Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 2 · Section 2
SECT. 2. Concerning adding to Gods worship.
IN the second section, the Rejoynder hath nothing materially, to be newly, or now first confuted, save onelyonly that about adding to Gods word, and worship: which onelyonly therfore, needeth here to be discussed.
1. Gods lawes of Praemunire, against all humane presumtions, in his Worship, are famously knowen. Deut. 4. and 12. Thou shalt not adde any thing therto. No man ever writ one sheet of paper against Popish Ceremonies, which did not confute them by these places. The Papists have marked this: Haeretiti accusantes Ceremonias a Deo non institutas, superstitionis, & idolatriae, fundantur praecipue in Deut. 12. Swarez de Relig. vol. 1. lib. 2. cap: 1. The Def. and the Rejoynder theyr answer, is the same, that most Papists use: In these places, where addition is forbidden, is meant onelyonly addition of corruption, not any addition of preservation and additions made divine, not humane. Now 1. for the first part of the first distinction, God forbiddeth onelyonly an addition of corruption, It is worth the considering, which learned Chamier answereth,De Canone, lib. 8. cap: 6. Inductio contrarij pracepti, non solet, imo nec potest quidem Additio nominati In Additione …nim utrumque manet: at cantrariae s…invicem tollunt. The bringing in of a Contrarie praecept is neither used for, nor can be called Addition, for in Addition both remaine, but contraries destroy each other. He that setteth a house on fire, or poysoneth a man, or corrupteth any thing, is not usuallly sayd to adde unto them. 2. By the second distinction, no addition unto Gods will and testament, is more forbidden, then unto mans. As it were a sinne to adde any thing unto Gods Testament as divine, so also were it to adde any thing unto mans testament, or testimonie, and make it his, when it is not his. None may adde any thing to D. M. his Defense, or D. B. his Rejoynder, and make it theirs, when it is not theirs. Suche additions, are usually called lyes, sufficiently forbidden by the ninth Commandemenr: so that no indifferent man will thinke, that nothing more is conteyned in these prohibitions, so often and earnestly urged, in strict reference unto the holy ordinances, and worship of God, which by this interpretation, can challenge no privilege from them.
2. For the second part of these distinctions: humane additions of praeservation, the Repl. observed, that addition was, in the text, expressely forbidden, as a meanes of keeping or praeserving Gods word, and worship: Deut. 4.2. To which it seemeth a contradiction, that addition may be for Keeping, or praeserving. To which the Rejoynder answereth nothing else, but that, therfore addition hindering is forbidden, but not addition keeping. That is, he denieth the conclusion, but answereth not to the proof. But he addeth an example: He that leaves a jewell to be safely kept, doeth not forbid the provision of a Cabinet, with locke, and key, to keep it in. True: Neyther doeth any man dreame, but the Kinges authoritie, and Churches care, may, and ought to be as a Cabinet with locke, and key, to praeserve Gods ordinances and worship. But what is this to additions? and to suche additions, as our Ceremonies in question? The Lords ordinance is, that the Sacrament of Circumcision should cease. For the preservation of this ordinance, the Def. and Rejoynder pag. 285. provide a lawfull Cabinet, under locke and key, that Circumcision as it is used in some places, may be lawfully appointed, and commanded. The Lords ordinance is, that Baptisme should be administred according to the primitive institution, without suche sacrilegious crossings, as are in use among Papists. They have provided a Cabinet, under locke and key, for this, that all which are baptized, shall be crossed. The Lords will is, that his holy supper should be receyved, and used as a supper, notadored.
They have provided, that all men shall kneel in the receyving of it, for a Cabinet, like to the former.
3. Cardinal Cajetans interpretation, was (by the Repl.) alledged addition is forbidden even with the pr…etext of keeping the commaundements of God, as more judicious,(Inhibetur additio, etiam pratextucustodiendi mandat… Dei.) and religious. The Rej. answereth, that Cajetan doeth allow the distinction, of additions, into corruptive, and praeservative, in Thom. p. 3. q. 6. a 8. and that in the alleged wordes, meaneth additions corrupting, though pretented for keeping. Now this is as true an interpretation of Cajetans meaning, and ours also, as can be invented: onelyonly that is wanting, whichCajetan (with us) intended, that all additions for preservation, are but pretenses. But as for Cajetan his allowing this questioned distinction in 3. q. 60. (for 6. was an error) whosoever will looke upon the places, shall finde, that neyther in Thomas, not in Cajetan, is any mention of addition preserving, which here is the onelyonly question. They speak in deed of adding words, to the forme used in Baptisme, and note, some words doe corrupt the sense, and some doe not: but not a word of adding Ceremonies preservative. The wordy additions, which they speak of, are as Thomas hath it, I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Sonne, the Holy Ghost, (and the Virgin Marie:) or as Cajetan hath it: I baptize thee (Sexton what is a clocke) in the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy Ghost. If these be additions of preservation let any Christian, that regardeth Baptisme, judge.
4. It was wished, that the Def. had set downe some examples, of preservative additions. The Rejoynder undertaking it for him, nameth for the Text diverse readings, marginall notes, etc. and for the sense, interlineary glosses, notes, marginall references, and commentaries, and then, readings by sections, building and ordering of Synagogues, and a thousand suche. And in deed he might as well name diverse thousands, as these. But 1. if so many thousand Ceremonies may be added lawfully to Gods law, what meant Augustine, and all our Divines, out of him, to complaine of suche an intollerable burthen of Ceremonies, in regard of their number? 2. Diverse readings, are no more additions, then Coningstable and Constable, are to the Statute of Constables. Marginall notes, no more, then an exposition is to the text, which kinde of addition, the Papists doe wickedly allege for their doctrinall traditions. Interlinearie glosses, notes marginall references Commentaries of the same nature. Reading by sections, building, and ordering, are evidently thinges of meer order, of which, if any man shall say they are additions, then if he be a poor man, he may make great addition to the litle mony he hath, by dividing it into sections, placing it fitly, and disposing of it orderly a hundered ways, to the increase (as it were) of a hundred folde: which would be a welcome doctrine (if it were true) to many a poor man, and even to those which are impoverished by the Bishops silencings, deprivations, and excommunications, for not allowing of additions to Gods worship.
5. It was also justly questioned, if ther were not a deminution, or taking from, for preservation, as well as an addition of that kinde: because in the Text they are joined together, as drawing in one yoke? The Rejoynder answereth no. And denieth the consequence, by example of hardning, and shewing mercy, joined together, without the same mertiorious cause. But 1. the example doeth not agree: because the question was not of a meritorious cause, but of a finall. And in the cheif or last ende, hardning, & shewing merciemercy doe agree. 2. I can easily, finde out a detraction, as of good praeservation, as the addition of a Cabinet with locke and key.
For from a sword, or any other yron weapon, a man may well detract rust, for the preservation of it, From an aguish man, bloud may be detracted, for the preservation of his life, nay sometime a leg, or an arme, may be cutte off, for praeservation of the bodie. So that, all thinges considered, the Rejoynder will upon second thoughts, eyther cashier in Gods worship, his addition of preservation, or else adde unto it, a detraction or deminution of preservation. Calvin in his nineteenth sermon upon Deutrinomie, hath this remarkable sentence.
Let us assure ourselves, we shall ever be unruly and wild-headed, untill our Lord hath tamed us, by long handling, and made us sticke to this grounde, that it is no more lawfull for us, in any wise, to adde any thinge to his law, then it is lawfull for us, to take any thinge from it.
6. It was likewise observed, that this praetence hath been allways the shoeing-horne, to draw on superstition with. For (as Calvin noteth on Matt. 15) Legislatoris ipsi non jactabant, se novum quicquam tradere, sed tantum add…re cavendi formulas, quae media ossent adminicula, ad servandam Dei legem. The olde Maisters of Ceremonies praetended always, that they meant onelyonly to bringe-in additions of preservation. Like enough (sayth the Rejoynder:) But this very inlet of superstitious thinges, under the praetence of bringing in onelyonly preservative meanes, doeth witnesse that suche additions as are preservative, were allways allowed by Gods people, as confirmation of error by Scripture, doeth shew the dignitie of holy Scripture. This is in deed as faire a praetence, for an inlet of superstition, as can be made. But withall it is manifest from thence, that is is no sufficiēt, but a very suspicious answer, for Ceremonies, accused of superstition, to say, and not to prove, that they are preservations. Yet these Ceremonie-mongers had all their pretense properly from meanes of preservation, which are and were always allowed by God, and his people, not from additions.
Our Parliament statutes made for establishing of true religion, are a meanes of praeserving it in England: but I thinke that Hon. Assemblie would take it ill, if the Rej. should publish to the world, that their Laws are additions to the word, and worship of God.
The Rejoynder addeth, that Calvin in the place alledged, doeth account these praetented additions to have been corruptions, from the first. Now (though this is not heer, but in another place, after to be handled) let the Reader gesse of Calvins account, by these his words: Afterward there came teachers who did not think themselves should be esteemed acute enough unlesse they did patch something of their owne to the word of God. Superveneran… doct…res qu…se non …uta…ant sat…s acutos ha…itum …ri, nisi aliquid assuerent vervo Dei Nulla tollerabilis est ad legem Dei accessio Secundarie illae leges a curiosis homin…bus inventae sunt, quasi simplex Dei mandatum non sufficeret. Novas ablutiones comminisci, otiosa vanitatis fuit. Si acqutevissent in leg… Dei, magis illi probata suisset modestia, quam scrupulosa anxieta….Yet no addition to that word is tolerable. Those secondarie lawes are devised of curious men, as if the single and simple command of God were not enough. To invent new washinges was an idle vanity. Had they rested in the law of God their mod…sty wou…d have ben more pleasing to him, then their Scrupulous anxiety in doing otherwise.
If this be not enough, to shew Calvins judgement, of Ceremonious additions, let that be added, which he sayth to Cassander, and therfore to the Def. and Rejoynder teaching the very same doctrine of Ceremonies,Statuit, Ceremonias a Christo institutas, caste, & integré observandas nihil eornm institutions, tan quam mutilati…, & imperfectis, addendum. Est hoc quidem aliquid quamvis non totum: quia alios omnes ritus obliqu… artificio, in Ecclesiam admittit. Sed haec dimidia veritas evertitur, quā dò Apostolis, corumque successoribus jus concessum esse credit, Ceremonias instituendi quae in Sacramentis administrandis, ornatus loco accederent. Ergo, qui nihil addendum conf…ssus erat, nune adve…ritias traditiones, non medò admitrit se…eti… commendat. Verum arguto effug…o se expediet: modo ne Sacramenta putentur mutila, aut imperfecta, fereacas esse accessiones. Ita quibuscumque mixt uris, prope in novam figurom murata fuerint Sacramenta, nihil erit vit…j, m…do ne palam Christo exprobret ur, mancum esse, vel mutilum, quod instituit, &c. that Cassander did. Opusc. pag. 355. He taught that the Ceremonies ordeined by Christ are to be kept intirely, and incorruptly: and nothin… must be added to their institution as if they were lame or imperfect, which indeed is som…what, but it is not all, because by an indirect shift he would lett into the church all other rites. But this halfe trueth is overturned, when he beleeves a right given to the Apos…les and their Successours, to institute suche ceremonies in the administration of the Sacraments which may be for ornament. Therefore he which confessed before nothing should be added, doeth now not only admit such by-Ceremonies, but also commands them. Yet will he help himselfe with a subtil shift, viz. additions are to be indured, if the Sacraments be not held lame or imperfect, therefore with what mixtures you will, the Sacraments may be wholly changed, and yet all be well, so be you charg not Christ to his teeth, that any of his institutions goe lame, and halting etc.
7, It was lastly added, that this answer of the Def. was Bellarmines answer to Calvin, about this very poynt and place: de effect Sacr. lib, 2. Cap. 32. Prohibit Dominus additionem corrumpentem, as the Def. translateth it, an addition of corruption is forbidden. Which was the rather added, because the Def. had so vainly objected unto the authours of the Abridgement, symbolizing with Bell… mine. It might otherwise have been added, th…t it is not onelyonly Bellamines answer, but also Gregories de Valentia, tom. 4. disp. 6. q. 11. p. 1. et tom. 3. disp. 6. q. 2. p. 7. Swarezes, de Relig. vol. 1. lib. 2. cap. 1. Baroninses; ad an 53. pag. 459. and that it is the common answer of Papists, in defense of their Ceremonies against this place, urged upon them by our Divines. Yet some few spying the vanitie of this answer, as being ashamed of it, have found out another, of like stampe: For Cornelius a Lapide, in his Commentarie on Deut. 12.32. so expoundeth the wordes of this prohibition: In rebus & Ceremonijs Dei, fac tantum illud, quod Deus, vel per se, vel per Vicarios suos, puta sacerdotes praeceperit. Which agreeth well with that of the Def. and Rejoynder. Vse …hose Ceremonies onelyonly, which God, eyther by himself, or by the Convocation house doeth commande. And some more ancient, and therfore lesse praejudiced Papists, confesse, this law did forbid all humame Ceremonies to the Iews. So Tostatus, Defensorij par. 2. cap. 8. as also in Deut. 12. q. 12. that consequencie is found among the Hebrewes about the observation of Ceremonials. Something is not found written in the law, therefore the Iewes are not bound to keepe that. Yea which is more, it was not lawfull for the Iewes to observe any Ceremonie about the service of God, unlesse that were written in the law as appeares Deut 12.Valet insta consequ… utia inter He…raeo…, circa observ irio…em ceremonial…um Auquid n…n reperitur sc…iptum in lege. Ergo non obligantur Iudae… observare illud Im…, quod plus …st, non licebat Indaeis, observare aeliquam ceremoniam, circa cultum Dei, nisi illud scriptum …sset in lege, ut patet Deut. 12.
The Rejoynder hath many wordes, wherwith he raiseth up a great dust, to darken the cause with all. But no man can discerne any direct answer of his to the allegation, save onelyonly his confession, that the Def. his answer, was Bellarmines answer to Calvine, about th…s very place. All that he addeth to that confession, hath been before confuted. It shall be sufficient in this place, to set downe Calvins resolute conclusion, out of Sermon 85. in Deut. It is divelish blasphemie, to say, that God hath not taught men all that it behooveth them to doe. The common by word here hath place: thou art the Divels servant: for thou hast doen more then was commanded thee. Here is no limitation, of new worships properly so called, which is the Rejoynders shift, but all that it behooveth us to doe, is limitted to Gods command.
In the fourth section, about Isa. 29. Mat. 15. Col. 2.27 hath nothing materiall in it, beside those distinctions of worship, which before in the Manduction, section 5.6. and 7. are distinctly examined, and discussed. To those places therfore I refer the Reader, for satisfaction, if ther be any needfull.