Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 1 · Section 4
SECT. 12. Concerning that phraze, Ier. 7.31. etc. You doe that which I commanded not.
THat which the Rejoynder (out of his abundant leysure) would needs inlarge most vainly about sect. 8.9.10. & 11. I passe over with silēce: because the Repl: refused to mainteyne that which is there objected, out of unprinted and uncertayn papers.
1. In the twelf section, we are to inquire, whether and how that consequence in Gods worship, be good: I have not commanded this: therfor, you may not doe it.
The Def. and Rejoynder say it is not good, except by not commanding, be unde…stood, forbidding as Lev. 10.1. Deut. 17.3. Which is thus farr true, that except some forbidding be included or (as the Rejoynder speaketh) imported in that not commanding, not commanding c…nnot m…ke a thing unlawfull. But that is the very quaestion whether in thinges proper to religion, not commanding, doeth not include some kinde of forbid…ing.
2. The place mentioned by the Rejoynder: out of Lev. 10.1. doeth most strongly make against him. For the sonnes of Aron are there condemned, for bringing strange, or ordinarie fire to Gods worship, as doeing that which God had not commanded, and yet had not otherwise forbidden, then by providing fire proper to his worship, and not apponting any other to bee used in the tabernacle, and this is the very plea which wee make against Ceremonies of humane institution, in Gods worsh…p. The scope of that text we are taught, by an English Bishop, Babington, in his notes upon that place: Wee may hence learne and setle in our heartes, with what severi…ie the Lord challengeth and defendeth his authoritie, in laying downe the way and manner of his worship, not le…ving it to any creature, to meddle with, but according to praescription and appo…n…ment from him. Content he is, that men shall make lawes for humane matters etc, But for his Divine worship, hee one…y will praes…ribe it himself, and what h…e appointed, that must be doen, and that onelyonly, or else Nad…b and Abibu their punishment expected, that is, Gods w…ath expected, in suche manner as he shall please.
Hee was taught this by Calvin, who upon the place sayth God forbad other fire etc. to be used that he might exclude all adventious rites, and teach that he detested whatsoever was come from elswhere. Let us therefore learne so to attend to the Commandment of God, that we desile not his worship, with any far fetched devises.Alium ignem sacris adh…beri vetuit Deus, ut adventitios omnes ritus excluderet, ac doceret se detesta…i quicquid aliundè profectum erat. Discamnus ergo si… attendere ad Dei mandatum … ejus cultum ullis extraneis commentis vitiemus.
Mr. Attersoll also in his learned and grave Commentarie upon Numb. 3.4. doeth largely declare out of this example, how God disliketh, and disclaimeth mens devises in his service, as trash, trumperie, and mere dotage: instancing (among other devises) in Ceremonies added unto Baptisme.
3. Our reason was propounded in the words of Calvin upon Ier. 7.31. Seeing God under this title onelyonly condemneth that which the Iews did, because he had not commanded it them, therfore no other reason need to be sought for the confutation of superstitions, then that they are not by commandement from God. To which the Rejoynder answereth, that Mr. Calvins conceit holdeth true in proper points of religious worship, which are all praescribed of God himself, but not in matter of rites, not praescribed of God. Now if this be not a miserable conceit, that Gods not commanding doeth forbid that which he hath praescribed or commanded, but not that which he hath not praescribed, or commanded, let any man of sense judge.
Other meaning I cannot gather eyther out of these words, or out of the Rejoynder his doctrine of worship, which was before distinctly weighed, in the head of Worship. Mr. Cartwrites conjecture (as the Rejoynder calleth it) is the very same with that which he calleth Calvins conceit. The Rejoynder his answer also is the same for substance, that it is true in matter… particularly determined by God, but not in matters of order and ceremonie, of which God hath not determined particularly. The sense of which is, that we must depend upon God, so farr as he hath determined particularly, but in other things, we must depend upon men, and in England, upon the Convocation house. But to depend upon God, and his mouth, being to follow onelyonly his determination and what sense then is this, you shall onelyonly follow Gods determination, in those things which he hath particularly determined, but if you please to doe any thing in his wo…ship, which he hath not determined particularly, you may therin depende upon whom you plea…e? For matter of Ceremonie, enough hath beē spokē before: and of order, wee shall after dispute.
4. The rest of this 12. section is spent about the Def, his wonderfull wondring, at our symbolizing with Bellarmine and other Papists, because that as they distinguish sinnes into mortal and veniall, so wee (sayth he) make a distinction of against, and beside the word. About which, the Rejoynder granteth that Chrysostom did well use this distinction, in matters of doctrine, yet he sayth it is not to be extended unto matters of Ceremonie. But (the question being onelyonly about the distinction) it is in the Def. and Rejoynder their opinion farr more appliable to ceremonies, then to doctrines: because they holde many Ceremonies lawfull beside the word, which are not against it, though they holde no suche difference of doctrines. Now this distinction was used by us, according to their conceit, more then our owne. The like is acknowleged of Iunius, that he distinguisheth well betwixt beside and against the Word, in the question of traditions devised for divine worship, 1. e. essentiall worship, particularly determined by God. Which is not so, for in that place, Cont. 3. l. 4. c. 17. an 10. Iunius hath no question eyther about essentialls, or worship, or traditions, but onelyonly about Ecclesiasticall laws, binding the conscience. And if he had, yet that clause particularly determined by God, would spoile all: because in suche thinges ther can be nothing eyther against, or beside the Word. But if it were true, what is the difference, betwixt Iunius and us? The Rejoynder sayth that wee confounde rites with worship, and yet confesse rites not to be particularly described as the other. Which is neyther so, nor so, except he meane those rites, which he calleth double or treble ceremonies: and therin we have Iunius so for us, that not onelyonly in other places, but also in the words next goeing before this in quaestion, he sayth generally, in divine things to coyne new lawes is nothing but to decline. In divinis rebu… novas leges ferre, nihil ab…ud est quam declinare.Yet the Rej. will have it, that Iunius in that place cont. 3. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 10. doe…h refute this distinction, as used by Bell. Marke therfor what are Bell. words, which Iunius confuteth) viz. OnelyOnly a prohibition of addition contrarie lawes is understood.Deut 4 &. 1…. Intelligitur prohibitio solum de addition… legum contrariarum.
Which are the words also of our Defender and Rejoynder. cap. 2. sect. 3.4.5. So that by this interpretation, the distinction is theris, and Iunius confuteth them all, so well as Bellarmine.
The persuaders to Subscription, are also confessed to use the same distinction, but in another meaning. Let the distinction therfore passe (for shame) and dispute of the meaning. But the meaning expressed by the Rejoynder is the very same with ours, save that they differ in the conclusions deducted from it. The altercation therfore which the Rejoynder addeth about some speaches of Mr. Cartwrite, is not worth the answering.
The plaine trueth is, that this distinction is ordinarily used by our Divines, against the Papists, even in case of Ceremonies. D. Fulke against the Rhemists, on Mat: 15.9. Of Popish traditions, some be repugnant to t…e lawes of God, and some are beside them, as idle and unprofitable Cer…monies. It was therfor but an affected quarrel, which the Def. picked, and the Rejoynder mainteineth, about these termes, as if they had any reflection upon the Popish difference, betwixt mortall and veniall sins. Nay in this fashion, the Def. and Rejoynder may accuse our blessed martyrs of symbolizing with the Papists that were the murtherers of them. For they were wonte to use this distinction in the same manner that we doe. So heavenly …radford, in his epistle to the Vniversitie of Cambridge: these which a little after he applieth to Romish ragges, and in his epistle to Walden (extendeth them by name to Ceremonies) opiniōs are not onelyonly besides Gods word, but even directly against it. It is therfor more then time for the Def. and Rejoynder to pull in the hornes of this dodmons accusation, and confesse that they were unseasonablie and rashly put forth upon inconsiderate phantasie, easily uttered, but hardly excused.