges the Repl. conteyned in his etc. He addeth also varietie of solemne feasts But before those can have place here, it must be proved, that suche feasts must needes be. But (sayth he) never any Divine so spake before Mr. Iacob. And hath he soon forgotten, what was even now recited by himself out of Iunius? Suche kinde of Rejoynders will never be wanting.
4. The Def. his fourth reason was, that the Nonconformists like well, that every Minister in his Parish, should determine of Rites and Orders: whence would follow varietie. Ergo they holde some rites of humane invention and ordination, lawfull.
To this the Rejoynder addeth, as an explication in text, and table, that Non-Conformists set up Parish-omnipotence without referen…e to Bishops, as some teache, or to Synods, as other. Wherby a Minister, and some of his Parishioners, may ordeyne some Rites and Ceremonies for their use, and the King, and Churche under his authoritie may not. Now before we come to the Repl. his answers unto the Def. his reason, let us consider a litle the Rejoynder his addition. 1. The malignant imputation of Parish omnipotencie, ill beseemeth our Opposites, except that they can shew, more power to be given by us unto Ministers and Elders, in their severall Congregations, then by them is given to Bishops, For untill they can shew this (which they are as able to doe, as to call effectually that which is not, as if it were) in accusing us, of setting up Parish omnipotencie, they confesse themselves, to set up Diocesan omnipotencie, Convocation-omnipotencie, etc.
2. It worse beseemeth D. B. then most other, except he wil confesse, that he, when he was Minister at the Hagh, in Holland, and with the consent of his people, ordered thinges in that Congregation (as to receyve the Communion sitting at the table, to leave out the Crosse in Baptisme, and Surplice in all Divine service) did then and there set up Parish-omnipotencie. 3. It is an injurie, more then ordinarie, to make us (any way) extoll the authori…ie of a Minister, above the authoritie of the Kinge, in any matter of appointing and ordeyning. For though a Minister may doe something in his administration, which no other man can lawfully doe, yet none of us ever thought, that he may appoint and ordeyne any thing to be doen, with coactive authoritie, which the King may doe, in all thinges lawfull, and convenient; even in Churche affaires. So that our tenent is, that the Minister, and his people, may use no Ceremonie, nor exercise any publicke act of worship, which the King may not appoint, commād, and compell them to. For in holding that no suche thinge is to be doen, beside that which Christ hath appointed, and that the Kinge may, and ought to see that all Christs institutions be observed, we must needs be confessed to hold that assertion, which is the conclusion of these two. 4. The fallacious ground of this accusation is, that the Minister with his people, may occasionally order some thinges, which no man absent can, not for want of authoritie, but for want of presence to observe the occasion: as what time the Churche meeting shall beginne, upon that day, that the Communion is to be administred, together with Baptisme, and other buisines, more then ordinarie. 5. That which he intermixeth, of reference to Bishops, bringeth all the Churches of France, Netherlands, etc. under his Censoriall note, of Parish-omnipotencie.
Thus much for the Rejoynder apart. Now to the Def. 1. His Argument is rejected, as supposing, all Circumstances to be of like nature with these in controversie. No (sayth the Rejoynder) but onelyonly that one would like one thing, and one another. But I say yes, or else he cannot argue from one to the other. For what consequence is in this: Men may determine of simple circumstances for order and decencie: Ergo they may ordeyne double, treble, sacred, significant Ceremonies proper to Religion? beside he nameth in his supposition Festivall days.
2. The second fault, found in the Def. his argument was, it supposeth all circumstances to be of institution. No, sayth the Rejoynder againe. Let him therfore put ordeyning out of the Summe which he hath made of the Def. his reason, and confesse also, that this reason maketh nothing for mens instituting of Ceremonies.
3. The third was, it supposeth contrarie circumstanc…s, ceremoniously to be practised, by the same men as of institution. Not so (sayth the Rejoynder:) but onelyonly cantrarie fashions practised by severall men, out of their election. Yet it seemeth to be for the most part so: because the question is of Ceremonies, and Ceremonious practising, not of incidentall fashions. Of institution, which the Def. calleth ordeyning, not of voluntarie occasionall election. If by varietie of observing Festivall days, and not observing them, was by the Def. understood of severall men, then in that part he was misunderstood by the Repl. Now upon these premisses, the Rejoynder concludeth all the Repl. his answer to be nothing but bogling and scurrilitie. What would he have sayd, if one had accused him of setting up Diocesan, and Convocation omnipotencie.
It seemeth that (though he aboundeth in that facultie) he would have wanted reproachefull words, to expresse his indignation of suche an imputation.
5. In opposition to this mishapen Argument of the Def. taken from Non-conformists confession, the Rep. propounded one, from the Conformists confession: You say these Ceremonies are Divine, and yet dare not denie, but the rejecting of them in other Churches, is Divine.
You retayne these Ceremonies as Divine, and yet reject other Ceremonies, of like nature, as divine as these. What divinitie (or agreement) is in suche courses? To this, the Rejoynder answereth, that this argueth an ill conscience: because the Def. doeth not say that these our Ceremonies are Divine, but that in respect of permis…ive appointment, and in these, they are divine, in particul…r, and hypothesi, humane. And this may be sayd of the different Ceremonies of severall Churches. For ill Conscience, I will not be so liberall in charging the Rejoynder as hee is prodigall of it toward the Repl. But ill science I can easily prove. For 1. He denieth the Def. to call our Ceremonies Divine: because (forsooth) he calleth them so in the generall, and not in their speciall: for so the Def. doeth interpret his owne termes.
Which is as muche as to say, he that doeth not call them every way Divine, doeth not call them Divine. 2. He passeth by the mayne termes of our Argument Divine rejecting of the same Ceremonies in other Churches, Rejecting of other Ceremomonies, as Divine as these in our Churche; and for these he putteth onelyonly, different divine Ceremon. in severall Churches. This sure is no scientificall kinde of answer. 3. No Divinitie will suffer any thing to be called Divine, but that which (all circumstances considered) may at least necessarily be concluded out of the Divine law. Otherwise all good humane laws may be called Divine laws. Now wee have hitherto exspected in vayne, when our Ceremonies may be so concluded.
It is altogether impossible, that the institution, and Rejection, of Crosse, and Surplice, in divers places, should be both Divine, or that the urging of these, and abolishing of Images, should be Divine, in the same place, and time. This part therfore of the Argument, the Rejoynder thought good, to answer with silence.