The Harmony Between the Old and Present Non-Conformists, Treatise · Argument 5
Argument V.
In the Abridgment, an Argument againſt the Ceremonies, to which thoſe who joyn with the Church of England muſt ſhew their approbation is fetch'd from the myſtical ſignificancy of 'em thus; All humane Ceremonies (ſay they) being appropriated to God's Service, if they be ordain'd to teach any Spiritual Duty by their myſtical ſignification, are unlawfull.
That this Argument may appear in its fuller ſtrength, 'twill be requiſite to conſider the nature of Religious Worſhip, as well as a Religious Ceremony, and to make ſome enquiry after the power, man has given him to appropriate Humane Ceremonies to God's worſhip.
1. whoever will conſult the Learned of moſt perſwaſions, will find 'em to agree in the general about the nature of external worſhip, and a Ceremony of Religion. Dr. Covel, a great aſſerter of the Engliſh Ceremonies in his modeſt and reaſonable examination &c. Chap. 6. has very handſomely given the ſenſe of the Church of England, in Bellarmine's words▪ as neer as an Engliſh Tranſlation can well be to a Latine Original. Whoever will but compare Bellarmine's 29th. Chapter de effectu Sacramentorum, with what Dr. Covel has in his 6 chap. will find the agreement to be almoſt verbatim; Ceremonia (ſayes Bellarmine) eſt actus externus Religionis, qui non aliunde habet laudem, niſi quia fit ad Dei honorem; that is, as Covel, without making any mention of his Maſter Bellarmine, Tranſlates it, ceremonies are all ſuch things as are the external Act of Religion, which have their commendation and allowance from no other cauſe, but only that in God's worſhip, they are virtuous furtherances of his honour. Thus Covel, who borroweth his explications, as well as arguments from Bellarmine, in order to the making the ſtronger defence of Engliſh Ceremonies, is ſo bold as to take the whole ſubſtance thereof from him, without any conſiderable variation, whereby we may find that the Church of England agrees ſo far with the Church of Rome in this matter, as to make a Ceremony of Religion to be. 1. An external Act expreſſive of inward worſhip. Actus externus interno reſpondens, qui eſt quaelibet externa actio, quae non aliunde eſt bona, niſi quia fit ad Deum colendum; That is, as Covel Tranſlates it, the External Act anſwering the internal, which is no otherwiſe good or commendable than that it vertuouſly ſerveth to the inward worſhip of God, 'tis an outward ſign repreſenting the inward frame of the Spirit, as 'tis after God. 2. 'Tis alſo a virtuous furtherance of inward Religion, which is to the honour of God; It is apt to ſtir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, by ſome notable and ſpecial ſignification, whereby he might be edified. Ceremonies of Religion are means whereby the dull mind is ſtirred up to the remembrance of duty, and whereby the Soul is edified (i. e.) ſtrengthned and confirm'd in grace; Then is a man edified when his graces are ſuſcitated, ſtirred up, ſtrengthen'd, encreas'd or confirm'd.
This deſcription of a Religious Ceremony is not only what Bellarmine and Covel out of him give us, but alſo the ſame, to which a late Author in his verdict apon the Diſſenters Plea, gives his approbation. Page 57. That ſuch myſtical Ceremonies, or Symbolical repreſentations are not ſinfull, (ſayes he), I am fully convinc'd, becauſe they are good for the uſe of edifying; For whatſoever is apt to inform me, and put me in mind of my duty, and to excite me to perform it; That is certainly for my edification, becauſe to inform, to admoniſh, and excite is to edifie, and that ſome myſtical Ceremonies are of this nature, is too notorious to be deny'd. So far the Anſwer to Melius Inquirendum.
The ſame is aſſerted in the Diſcourſe that is prefix'd unto the Common Prayer, concerning the Service of the Church, where 'tis expreſt, That the Ceremonies are by ſome notable ſignification, deſign'd to ſtir up the dull minds of Men to the Remembrance of their Duty. Their uſe is for the exciting to Duty as well as for inſtruction.
This is that they ſay concerning the Nature of a Ceremony, whereby it ſeemeth to ſome very evident, That there is a great Difference between a Religious Ceremony, and a neceſſary Circumſtance of Religion. The former is a part of External Worſhip, the latter but an Appendix. Some Circumſtances, ſuch as time, and place, &c. are neceſſary unto, though no parts of Worſhip, but an humane Ceremonie, though not neceſſary unto, yet is made a part of Worſhip. We cannot worſhip God but in ſome time, and in ſome place, but can do ſo without any of theſe humane ſignificant Ceremonies, which yet are made a part of external Worſhip, which is but the expreſſing and ſetting forth of the Internal by outward ſigns, by which as by certain outward bodily Shadows and Colours the Spiritual and Inward Worſhip of God is made viſible, and ſenſible to others, as the Learned Bradſhaw expreſſes it.
Much more might be ſaid by way of Explication, but this is enough to evince, that a Religious Ceremony is ſignificant of thoſe inward motions of the heart that are directed unto God, and conſequently a part of External Worſhip; and more than a Circumſtance. That the Ceremonies in Controverſie are of the ſame Nature with ſome of thoſe in uſe among the Papists, Jew, and Heathen; for which reaſon, who ever can juſtly appropriate the Engliſh Ceremonies to Gods Worſhip, may, for the ſame reaſon appropriate thoſe of the Papiſt, Jew, or Pagan, and, that there is too much of the Nature of a Sacrament aſſigned unto 'em, in that they are not only ſignificant, but moreover adapted for the ſtirring up the dull mind unto an edifying Remembrance of duty.
This ſaid, of Religious Worſhip and Ceremonies. The next enquiry is concerning what power man has given him to appropriate humane Ceremonies unto Gods Worſhip. By humane Ceremonies the Diſſenters (If I miſtake 'em not) underſtand ſuch Ceremonies as are neither Natural, nor of Divine Inſtitution, but of Mans Invention only, By appropriating 'em to Gods Worſhip, they mean an Ordaining, or an uſing them after a ſolemn and Religious manner for Spiritual uſes, and ends, not for Civil or Temporal, but as outward Notes and Teſtimonies of thoſe things that make us Spiritual. The ordaining or Uſing 'em as ſignificant of inward Grace, and for the ſuſcitating and ſtiring up thoſe graces thereby ſignified. The which is ſuppoſed to be done even when the Worſhip may be compleat and exactly agreeable to the word of God without them.
This appropriating humane Ceremonies to Gods Worſhip is not only an Unaccountable adding unto Gods Worſhip, but a making that a part of Chriſts Religion, which God never made to be ſo, which is as unlawful in Proteſtants, as 'tis in the Papiſt. The Papiſts may as lawfully appropriate to Religion a Shaven Crown, a Monks habit, Spittle in Baptiſm, Holy Water, and all the Miſſal Rites (as Bradſhaw has it) as a Proteſtant Magiſtrate can make a Surplice, a Cope, a Croſs in Baptiſm, Impoſition of hands in Confirmation, Ring in Marriage to be Ornaments of Religion and Holy Ceremonies, yea, as Bradſhaw. Thoſe that may bring in, without ſpecial Warrant from God, Piping [vid. of the Organ, &c.] into his Service, might as well bring in Dancing alſo; thoſe that have Authority to joyn to the Sacrament of Baptiſm, the Sign of the Croſs have Authority alſo (no doubt) to joyn to the Sacrament of the Supper, Fleſh, Broth, Butter, or Cheeſe, and worſe matters than thoſe, if they will [ſeeing they are equally capable of ſignificancy, and apt for the ſtirring up our dull minds to the Remembrance of many a neceſſary duty] Yea, thoſe that have power to make peculiar forms of Religion and VVorſhip, have power to make and invent a Religion of their own.
There are two things, on which the Church men do ſeem to inſiſt very much.
1. If the Ceremonies impoſed be in their own Nature indifferent. And
2. Such as do teach good Doctrine, they may be lawfully impoſed. To this the Old Non-Conformiſts anſwer'd.
I. That all things that are in themſelves matter indifferent, are not lawful to be done in Divine Service, tho' the Magiſtrate ſhould Command them, the which they judge will be very clear to ſuch as will but conſider what things are indeed indifferent, or go under the Name and Title of indifferent things, that the Magiſtrate cannot lawfully command, nor the people lawfully obſerve 'em if Commanded. e. g. Eating and Drinking, the avoiding the Superfluities of Nature, Spinning and Carding, Killing of Oxen and Sheep, which of themſelves have in them neither vertue, nor vice, and are therefore indifferent Actions; and yet I think (ſaies Bradſhaw) none except profeſſed Atheiſts, but will hold it a foul Sin to do ſome of theſe Actions in any Aſſembly, much more in the ſolemn Worſhip of God, though the Magiſtrate ſhould Command the ſame even upon pain of Death. But if it be further conſidered, That Carding and Diceing, Masking and Dancing, For men to put on Womens Apparel, and VVomen Mens, Drinking to Healths, Ribaldry, Stage-Playes are things indifferent to be done upon the Lord's own day, [at leaſt it was eſteemed ſo when the Book for Plays was to be read] may a Miniſter of the Goſpel upon the Magiſtrates Command do any of theſe in Divine VVorſhip?
By this we may ſee, That there is not ſo much Innocency in the meer Indifferency of an Action, that it ſhould on that Account be meet enough to be appropriated to Gods VVorſhip. Neither,
2. Can the ſignificancy of a Ceremony, or its aptneſs to edifie and ſtir up grace, be reaſon enough to appropriate a Ceremony to Gods Service, unleſs the playing a Game at Cards may be lawfully introduced into the ſolemn VVorſhip of God. For ſays a late Author, a Son of the Church of England in his Anſwer to Melius Inquirendum, pag. 57. The other day as I remember, I ſaw a Pack of Cards, which according to this Account may very well be call'd a Pack of Sacraments, [that is as a Sacrament is Conſidered to be a Outward and viſible ſign of an inward and Spiritual Grace] for each Card had the Matter of a Sacrament, that is, an Outward, and Viſible ſign of ſome Inward, and Spiritual Grace in the Martyr [Sir Edmund. Godfrey] (whoſe barbarous Murder they were deſign'd to repreſent;) and ſure the ingenious Contrivers of thoſe Cards intended ſome effect from them, to excite, to ſtir up, to encreaſe Grace and Devotion by the ſight of them, Viz. an utter abhorrence of Treaſon, and all Popiſh Principles, which lead to it, and muſt this poor pack of Cards be condemn'd to the Flames for the Ingenuity of the Author? So far our Author. Who ſhould have ſaid and may not this pack of Cards, ſo like unto other humane ſignificant Ceremonies, or Sacramentals, be appropriated unto the ſolemn Worſhip of God, May not the Miniſter and People in the midſt of ſolemn VVorſhip apply themſelves to thoſe Cards, ſeeing they in their play turning 'em frequently over, may be excited to an utter abhorrence of Treaſon, and whether any ſober Divine of the Church of England would ſo far approve of the appropriating this indifferent but ſignificant Ceremony, namely this pack of Cards to their ſolemn Religious VVorſhip, is not difficult to determine. To return to what Mr. Bradſhaw adds, who ſpeaking of the above mention'd Ceremonies, ſaies, There is none of theſe but may have applyed unto them, by the VVit of Man, a Myſtical and Religious Senſe, even the filthieſt Actions, and things that are, may teach good Doctrine. The Holy Ghoſt reſembleth the Soul polluted with Sin to a Menſtruous Cloth, A man fallen again into Sin to a Sow wallowing in the Mire: Might therefore a filthy Sow, and ſuch unclean Clothes be brought into the Church, to be viſible Shadows, and repreſentations of ſuch things? Pray, what may not by this means be brought into Gods VVorſhip, and yet by this reaſon he defended to be a good Ceremony, if the Magiſtrates and Biſhops ſhould decree the ſame.—A Miniſter clothed with ſuch Apparel as thoſe that Act the Devils part in a play may teach this, That by Nature we are Limbs of Satan and Fire-brands of Hell: Bear-baiting may teach us how Chriſt was baited before the Tribunals of the Phariſees, or the Combate between the Fleſh, and the Spirit. But ſhall theſe be therefore appropriated to God's Worſhip?
Thus, no good Argument may be fetch'd either from the indifferency, or ſignificancy of Ceremonies for their lawfulneſs in God's worſhip, though commanded by the Magiſtrate. For notwithſtanding the utmoſt can be ſaid from either of theſe Topicks, there will not (as Diſſenters think) be enough to ballance what is offer'd againſt the lawfulneſs of the Ceremonies, or of a complyance with 'em in God's Worſhip; On the which I have the rather inſiſted, becauſe the hot Sons of the Church, by adheering over zealouſly to ſignificant Ceremonies which are conſidered, becauſe of their being in their own nature indifferent, as very harmleſs, do but open the way to the letting in an over-running flood of Popiſh Ceremonies, againſt which the Zealots for Ceremonies have nothing to offer, becauſe the Ceremonies they impoſe, are in their own nature indifferent and very ſignificant, inſtructive of good Doctrine, ſtirring up the peoples dull minds to their duty, and enjoyned by publick Authority, but of this more in the reaſons againſt the appropriating humane ſignificant Ceremonies to the worſhip of God; The which I'll give the Reader out of the Abridgment, the Authors of which aſſert them to be unlawfull, becauſe;
1. The Second Commandment forbids us to make to our ſelves the likeneſs of any thing whatſoever, for Religious uſe. And ſo is this Commandment underſtood by Bucer, Virell, Dr. Fulk, and others.
2. Chriſt is the only Teacher of his Church, and appointer of all means, whereby we ſhould be taught, and admoniſhed of any Holy Duty, and whatſoever he hath thought good to teach his Church, and the means whereby he hath perfectly ſet down in the Holy Scriptures, ſo that to acknowledge any other means of teaching, and Admoniſhing us of our duty, than ſuch as he hath appointed, is to receive another Teacher into the Church beſides him, and to confeſs ſome imperfection in thoſe Means he hath ordained to teach us by. Our Saviour by this Argument (amongſt others) Condemns the Jewiſh purifyings and and Juſtifieth himſelf and his Diſciples in refuſing that Ceremony, becauſe (being the precept of men) it was taught and uſed as a Doctrine by way of ſignification to teach what inward purity ſhould be in them, and how they ought to be cleanſed from the pollutions of the Heathen. And ſo we find this place interpreted by Chryſoſtom (whoſe Judgment alſo is alleadged and approved by Dr. Whitaker) the Church of Wittemberge Calvin, Virell, Zeipperus, Dr. Fulke, Dr. Reinolds and others. This Reaſon we find alleadged by ſuch Divines as have been of chief credit in the Church of Chriſt, namely. Mr. Calvin, Chemnitius, Lavater. Dr. Fulke, and others. So to them that ſay Images may ſtand in Churches as helps to ſtir up Devotion, and to put Men in remembrance of good things; It is anſwered (by Peter Martyr, Gualier, Lavater, Ʋrſinus, Polanus, and others) that the Lord himſelf hath appointed means enough to do that; and that no means may be uſed to that end, but ſuch as he hath Ordained. So the Churches of France and Flanders in their Obſervations upon the harmony of Confeſſions gives this Reaſon againſt all Myſtical Ceremonies, that they are parts of the Holy Doctrine, and Dr. Andrews alleadgeth this for the firſt Root of all Superſtition and Idolatry, that men thought they would never have admonitions and helps enough to ſtir them up to VVorſhip God, yet God (ſaith he) had given four means, viz. The Word written, the Word Preached, the Sacraments, and the great Book of the Creatures.
3. This gives unto Ceremonies a chief part of the Nature of Sacraments, when they are appointed to teach or Admoniſh us by their Signification. This is affirmed and given as a reaſon againſt Significant Ceremonies, by Auguſtine, the Churches of France and Flanders, in their Obſervations upon the harmony of Confeſſions, Calvin, Martyr, Beza, Sadcel, Danaeus, Zepperus, Polanus, Biſhop Jewel, Dr. Humfry, and others.
4. In the time of the Law, (when God ſaw it good to teach his Church by ſignificant Ceremonies) none might be brought into, or received in the Worſhip of God, but ſuch only as the Lord himſelf did inſtitute. This reaſon is uſed againſt the Popiſh Ceremonies by …alvin, Junius, Lubbertus, and others.
5. It is much leſs lawful for man to bring ſignificant Ceremonies into Gods Worſhip now, than it was Under the Law. For God hath abrogated his own, not only thoſe that were appointed to prefigure Chriſt, but ſuch alſo as ſerved by their ſignification to teach moral Duties, ſo as now (without great Sin) none of them can be continued in the Church, no not for ſignification. Of this Judgment were the Fathers in the Councel of Nice and Auſtin, Martyr, Bullinger, Lavater, Hoſpinian, Piſcator, Cooper, Biſhop Weſtphaling, and others.
And if thoſe Ceremonies that God himſelf ordained to teach his Church by their ſignification may not now be uſed, much leſs may thoſe which man hath deviſed. This Reaſon our Divines hold to be ſtrong againſt Popiſh Ceremonies, namely Calvin, Bullinger, Hoſpinian, Arcularius, Virell, Dr. Bilſon, Dr. Rainolds, Dr. Willet, and others. Yea, this is one main Difference which God hath put between the State of that Church under the Law, and this under the Goſpel, that he thought good to teach that by other myſtical Ceremonies, beſides the ordinary Sacraments, and not this. And of this Judgment is Calvin, Bullenger, Chemnitius, Danaeus, Hoſpinian, Arucularius, our book of Homilies, Dr. Humfrey, Dr. Rainolds, Dr. Willet, and others. All which Divines do teach that to bring inſignificant Ceremonies into the Church of Chriſt is plain Judaiſm. Beſides this, 'tis a ſpecial part of that Chriſtian Liberty which Chriſt hath purchaſed for us by his death, and that which all Chriſtians are bound to ſtand for: that the Service we are to do unto God now, is not myſtical, Ceremonial, and Carnal (as it was then) but plain and ſpiritual. And of this Judgment were the Divines within the Territories of Hamborough) in an Epiſtle they wrote to Mèlancthon) and Virel, Piſcator, Dr. Rainolds, and others.
6. This will open a Gap to Images, Oyl, Lights, and Spittle, Cream, and all other Popiſh Ceremonies, eſpecially if they ſhall be judged as fit to Teach and Admoniſh by their ſignification, as theſe which we retain. And indeed this is a chief Reaſon whereby both Papiſts and Lutherans juſtifie the Uſe of Images; and whereby Bellarmine commendeth all other their Ceremonies, that they are fit to teach and put men in remembrance of good things. The Popiſh Cuſtome of the Prieſts ſprinkling men with Holy Water, and uſing with all theſe words, Remember thy Baptiſm, (as their manner was in ſome Countries can with no reaſon be held for Unlawful, if ſuch ſignificant Ceremonies as ours are to be defended. With ſuch Reſpects and Relations, Remembrances and Apprehenſions (ſaith Dr. Fulke) all Idolatry and falſe Worſhip may be defended.
7. VVe are further confirmed in this our Argument by the Judgment of the Godly Learned, who, (beſides the Teſtimony they have given to every ſeveral proof we have brought for it) do alſo ſpeak directly with us in this General. That no Myſtical and ſignificant Ceremony deviſed by Man, and appropriated to Gods Service may be retained in the Church of Chriſt. Of this judgment is the Church of Wittenberg, the Churches of France, and the Low Countries, in their Obſervations upon the Harmony of Confeſſions, Mr. Calvin, Mr. Beza, Mr. Perkins, and others. Yea, Dr. Whitgift himſelf profeſſeth, that he did not like that any preſcript Apparel ſhould be uſed in Gods Service for Signification. And no good reaſon can be given why the Church may not as well enjoyn a preſcript Apparel for ſignification, as any other Ceremony.
To all which I'le add one Argumentative Conſideration which the Church of England doth afford us, which is given in their Diſcourſe of Ceremonies before the Common-Prayer-Book, as a reaſon why they did put away any of thoſe many Ceremonies, with which the Church was burthen'd, which reaſon is diſtinct from that of their Multitudes, and 'tis taken from their ſignificancy, and the likeneſs they had with thoſe in uſe among the Jewes, on which account they were not ſuited to the Goſpel Diſpenſation. After mention is made of the great exceſs and Multitude of Ceremonies in the dayes of Popery, they add, And beſides this, Chriſt's Goſpel is not a Ceremonial Law (as much of Moſes Law was) but it is a Religion to ſerve God not in Bondage of the Figure, [i. e. ſignificant Ceremony] or Shadow, but in the Freedom of the Spirit. As if it had been ſaid a great part of Goſpel Liberty conſiſts in being freed from thoſe ſignificant Ceremonies, which are not now of Gods appointment, Theſe words do ſeem to ſuggeſt that one reaſon of the aboliſhing the ſignificant Ceremonies of the Papiſts was becauſe they being ſignificant, were ſo like unto the Jewiſh Service, and ſo different from the Goſpel State, and ſuch as have been ſo much abus'd to Superſtition, that 'twas not eaſie to retain the Ceremony, and abandon the Superſtition.
This being the Senſe of the Church of England, ſeeing the Ceremonies retained are of the ſame ſignificant, or Jewiſh Nature, with thoſe aboliſhed, that have been as much abus'd to Superſtition, as others, and have no other Foundation than Mans VVit and VVill for their ſupport, why were not theſe, that are left, rejected for the ſame reaſon, thoſe ſtill retained by the Papiſts have been. If you'l argue from the ſignificancy, the likeneſs that is between Popiſh Ceremonies, and the Jewiſh; and therefore reject 'em, ſeeing the Engliſh are of the ſame kind, is not the Argument as ſtrong againſt them. Is not a Surplice as like the Jewiſh Garment, as ſome of the Popiſh Rights are to the Jewiſh Ceremonies; why then ſhall the one be aboliſhed, becauſe of that likeneſs, and the other kept, or, if their being abus'd to ſuperſtition, and the Difficulty of ſeparating the Superſtitious abuſe from the uſeing 'em be ſufficient to aboliſh the Rites of Salt, and Spittle, Lights, &c. why not as ſufficient for the aboliſhing the Surplice, the Sign of the Croſs in Baptiſm. Kneeling at the Lords Supper, Bowing at the name of Jeſus: Have not all theſe been as much abus'd to Superſtition, and ſtill are as any of the reſt, eſpecially conſidering what Diviſions they have made in the Church, why not then aboliſh'd? Or if it be a ſin to conform to the Popiſh Rites, How a Duty to Conform to theſe that of the ſame kind with 'em? Or, if theſe without Sin may be appropriated to Gods VVorſhip by Proteſtants, which may not the Papiſts, where they have Authority by their Impoſitions, impoſe 'em on the people as in France, &c. and appropriate 'em to God's VVorſhip?
Methinks Mr. Greenham expreſſeth himſelf very full on this particular in his Anſwer unto the Biſhops of Ely, as 'tis in the Regiſter. If your VViſdom think (ſays he) that I deceive my ſelf in my Suppoſition, for that in Lutheraniſm more and worſe abuſes be maintained, I anſwer, (that Conſubſtantiation excepted) they be all ejuſdem generis of the like kind. [This he ſpeaks of the Ceremonies of the Lutherans, who keep up Images, comparing 'em with our Ceremonies] ſeeing they are not retained ad Cultum Dei, to the VVorſhip of God, but as they ſay, Ad Aedificationem, Decorum, et Ordinem Eccleſiae to Edification, &c. and differ only from us ſecundum Majus, & Minus, as great things and leſs, Therefore as more and worſe Ceremonies are leſs to be tolerated, ſo no more are the fewer, or leſſer evils to be allowed, and as you and other good men have great Conſciences in the Multitude of Ceremonies I beſeech you to think, that I, and others may have ſome Conſciences in the fewer ſort, when they be of the like nature with others.
Seeing what has been ſaid doth ſufficiently prove the unlawfulneſs of the Ceremonies in the judgment of many a Diſſenter, they are afraid to Comply with (or joyn with any in) the uſe of thoſe Ceremonies. They are fully convinc'd, they ſhould ſin if they did, the which they durſt not do, leaſt they provoke God to jealouſie.
There are in the VVritings of the Old Non-Conformiſts ſuch a multitude of weighty Arguments againſt the Lawfulneſs of the Ceremonies, &c. that a giving the Reader all would take up a very large Volume, but 'tis not my buſineſs to inſiſt on all that may be offer'd, I'le therefore cloſe with this one Argument.