Uniformity in Human Doctrinal Ceremonies, jeanes 25 – hammond 27
Jeanes.
The Surplice was uſed not onelyonly as a note of diſtinction, but alſo for its myſtical ſignification, to betoken ſanctity of life, and untill this latter uſe of them be proved lawfull, your four arguments will be but a begging of the Queſtion, as you will ſoon perceive, when you attempt the reducing of them into forme.
This may ſuffice for anſwer unto all your arguments; but I ſhall alſo give unto each of them a ſeveral anſwer.
The firſt argument is taken from the Analogy betwixt civill and ſacred perſons and actions: Civil perſons wear ſolemn garments for ſolemn actions, which they doe not uſe at other times; therefore it is decent for Miniſters to weare ſolemne garments in their ſolemne ſacred actions, which they doe not uſe in common occaſions, as whilſt they are walking in the ſtreets, or the like.
To anſwer this, I need not trouble my ſelf, but only referre the Reader unto what Ames anſwereth unto the like objection of Biſhop Mortons in his Reply to his particular Def. &c pag. 4. To which I anſwer.
1. That if all this be granted, yet it maketh not for the Surplice; which is not a Civil but an Eccleſiaſtical, Religious habit; there is great difference betwixt a grave, civil habit, and a myſtical garment.
2. The conſequence doth not follow; becauſe in the exerciſing of the Miniſterial duty, nothing is requiſite which the Lord himſelfe doth not impoſe upon his Miniſters. A Miniſter then hath another perſon, than when he walketh in the ſtreet.
3. There is a great diſparity betwixt Judges and Miniſters, in regard of their Functions; for Judges Functions are civill, and therefore ſubject unto mans Inſtitutions: but Miniſters in their Functions are onelyonly to obſerve what he, whoſe ſervice they are to perform hath appointed.
This anſwer fits your argument, as if it had been purpoſely made for it, and by this the Reader may ſee, that it was baffled long agoe, and methinkes you ſhould not have propounded it anew without ſome reinforcement.
But your ſecond argument will ſtrike the matter dead; The Command of our Superiours added unto the decency of the matter. But this mends the matter nothing at all; for our Superiours, as well as others, are prohibited to make any additionals unto the Worſhip inſtituted by the ſupream Law giver, who had infinite Wiſdome, and ſo could ſufficiently provide whatſoever was fitting in his own Worſhip and Service: All additions unto the Ceremonial Law under the Old Teſtament were unlawfull, Deut. 12.32. And why then ſhould it be lawfull to adde unto the Ceremonial Law in the New Teſtament? Chriſt was faithfull in the Houſe of God, as Moſes, Heb. 3.2. and therefore his proviſion for rituals was as perfect and exact, though not as numerous.
Your third Argument, The reſemblance of the Surplice unto thoſe Garments which in Scripture are mentioned for the like ſolemnities, long, ſhining, white Robes or Garments, I ſuppoſe you mean ſome of the holy Garments of Aaron, that were appointed for glory and for beauty, Levit. 16.4. and then this reaſon may involve the Surplice in the guilt of Judaiſme, rather than prove its decency. Hath God, think you, abrogated thoſe myſtical Garments that were of his owne inſtitution, to make way for ſuch as ſhall bee of mens invention: If we muſt needs have myſtical apparel, what can be more fitting than that which God himſelf ordained?
The Word and Sacraments doe ſufficiently minde a Miniſter of his duty, and the light of them is ſo full and clear, like that of the Sun, as that it needs not the candle of a Surplice. This inſtruction of the Church by humane Ceremonies, is to teach her with a Feſcue, to hide the light of the Goſpel under a buſhel, and it is a vailing and ſhadowing of its brightneſſe.
Some have concluded the Surplice to be decent, becauſe the Angels appeared in ſhining garments, Luk. 24.4. in raiment white as ſnow, Mat. 28.3. becauſe the glorious Saints in heaven are cloathed with white robes, Revel. 7.9. and the Lambs Wife ſhall be arraied with fine linnen, clean, white, Revel. 19.8. But theſe inferences are, as they ſay, à baculo ad angulum, and you are wiſer than to own them, and yet the ſtrength of your argument is little, if at all, ſuperiour to them.
Your fourth argument is, the conſtant uſage of other Churches, beſides this of ours, Eaſtern as well as Weſtern, for many Centuries together.
But firſt, the not uſing the Surplice by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and ſome Centures immediately following their times, is a ſafer preſident to imitate, than the uſage of it in ſucceeding Centuries, which were not ſo pure and incorrupt as the Primitive time.
2. Thoſe which are utterly unskilled in the Ancients, may collect from the confeſſion of your great and learned Hooker, Eccleſiaſtical Politie, pag. 245. That the true and Primitive antiquity of the Surplice, is a matter very doubtful, notwithſtanding, ſaith he, I am not bent to ſtand ſtiffly upon theſe probabilities, that in Hieromes and Chryſoſtomes times any ſuch attire, as a white garment, was made ſeveral unto this purpoſe, to wit, for Miniſters to execute their Miniſtery in, and it is without doubt that in the next age, the cumberſome weight of Ceremonies, as you call it, burdened the Church; for Auguſtine who lived in the times of Hierome complained hereof, Epiſt. 119. ad Januar. Quamvis enim neque hoc inveniri poſſit, quomodo contra fidem ſint, ipſam tamen religionem, quam pauciſſimis & manifeſtiſſimis celebrationum Sacrament is miſericordia Dei eſſe liberam voluit, ſervilibus oneribus premunt, ut tolerabilior ſit conditis Judaeorum, qui etiam ſitempus libertatis non agnoverint, legalibus tamen ſarcinis, non humanis praeſumptionibus ſubjiciuntur. Sed eccleſia Dei inter multam paleam multaque zizania constituta multa tolerat.
In the next place you averre, that Eccleſiaſtical cuſtome in things of this nature, is a more rational ground and rule of decency then any Mr. J. or Ameſius to boote, will readily be able to produce, for the rejecting of them, &c. But untill Ameſius his argument againſt things of this nature, humane myſtical ceremonies, be anſwered, this compariſon with impartial Readers will paſſe for nothing but vapouring.
In the end of the Section, you give a hint of the tolerableneſſe of the Ceremonies, they were bands which tyed no harder yoke than this, upon your ſhoulders.
But firſt, God hath broken the yoke of his own Ceremonies, and our Prelates cannot ſhew us any commiſſion for their pretended authority to make a new yoke of their own, and with it to gall the necks and conſciences of Chriſts Members and Miniſters. Paul, though he thought all indifferent things to be lawfull, yet he profeſſeth that he would not be brought under the power of any, 1 Cor. 6.12. Now we were brought under the power of the Croſſe and Surplice; for as Aquinas rightly, qui utitur eo, quod non expedit, ſive licitum ſive illicitum, redigitur quedammodo ſub rei illius poteſtate, and we were enthralled unto the uſe of them, when they were not expedient, when they did not edify, but deſtroy and ſcandalize.
2. If we may judge of the late Biſhops zeal by their puniſhments, they ſhewed more zeal againſt the neglect of their Ceremonies, than againſt the omiſſion of the weightieſt matter of both the Law and Goſpel; the moſt ſcandalous and ignorant Miniſters found more favour at their Tribunals, than ſuch of the Nonconformiſts as were renowned for parts and learning, and exemplary for perſonal piety and diligence in their Miniſterial function.
3. Their rigour in impoſing theſe bands was unexcuſable and unſupportable; for it was upon no leſſe penalties than ſilencing and deprivation, and theſe were upon the moſt peaceable and conſcientious Diſſenters: and when theſe arguments ſatisfied them not (and they were the beſt arguments their Conſiſtories yeelded) the poor men were judged obſtinate and contumacious, and then the Secular power was called upon for their perpetual impriſonment, they muſt not breath in Engliſh aire, unleſſe in the cloſe, and perhaps infected one, of a ſtinking priſon; and there they muſt rot and expire, except they conform againſt their conſciences: But I hope the Prelates ſufferings have awakened them unto a ſight of, and ſorrow for this their over ſeverity, if not, I ſhall pray unto God to open their ears, that they may hear the voice of his rod.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 30.
In this caſe I beleeve (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. J. ſaith St. Paul oppoſes to foreign) viz. down right confuſion.
Jeanes.
Here we have a great deale of confidence in your concluſion, but upon a diligent and moſt impartial ſearch, I cannot find any premiſes of a proportionable ſtrength to bear it up; indeed you are like to meet with ſome partial Readers, who will think your proofs irrefragable, becauſe you have poured our ſo many quotations out of the Fathers, whereas all the while there is nothing in all this your diſcourſe that looks like an Argument: If you think my cenſure injurious, you may right your ſelf, by reducing your Arguments unto form, and then, if they be found convincing, the ſhame will be mine, and until this be done, I ſhall ſatisfie my ſelf with that which Ames ſpeakes concerning the pretence of decency, In his reply to Mortons particular def. &c. pag. 3. As for the rule of decency, which is here made the ground of all this affirmation; it were to be wiſhed that the Defendant would have brought it into a Syllogiſme, that we might have ſeen the force of it; for now I cannot deviſe what Logick will conclude different Miniſterial Garments, from decency; …eeing decency was, and is without them, in a multitude of Chriſtian Churches and Miniſters; but as ſome blundering Logicians, make their rule de omni & de nullo, ſerve to prove every thing: ſo this Defendant would make us beleive that his rule of decency will maintaine any thing that it pleaſeth our ſpirituall Lords to impoſe upon us.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 31, 32, 33.
Having ſaid thus much ex abundanti above what was incumbent on me, I ſhall flatter myſelf, that I may not ſpare any larger paines, in ſurvey of Ameſius's arguments, which Mr. J. is reſolved to think conſiderable, and to ſpeak very magnificently of …hem, as proving that the text 1 Cor. 14.40 rightly underſtood, doth not only 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,
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 naturall 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 civill or eccleſiaſticall cuſtome, or obedience to our lawfull Superiours may render decent; that whatſoever ſome e…ternall 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 Cloak or a but on'd Doublet, is abſolutely unlawfull by force of 1 Cor. 14.40.
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. Burges out of the field, then that they thought them utterly unworthy their making reply's to; He that thinks the…e is nothing in different, nothing lawfull, the omiſſion of which is not ſinne, doth certainly uſe other Dictionaries then we do, diſcernes no difference betwixt lawfull and neceſſary and, as the Aſſertors of Fa…all 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 but produce it, which is to tell me that I ſit, and walk at the very time, when I stand ſtill, it being certain that I am equally able to doe both thoſe, when yet I really doe the third only, 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 that which may or may not be done, to ſignifie only that which muſt be done, and may not be omitted) and not new reaſons to confirme old paradoxes.