The Degrees of Ardency in Christs Prayer, Text 2

The Degrees of Ardency in Christs Prayer · Text 2

p. 31 Cor. 14. 40.

foreign. Decently, and according to appointment.

section 1 SInce the publiſhing that Anſwer to Mr J. concerning the degrees of ardency in Chriſt's prayer, I am advertiſed of another paſſage in that volume, in which I am concern'd, relating to ſome words of mine in the view of the Directory pag. 19. on the head of Ʋniformity in Gods ſervice, and particularly reſpecting my rendring of the Apostle 1 Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done foreign.

section 2 Theſe indeed I thus rendred [decently, and according to order, or appointment] and affirmed the importance of that place to be, that all be done in the Church according to cuſtome, and appointment, rendring this reaſon of the former, becauſe it was implied in foreign decently (cuſtome being the onelyonly rule of decency &c.) and of the latter, becauſe the words do literally import this, foreign, i. e. according to order or appointment.

section 3 To the former of theſe he makes his firſt exception, thus, [He dares not affirm that this is the immediate ſenſe of the place, but onelyonly that it is implied; It cannot be denied but that decency doth imply ſuch cuſtomes, the omiſſion of which neceſſarily infer p. 4indecency, but that the omiſſion of ſuch ceremonies as ours, doth infer undecency, the Doctor & all his party can never make good; What undecency can the Doctor prove to be in the adminiſtration of Baptiſme without the Croſs, as alſo in publick prayers and preaching without a Surplice? But of this ſee farther in Ames in the places but now quoted; The Doctor may perhaps look upon him as an inconſiderable adverſary. But we ſhall think his Arguments conſiderable, until the Doctor, or ſome other of his party give a ſatisfactory anſwer unto them. In the mean while let us examine the proof that the Doctor brings for this ſenſe: and it is, becauſe cuſtome is the onelyonly rule of decency.

This prop…ſition, though very ſtrange▪ is proofleſſe; and therefore we might as well reject it, as the Doctor dictates it. But I ſhall add a confutation of it from theſe following arguments.

1. If cuſtome be the onelyonly rule of decency, then nothing elſe can be a rule thereof beſides cuſtome; but this is falſe, for the light and law of nature, is alſo a rule thereof, and that infallible.

2. Nothing can be undecent, that is agreeable unto the onelyonly rule of dicency. But divers things are undicent, which yet can plead cuſtome: and this is ſo evident, as that. I will not ſo much undervalue the Doctors judgment as to endeavour any proofs thereof. It is impoſſible that the onelyonly rule of decency ſhould be undecent: But yet it is very poſſible that many cuſtomes ſhould be undecent, and therefore I ſhall conclude that cuſtome is not the onelyonly rule of decency.

3. Laſtly, unto cuſtome, as you may ſee in both Ariſtotle and Aquinas, the frequent uſage of a thing is required. But now there may be decency or handſomeneſs in the firſt uſage of a thing; and of this decency cuſtome is not the rule, and therefore it is not the onelyonly rule of decency.

section 4 The first thing here charged on me is timidity, that I dare not ſay, what I ſaid not, and this attended with a conceſſion (in a limited ſenſe) of the truth of what I did ſay; the ſecond, is the impertinence, or unſufficiency of that, in that limited ſenſe, to prove what he conceives I would have from it, viz. that the omiſſion of our ceremonies doth infer indecency; And the proof of this charge twofold, 1. by way of queſtion, founded in two inſtances, the Croſſe in Baptiſme, and the Surplice in publick prayer p. 5and preaching; 2. by reference to Ames, and reſolving to think his arguments conſiderable, till a ſatisfactory anſwer be given them. And his third charge is, my uſing an unſufficient proof to prove my interpretation, viz. this becauſe cuſtome is the onelyonly rule of decency] which he confutes by three argument.

section 5 Theſe three charges I ſhall now very briefly examine, and if I miſtake not, clearly evacuate. the firſt by aſſuring him, 1. that I did dare to ſay, and indeed ſaid (as I then thought, perſpicucuſly) the full of what I meant, but that it was no way incumbent on me, to ſay either what I did not mean, or what Mr J. or any other ſhould be juſtly able to charge of want of truth in the leaſt degree. And 2. if what I ſaid cannot, as he confeſſes, be denied, to have truth in it in one ſenſe, I demand why muſt it be a not daring (which is wont to ſignifie timidity, or cowardice) that I affirmed it not in another ſenſe, wherein be doth not conſent to it?

section 6 To make ſhort, and prevent all poſſibility of his, or any mans farther miſtaking my words, I ſhall haſten to tell him the full of my meaning in that paſſage, that [foreign decently] implies [according to cuſtome] viz. that in ſuch things as theſe, of which then I ſpake, geſtures, habites and the like circumſtances of Gods publick ſervice, wherein the Apoſtle preſcribes care of decency, 'tis neceſſary to obſerve the cuſtomes of the place wherein we live: This I then thought ſufficiently explicated by exemplifying in mens wearing long hair, which the Apoſtle proved indecent by its being againſt foreign i. e. ſaith Suidas, foreign, a cuſtome of ſome continuance in that place (which yet in women there, and in men in other places, where that cuſtome prevail'd not, had nothing indecent in it.)

section 7 But this exemplification of my meaning he thought fit to conceal from the Reader, and ſupply that vacuity onelyonly with an &c. yet reciting at length, to a word, what was immediately before, and after it. His deſign in ſo doing I judge not, but ſhall endeavour to undeceive the Reader for the future, by farther inlarging on it.

section 8 All people, I think, in the world have ſome outward ſignifications, and expreſſions of Reverence, but all have not the p. 6ſame, but according to Topical cuſtomes ſome different, ſome contrary to others. We of this, and all our neighbour Nations expreſs reverence by uncovering the head, the Turkes do the contrary. Again among Chriſtians, 'tis cuſtomary for men ſo to expreſs their Reverence, but for women, ſaith the Apoſtle, it is not, but the contrary; and ſo ſtill it is among us. Nay it was once among ſome hethens (that worſhipt Mercury) in act of the higheſt reverence, even of adoration, to throw ſtones at their God, among others to cut themſelves with lances, when they were a praying to him. And it can be no news to Mr J. that theſe cuſtomes were not obſerved by other countreys; the Jews that threw stones at Chriſt, and the Damoniack that cut himſelf with them, were neither of them interpretable to worſhip him.

section 9 This therefore was no dark, but viſible foundation of what I ſaid; In affigning any rite or ceremony for the ſervice of God, decency, ſaith the Apoſtle, was to be obſerved, the onelyonly rule to judge of that, is, ſay I, to conſider the cuſtomes of that particular place, of which we conſult. Where bowing the knee, or kneeling on the ground, is cuſtomarily uſed as a token of reverence, where putting off or keeping off the hat, there the choice of ceremonies muſt be made with reſpect to thoſe particular cuſtomes; Here 'tis evident that I mean not the frequent uſage of that ceremony, in oppoſition to a firſt uſage of it, as Mr J. is willing to miſtake me, and ſound one of his arguments on that miſtake, but the ſtanding cuſtome of the place, by which, as by an argument or evidence, ſuch a ceremony is demonſtrated to be a reverential reſpect, and ſo (for the ſervice of God to whom all reverence is due) decent in that place, though in Nature, or in the eſtimation of all other men, it be not ſo.

section 10 Certainly this is ſo evident in it ſelf, and ſo undeniably the importance of my words, that there can be no need farther to inlarge on it, much leſſe to examine the weight, or meaning of his conceſſion, that it cannot be denyed but that decency doth imply ſuch cuſtomes, the omiſſion of which neceſſarily infers indecency.]

section 11 This ſaying of his ſome Readers may look on with Reverence, as not readily comprehending the importance of it, others may chance to deſpiſe it under the appearance of a tautologie. p. 7But upon pondering, it will appeare that the Author had a meaning in it, which he deſigned ſhould bring in ſome advantage to his cauſe, and without which he was not likely to advance far, or ſucceed in it.

section 12 Some cuſtomes we know there are, which are ſo highly decent, as that the omiſſion of them neceſſarily infers indecency; But what are they? why, ſuch as the law of (at leaſt Lapſt) nature preſcribes, covering of nakedneſſe, and the like; of which tis evident among all that have not learnt of Carneades induſtriouſly to raſe out all natural meaſures of honeſt and diſhoneſt, that the omiſſion of them inferres indecency, yea and neceſſarily inferres it, this ſort of decency being natural to all men, that ever were, or ſhall be in the world, born and educated in what nation, or inured to what cuſtomes ſoever, and this the very firſt houre after our firſt parents fall, before any cuſtome had been contracted which might recommend it to them.

section 13 And as of theſe his Rule is true, that the omiſſion of theſe neceſſarily inferres undecency, ſo it is in a manner proper to theſe, and belongs not to any other ſort of things, whoſe decency flowes but from ſome poſitive command though it be of God, or cuſtome or command of men. To ſuch things whoſe decency flowes from any command either of God or man, this rule cannot be fully applied, for that command might have been not given, or there might be a space before it was given, or a people to whom it was not given, and then in any of thoſe caſes, the omiſſion would not be indecent to whom the law was not given; and ſo it doth not neceſſarily and abſolutely, but onelyonly dependently on that law, and conditionally, inferre indecency; ſo in like manner the Rule holds not in thoſe things, whoſe decency is introduced onelyonly by cuſtome, for that, as Mr. I. truely ſaith, ariſing from frequency of actions, it muſt again be granted, that there was a time when that which now is cuſtome, was new, and ſo not cuſtome, and again there are, or may be nations, with whom that cuſtome (whatſoever can be inflanced in) hath not prevailed, which prejudges ſtill the neceſſity ſpoken of, that ſuch omiſſion ſhould inferre indecency.

section 14 And ſo we ſee the ſumme of Mr I. his liberal conceſſion, viz: that decency implies naturall decency, or ſuch cuſtomes, p. 8which are naturally decent, and ſo the omiſſion of them naturally indecent; and if the Dr. or his party do not prove, or make good, that the adminiſtration of baptiſme without the croſſe, is againſt the law of nature, that the preaching without the ſurplice beares analogy to the diſcloſing of Nakedneſſe, he is utterly refuted by Mr I. in his interpretation of foreign, or notion of decency.

section 15 That this is indeed his meaning (though ſomewhat darkned in that his expreſſion) will appear but conſequent to the two things, which he hath premiſed in this matter, from Ameſius his notion of decency, p. 64. in Marg: 1. that decency requires not that any ſacred things be instituted de novo, but onelyonly that thoſe things which are inſtituted by God, be uſed in that manner which is agreeable to the dignity of them, 2. that as order ſo decency belongs to civil offices, as well as ſacred things, in which indecorum eſt vitium oppoſitum debito illi modo, qui requiritur ad eorum juſtum finem et uſum conſequendum, indecency is a vice oppoſed to that due manner, which is required to the obtaining the juſt end and uſe of thoſe things. Now if in the former of theſe, the mode, he ſpeakes of, as agreeable to the dignity of thoſe things which are inſtituted, be it ſelf ſuppoſed by him to be inſtituted by men, then muſt he acknowledge humane power of inſtituting ceremonies, which being ſo contrary to his deſign, I muſt reſolve not to be intended by him; but rather that as the ſacred things are inſtituted by God, ſo the mode, which is conſentaneous to their dignity is instituted by God alſo, and that nothing is decent in ſacris, which is not ſo inſtituted. And ſo likewiſe on the ſecond head, that of civil offices. For that indecency, which is a vice or ſin, muſt be contrary to ſome law of Gods, and ſo alſo that which is oppoſed to the due manner which is required, and ſo is neceſſary either neceſſitate medii, or praecepts alſo, to obteining a juſt end, this ſure is more than the omiſſion of an indifferent cuſtome, which may or may not be continued without any offence againſt nature, even the omiſſion of ſtrict univerſal duty, either natural decency, or ſomewhat that beares proportion with it.

section 16 Now this being thus far explained, it is time to cloſe with Mr I. and mind him, what he cannot but know, that the decency which I ſaid implied custome, is certeinly another thing from natural p. 9decency, and hath place onelyonly in thoſe things, the omitting of which doth not neceſſarily inferre indecency. That omiſſion which neceſſarily inferres indecency, inferres it in all that eever did, or ſhall omit it; we know in logick, that no propoſition is neceſſary, which is not foreign, true in the whole ſpecies, of all, and every one, and I leave it to his judgement, whether he think the Dr. and his party (i. e. Praelatiſts, I ſuppoſe,) do conceive, that Adam (whether in, or out of paradiſe) Noah in, or out of the Arke, &c. were obliged to pray in Surplices, under pain of Indecency? And ſo (in his other inſtance) that John Baptiſt, that Chriſt, or (becauſe the text ſaith that he baptized not but his diſciples) that thoſe diſciples, even before the death of Chriſt, might not baptize any without the ſign of the Croſſe, but under the ſame penalty?

section 17 Nay ti's allready paſt queſtion, that Mr I. in his firſt argument againſt my dictate (as he calls it) ſaith, that the light and law of Nature is alſo a rule of decency, and ſo not onelyonly cuſtome: And if ſo, then cuſtome is a rule of decency alſo, and not onelyonly the Law and light of Nature, and where cuſtome, and not the light of Nature is the rule, there the omiſſion of that doth not neceſſarily inferre indecency. And of ſuch decency alone it is evident that I ſpake, on the head of Ʋniformity, (and could not ſpeake ſenſe, if I ſpake, either of any other, or of the General notion of Decency, which is competible to any other) and from thence it followes demonſtratively, that of that Decency of which I ſpake, (though not of that, of which it is certain I ſpake not) ſtill Cuſtome is the onelyonly rule of decency.

This therefore I hope may ſerve in anſwer to his firſt charge, that of my timidity, that I dared not ſay, what I ſaid not; together with a view of his conceſſion of the truth of what I did ſay, and the wary limitation of that conceſſion.

section 18 Secondly then to his ſecond charge, the unſufficiency of that limited truth (which is the utmoſt he will yield my propoſition) to prove what I would have from it] It will ſoon appear of how little force it is, when 1. my meaning was quite another thing from what he affixt to my words, or yielded me in his limited conceſsion, as hath already been largely manifeſted; and 2. my concluſion is regularly conſequent to that which was alone my p. 10meaning. This latter the addition of a few words will clear alſo.

section 19 My concluſion deſigned in that Section, was the juſtifying of Ʋnformity of ceremonies in the ſervice of God, and one of the grounds to ſupport that, the decency of thoſe ceremonies, wherein all ſhould joyn, and that decency ruled, and judged of by the cuſtome of the place, in which ſuch or ſuch a ceremony was an uſual indication, and expreſſion of that reverence, which being due from all inferiours to their ſuperious, is much more due from all Chriſtians to God.

section 20 In theſe it is certain, cuſtome is the rule and the onelyonly rule of decency; Neither Nature nor Gods Law obliges all man-kind to this, or that expreſſion of reverence. Several Nations have their ſeveral manners of doing it; OnelyOnly Nature tells us, that the moſt reverened manner of treating is beſt becoming God, and that it cannot be decent, to treat God in that manner as we would not do any ſuperior beſide, and Gods own expoſtulation about the offering polluted bread upon his altar, and of ſacrificing the lame & the ſick, Mal. 1. 8. is a confirmation of that, Offer it now, ſaith God, unto thy governour, will he be pleaſed with thee?

section 21 Apply this to a particular caſe, to a Nation, where 'tis cuſtomary to addreſs to Kings, kneeling, and there the Analogie will hold exactly, (but not where that is not cuſtome.) Among ſuch I may ſay, Did ever any man that had his limbs and health, offer a petition to his Prince in the geſture of ſitting, or lying along upon a table? and if he did not, then I muſt, I ſuppoſe, regularly conclude from cuſtome, the one rule of decency in ſuch matters, that according to Gods arguing it cannot be decently done in his ſervice, which is the tendring our petitions or requests to that infinite Majeſty. And ſo proportionably in other things.

section 22 This I did not there apply to the Croſs in Baptiſme, and the Miniſters uſing of the Surplice, as being not pertinent to that place. Another head was ſet apart for thoſe, and proceeded to §. 28. the Croſs expreſly named, and the Surplice implied under the title of other ceremonies, of which it may there be ſeen, what my concluſion was, not what is here deem'd incumbent on me to prove, that the omiſſion of them infers indecency, p. 11but that ſtanding on thoſe grounds, whereon they are known ſtand, Conſcience duly inſtructed cannot think it neceſſary or tending to edification to caſt them cauſleſly out of this Church, or the whole Liturgie for their ſakes.]

section 23 And yet if Mr J. ſhall now deſire to know what the grounds of thoſe two Eccleſiaſtical rites are, which alone he is pleaſed to name, on perſwaſion, I ſuppoſe, that they were as fit, if not fitter then any others, for the diſproving my poſition, of [cuſtom being the onelyonly rule of decency] I ſhal now render him a brief account of them, ſuch as may in ſome degree confirm the truth of it.

section 24 And firſt for the Croſſe in Baptiſme. 1. 'Tis known to all that our Chriſtian courſe is a spiritual warfare under Chriſt our Great General; Now it is, and alwayes hath been customary over the world, that in a Militia there ſhould be ſome banner, or Inſigne, to which every one ſhould reſort and fight under it. This hath cuſtome made decent among all, and ſuppoſing that cuſtome, the omiſſion of it in an army is indecent, yet not ſo, as things diſhonest, or breaches of the Law of Nature, are indecent.

section 25 And the Croſſe on which Chriſt was crucified, the Embleme alſo of that ſtate that every Chriſtian enters into, a conſtant couragious patience for all afflictions was by the primitive Chriſtians thus uſed, as their aaSign… crucis actio Chriſtiana deſcribitur. Aug. de Doctr. Chr. l. 4.ſymbol or Inſigne, and every man that is inrolled in the Chriſtian Militia, is by him that inrols him, ſigned with it; and this practice being thus founded, and received in the Church, Saint Auguſtines words are worth remembring, and cannot be denied to have truth in them, bbIn Joh. Tr. 118.Signum crucis niſi adhibeatur, ſive frontibus credentium, ſive ipſi aquae quâ regeneramur &c. nihil ritè perficitur, unleſs the ſign of the croſs be uſed either to the foreheads of the believers (who are Baptized) or to the water it ſelf by which we are regenerate, it is not duly performed, i. e. with ſuch ceremonies, as by cuſtome of the Church the Rule of decency, belong to it; and, Crucis ſigno in fronte hodie tanquam in poſte ſignandus es, omneſque Chriſtiani ſignantur (de Catechiz. rud. c. 20. tom. 4. pag. 915.) thou muſt be ſigned now in the forehead with the ſign of the Croſs, as the Iſraelites on their door-poſts, and ſo muſt all Christians. In the forehead p. 4head particularly ccTom. 10 p. 289. B.in fronte figat ubi ſedes pudoris) becauſe the ſeat of ſhame is there, which we render in token that the baptized ſhall rot be aſhamed—.

section 26 Secondly, the uſage of this ceremony of ſigning with the Croſs, was we alſo know, frequent in the Church (while the gifts of healing continued) inddSee Aug. de Civ. D…il. 22. c. 8. curing diſeaſes, and caſting out Devils, ſo that Athanaſius frequently affirmes of it,eeDe Incarnat. Tom. 1. pag. 84. So pag. 101. D. foreign. And pag. 102. 6. foreign. And contr. Arian. Or. 1. pag. 285. A. foreign. And Praeſente ſigno crucis obmuteſcit Paganitas. Aug. T. 4. 229. B. And 832 B. Daemonia nominatâ cruce Chriſti terrentur, ſi impenſius fiat, fugantur. Dii Paganprum metu crucis reſponſa dare non poſſunt. foreign, by the ſign of the croſs all magick and witchcraft is brought to nought, all the Idol Temples laid waſte and empty.

section 27 And then Baptiſme being the exorciſing of Devils (the ancient Catechiſts we know were called exorciſts) the reſcuing a perſon from the power of Satan into Gods ſonſhip and family, what can be more proper, or agreeable, or exactly ſymbolical, then the uſe of this in Baptiſme, according to that of Tertullian, de Reſurr. Carn. Caro ſignature ut anima muniatur, the fleſh or body is ſigned, that the ſoul may be defended or fortified.

section 28 And if inſtead of theffAd omnem progreſſum frantem crucis ſignaculo terimus. Tertul. de Cor. Mil. c. 3. frequent uſe of it among the ancients, evenggVide Narrat…. Hippolyti Apoſtolorum foreign, apud Pallad. Hiſt. Lauſ. pag. 1049. foreign. before the cumberſome weight of ce emonies came in (foreign, ſaith the Author of the Queſt. and Reſp. aſcribed to Juſtin Martyr, Qu. foreign pag. 364. in time of prayer we ſign thoſe that have any need of it, thoſe that are any way ill affected) we in this our Church retein it, onelyonly in our ſolemne p. 13entrance into Chriſts camp, in token that we mean valiantly to fight under his banners, and in confidence that he that thus ſigned to Conſtantine victory from heaven (foreign, in this overcome) will thus give grace, and ſeal to us victory over our ghoſtly enemies. What queſtion can there ever be of the perfect decency of this uſage among us?

section 29 And then for the Surplice: It is no news I hope for ſeveral ſorts of men to have ſolemn garments for ſolemn actions, which they do not uſe at other times. The Judges upon the Bench, or the Lords at their coming to Parliament, are a ſufficient evidence of this, who weare not thoſe robes in common occaſions which there they do, as betokening their quality and the imployments they are about. And then what is thus cuſtomarie in civil matters (viz: to difference perſons and imployments, yea and dayes by diſtinction of garments) and is allowed to be decent therein, this by analogie undeniable, is as fitly and decently from thence derived to ſolemne ſacred actions alſo, ſuch are the publick offices of the Prieſt; and the commands of our Superiors being added to this decency of the matter, foreign to foreign, it is, I am ſure, more than undecent for inferiors to be obſtinate, and deny obedience to them. In the choice of the garment there hath been alſo, as neare as may be, a reſemblance obſerved of thoſe garments, which in Scripture are mentioned for the like ſolemnities, long, ſhining, i. e. white robes, or garments; And if the conſtant uſage of other Churches beſide this of ours, Eaſtern as well as Weſtern, for ſo many centuries together, be conſidered, it will be competently able to eſtabliſh an Eccleſiaſtical cuſt me alſo, which, in things of this nature, were external ornaments, and formalities, is a more rational ground, and rule or meaſure of decency, then any Mr J. (or Ameſius to boote) will readily be able to produce for the rejecting of them, or breaking, and caſting away thoſe bands, which tyed no harder a yoke than this upon their ſhoulders.

section 30 In this caſe I believe (though not in the garments themſelves) there is place for that decency, the omiſſion of which neceſſarily inferres indecency, and for ſuch order the breaking of which muſt ſoon end in foreign (which Mr I. ſaith, St. Paul oppoſes to foreign) viz: down right confuſion.

p. 14section 31 Having ſa'd thus much ex abundanti, above what was incumbert on me, I ſhall flatter my ſelf, that I may now ſpare any larger paines, in ſurvey of Ameſius's arguments, which Mr J. is reſolved to think conſiderable, and to ſpeake very magnificently of them, as proving that the text is 1 Cor. xiv. 40. rightly underſtood doth not onelyonly not authorize any humane inſtitution of ceremonies, but on the contrary plainly condemnes them, and this, ſaith he, was ſo well managed by him, that he hath quite beaten out of the field Biſhop Morton and his ſecond, Dr J. Burges:

section 32 Here is triumph indeed. And I ſuppoſe the Reader already diſcernes, what are the grounds of it, viz. that Ameſius acknowledges nothing decent, but that, the omiſſion of which neceſſarily inferres indecency, i. e. as hath been ſhewed, nothing but natural decency, the omiſſion of which is a vice contrary to that, by conſequence, that there is no ſuch thing, as an indifferent geſture or garment, which either civil, or Eccleſiaſtical cuſtome, or obedience to our lawfull ſuperiors may render decent; that whatſoever ſome eternal Law of Nature commands not, the doing of that, if it be but wearing ſuch a garment, which the Canons of any Church preſcribe, nay, by parity of reaſon, a cloake or a buttond doublet, is abſolutely unlawfull by force of 1 Cor. xiv. 40.

section 33 This being the bottome of thoſe arguments of Ameſius, I may ſafely tell Mr J. that they could no otherwiſe beat either Biſhop Morton, or Dr J. Burgeſſe out of the field, than that they thought them utterly unworthy their making replies to; He that thinkes there is nothing indifferent, nothing lawfull, the omiſſion of which is not ſin, doth certainly uſe other dictonaries than we do; diſcernes no difference betwixt lawfull, and neceſſary, and as the Aſſertors of Fatall production of all things will not allow a cauſe to be ſufficient to produce any effect which it doth not produce, and ſo produce, that it cannot not produce it, which is to tell me that I ſit, and walke at the very time, when I ſtand ſtill, it being certain, that I am equally able to do both thoſe, when yet I really do the third onelyonly, ſo he will not allow any thing morally poſſible, which is not morally neceſſary, which is certainly the giving new lawes to words (making the word [lawfull or poſſible] which was wont to be interpreted p. 15that which may or may not be done, to ſignifie onelyonly that which must be done, and may not be emitted) and not new reaſons to confirme old paradexes.

section 34 This argument of Ameſius againſt things indifferent, that learned Biſhop was well acquainted with, by his familiar conferences with Mr. Lapthorne a vehement diſputer againſt ceremonies, and whom the Biſhop thought fitter to refute by trifling inſtances, of unbuttoning, and buttoning his caſſ…ck; than by more ſerious attempts of conviction, i.e. in plain termes to despiſe and ſmile at, than to dread; and if Mr J. have really read Mr Hooker, whom he ſomwhere intitles our Patrone of ceremonies, he may in him remember a diſcourſe of lawes, which will ſuperſede all neceſſity, or benefit of my farther inlarging on it.

section 35 Meane while, to the reproch of my great ſtupidity, I willingly acknowledge, that it cannot enter into my underſtanding, what ſenſe that text is capable of, which with the beſt (poſſible) managery can be taught plainly to condemne all inſtitution of ceremonies in the Church, i. e. by what proſyllogiſmes, or ſupplies or advantages of art this Enthymeme ſhall be rendred concludent. The Apoſtle commands that all things be done decently and in order. Ergo, He condemnes all institution of Ceremonies for Gods worſhip. He that can maintain this conſequence not onelyonly to be true, but (as Mr J. affirmes of him) plain and evident, will be a formidable adverſarie indeed, much better deſerving that title, than one whom he knowes not, and therefore honours with it.

section 36 His third and laſt impreſsion now remaines, wherein he undertakes to prove by 3. arguments that cuſtome is not the onelyonly rule of decency; and his firſt argument is, becauſe the light and law of nature is alſo a rule of decency. To this I anſwer, that in thoſe things, whereof alone he knowes I there ſpeak, in the §. concerning Ʋniformity, i.e. in things indifferent, geſtures and other ceremonies in Gods ſervice, the Law of Nature is no rule at all, and, I ſuppoſe, he cannot think; I am ſure, he pretends not to prove, or ſo much as affirme, it is, and therefore though not ſimply in all ſorts of things, of which I ſpake not, nor can by any rules of diſcourſe be ſuppoſed to have ſpoken, yet as to the matters then before me, wherein Eccleſiaſtick Conformity p. 8conſiſted, cuſtome and onelyonly cuſtome was the rule of Decency.

section 37 His ſecond argument is wholly deceitfull, and muſt be diſcovered to be ſo by reducing it to rules of art. 'Tis by him variouſly formed into two ſeveral Syllogiſmes. The firſt is this.

Nothing can be undecent, which is agreeable to the onelyonly rule of Decency.

But divers things are undecent, which yet can plead cuſtome. The concluſion now must be, Therefore cuſtome is not the onelyonly rule of decency.

section 38 But this is no regular Syllogiſme, 'tis in no mood or figure, nor readily reducible to any, and therefore twas his onelyonly way to preſume it evident, and never to endeavour any proof thereof.

section 39 But he hath thought fit to vary this ſyllogiſme, and give it in other termes, and then one might hope it would be exactly form'd. 'Tis thus,

It is impoſſible that the onelyonly rule of decency ſhould be undecent.

But yet it is very poſſible that many cuſtomes ſhould be indecent.

Therefore he ſhall conclude that cuſtome is not the onelyonly rule of decency.

section 40 But this is no ſyllogiſme neither, being far removed from the meaſure that Logicians exact, and ſuch as by which I will prove any thing true, that is the moſt diſtant from it. For example, it is a granted truth, that Law is the onelyonly rule of Juſtice, yet this I ſhall diſprove by a ſyllogiſme exactly formed by Mr J. his model, Thus,

It is impoſſible that the onelyonly rule of juſtice ſhould be unjuſt.

But yet it is very poſſible that many Laws ſhould be unjuſt.

Therefore I ſhall conclude that Law is not the onelyonly rule of juſtice.

section 41 To diſcover this deceit then, the ſyllogiſme which is now no ſyllogiſme muſt be ſomewhat better form'd, according to the rules of Logick, and reduced, as near as it can, into a true ſyllogiſme. Thus,

Whatſoever is it ſelf undecent, cannot be the onelyonly rule of decency.

But cuſtome is it ſelf undecent.

Therefore cuſtome cannot be the onelyonly rule of decency.

p. 17Here before it can be defin'd whether this be a regular ſyllogiſm, or no, it muſt be demanded, quanta eſt minor, is the aſſumption Ʋ niverſal or particular? If it be particular, then either the concluſion muſt be particular alſo, or elſe tis a falſe ſyllogiſm. And if the concluſion be particular, then it infers no more then that ſome undecent cuſtome cannot be the only rule of decency, which is willingly granted by me, who do not at all affirm it of undecent cuſtomes; But if the minor be Ʋniverſal, then 'tis a falſe propoſition, for certainly all cuſtomes are not indecent. The ſhort is, Nature may be the rule of one ſort of decency, & cuſtom the only rule of another; yet if the cuſtom be in it ſelf indecent, then of ſuch indecent cuſtom it is not pretended, that it is either onelyonly, or at all the rule of decency. And ſo ſtill my propoſition may ſtand good, which as it belonged not to natural decency, ſo much leſs to what is by Nature, or in it ſelf undecent, never imagining it reaſonable, that what geſtures were againſt thoſe Laws of Nature, or Scripture, or any other Law of decency, or rather of natural comlineſs and honeſty, ſhould by pretence of any cuſtome whatever, be introduced into Gods worſhip; 'Tis ſufficient that ſome cuſtomes may be decent, or in themſelves not indecent, and that all decency in the ſervice of God, is to be regulated and judged of by conformity with them: For I ſaid not that all cuſtomes were the rule of decency, but that ſome were, and that there was no other rule, but cuſtome. This, I hope, hath diſcovered the invalidity of his ſecond argument.

section 42 His laſt argument [becauſe there is dicency in the firſt uſage of ſome things] falls upon that miſtake of my words, which I diſcourſed of, and cleared at the beginning, for I never ſaid, that a thing muſt be cuſtomary, before it is decent in any kind; (knowing unqueſtionably that there is a natural decency) but that the decency of any ceremony in Gods ſervice, wherein God and Nature have preſcribed nothing particularly, muſt be regulated according to thoſe meaſures, which the cuſtomes of any place do allow to be reverential among them; Or, in yet plainer words, the civil cuſtomes of any Nation, by which this or that ſort of geſture is rendred a token of reverence, are the onelyonly rule, by which the decency of indifferent gestures, &c. is to be judged of, in order to God's ſervice. And ſo much for the laſt argument p. 18alſo, and conſequently for the first part of his exception, that againſt my interpretation of foreign decently.

section 43 But there is yet a ſecond charge behind againſt my rendring of foreign, according to appointment] which he hath managed in theſe words.

section 44 As for the other part of the words, let all things be done in order, Ames in the place forementioned ſheweth that order requireth not ſuch ceremonies as ours, and he giveth this reaſon, becauſe order requireth not the inſtitution of any new thing but onelyonly the right placing and diſpoſing of things which are formerly inſtituted: and this he makes good from the notation of the word, from the definitions of order, which are given by Philoſophers and Divines &c. from the context of the chapter, and from the uſage of the word elſewhere. But the Doctor, that the words may give ſome countenance unto our ceremonies, adventureth upon a new interpretation of them.

The words foreign (ſaith he,) literally import according unto appointment, foreign ſometimes ſignifies to appoint, as Mat. 28. 16. Act. 22. 10. and 28. 23. And we may here upon argue à conjugatis, that foreign may be ſometimes rendred appointment. But becauſe it may ſometimes be rendred appointment, will it therefore follow that it muſt be ſo rendred in this place?

We may ſay as will as the Dr. that the words foreign literally import according unto order, as order is taken ſtrictly for the right placing or ranking of things one before, another after, and this we have confeſſed even by Dr John. Burgeſſe in his rejoynder unto Ames p. 78. a book publiſhed by the special command of the late King. Moreover this ſenſe is favoured by the coherence, for. v. 31. we have a particular inſtance of order in this acception of the word, ye may all propheſie one by one &c. and not all or many speake at once. 2. We have the oppoſite of order taken in this ſenſe. 1. v. 33. confuſion. Let all things be done in order, then is as much as, let all things be done without confuſion. And I hope confuſion may be avoided in the worſhip of God without ſuch ceremonies as ours.

But we will for once ſuppoſe, though not grant, that the clear importance of the words, is, that all be done in the Church according to cuſtome and appointment. Yet the Dr hath a hard taske to performe, before he can come nigh his concluſion, that the words p. 19of Paul are a proofe of the more than lawfulneſſe of preſcription of ſuch ceremonies as ours in a Church: For he muſt prove that cuſtome and order here are taken in ſuch a latitude, as that they include not onelyonly the cuſtomes and appointments of the Apoſtolical Churches▪ but alſo of all the Churches of God in ſucceeding ages: and the performance of this he will find not to be ſo eaſie, as he may imagine.

I am ſenſible that I have by this diſcourſe provoked a very learned and formidable adverſary, but it is onelyonly love of the truth hath ingaged me in ſo unequal an incounter, and therefore I hope the Dr will pardon and excuſe my boldneſſe. If he can by dint of argument prove the truth to be on his ſide, I ſhall not be ſorry or aſhamed to be overcome by him.

section 45 To this my anſwer will be very briefe, 1. by giving the reaſon of my rendring, 2. by evidencing, that if the vulgar were acknowledged the righter rendring, yet my concluſion would very regularly, follow thence, and that therefore I have no need to contend with any gainſayer, about my rendring.

section 46 For the firſt, it is manifeſt to any that knowes but the elements of Greeke, that foreign literally and properly ſignifies [according to ordination or appointment] foreign ſignifies [according to] not [in] and foreign or foreign [an ordinance or conſtitution] millions of times in authors, and foreign orderly, or in order] lying more conſonant with foreign, no reaſon can be rendred, why if that had been the deſigned meaning, that word ſhould not have been uſed there.

section 47 That it may ſo ſignifie Mr J. acknowledges, and ſo I have obtained all I ſeek in my firſt propoſal, which was not, that it muſt neceſſarily thus ſignifie, but that this being the literal regular rendring of it, I had ſufficient reaſon to render it thus.

section 48 I proceed then to the ſecond thing, that if what he pretends to be poſſible alſo, were indeed the onelyonly poſſible, or (by way of ſuppoſition, but not conceſſion) if foreign] did really import no more than [in order] as that is oppoſed to diſorder or confuſion, yet I ſay, it will ſoon appear, that the Apoſtles commanding ſuch order or orderlyneſſe, and forbidding all confuſion in eccleſiaſtical affaires, muſt by conſequence be interpreted to command the inſtituting and obſerving uniformity of ceremonies in a Church. This I thus deduce.

p. 20section 49 Firſt there is no poſsibility of worſhipping God externally and publickly, without uſe of ſome ceremonies or circumstances of time, place, and geſture, &c. Secondly there is no poſsibility of order in a multitude, without uniformity in the ſame circumſtances, Thirdly, there is as little poſſibility of Ʋniformity among many, without either agreement one with another, or direction of ſome ſuperior to them all, what ſhall by all be uniformely performed. Fourthly the agreement one with another, if it be onelyonly voluntarie, and ſuch, as by which none are obliged, no way ſecures the end; but if it be ſuch an agreement, that every ſingle perſon is obliged to obſerve, then ſtill is that a law of that body, as of a Councel, &c. and as truely ſo, as the conſtitution of a ſingle Praelate can be thought to be. And ſo the concluſion regularly followes, that to the preſerving but of order, or orderlyneſſe in a Church, it is neceſſary, there be appointment, what ſhall by all be uniformely performed; confuſion unavoidably coming in, where no certain rules are preſcribed for Ʋniformity.

section 50 What can be denyed in this proceſſe, I fore ſee not, yet when ti's granted, one reſerve Mr J. hath ſtill left him. For ſaith he, if it were granted that foreign ſignifies appointment or ordination, yet ſtill it will be incumbent on the Dr. to prove, that this extends not onelyonly to the cuſtomes and appointments of the Apoſtolike Churches, but alſo to the Churches of ſucceeding ages. And my anſwer to this will conclude this whole debate.

section 51 Firſt then I acknowledge, that, it is not here neceſſarily ordained by the Apoſtle, that all the Churches of God in ſucceeding ages ſhould inſtitute ceremonies in worſhip, for, provided thoſe ceremonies were once inſtituted, all that this text inforces, is uniforme obedience to them.

section 52 But then ſecondly, when for many circumſtances of Gods worſhip, there is no order particularly taken by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, as in what geſture publick ſupplication ſhall be addreſt, in what, lauds and hymnes, and confeſſion of the faith, &c. and yet the rule is given by them, that all ſhall be done according to appointment, and moreover in other places that obedience be paid to thoſe ſuperiors which watch over our ſouls; and when thoſe rules are not given onelyonly to the perſons that then lived in the Church of Corinth, &c. but to all that ſhould ever live p. 21in that, and all other Churches, it cannot then be deemed, either that there were no ſuperiors deſigned to ſucceed Chriſt, and his Apoſtles in the ordering of his Church, or that they ſhould not foreign ſet in order the things that were wanting, ſuch as the Apoſtles had left undiſpoſed of, or that inferiors ſhould not be bound to obey them uniformely when they thus gave orders to them.

section 53 When we are commanded to obey our parents, civil as well as natural, by a law given by God to Moſes, or by Chriſt to his diſciples, can it be ſtrange, that we that lived not in either of thoſe ages, ſhould thereby be obliged, when God in his providence hath given us fathers of both kinds (as well as them) regularly preſiding over us, and making uſe of that liberty that is preſumed in all parents, viz: to give commands, and expect obedience from their children? Certainly it cannot, and as little can it be doubted, either whether our eccleſiaſtical parents have power to inſtitute in things omitted, and thereby remitted to their care by the Apoſtles, or whether we their obedient children, that are commanded to act foreign according to appointment, ſhould from time to time be diſobliged, and free to diſobey them in whatſoever they appoint us.

section 54 Tis granted him, if he pleaſe, that what Chriſt, and his Apoſtles have already preſcribed, ſhould not be repealed by thoſe that thus ſucceed them; ſhould they raſhly aſſume that power, they would not in ſo doing act foreign, whether regularly or according to appointment; but for the foreign in which they have made no rules, but left order to Titus, &c. (i.e. by parity of reaſon, to the Biſhops in every Iſl…nd) to make them, here what power is left them, may certainly with perfect ſafety be exerciſed by them, and that neceſſarily inferres our obligation to yield obedience to their exerciſes of them.

section 55 This is all the obſervance Mr J. ſeemes to expect of me at this time, unleſſe his intimation to all admirers of Mr. Hooker, p. 144.that they ſhould vindicate their great Patrone of Ceremonies, may paſſe for an admonition to me, who acknowledge my ſelf a thankfull adorer of Gods graces in that Godly learned man, and ſo exact a few lines more above the regular account.

p. 22section 56 This will detain me no longer than whileſt I mind the Reader that in a diſcourſe of the ben…fits which we receive from Chriſt in the Sacrament, Eccl. Pal. l. 5. Sect. 55.and otherwiſe, Mr Hooker undertakes to ſet down how Chriſt in his human nature is communicated to us, and ſo preſent with us; To this end 3. things he ſhewes at large, 1. that as nothing created can be unlimited, or receive any ſuch accident from any as may really make it infinite, ſo neither the ſoul nor body of Chriſt, nor Chriſt as man, nor according to his humane nature, can poſſibly be every where preſent, no nor the ſubſtance of the body of Chriſt, which neither hath nor can have any preſence but onelyonly local. 2. That this cannot be rendred poſſible either by the grace of union with Deity, nor by any other poſſible means, as he at large excellently deduceth it, pag. 300, 301, 302. 3. That it may peradventure be well enough granted in ſome ſenſe, and after a ſort, that Chriſt is every where preſent, as man, viz. 1. in respect of the conjunction of the humane nature with the Deity, which conjunction is extended as far as the Deity, the actual poſition being reſtrain'd and tied to a certain place, and 2. by cooperation with Deity, and that in all things.

section 57 Now on this third head,p. 139. (without reflecting on the two former, which aſſure us of the authors meaning in it) two paſſages Mr J. p. 140.takes hold of, which, if he know any thing in either philoſophy or ſcholaſtical divinity, are both guilty of a groſs miſtake, and cannot be ſufficiently wondred at by him, that they ſhould fall from ſo learned a pen.

section 58 But I ſuppoſe there is no great skill in either of thoſe learned faculties, required, to diſtinguiſh betwixt that which truly and properly is, and that which may in ſome ſenſe, and after a ſort, and in two reſpects onelyonly (neither of which belong to the propriety of being) be well enough granted, and that with a [peradventure] alſo, to have influence on all theſe.

section 59 And what ſeverity is this, to require of every learned man, that hath moſt largely refuted an adverſary, to be ſo averſe from all thoughts of peace and reconcilation with him, that he may not allow him to ſpeak truth, or but perhaps to ſpeak truth in a ſort, and in ſome ſenſe, and in two onelyonly reſpects? all which are ſtill more than intimations, that he thinks him to be abſolutely p. 23(and in ſimplicity and propriety of ſpeaking) in a groſs errour, impoſſible even to the power of God to have truth in it.

section 60 If any ſhould chance to ſay of an eloquent man, that you might hear an Angel speak in him, and I ſhould reply, that it might peradventure be well enough granted in a ſort, or in ſome ſenſe, that when he ſpake you might hear an Angel, aſſuring you at large of my opinion, that no bare man can truly be an Angel, nay that it was impoſſible for God himſelf to bring to paſs, that at the ſame time he ſhould be an Angel, and not an Angel, a man, and not a man, or which is all one, a bare man, and yet an Angel, or (in fewer words) when Chriſt ſaith he is a door, and a vine, if I ſhould ſay, that in a ſort and in ſome ſenſe, and that in two respects, each of theſe had truth in them, would Mr J. think fit to leave his ſubject, and let looſe for three leaves together, and pawn all his Philoſophy and ſcholaſtical (not conſidering what the conſequence alſo may be to his practical) divinity, to accuſe and wonder at, and never to give over wondering, and withall ſolemnly to refute this or that improper figurative ſpeech, ſo perfectly acknowledged by the ſpeakers to be ſuch?

section 61 If he have that great leiſure, and any prevalent temptation thus to lay it out, I ſhall onelyonly aſſure him, that I have not ſo much of either, as to attend theſe his motions, nor any other lover or admirer of Mr Hooker, that I know of, and therefore beſeech him contentedly to reſt in this general return to his charge of that learned man, without expecting any more explicit… or particular ſurvey of it. And ſo much for Mr H. alſo.

section 62 I have thus without any other obligation, than what my deſire to undeceive the Author and his Readers, laid upon me, paid him now this my ſecond obſervance; And may be allowed to think it time, that he who hath been ſo liberal of his uſes of publick refutation of others words, ſhould find ſome vacancy for one uſe of more private (if not reprehenſion, yet) examination of his own actions; And then I ſhall offer to his conſideration, how much more agreeable to the laws of brotherly kindneſſe or candor it had been, to have propoſed his exceptions in ſuch a manner of friendly addreſs, as might have brought him home the ſame ſatisfaction, p. 24and ſaved others the importunity of theſe uſeleſſe, becauſe perſonal debates. When he hath ſincerely obſerved in himſelf the motive of his other distant choice, I have obtained the end of my charity in mentioning it to him, and have no more to return to him at this time.

THE END.

Errata in the firſt Reply to Mr Jeanes.

Pag. 1. l. 2. dele to. p. 3. l. 4. r. change. l. 28. r. another, ſee▪ magli. p. 6. l. 11, r. is in that. p. 10. l. 30. r. foreign.

Errata in the ſecond Reply to Mr Jeanes.

Pag. 11. l. 1. r. known to ſtand. p. 13. l. 28. r. meer external. p. 15. l. 6. r. Mr Hynde, and Mr Glapthorne two vthement disputers. p. 16. l. 23. r. meaſures.

End of the text · Henry Hammond, The Degrees of Ardency in Christs Prayer (1656)