Uniformity in Human Doctrinal Ceremonies, jeanes 29 – hammond 30
Jeanes.
Nothing hath more betrayed men to ſhamefull overthrows than contempt of Adverſaries: what opened the King of Sweden ſo ſpeedy a way unto his Victories, as the Emperours ſlighting of him? And I am confident that your deſpiſing of Ames, will adde nothing unto your conqueſts; it appears by your miſtake of him, that as yet, you never read him, and yet you have undertaken to cenſure and refute him, and in order hereunto have adventured upon uncharitable conjectures or ſurmiſes that have proved ground leſſe and to have no footing in his Writings; and now as for his Argument from the 1 Cor. 14. you elevate and deride it, before you know what it is, and thus you triumph over on enemy that you never yet looked in the face; but for your conviction, and the Readers ſatisfaction, I have prevailed with the Stationer for the Printing of the paſſages quoted in Ames, and unto them ſhall onelyonly prefix this Preface; Let not him that girdeth on his harneſse boast himſelf, as hee that putteth it off, 1 King. 20.11.
Concerning an Argument againſt our Ceremonies, 1 Cor. 14. which is acknowledged to be the onelyonly place in all the New Teſtament, that can be alledged for their impoſing. In Ames his Repl. to Mortons generall Def. &c. pag. 9, 10, 11, 12.
This Scripture, 1 Cor. 14.26.40. being rightly underſtood, doth not onelyonly not juſtifie ſuch Ceremonies as ours, but plainly condemneth them. For the manifeſting of which aſſertion, becauſe it may ſeem ſtrange to thoſe eares that are accuſtomed to other ſounds, I will here diſtinctly ſet down an Argument drawn out of theſe words, againſt ſuch Ceremonies as ours are.
All that is left unto the Churches liberty in things pertaining unto Gods Worſhip, is to order them in comely manner. This is manifeſtly collected one of that place in queſtion. So the Defendant ſeemeth to grant, ſo P. Martyr underſtandeth it, as is to be ſeen in his Commentary upon 1 Sam. 14. which judgement of his is cited and approved by Dr. Whitaker de Font. pag. 841. & 844. confirmed alſo by Junius againſt Bellarmine, Cont. 3. l. 4. c. 16. n. 86, 87. & c, 17. n. 9, 10, 12, 13. where he ſheweth that Chriſt is the onelyonly Law giver, that appointeth things in his Church; and that he hath appointed all that are requiſite; and that the Church maketh no Laws (properly ſo called) to appoint any new things to be uſed, but onelyonly Canons, Orders, Directions, ordering in ſeemly manner thoſe things which Chriſt hath appointed; and that if ſhe addeth any thing of her own, ſhee doth de…line. The reaſon is becauſe unto her is committed no authority of appointing new things, but a Miniſtery to obſerve and doe ſuch things which Chriſt hath appointed. Vide etiam Jun. de tranſl. imper. lib. 1. cap. 2. n. 26, 27.31. This is alſo confirmed by ſound reaſon, both in reſpect of the wiſdome required; and in all Law-makers, and perfectly found in Chriſt, and alſo in regard of the nature of ſuch Inſtitutions. For the former reaſon teacheth (as Aristotle ſheweth Rhet: 1.3) that all, which poſſibly may, ſhould be appointed in the law, by the giver of it, and nothing left unto the miniſteriall judges, but that which muſt needs be left, as matters of fact, &c. Now in the worſhip of God, all but particular circumſtances of order, may eaſily be appointed (as in very deed they were) by our Lawgiver Chriſt. As for the nature of ſuch inſtitutions, that doth alſo require ſo much: for whatſoever is above civility therein, if it be not a circumſtance of order, it is worſhip, and therefore invented by man, unlawfull will worſhip. For whatſoever is uſed, or acted by him that worſhipeth God, in that act, it muſt needs be either grounded on civill humane conſiderations, and therefore civility: or an act and mean…s of worſhip, and therefore worſhip: or the ordering and manner of diſpoſing thoſe acts and meanes, and therefore lawfull, if lawfully and fitly applyed: or elſe, at the leaſt, idle and vain, and therefore to be avoided, according to that of Baſil, foreign: A …ift cannot be given. By all this it may appear, that the authority of the Church is not to appoint what ſhe will, no not of things in their own nature indifferent, and ſay they be in order, or for order: But only to …order thoſe things which God hath appointed.
Thus farre the propoſition, or firſt part of my Syllogiſme: the aſſumption followeth.
But to appoint and uſe the Ceremonies as we do, is not to order in comely manner any thing pertaining to Gods worſhip. The reaſon is, becauſe order requireth not the inſtitution or uſage of any new thing, but only the right placing and diſpoſing of things which are formerly inſtituted. This appeareth
1. By the notation, which is given of the word it ſelf, which both in Greek and Latine is taken from the ranking of Souldiers in certain bounds and limits of time and place. Dicebant enim militibus tribuni, hactenus tibi licet, hic conſistes, eô progrediêre, huc revertere, foreign inde ordo, Scalig and
2. By the definitions which are given thereof by Philoſophers and Divines Tull. Off. lib. 1. Eadem vis videtur ordinis & collocationis. Ordinem definiunt compoſitionem rerum aptis & accommodatis locis. Locum autem actionis, opportunitatem dicunt eſse temporis. Aug. de civit. lib. 15. cap. 13. Order is the diſpoſition which fit places to things equall and unequall, id eſt, when things are handſomely ranked, ſome to goe before, and ſome to follow, as P. Martyr expoundeth it, loc. com. cl. 4. cap. 5.
3. The ſame alſo is confirmed by our Divines, who uſually giving inſtances of order, doe inſiſt in time, place, and ſuch-like circumſtances, making a difference betwixt myſticall ceremonies and order, many times condemning the one, and allowing the other: as the Divines of France and the Low Countries in their obſervations on the Harmonie of Confeſſion. Sect. 17. Beza Ep. 8. Jun. in Bell. Append. tract. de cultu imaginum. c 7. n. 12, 13, 14.
4. By the Context of the Chap. viz. 1 Cor. 14. it plainly appeareth, that order is oppoſed unto that confuſion ſpoken of verſ. 33. and therefore importeth thing but that peaceable proceeding, whereby they ſhould ſpeak one by one. … & the reſt attend, &c. v. 30, 31. So Baſil expoundeth it, ſhewing order to conſiſt in ſorting of Perſons, ſome to this, and ſome to that, according to their office, and in determining of time and place, foreign. p. 459. foreign. and p. 530. foreign. Laſtly neither Luk. 1.8. neither in any place of Scripture doth …he word order import any more then hath been ſaid.
As for Comlineſſe, that is nothing but the ſeemlineſs of order. For as P. Martyr ſaith in 1 Cor. 11 it is ſuch a tempering of actions as whereby they may more fitly attaine their end Other where it may containe that naturall, or civill hand ſomeneſſe, which is ſpoken of chap. 11.13. as it doth chap. 12, 23 and ſo includeth all that which is grounded on civility, as a fair cloath and Cup for the Communion, a fair and firm veſſell for Baptiſme; but not the appointing of n…w myſtical ceremonie, f…r then ſuch ceremonies were here commanded to all Churches, which the Defend I think will not ſay: and then the Apoſtolick Aſſ…m…lies ſhould have worſh…ped God uncomeli…y.
Thus we have both propoſition and aſſumption of our argument, againſt the ceremonies, confirmed out of this place, which the Defendant chooſe as the only p…ace that could be brought for them. Now I hope we may adde the concluſion.
Therefore to appoint and uſe the ceremonies as we doe, is not left to the liberty of the Church, i.e. it is unlawfull.
Concerning an argument againſt our Ceremonies, out of 1 Cor. 14. Which is acknowledged to be the only place in all the new Teſtament that can be alledged for their impoſing. Ames in his diſpute about humane Ceremonies pag. 57 uſ que pag. 81.
1. The Replyer, ſeeing that all the cauſe (on the impoſers part) dependeth on this pla…e of Scripture, and finding nothing by any Logick could be drawn from it for our Ceremonies, thought good to try if there may no…, from the ſame pla…e be formed a better argument againſt them. This the Rej. calleth beating up of a new Hare, and looſing the way, as if all the Def. his Retortions, and all the Rejoynder his paper ſh… which he maketh after the Repl. when he imagineth him to fly, … runne away, were new Hares and exorbi…ations. I know not elſe wha… pr…ledge he hath, to uſe a weight, and a weight, one for the Defend, with himſelf, and another for the Replyer.
2. The argument i… thus put together by the Rej pag. 77 All that is left unto the Churches liberty, in things pertaining to Gods worſhip, is to order them in comely …anner: But to appoint and uſe the Ceremonies, as we doe, is not to order in comely manner any things pertaining to Gods worſhip… Therefore, to appoint and uſe the Ceremonies, as we doe, is not left to the liberty of the Church, i. e. it is unlawfull. The Rejoynder anſwereth firſt to the propoſition, and then to the aſſumption, but ſo as he mingleth both together, in many words: Yet I will follow his order.
3. Firſt of all he denyeth the propoſition to be ſound in the Repl his meaning. But I can ſee no reaſon of his deniall.
1. He ſaith, that the order, and ordering is taken ſometimes largely, for all diſcipline or policie; ſomtimes ſtrictly, for ranking of perſons, and actions handſomely, one before, and another after, and ſo is oppoſed only to confuſion, as in this place, 1 Cor. 14.40. Now this is farre from overthrowing the propoſition, in the Repl. his meaning: for the Repl. meant order in the ſtrict ſe ſe, which maketh alſo for his purpoſe; And this the Rej. granteth to be the meaning of the Apoſtle in this place, 1 Cor. 14.40. Which place the ſame Rej. pag. 57. confeſſeth to be the only place (in the New Teſt) by which power is given to the Church to conſtitute Ceremonies: from both which …aid together, it neceſſarily followeth, that all which is left to the Churches power under the title of order is ordaining in the ſtrict ſenſe, i. e. ranking of Perſons and Actions handſomely, as the Rejoind. expoundeth it. Yet immediately after he accuſe…h the Repl, for ſaying order to be the right placing and diſpoſing of things, in tituted for time, place, &c, not ſhewing why he diſliketh him, or wherein differeth from his own expectation. Only he ſaith that &c often by the Rep. put to time and place, is a blind. Which is not ſo, for by &c. is meant all circumſtances of like nature with time and place, as Number, Meaſure, viciſſitude &c. How many Pſalmes ſhall be ſung, or Chapters read, what and how much Scripture ſhall be at this or that Aſſemblie expounded, how one part of worſhip ſhall ſucceed another &c. without a blind.
4. In the next place, the Rejoynd findeth a wrong meaning in the Repl. his uſe of the phraſe (in comely manne…) becauſe afterward, in the end of he Aſſumption, he ſaith that, Comelineſs is the Seemlineſs of order. For (ſaith the Rej.) beſide that Comelineſs of order, there is other Comelineſs. Now this the Replier p…ofeſſeth immediately after the words quoted; otherwhere Comelineſs may contain all natural and civil handſomeneſs &c. Neither will I contend about this, but it implyeth ſo much in this very place; ſo that the Rejoynd hath not given any reaſon, why the Propoſition or firſt part of the argument ſhould not be admitted. Yet after that he hath father'd it upon Mr. Jac…b, and made the Repl. his diſciple, he commeth to examine the proofes of i…, though he himſelf (as is now ſhewed) hath given ſufficient aſſent unto all contained therein.
5. The Firſt proofe is, that it is manifeſtly collected out of the place in queſtion, 1 Cor 14. and the Defend. ſeemeth to grant as much. To which the Rejoynd, anſwer…th.
1. That in that place three diſtinct things are propounded, Edification, Decency, Order: And theſe three cannot be one. But Edification being the end, Decency and Order the meanes, they may well be contained in one: decent order tending to Edification, or (which is as much to our purpoſe) in two; Decency and Order for Edification. A holy Sacrament decently, and orderly admi…iſtred, for Edification, is not four diſtinct things, but one.
His Second is, that theſe words are the concluſion of the whole Tract: beginning at the Eleventh Chapt. wherein are handled ſome things only concerning decency, ſome more properly pertaining to Edification, and ſome which belong more peculiarly to Order, Ergo more is commanded in th…ſe words, than the comely placing of one thing after another. Let this be granted, yet I followeth not that more is left unto the Churches liberty, than order and dec…nc… unto Edification; for all things that are commanded, are not left unto …he Chu…ches liberty.
But that ſpeaking in unknown tongues, which the Rejoynd. doth referre to Edification, is diſtinct from order and decency is by good Divines accounted to offend againſt the order, and decency, ſpoken of chap. 11. and 40. So Dr. Whitaker, de Script. q. 2. c. 18. diſputeth againſt the uſe of an unknown tongue in Gods ſervice, out of the very pl…ce: pugnat hoc vero cum foreign quam maxime, 1 Cor. 14.40. i. e. this mightily overthrows that good order which h… ſo much ſtands for. His 3. is, the Defend. doth no way ſeem to g…ant the propoſition; becauſe the Repl. undertaketh by argument to reſcue this place out of the Def. his hands, But this nothing at all argueth, that the Def. and the Repl. doe not agree about the propoſition, though t…ey diffent about the place, as it is handled in the aſſumption. The Papiſts grant us this Propoſi…n: No Ph…aſ… is uſed by Chriſt in theſe words, This is my body, but a Sac…amental one: Yet becauſe they deny the aſſumption; tranſubſtantiating words are not a Sacramental phraſe, wee undertake by argument to reſcue this place out of their hands. So the Def requiring no more, than order and decency unto Edification, to be left unto the Churches liberty, for the eſtabliſhing of our Ceremonies, doth ſeem at leaſt to grant, that all which is left to the Churches liberty is order and decency unto Edification, though hee deny theſe to contain no more then meere circumſtances, which is the aſſumption: Of Edification there is not mention made in the propoſition, becauſe tha…, as an end, is out of queſtion, and alwayes included.
6. Peter Martyr is cited out of D. Whitaker De Pontif. pag. 841. 844. As agreeing with that which the Repl. would have, Here the Rej. inlargeth himſelf much for the ſake (as he ſaith) of thoſe that are unlatined.
He telleth us P. M. doth diſtinguiſh, though not divide, comelineſſe from order, which we do alſo, for take the Repl. his words in the moſt rigorous ſenſe you can, yet comelineſſe of order, doth diſtinguiſh comelineſſe from order, no leſſe than comelyneſſe of a man doth diſtinguiſh it from a man.
2. He addeth, that P. Mart. doth there inſtance in the Ceremony of thrice dipping, and in the obſervation or inſtitution of Feaſts. But let the Reader know, that thoſe words, Ceremony, Obſervation, Inſtitution of Feaſts, which the Rej. hath ſet down in a differing letter, to be noted as P. M. his words, are not to be found in the place of P. M. but are added by the Rej. for advantage. P. M expoundeth the meaning he had in all his inſtances, by what place, what time, what manner. If therefore the Repl. did not look upon that place, but took it on truſt, from the truſty hand of D. Whitaker (as the …ej objected to him) yet it proveth good and fitting. So that …he Re… forgetteth himſelf much, when upon this uncertain, and momentleſſe conject…re, he compareth the Repl. to a hungry creature (or dog) that run…e…h away with a bare bone. D. Morton once (at the leaſt) alledged ſome teſtimonies on truſt; and therefore, being challenged for them, hee confeſſed, that he… had …hem from Mr. Stock Yet the Popiſh adverſary (author of the ſober reckoning) did not compare him to dogge, but onelyonly ſaid, that hee ſent to ſtock and ſtones for ſatisfaction about them. Which I doe not alledge to the diſparagement of either D. M. o… M. St. but onelyonly to ſhew by compariſon how the …ej. doth ſometime over flow in his terms.
3. For D Whitaker, he telleth …s, that hee onelyonly ſaith, that Eccleſiaſtica. Laws belong onelyonly to order, or ordering, but not as it is diſtinct from comelineſſe. As if any of us did ſo. The Repl his words; ordering in comely manner, doe not (I hope) referre all to order, conſidered apart from all comelineſſe.
This is the full ſumme of all that the Rejoind, had to except againſt the firſt allegation. And yet here upon this nothing, it pleaſeth him to accuſe, not onelyonly the Repl. but theſe men, of haughtie and magiſtral faſhions, gulling, and deceiving, great and ſhamefull ſinne, and the poor Repl. at the leaſt, for a man deſtitute of common honeſty. It ſeemeth he was very angry at ſomething. Let the underſtanding Reader gueſs, at what? 6. For more manifeſtation of the Repl. his vacuity of common honeſty, the Rej. referreth us to the ſecond teſtimony out of Junius againſt Bell. Cont. 3. l. 4. c. 16. n. 86, 87. and cap. 17. n. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.
Omitting therefore unneceſſary repetition, let us hear the reaſons of extraordinary diſhoneſty.
1. Junius cap 16 n. 86, 87. ſaith onelyonly firſt, that thoſe humane Laws are only neceſſary in the Church, which tend to this, that all things may be done decently, and in order, 1 Cor. 14.40.
2. That theſe are improperly called Laws in the Church, being more properly Conſtitutions., or Canons.
Now out of the firſt ſaying, the Repl. concluded, that Junius did judge the Apoſtle left no more to the Churches liberty, than to order Gods Ordinances in decent manner: And out of the ſecond he inferred the ſame concluſion; becauſe any conſtitution, above ordering in decent manner that which before was injoyned, is properly a Law. What extraordinary diſhoneſty is here?
2. Junius c. 17. n. 9. ſaith onelyonly, that to make new Laws in divine things, is to decline, i. e. in points of Faith, or neceſſary rules of Sanctimony. But Iunius maketh no mention at all, either of Faith or Sanctimony, or Neceſſity, nor Bell. himſelf in that place. Neither is the queſtion there handled of points of Faith, or things abſolutely neceſſary to Sanctimony. All double, treble Ceremonies reductively Sacramentall, and Worſhip, are by the Rej. his owne dictates double ſacred; and that is it which Iunius meaneth by divine.
3. Bell. ſaith that the addition forbidden Deut. 4. is of Laws contrary to the Law of God: Whereunto Junius, n. 10. anſwereth, that any Laws at all, added to Gods Laws, are contrary to the Law of God, ſpeaking of proper Laws, without any backing of Gods Law, binding the conſcience, as he ſheweth, cap. 16. n. 86.8.
Here 1. the Rejoind. left out thoſe words of Iunius, neither contrary nor beſide the word; which if he had tranſtated, then the Readers memory might have recalled, how this place cited before for defence of that phraſe, was but ſhifted by the Rejoind. pag 42.
2. It is to be marked that the Def. and Rej. their anſwer unto Deut 4. is the ſame with Bell. pag. 134.
3. That expoſition of Laws without backing, is of the Rej. his own forging. No ſuch thing is found in the places quoted, nor yet did Bell. profeſſe to defend any ſuch thing. Of binding the conſcience, enough hath been ſaid in the head of difference betwixt our Ceremonies and Popiſh.
4. Iunius n. 12. anſwering to Bellarmine his ſaying, that God (in the N.T.) gave onelyonly the common Laws of Faith and Sacram. leaving the ſpecials to the Church, &c. affirmeth Gods Laws to be perfect re, ratione & modo, and thoſe of the Church to be but Canons and diſpoſings of conveniency, for better obſerving of divine Laws.
Where note 1. an example of an &c. for a blind, or blinding, which the Rejoynd. formerly told of, for in that &c. is cortained, pro locor…m, & temporum diverſitate: quia non poſſunt diver ſiſſimi populi convenire in iiſd…m legibus & ritibus. i. e. for this cauſe, ſpeciall lawes of rituall things, are left to the Churches liberty, becauſe of variety, which falleth out now by occaſion of times and places, which is the very thing that the Rejoynd. pawned his credit, Bell. never ſaid, pag. 15, 16. Note alſo, Secondly, that Junius doth not in this place mention Canons, as the Rejoynd, pleaſeth to alter his words in reciting of them; But cautions and diſpoſitions. Now a caution about the performance of any thing, is not an inſtitution of a new thing. 3. Jun. is found to ſay as much as he was alledged for, and to the contrary we have from the Rejoynd. an hil di…it.
5. Junius n. 13. ſaith only that Chriſt is the only Law giver, that is, to give lawes, that in themſelves and by the very authority of the law maker, do bind the conſcience. As if Junius in confuting of Bell. did only ſay the very ſame thing with him, that he goeth about to conſute; for Bellarmine, in that very place ſaith: Chriſt is the che…fe law giver, who by his own authority can judge and make lawes.
Now out of all theſe allegations, the Rejoynd. maketh his interrogatories.
1. Where be theſe words, all that is requiſite as ſpoken of Rites and Ceremonies? Anſwer, the ſenſe of theſe words, as ſpoken of all Ceremonies above meer order and decency, is cap. 16, 28.
2. Where find you in Junius that the Church may conſtitute no new thing? Anſ. cap. 17. n. 9. this in things divine is to turne aſide: for the Rejoynd. his interpretation of thoſe words, that they mean points of faith, and neceſſary rules of Sanctimony, is confuted by conference of Bellarmines words there oppoſed, who in that place inſtanceth in Ceremoniall and Judiciall lawes, and ſpeaketh not at all of faith and neceſſary Sanctimony?
3. Where are theſe words, Ordering in ſeemly manner. Anſ. cap. 16. n. 86. thoſe only humane lawes are neceſſary in the Church, which make that all things be done decently and in order, 1 Cor. 14.40.
4. If the Church may appoint no new things, but only ſee to decency and order, then ſaith the Rejoynd. what Patent hath ſhe to make particular ordinances for time and place? unleſſe they be no new things. I anſ.
1. Time and place conſidered as meer occaſional circumſtances, are no more new things in Gods ſervice, then concreated time and place, were new things in creation, diſtinct from the created world. And Calvin inſ…it. l. 4. cap. 10. Sect. 22. ſeverely cenſureth thoſe, that call ſuch times of determinations new lawes: Quis niſi …a…umniator, ſic novam fer…i ab iis legem dicat, quos conſtant duntaxat ſcandalis occurrere, quae ſunt a domino ſatis diſerte prohibita? if procuring that ſcandals be avoided, be no new thing, then neither is procuring that diſorder, and undecency, for time, place, &c. be avoided, any new thing.
As for a Patent to appoint double, treble, ſacred ceremonies, it is a vain thing for them to plead it, that cannot ſhew it under the great Seal. I do not think that any earthly King would have his ſubjects ſubmit themſelves to that power, which is fetched out of a patent, inviſible and only avouched by conjectures.
7. A reaſon was given of the foreſaid propoſition, out of Jan. de Tranſl. Imp. l. 1. c 2. n. 26, 27, 31, viz. that the Church hath only a miniſtry, to obſerve ſuch things as Chriſt hath appointed, not authority of appointing new things. Here the Rej. 1. obſerveth, that thoſe words (new things) have no footſteps in Junius; As if new things could be appointed lawfully without authority of appointing; and leaveth only miniſteriall performance of things appointed, he denieth appointing of new things. 2 He argeeth thus, if the Church have a miniſtery to appoint and doe ſuch things as Chriſt hath commanded, then muſt ſhe needs have a commiſſion legative, to appoint and uſe rites, ſerving to order and decency. Adde to this only, and then it is not only that, but all that which we require. 3. He c…yeth out of miſerable perverſion, eithe… by groſſe negligence, or miſtaking. And why ſo I pray? becauſe forſooth all that Junius ſaith is good to prove, that no Eccleſiaſticall perſon hath any power by his calling over temporall Princes. But this is nothing againſt their delegated dependant power, by commiſſion: But Firſt, theſe are very ſtrange diſtinctions: they have not any power by their calling, but ſome by commi…ion. They have not any power over temporall Princes (though they be members of the Church) but over the Church they have.
2. The Rejoynd▪ maketh Junius only to deny that, which Bellarmine never affirmed, viz. abſolute independent power of Eccleſiaſticall perſons, as ſupreme Lords. Nay Bellarmine anſwereth to Calvin in …he very ſame manner that the Rejoynd. do…h: The Pope is not the chei… law giver but the Vicar of Chriſt, and by Chriſts authority maketh lawes.
3. He add…th, that Junius d…p. de trad. diſtinguiſheth betwixt decency, and the ſeemlineſs of order alone.
As if this were the main queſtion, or any part of the Propoſition, or denyed by the Repl▪ at all. The Rejoynd, having little to ſay that was to purpoſe, catcheth hold of one word in the end of the Aſſumption uſed by the Repl. ſeem…ineſſe of order (which yet is immediately there differenced from other decency, as well commanded as this) and that he maketh the main matter of the propoſition: whereas the meaning is, that nothing is left unto liberty in Gods worſhip, above decency and order, for which theſe teſtimonies are brought, and not for the other.
8. For more full ſupport of the foreſaid propoſition, a reaſon is added, from the f…llnes of a perfect law, which leaveth no more unto miniſterial judges, then needs muſt. For anſwer, the Rejoynd. 1. Obſerveth that ſome caſes are of neceſſity variable, and ſo left. So the occaſions of different ri…es, and Ceremonies are ſo various, that if ou… Lord had fixed any one certain faſhion, he ſhould have made rather ſnares then lawes for his Church. As if he had appointed ſitting at the table in a communion: or kneel…ng in prayer. This is ſtrange ſtufle. 1. So much is granted, as is deſired, viz. that God ha…h left nothing (about his worſh…p) undetermined in his word, i.e. uncommanded, and unforbidden particulary, ſave only that which he could not command or forbid: Now let any man think, and judge, whether it had not been poſſible for God in his word, either to have commanded, or forbidden the ſigning of thoſe that are baptized with the ſigne of the Croſſe as well, as baptizing of them with water? … How can that too too bold and inconſiderate aſſertion be excuſed: if our Lord had fixed (or Commanded) any one certain faſhion of Ceremonies, he had made rather ſnares then lawes for his Church. If it had pleaſed God to command, or forbid the ſigne of the Croſſe in par…icular, what ſnare had it been? When God appointed all the Ceremonies of the Old Teſtament, he did not I hope make ſnares for his Church, though he did lay a burden upon it, 3. Whereas the Rejoynd, maketh ſitting at a table, in the Lords-Supper, and kneeling at Prayer, to be ſuch things as the Lord could not command, but as ſnares, becauſe ſometime a Table may bee wanting, or ſomething to ſi… on, or ability to ſit; and ſo of Kneeling: this is as poor a ſnare to catch any man of underſtanding in, as one ſhall lightly ſee made. For 1. many affirmative Commandements of God there are, which in extraordinary caſes cannot bee fulfilled, and ceaſe to bind, as praying unto, and praiſing of God with our voice; which is no ſnare to him that cannot ſpeak.
The appointing of Wine for the Supper, is no ſnare, though ſome Countries have it not, and ſome men cannot well drink it. See Beza Ep. 2. Pareus and Symb. Sacram. lib. 1. cap. 9.2. I would know, whether it had been a ſnare if God had appointed ſitting at the Table with exception of ſuch extraordinary caſes? if yea, then much more when men appoint kneeling, ſurplicing, and croſſing; if no, then our argument may proceed.
Kneeling in publique prayer might have been appointed without ſnaring, as appearing before the Lord thrice in the year, was appointed to every Male in Iſrael, Deut. 16.16. For (without doubt) many men in Iſrael, were, by accident more unable to travel up to Ieruſalem, then any Chriſtian that hath knees, is to kneel.
After this obſervation, of which the Rej▪ ſaith it may be as wee will, he anſwereth, that our Lord hath left nothing abſolute to the will of his Officers; but hath left even ambulatory Rites, under generall rules, which will tye them as perfectly, as if every one had been named and with leſſe cumber.
1. But this is nothing to the purpoſe; becauſe ſo the imperfecteſt Law that is in any Nation upon the earth, if it be worthy the name of Law, leaveth nothing ſo abſolute to the will of inferiour Officers, as that it ſhould be without the general rules of Juſtice, common good, &c. nay not without the rules of order and decency.
2. Concerning the compariſon of perfection, betwixt generall and particular rules, though enough hath been ſaid before, upon like occaſion, yet this I will adde.
If he meaneth, that a general rule, if it be perfectly underſtood and applyed, doth as perfectly tye as particulars▪ I grant it to be a truth. And ſo was the Old Teſtament as perfect a rule of Chriſtian Faith as the New, Thou ſhalt love thy Neighbour, as perfect as the ſix of the ſecond Table. But if hee meane, that a generall rule is as fit and full for the direction of us imperfect men, as particulars are, then I think no man conſcious of humane frailty, wil beleeve him.
Neither doe I beleeve, that he himſelf is ſo fully perſwaded in croſſing the baptized, by any rule which he hath out of Gods word for that, as hee is for baptizing by the rule of that.
The …epl. having (as he thought) ſufficiently grounded the generall, that a perfect Law leaveth nothing more then needs muſt unto inſeriour officers, goeth on to aſſume, that in the worſhip of God, all, but particular circumſtances of order, might eaſily be (as indeed they were) appointed by Chriſt, and therefore need not be left to the Churches wiſdom. Upon this it pleaſeth the Rej. to ſay little to the purpoſe, in many words.
1. He ſaith, that circumſtances of order were not harder to determine than thoſe of decency. Now it is plaine enough that the Repl, here, naming order, did alſo underſtand decency, though he named order only.
2. He asketh, what School of Divinity hath taught the Repl. to ſay, that our Lord forbore the determining of ſuch circumſtances, becauſe all elſe was eaſie? I anſwer, no rule of Divinity did ever teach the Repl. to ſay ſo, nor yet the Rejoinder to impute unto him, what he never ſaid.
But if he meaneth (as it ſeemeth he doth) becauſe it was not ſo eaſie to determine circumſtances of time and place, as real worſhip.
I then anſwer, that this (as I think) the Replyer learned out of that Divinity School, out of which the Def. and Rejoinder learned. That which they cite out of Calvin, pag. 15, 16. Junius is cited to the contrary out of Cont. 3. l. 4. cap. 17. n. 12. (which place the Rejoinder looked upon by occaſion of the Replyer his former citation of it) But he in that very place, diſtinguiſheth betwixt Laws, properly ſo called, and cautions, leaving onelyonly cautions to the Churches liberty, which is the very ſame that the Repl. meaneth. The plaine truth is, that ſuppoſing Gods will to be, we ſhould worſhip him in any place, and at any time fitting, it was neceſſary, that the particular choice of fitting time & place, ſhould be left undetermined to any particular time, or place, excluſively. Calvin alſo is cited, as more comely, expreſſing the cauſe to be, that Chriſt would not, than that he could not determine ſuch matters.
Now though Calvin, being ſo excellent in his expreſſions may eaſily be granted to have expreſſed the ſame meaning in more comely manner than the Repl. Yet here was no cauſe of noting diſparity: For the Repl in ſaying, all things but particular order and decency may bee eaſily appointed, did not ſay what Chriſt could doe, but what might be eaſily for us appointed, or with our eaſe, or with the eaſe which we doe conceive of in Law giving, or of an ordinary Law-giver, having ſuch authority as Chriſt had. And who doth not ſee, that it is not ſo eaſie, to appoint every particular place, and time, wherein God ſhall be worſhipped, throughout all the world, as with that worſhip he ſhall bee ſerved? For that particular deſcription, a thouſand books, ſo great as our own Bible, would not have ſufficed.
The world (as Iohn ſaith) would not bee capable of the volumes that muſt have been written. The Rej. himſelf, pag. 89. …elleth us of cumber, and much ado, that would have been, in naming every particular, and is not this as much as leſſe eaſie? yet it pleaſed him to ſeek matter of altercation about this phraſe, and that (which agreeth not) in mediately after he had, without reaſon, accuſed the Repl. of picking quarrels, pag. 88.
10. A ſecond reaſon of the Repl. his propoſition, was, that whatſoever in worſhip is above order and decency, is worſhip: Becauſe whatſoever is acted by him that worſhippeth, in that act. beſide ordinary civility, muſt either …ee an act or means of worſhip, or an orderly decent diſpoſing of thoſe acts, or elſe at the leaſt idle, and ſo unlawfull. The Rej. anſwereth 1. that a ſignificant Ceremony for Edification is lawful; yet cometh not under any of thoſe heads. But he himſelf confeſſeth a ſignificant Ceremony inſtituted of God, to be eſſential worſhip, and inſtituted of man to bee worſhip, though not in it ſelfe: of which diſtinction enough hath been ſaid in the head of Worſhip: Yet this by the way: A ſignificant ceremony for edification is the ſame in it ſelfe, by whomſoever it be inſtituted, becauſe inſtitution is extrinſecal to the thing inſtituted, and alters it not in it ſelf, internally. If therefore it be eſſentiall lawfull worſhip, in it ſelfe, when it is inſtituted by God, it is alſo eſſentiall (though not lawfull) worſhip, in it ſelf, when it is inſtituted by man. Beſide that Ceremony whoſe proper ſole end is edification toward God, is properly done to the honour of God, and ſo properly divine worſhip.
2. His anſwer is, that comelineſs grounded on civil humane conſiderations, is not meere civility, in ſacred actions and uſe, but ſacred by application. Which is very true, if civil application be meant by meer civil; but then it is nothing to the purpoſe. For ſacred by application is ſeemly clothing, put on for to goe to Church in, and yet is in it ſelf meere civil. The Queſtion is not of application, but of internal nature. Sacred things applid to civill buſines, doe not therefore become civill; for who will ſay, that prayer, at the beginning of a Parliament, is a civil act, though it were uſed in the upper and lower houſe, and applied to that civil meeting, as it ought to be? And why then ſhall the application of civil decency unto ſacred buſines, make it alter the nature or name of it?
3. His anſwer is that all meanes of worſhip are not worſhip. But he knew well enough, that this was meant of proper meanes of worſhip.
His fourth is, that ordering and manner of diſpoſing is ill divided from comelineſs. Neither did the Repl. intend ſo to divide, but rather to conjoyne them, underſtanding by that manner of diſpoſing, comelineſs. But if the Rej. had not catched up ſome ſhew of confounding comelineſs with order, which was not intended by the Repl. he had been in this argument wholly at a loſſe.
His fift and laſt anſwer is, that by Baſils leave ſomethings in themſelves, may, and ſometimes muſt be tolerated. But he ſhould have remembred, that the queſtion here is not of tolerating, but of appointing and uſing.
Now if it be lawfull, to appoint and uſe empty and unprofitable Ceremonies in Gods worſhip, let thoſe worſhipers judge, that tremble at the majeſt… of God▪ and are afraid in any manner to appear empty, and unprofitably before hi… Nay (to paſſe by our Divines) let the Papiſts themſelves judge. Bellar. de Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. ad 4. Co…feſſeth thoſe Ceremonies to be forbiden, which are unprofitable altogether, and vain precepts, unprofitable and f…ivolous Ceremonies, only by humane ſpirit invented. And de Effect. Sacrament. l. 2. c. 32. empty and good for nothing, more then needs, and not a jot tending to any Godlineſs, and who not?
11. Thus farre concerning the propoſition of our argument: the aſſumption followeth, which is this: To appoint and uſe the Ceremonies as we do, is not to order in comely manner any thing pertaining to Gods worſhip. The reaſon is, becauſe order requireth not the inſtitution or uſage of any new thing, but only the right placing and diſpoſing of things formerly inſtituted.
The Rejoynd, anſwers 1. That order requireth new time, place and meaſure: which is a Sophiſtrie in the propoſition before abuſed, and confuted.
2 His ſecond is, that ordering in comely manner, or comelineſs, requireth the inſtitution of ſuch formalities, as ſhall be ſutable to the dignity, and variety of divine actions. Where the terme formalities is not ſo formall, that a man may ſpie in it the difference it hath from other things: the Rejoynder in his Manuduc. pag. 36. appropriateth it to Biſhops Rochets, &c. even as they are diſtinct from Surplices: the Biſhops went before the hearſe in their formalities, the Clarkes in their Surplices. So that it ſeemeth to meane ſome Ceremonies of State, and dignity: of which kind neither Croſſe, not ſurplice is any. Howſoever the ordering of one thing, doth not require another new thing, but only diſpoſing of that one. For if it did, then that new thing (becauſe that alſo muſt be ordered) would require another new thing, and that alſo for order ſake another, ſo that no one thing could be ordered without an infinite heape of new things.
As for the dignity of divine actions, that is beſt ſuited with mans reverent and humble ſimplicity, not with outward ſhewes of dignity, invented by man. The womans ordinary vail was mo…e ſutable to the dignity of Gods worſhip, then if ſhe had adorned her ſelf with Gold, and pretious Stones. Pauls plain Cloak was more ſuitable, then the cheifeſt Cope in all Rome. If order requireth outward ſhewes of dignity, then Rome, which is a confuſed Babel, may be to all Churches a mirable example of religious order; for the Councill of Tient Seſſ. 22. profeſſeth their Maſſe Ceremonies to be invented, that the majeſty of ſuch a Sacrifice might be ſet out.
12. To ſhew further that order requireth not ſuch Ceremonies as ours, the notation of the word was brought in, ſignifying no ſuch thing. Now the Rejoynd, granteth, that originally the word doth not containe within the compaſſe of it, ſuch kind of Ceremonies, though by uſage it may. Which is very true; but helpeth not, Except the Def. or Rejoynd. whoſe princi…all argument is taken from this place, and only retorted by us, can prove, that in this place the word order is extended beyond his originall ſignification. He will not therefore ſtand with us, about the ſignification of the word in this place: let order ſaith he, in this place ſignify no more then placing. But he maketh his retreat to the word Comelineſſe; asking if comelineſſe be nothing? I anſwer yes, it is ſomething; but the Repl. did not inſiſt on that word, becauſe he took the force of the Def. his argument from this place, principally to lie upon order.
But ſeeing the Rejoynder hath given up Order, I will adde a word or two concerning Comelineſs.
I take this for granted, that ſeing the Rejoynder confeſſeth order here to be taken in ſtrict ſignification, as oppoſed only to confuſion, pag. 78. he will alſo conſent with us, that decency, in the ſame place and ſentence, is to be taken in ſtrict ſignification, as oppoſed only to the vice of undecency. Now hence it followeth that decency requireth nothing, but that which is heceſſary to the avoiding of undecency.
I ask therefore if undecency in Gods worſhip cannot be avoided, without double, treble, ſacred, ſignificant Ceremonies, of mans inventing? If nor, then the Apoſtles did much forget themſelves, in their publick worſhiping of God, before men had invented ſuch Ceremonies; for that is no anſwer which the Rejoynd. after giveth; all Churches are not bound to this or that particular way of comelineſſe. All Churches are bound to avoid undecency and to doe that which decency requireth, or bindeth them unto. If yea, then Decency doth not require ſuch kind of Ceremonies.
Neither doth it indeed, any more then order. So Mr. Perkins, lat. to. 2. p. 888. Decency is when the ſervice of God is performed with convenient and fit circumſtances of time, place, perſon, and geſture: and here of the Apoſtle ſpeaketh 1 Cor. 14.40. The plain ſimple truth, without Cere…oniall affectation, is, that decency is (in this place) nothing but good civil faſh…n, agreeable not only to worſhip, but alſo to any grave aſſembly. Decency (ſaith Pareus upon the place) is oppoſed to vanity, ſports, riot: it ſtands not in hoods, Caps, or vizards of fond Ceremonies. &c.
I dare appeal to D. B. his conſcience, if Baptiſme be not as decently adminiſtred without the Croſſe, as with it,? and publick prayers made as decently without a Surplice, as with it? Let conſcience here ſpeak, and the Rejoynde: harkening unto it, will (without all doubt) confeſſe, that decency in this place doth no more require either Croſſe or Surplice, then order, and that both of them together doth no more require thoſe Ceremonies, then a hundred other, which in England (though not at Rome) are denyed unto them.
To this purpoſe Mr. Atterſall, in his ſecond book of the Sacrament, chap. 5. ſaith well: if they referre all this traſh and trumpery (of hamane Ceremontes in Baptiſme) to order and comelineſs, as Hoſius doth, do they not thereby blaſphemouſly accuſe the Baptiſme of John, and of the Apoſtles of uncomelineſſe and diſorder? whereas the comelineſs and dignity of the Sacraments is to be eſteemed by the word of God, by the inſtitution of Chriſt, by the ſimplicity of the Goſpell, and by the practice of the Apoſtles: Nothing is more comely, decent, and orderly, then that which Chriſt commandeth and alloweth: nothing is more uncomely and unſeemly then that which man inventeth in the ſervice of God, and in the celebration of the Sacraments; thereby inverting and perverting the holy Ordinances of God.
12. The received definitions of order, are brought in to the ſame purpoſe, by the Replier. And the Rejoynder yeildeth ſo much as they import, viz. that order in ſtrict ſignification doth not imply ſuch Ceremonies as ours.
He muſt therefore either prove, that in this place, 1 Cor. 14.40. that word is not taken ſtrictly, which he himſelf formerly granted, or give up the place, which is (by his own confeſſion) the only place of all the New Teſtament, for warran…ing of ſuch Ceremonies, or flie to decency, upon which he cannot any more faſten then upon order, as ha…h been ſhewed.
Nothing materiall is added in the reſt of the Rejoynd. his anſwer unto this argument (where our divines are obſerved, to diſtinguiſh order and decency, from myſticall Ceremonies, the context of the Chapter, 1 Cor. 14. is declared to reſpect n… myſticall Ceremonies, the Phraſe of Scripture is ſhewed to conſent) nothing (I ſay and the Reader may ſee) is added; but only the ſame things are …epeated about order, and decency which are now ſufficiently diſcuſſed.
So the Rejoynder hath nothing to ſay to the contrary, but that we may ſafely conclude, Ergo, to appoint and uſe the Ceremonies as we doe, is not left to the liberty of the Church, i. e. it is unlawfull.
If there were nothing elſe againſt them, in all the Scripture, then this place, beſides which the Defend, and Rejoynd can find none in all the New Teſtament for them, any indifferent man would ſay they are not allowed.
Thoſe that are devoted to the Ceremonies may ſhuffle up and down, firſt to O…der, and when they are beaten thence, to Decency, and from decency, when they can defend that no longer, to Edification, as the Rejoynd. doth: But all will not help. Let them pitch or inſiſt upon one of theſe grounds, without ſtarting, I will pawn my Head, their A…hor will come home to them again, as finding noe faſt ground either in Order, Decency, or Edification, for double ſignificant Ceremonies (ſuch as o…rs) to ride at. The Defend, could frame no conſequence out of any of theſe words, the Rejoynd, ſaith there is one, but he cannot ſhew it. To the contrary conſequence, nothing is anſwered of any moment.
And is not this a miſerable cauſe, which hath no place in all the N. Teſtament▪ which the beſt Advocates can alledge for it, but only that, out of which it is utterly confounded? To the Defend, and Rejoynders maintaining ſuch a cauſe, this teſtimony may be given that they would willingly, ſo farre as they can, favour things which the times favour, and therefore ſtrive to make ſomething of that which maketh nothing for them. In the former ſection, when Order, Decency, and Edification, ſhould have been handled as rules, according to the title of the digreſſion, the Rejoynder ſuddainly breaketh off, referring them to a fitter place. Now here in this place, he was conſtrained to touch upon them, but ſo ſoftly, and ſparingly, that it appeareth he found this no fitter place then the former, for thoſe reſerved Conſiderations. When ſhall we come to the fitter place?
By this I hope the Reader is ſatisfied, that there is more in Ames his Argument than you imagined, and thinks that you had no reaſon to ſlight it before you had ſeen it. I will readily acknowledge that you are fa…e his ſuperiour for your incomparable skill in Critical learning and Antiquity, and all the world would account me a fool to ſay or think otherwiſe, but I hope it is no blaſ…hemy to ſay, that hee was not much your inferiour for Logick, Philoſophy, and Scholaſtical Divinity; in which latter, hee was n…ore verſed than moſt of our Proteſtant Writers: Compariſons I know are odious, bu… Apologize for a dead man, and therefore I hope I ſhall be held excuſed: Indeed his memory …ght to be precious with mee; for though I diſſent from him in ſome things, yet I muſt needs confeſſe, that in my firſt ſtudy of Divinity, I moſt profited by him: I have often found in a few words of his that ſatisfaction, which I in vaine ſearched for in more voluminous diſcourſes. I know that hee hath been contemned by many, but it hath been by Learned men that never read him, or by ignorant Readers that never underſtood him; and indeed unto thoſe that have not made ſome tolerable progreſſe in Philoſophy, he will be in many places unintelligible; for he ſtudied brevity, and for that p…rpoſe, frequently made choice of ſcholaſtical expreſſions: He lived and dyed an exile for his diſlike, and oppoſition of our Ceremonies; and the Biſhops were not contented to have hunted him from his Native ſoyl, but purſued him beyond the Seas; for they engaged King James to command the then Engliſh Ambaſſadour at the Hague to ſollicite againſt his employment in the Netherland Univerſities, and he prevailed with the States Generall to exclude him from Leyden, where otherwiſe hee had been received as a Profeſſor; but making the like attempt at Franeker, the motion was rejected as unchriſtian and uncharitable, with ſome tart reflexions upon the Biſhops malice. This I have received from a very good hand, one of his Scholars, that heard it from his own mouth: But I returne from this digreſſion.
Upon the review of this Section I find, what you ſay of Ames his Argument for condemning of the Ceremonies from 1 Cor. 14. may with better reaſon bee applyed unto Biſhop Mortons medium for juſtifying of them, and with your leave, Mutatis mutandis, I ſhall apply it thereunto: To the reproach of my great ſtupidity, I willingly acknowledg, that it cannot-enter into my underſtanding what ſenſe his buttoning and unbuttoning of▪ his Caſſock is ca…able of▪ which with the beſt poſſible managery can be taught plainly to justifie humane inſtitution of religious myſtical Ceremonies in the Church appropriated unto Gods worſhip, …e. by what Proſyllogiſmes or ſupplies, or advantages of art, this Enthymeme ſhall be rendered concludent. Biſhop Morton buttoned and unbuttoned his Caſſock, therefore it is lawfull for Church governours to invent and deviſe Symbolical Ceremonies, that is, thoſe which teach things ſpiritual by their myſtical ſignification, and appropriate them unto Gods worſhip. He that can maintain this conſequence to be not onelyonly true, but plain and evident, will be a formidable adverſary indeed, as formidable an adverſary as ever put pen to paper; and if you cannot maintain this Conſequence, the terror of your name wil with me in great part vaniſh, as touching argumentation; When the Spaniards came firſt into America, the inhabitants thought them to be immortall, but when they had once taken ſome of them, they put their heads under water, and there kept them untill they had drowned them, and this ſoon altered their opinion: knowing your vaſt abilities, I looked upon you as a very formidable adverſary, and expected from you very terrible arguments; but your arguments for the Ceremonies I have taken, and I thinke ch…ked them with ſa…isfying anſwers, and therefore you are not in this controverſy ſo formidable an adverſary as at firſt I thought you; but I impute this to the b…dneſſe of your cauſe, and not to any defect in your abilities.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 36.
His third and laſt impreſſion now remaines, wherein he undertakes to prove by three arguments, that cuſtome is not the only 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 Sect: concerning uniformity, 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 ſortes of things, of which I ſpeak not, nor can by any rules of diſcourſe be ſuppoſed to have ſpoken, yet as to the matters then before me, wherein Eccleſiaſtick conformity conſiſted, cuſtome, and only custome was the rule of decency.