Uniformity in Human Doctrinal Ceremonies, jeanes 38
Jeanes.
Here you explicate your meaning by firſt a conceſſion. 2. by inſtances, and then you produce pretended arguments for the proof of the propoſition which I ſay is incumbent on you to confirme.
1. You lay down a conceſſion, 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 &c,
1. I cannot imagine to what purpoſe you lay down the grant, for notwithſtanding it, you ſtill hold, that uniforme obedience is to be yeilded by the members of each reſpective Church unto ſuch Ceremonies in Gods worſhip as have been, are, or ſhall be appointed or commanded by any Churches in the ages ſucceeding the Apoſtles, and ſo ſtill it will be incumbent upon you to prove, that cuſtome and order are here taken in ſuch a latitude, as that they include the cuſtomes and appointments of all the Churches of God in ſucceeding ages.
2. There is a difference betwixt inſtitution and commandment or appointment of Ceremonies, for though every inſtitution be a commandment or appointment, yet every commandment or appointment is not an inſtitution, and hence a Church in a place may command and appoint the uniforme obſervance of Ceremonies inſtituted unto its hand by the Church in a former age.
This pre ſuppoſed, I demand, whether you hold it here neceſſarily ordained by the Apoſtle, that all the Churche of God in ſucceeding Ages, ſhould either inſtitute Ceremonies in Gods worſhip, or elſe appoint and command ſuch as have been already inſtituted? If you thinke them all free, and diſobliged from both inſtitution and appointment of Ceremonies in worſhip, why then all Churches might lawfully have abſtained from ſuch both inſtitution and commandment, and if ſuch abſtinence were lawfull, I may, I beleeve, preſume that it will be a very hard matter to prove ſuch an abſtinence to be inexpedient and againſt edification.
If you ſhould ſay, that ſome, though not all, the Churches of God are obliged either to inſtitute Ceremonies in Gods worſhip, or to appoint and command ſuch as are already inſtituted, by precedent Churches ſucceeding the Apoſtles time, why then we ſhall juſtly expect that you ſhould ſpecifie or nominate ſuch Churches, and give ſome reaſon for the appropriation of ſuch an obligation unto ſuch Churches, rather than unto others.
3. In your view of the Directory, page 19. you affirm that in the command of St. Paul, there is a proof of the more than lawfulneſſe of foreign, preſcription of Ceremonies in a Church, and of Ʋniformity therein: Now I thought that you were to be underſtood of all Churches, and then by more than lawfulneſſe, I ſuppoſe, you had meant neceſſity: You ſay that foreign, the preſcription of Ceremonies in a Church is more than lawfull, and hereupon I imagined that you affirmed it to be neceſſary; but it ſeems I was miſtaken in your meaning: I ſhall therefore wait for a further explication of it, and therein I ſhall deſire to know what you underſtand by the more than lawfulneſs of foreign, or preſcription of Ceremonies in a Church? As alſo to be informed, whether you extend what you ſay of the preſcription of Ceremonies in a Church unto all Churches? and if not, what reaſon you have for the reſtriction of it unto ſome Churches? and what theſe Churches are?
In the beginning of the 52 Sect. you perplex the ſtate of the Queſtion, by inſtancing in the circumſtances of Gods worſhip, which are by the Non-conformiſts expreſly excluded from the Queſtion, for they limit it onelyonly unto humane religious Ceremonies. Now betwixt theſe and the circumſtances of Gods worſhip, there is a great, and very wide difference.
1. Circumſtances of time, place, order, and decency, &c. are neceſsary, and appointed in generall; but humane religious Ceremonies are not neceſſary in generall, as will ſoon appear when you goe about to prove ſuch a neceſſity of them. It is impoſſible for Gods worſhip to be performed without ſome circumſtances, but it is very poſſible for Gods worſhip to bee celebrated without any humane religious Ceremonies.
2. Circumſtances of Gods worſhip, viz. a fitting time and place, a decent Pew and Pulpit, a fair and handſome cloath for the Communion Table, are not Worſhip; but humane religious Ceremonies are in their nature Worſhip, as being inſtituted to lift up Gods honour immediately in their uſe and end.
3. Things of meer order require no ordering: Time and place require not other time and place to circumſtance them aright; but now humane ſacred Ceremonies are capable of time and place, and of being ordered.
4. Circumſtances of time, place, order, and decency are common to religious, with civil actions; but religious Ceremonies are appropriated unto Gods wor… ſhip and ſervice.
But to come unto your own inſtances.
Your firſt inſtance is in the geſture, in which publick prayer is to be addreſt.
But this inſtance is very impertinent: for
1. This is in the general neceſſary, ſo that it is utterly impoſſible for Prayer to be put up, but in ſome geſture or other; but the Ceremonies which Non-conformiſts oppoſe, are meere humane inventions, and ſo unneceſſary in the generall.
2. We have, for the particular geſture in Prayer, ſufficient warrant and direction from the light of Nature and Scripture, without any humane inſtitution: But we have no direction in Scripture for particular humane Ceremonies: This is very well ſet down in Ames diſp. about Ceremon. pag. 139. pag. 151. No ſuch thing can with any colour be averred of Surplice, Croſſe and the like. I doe not quote Ames, as if I thought you any thing valued what he ſaid, but that the Reader might know the true ſtate of the queſtion, and that in the laying of it down you have not ſo much as conſulted your adverſaries.
But now to prevent as much as may bee the multiplying of needleſſe Controverſies betwixt us, I ſhall acknowledge that a Church may enjoyne the uſage of any reverent, lowly, ſubmiſſive geſture in publique ſupplications, when there is conveniencie for the uſage thereof.
But yet it will not hereupon follow, that all things are to be done in the geſtures of publique Prayer according unto the Churches appointment; for ſuppoſe the Church ſhould prohibit in publique Prayers the geſtures of kneeling, lifting up the eyes and the hands to heaven, I ſhould conclude ſuch an appointment of any Church whatſoever to be unlawfull, becauſe contrary unto the expreſſe direction of Scripture.
Your ſecond inſtance is impertinent too, for the geſtures of Lauds, Hymnes and Confeſſions of the Faith, &c. is a matter of meer decency, and how remote matters of meere decency are from the Ceremonies in queſtion, I have declared a little before, I ſhall therefore now onelyonly adde theſe three things.
1. That a rational man may by meer light of Nature, without any inſtitution, eaſily gather, what geſture is fitting, decent and agreeable unto theſe actions.
2. That notwithſtanding this, the Governours or Officers of a Church may appoint in theſe actions any decent geſture or poſture of the body, provided that by ſpeciall inſtitution they doe not put upon it any myſticall ſignification, and thereby make it a Worſhip.
3. That from this grant it can never be inferred, that in thoſe geſtures which are to bee uſed in Lauds, Hymns, Confeſſions of the Faith, all things are to bee done according to the appointment of Church Governours: and my reaſon is, becauſe it is poſſible, that Church Governours may bee ſo irrational, as to appoint here undecent geſtures, as that the people ſhould lye along on their faces in ſinging of Pſalmes of Praiſe, and in Confeſſion of the Faith. Now an undecent geſture would be finfull, becauſe againſt the Apoſtles preſcription, Let all things be done decently.
In the laſt place proceed we unto thoſe arguments, if I may ſo call them, which you have for confirmation of the propoſition, which I ſay is incumbent on you to prove: If you have for this any arguments in this your diſcourſe, they are, as I conceive, theſe three.
1. Becauſe obedience muſt be paid to thoſe Superiours, which watch over our ſouls▪
2. Becauſe the Apoſtle left order to Titus to ſet in order the things that were wanting.
3. Becauſe we are commanded to obey our Eccleſiaſtical as well as naturall and civil parents: Now let the Reader apply unto each of theſe arguments the propoſition that is to be proved, therefore foreign in the 1 Cor. 14.40. is taken in ſuch a latitude, as that it includes the appointments of all the Churches of God in ſucceeding ages, and the conſequence will bee of an imperceptible validity.
The Reader may farther, if hee pleaſe, make another experiment touching theſe arguments, hee may try what they will conduce unto the principal concluſion, that the words of Paul are a proof of the more than lawfulneſſe of preſcription of ſuch Ceremonies as ours in a Church; if by the help of them he can come nigh this concluſion of the Doctors, I will confeſſe that I have been groſly miſtaken.
And this might ſuffice for anſwer unto theſe three arguments; but yet I ſhall for the further ſatisfaction of the Reader ſay ſomething unto each of them apart.
The firſt is, becauſe obedience muſt be paid to thoſe Superiours which watch over our ſouls; the place is Heb. 13.17. but this place will prove nothing for the humane inſtitution of religious Ceremonies, becauſe our Guides may rule over us without inſtitution of ſuch Ceremonies, and conſequently wee may pay obedience to them without practiſe of ſuch Ceremonies: The place is urged by Bellarmine for the Popes Coactive power to make Laws binding the conſcience, and in Whitakers Anſwer thereunto, Tom. 2. page. 722. you may take notice of this paſſage; Non conſtituit haee Jententia regnum Epiſcopis extra, aut ſupra Evangelium: non debent Epiſcopi ſuas traditiones aut leges, aut contra, aut extra, aut praeter Evangelium obtrudere. Obediendum ergo eſt, ſed cum cautione, ſi praeeant illi in Domino, & nil ſuum tradunt: nam ſi hoc fecerit omittendi ſunt, juxta illud, etiamſi nos, aut Angelus e Coelo, evangelizet vobis praeter id quod vobis evangelizavimus, anathemae eſto. Gal. 1.8. Let the Reader conſider whether our Ceremonies were not inſtituted, praeter Evangelium, beſides the Goſpel:
A ſecond argument which you proſecute, Sect. 53, 54. is becauſe Paul left order to Titus, to ſet in order the things that were wanting; ſuch as the Apoſtle had left undiſpoſed of, in which they have made no rules, and the ſame power you think is left, by parity of reaſon, to the Biſhops in every Iſland:
For anſwer, foreign the things that were wanting were wanting in Crete, left undone, as it is in the Margin of our Engliſh Bible, and not in the commiſſion or rules which Paul gave to Titus: for that Titus was to keep unto the inſtructions that he had received from Paul, you might have ſeen, if you had had the patience to have read unto the end of the verſe; for there the Apoſtle points to him the rule he ſhould walk by, hee was to ſet in order the things that were wanting in Crete, not of his own head, but accordîng to the appointment of Paul; as I had appointed thee.
I might farther alledge, that Biſhops (by whom you mean our Prelates) have not the ſame power delegated unto them, which Paul committed unto Titus: But I ſhall for the preſent wave this, becauſe it may occaſion a long digreſſion, and the former anſwer is abundantly ſatisfactory, and from it we may conclude; that ſuppoſe Biſhops had power left them to ſet in order things that are wanting, yet we may not thence collect, that they have power for inſtitution of new doctrinal Ceremonies, beſides thoſe inſtituted by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, becauſe however there may be many things wanting in their Churches, which may need reformation, yet there is nothing wanting in the Scriptures, which needs to be ſupplied by humane additions.
Your third Argument is drawn from the power of our Eccleſiaſtical parents and the obedience we owe unto them. It cannot be doubted, ſay you, 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? Here we have no argument, but only a begging of the thing in queſtion: It is not denied but that Eccleſiaſtical parents have power to appoint and diſpoſe of ſuch Circumſtances of time, place, order, decency &c. as in their kind are neceſſary, but in particular determination do vary: But that they have any power to inſtitute new Religious Ceremonies, of myſtical ſignification, is a thing which you cannot but know to be conſtantly denied by your Antagoniſts, and therefore why you ſhould preſume the contrary evident, and never attempt the proof of it, I cannot ſufficiently wonder.
But perhaps you have an argument couched in theſe words, it cannot be dou… ted &c. whether our Eccleſioſtical parents have power to inſtitute in things omitted, and thereby remitted to their care by the Apostles.
But pray, Sir, do you in earneſt think, that if things be omitted by the Apoſtles, they are by them hereby remitted unto the care of Eccleſiaſtical parents in ſucceeding ages? Every one will confeſſe that it ſounds like a very ſtrange propoſition: however, you cannot expect that I ſhould ſwallow it, until you bring ſome confirmation of it.
By this the Reader is, I hope, ſatisfied, that though your reading of foreign, according unto appointment, were to take place, yet you have brought nothing to prove that, which you were juſtly called upon for proof of, viz. that appointment, was to be taken here in this place of the Apoſtle in ſuch a latitude, as to comprehend humane, as well as divine appointment.
But though you faile in your proofes, your adverſaries the non-conformiſts are before hand with you, for they have proved that mens inſtitution of religious Ceremonies omitted by Chriſt and his Apoſtles is a moſt plaine detraction and palpable derogation, from
1. The all-ſufficiency of the Scripture.
2. Perfection of Gods ordinances.
3. Fidelity of Chriſt in his prophetical office.
And laſtly from the all-fulnes of his Kingly office.
I foreſee that it will be alledged, that all theſe arguments are long ago anſwered, and unto this I ſhall at preſent onelyonly give this ſhort Reply, that they have been vindicated from all anſwers, as by others, ſo eſpecially by Ames, and that this vindication of them remains unto this day unanſwered.
However, I ſhall ſtay a while upon two places in Deuteronomy, which the Non-conformiſts uſually urge againſt our Ceremonies, and examine an anſwer which the conformiſts gives thereunto, becauſe this examination will conduce very much unto the learning of the truth in the controverſy of Ceremonies: the places are Deu…. 4.2. Ye ſhall not adde unto the word which I command you, neither ſhall you diminiſh ought from it, that ye may keep the Commandements of the Lord your God which I command you. And cap. 12.32. What thing ſoever▪ I command you, obſerve to do it: Thou ſhalt not adde thereto, nor diminiſh from it,
Unto theſe two places, the conformiſts anſwer by diſtinguiſhing of the parts, and the Ceremonies of Gods worſhip; it is unlawful, ſay they, to adde unto the parts of Gods worſhip inſtituted by God, but 'tis lawful to adde unto theſe Ceremonies of worſhip that are inſtituted by God.
Ʋnto this anſwer I thus reply.
1. Moſes ſealed up with this prohibition not onelyonly the moral, but alſo the Ceremonial Law; it was unlawful then, to adde unto the Ceremonial Law of Moſes; and why ſhould it not be as unlawful now, to adde unto the Ceremonial Law of Ch…iſt? vis hujus conſequentiae, inq…it Didoclavius, patet ex eo, quod non minus nunc quam tune rationem humanam coerceri certis ſeptis. & quaſi cancellis circumſcribi opus ſit, ne in rebus divinis laſciviat, aut in ſuperſtitiones delabatur.
2. The Scripture is a rule of even Ceremonies in Gods worſhip, for it gives preſcriptions and directions in the new Teſtament concerning the Sacraments of Baptiſ…e and the Lords Supper; now if it doth not preſcribe all Ceremonies requiſite and convenient, then 'tis onelyonly a partial and imperfect rule of Ceremonies in Gods worſhip; but we, for our part, think ſo honourably of Scripture, as that we cannot but hold it to be a perfect adequate and total rule of Ceremonial as well as moral worſhip, it is able to perfect the man of God, & throughly to furniſh him unto all good works, and ſo unto all Ceremonies, that are good workes.
A third reply is, that the members of this diſtinction are not oppoſite, as the members of every good diſtinction ſhould be, for Ceremonies of worſhip though th…y be not parts of that worſhip of which they are Ceremonies, yet they are parts of worſhip in general, for
1. Worſhip is divided into moral and Ceremonial, ſo that Ceremonial worſhip is a ſubjective part of worſhip, a ſort and kind of worſhip.
2. Moſaical Ceremonies under the Law were, and the Sacraments under the Goſpel are parts of worſhip: the diſtinction then betwixt the parts, and religious Ceremonies of worſhip, is an artleſs and falſe diſtinction. To make this yet more evident, I ſhall propound ſome arguments, by which the Non-conformiſts prove our Ceremonies to be external worſhip, for then it will follow, that they are parts of Gods worſhip.
1. Thoſe external Ceremonies whoſe proper uſe is the honouring of God, are external worſhip: But our Ceremonies are ſuch, and therefore they are external worſhip.
2. All external Ceremonies in their nature, formally elicited from religion, are external worſhip: But our Ceremonies are ſuch, and therefore they are external worſhip.
This argument I find thus varied in a nameleſs author that hath collected twelve arguments againſt our Ceremonies.
All mere and immediate actions of religion are parts of divine worſhip.
But all religious Ceremonies, ſuch as ours, are mere and immediate actions of religion.
Therefore they are parts of divine worſhip.
And theſe arguments might ſerve to evidence, that our Ceremonies, the ſurplice. Croſſe &c. Are impoſed and uſed as parts of Gods worſhip, though for want of a due and right author or efficient, they are falſe and unacceptable worſhip: But to return unto the Doctor, from whom I may ſeem to have digreſſed.