Uniformity in Humane Doctrinall Ceremonies ungrounded on 1 Cor. 14.40.
Dr. HAMMOND.
1. SInce the publiſhing that Anſwer to Mr. J. concerning the degrees of ardency in Chriſts Prayer, I am advertiſed of another paſſage in that volume, in which I am concerned, relating to ſome words of mine in the view of the Directory, pag. 19. on the head of Uniformity in Gods Service, and particularly reſpecting my rendring of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
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 implyed in〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, decently (cuſtome being the onely rule of decency, &c.) and of the latter, becauſe the words do literally import this,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. according to order or appointment.
3. To the former of theſe he makes his firſt exception, thus, [he dares not affirme that this is the immediate ſenſe of the place, but onely that it is implyed; it cannot be denyed, but that decency doth imply ſuch customes, the omiſſion of which doth neceſſarily infer indecency; but that the omiſſion of ſuch Ceremonies as ours, doth infer indecency, the Doctor and all his party can never make good: What undecencie can the Doctor prove to be in the administration of Baptiſm without the Croſſe; as alſo in publique 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; untill 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 onely rule of decency.
This Propoſition, though very strange, is proofleſſe; and therefore we might as well reject it, as the Doctor dictates it. But I ſhall adde a confutation of it, from theſe following arguments.
1. If cuſtome be the only rule of decency, then nothing elſe can be a rule thereof4 beſides cuſtomes, but this is falſe; for the light and law of Nature, is alſo a rule thereof,〈◊〉that infallible.
2. Nothing can be undecent, that is agreeable unto the onely rule of decency but divers things are undecent, which yet can plead custome; and this is ſo evident, as that I will not ſo much undervalue the Doctors judgement, as to endeavour any proofs thereof. It is impoſſible that the onely 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 only 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 handſomneſſe in the firſt uſage of a thing; and of this decency cuſtome is not the rule, and therefore it is not the only rule of decency.
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 inferre indecency: And the proof of this charge twofold, 1. by way of queſtion, founded in two inſtances, the Croſſe in Baptiſm, and the Surplice in publique Prayer, and 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 onely rule of decency] which he confutes by three arguments.
Theſe three charges I ſhall now very breifly 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 perspicuouſly) 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 cowardiſe) that I affirmed it not in another ſenſe, wherein he doth not conſent to it.
Jeanes.
The not daring of a thing proceeds from, not only timidity, but alſo from conſcience and ſhame: When we ſay of men in controverſal writings, that they dare not affirm ſuch and ſuch errours, we do not reproach them with cowardiſe, unleſſe he be a coward that is afraid, or aſhamed to deliver an untruth. That according unto cuſtome is the immediate ſenſe of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is a very groſs & evident falſhood; & when I ſaid that you dared not to affirm it, my meaning plainly was, that your conſcience or ſhame kept you from ſuch an affirmation, and what wrong I have herein done you I am yet to ſeek.
If you demand why I ſay that, you dare not ſay what you ſaid not?
I anſwer, I have two reaſons for it:
1. In entrance into this diſpute, I did, as is uſual in Controverſies, premiſe what I took for uncontroverted on both ſides. 1. for your part, I thought you would not deny, but that the immediate ſenſe of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉was not according unto cuſtome; and then, I propounded for my owne part what I granted.
2. Though in Charity I judge, that you dare not ſay, that according unto cuſtome,5 is the immediate ſenſe of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet I muſt needs tell you, that by your opinion it is incumbent upon you to ſay as much, and that I thus prove: You ſay that according to cuſtome is the importance of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, the adequate and full importance of it, for that you ſhould ſo trifle, as to ſay, that you meant, it is onely the partiall, and inadequate importance of it, I will not ſo much as imagine: But now, if it be not the expreſſe, and immediate ſenſe of the word, but onely implyed therein, as drawn there-from, as a ſequele or inference; by way of deduction or conſequence, it may onely be a part or peice of the importance therof: to prove then, that 'tis the full and adequate importance of the word, you muſt make good, that it is the immediate ſenſe of it.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 6.
To make ſhort, and prevent all poſſibilitie of his, or any mans farther miſtaking my words, I ſhall hasten to tell him the full of my meaning in that paſſage, that (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉decently) implies (according to cuſtome) viz. that in ſuch things as theſe, of which then I ſpake, geſtures, habits, and the like circumſtances of Gods publique ſervice, wherein the Apoſtle preſcribes care of decency, 'tis neceſſary to obſerve the cuſtom, of the place wherein we live.
Jeanes.
1. The cuſtomes of ſome places in geſtures, habits, and the like circumſtances of Gods worſhip are very undecent, and it is not neceſſary to obſerve ſuch cuſtomes: But you will perhaps ſay, that you except undecent cuſtoms, and then you are to be underſtood onely of decent cuſtomes; for every cuſtome is decent or undecent: becauſe decency and undecency are privatively oppoſed, and interprivativè oppoſita non datur medium in ſubjecto capaci, between privative oppoſites there is no middle either of abnegation or participation in a capable ſubject: The reſult and upſhot then of your meaning is, that, decently implyes, according unto decent cuſtomes; and then
1. The full of your meaning is but a trifling ſpeech, that proves nothing in the Controverſie, unleſſe you alſo prove the Ceremonies controverted, to be ſo decent, as that the omiſſion of them will be undecent in the ſervice of God.
2. I would fain know, how you will ſuit unto it the proof of it: Cuſtome is the onely rule of decency, for there too, by cuſtome you underſtand that which is decent, ſo that your argument runs thus: decent cuſtome is the onely rule of decency; therefore〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉decently, implyeth decent cuſtoms. And this argument moſt of your learned Readers will (to borrow your words concerning a ſaying of mine) deſpiſe under the appearance of a tautologie.
2. If the full of your meaning in that paſſage, that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉decently, implyes according to cuſtome, be, that in ſuch things as theſe, of which then you ſpake, geſtures, habits and the like circumſtances of Gods publique ſervice, &c. it is neceſſary to obſerve the cuſtomes of the place wherein wee live, why then I muſt be bold to tel you, that the full of your meaning is very ſhort of the meaning of the Apoſtle; for theſe words of the Apoſtle, let all things be done decently〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, prohibits al undecency, not only that undecency againſt the cuſtom of the place wherin we live, but alſo that undecency which is againſt the dictates of the Law of Nature. By this the Reader may ſee, how defective your expoſition is: the Apoſtle ſaith, let all things be done decently, and your gloſſe is, let ſome things in Gods worſhip be6 done according unto ſome cuſtomes, to wit, ſuch as are decent.
3. I ſuppoſe that by geſtures, habits, and the like circumſtances in the ſervice of God, you mean ſuch of them as are Symbolical ceremonies; for otherwiſe your full meaning is nothing unto the purpoſe, becauſe it will be no ground for that uniformity you plead for. Now that the Apoſtles words, let all things be done decently implyeth, that in humane Symbolical ceremonies it is neceſſary that we obſerve the cuſtomes of the place wherein we live, is a thing which I utterly deny, and ſhall be conſtant in ſuch denyal, untill you drive me from it by ſome convincing argument; and that I do not do this out of ſtomack, will appear by the reaſon that I ſhall alledge: The words of the Apoſtle, let all things be done decently, are not diſobeyed, unleſſe there be ſome undecency committed in the worſhip and ſervice of God; for decency and undecency are privatively oppoſite, and therefore there is decency in thoſe actions where there is no undecency; but now by the omiſſion of Symbolical ceremonies of humane inſtitution, ſuch as the Croſſe in Baptiſm, Surplice in Prayer and Preaching, which can plead cuſtome of the preſent place we live in, there is committed no undecency in the worſhip and ſervice of God, viz. in Baptiſm, in Preaching and Praying, as will be apparent unto any man that will attempt to prove ſyllogiſtically the contrary; therefore the Apoſtles precept is not diſobeyed by the omiſſion of ſuch Symbolical ceremonies, and conſequently the Apoſtles precept doth not in any way imply ſuch Ceremonies.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 6.
This I then thought ſufficiently explicated by exemplifying in mens wearing long hair, which the Apoſtle proved indecent by its being againſt〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. ſaith Suidas,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a cuſtome of ſome continuance in that place (which yet in women there, and men in other places, where that cuſtome prevailed not, had nothing indecent in it.)
Jeanes.
1. This conceit that you have out of Suidas, Salmaſius de C•ma diſputes againſt; but his argument ſatisfyeth me not, and therefore I ſhall wave all that he ſaies, and confine my ſelf unto the very words of the Apoſtle for diſproof of your ſenſe of them, and my reaſon is taken from the joyning of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉with〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; for ſuppoſe that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Nature, may ſometimes ſignifie cuſtome, yet that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nature it ſelf ſhould ſignifie cuſtome, is very improper.
2. Womens wearing of long hair is no religious myſtical ceremony, but uſed out of Gods worſhip and ſervice, as well as in, and therefore a moſt impertinent exemplification of that which you plead for, Ʋniformity in religious myſtical Ceremonies, that are proper and peculiar unto the ſpecial and ſolemn worſhip of God.
I readily grant, that in ſome places, cuſtome hath made the long hair of women one badge of diſtinction between them and men; but being by cuſtome made ſuch a badge, nature it ſelf dictates the obſervation of it; and if a man wear ſuch long hair as women; he ſins againſt the law of nature, if not immediately and proximè, yet mediately ex interventu rationabilis conſuetudinis.
As impertinent is your ſecond exemplification, if Chryſoſtomes and others expoſition7 may have place; for they refer [we have no ſuch cuſtome] unto the words immediately foregoing (and why we ſhould goe farther for a coherence, I can ſee no reaſon) if any man ſeem to be contentious: So that the meaning of the Apoſtle is, we have no cuſtome to be contentious: Now to be contentious, is a ſin againſt the Moral Law, the Law of Nature, and therefore belongs not unto your diſcourſe of Ceremonies.
Dr. Hammond. ſect 7.
But this exemplification of my meaning he thought fit to conceale from the Reader, and ſupply that vacuity onely 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 enlarging on it.
Jeanes.
1. Womens wearing of long hair is no Symbolical ceremony, and therefore what you ſaid of it was an impertinency, and no exemplification of your meaning, and therefore I had no reaſon to take notice of it.
But 2. ſuppoſe it were an exemplification, yet unleſſe it were alſo for confirmation of your concluſion; that cuſtome is the onely rule of decency, I was no wiſe obliged to recite what you ſaid herein; for I expreſly told the Reader, I would tranſcribe what was argumentative in your words; now what I left out was not argumentative; for from it, neither you, nor any man elſe can ever infer your now mentioned concluſion.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 8.
All people, I think, in the world, have ſome outward ſignifications, and expreſſions of Reverence; but all have not the ſame, but according to Topical cuſtomes, ſome different, ſome contrary to others: We of this and all our neighbour nations expreſse reverence by uncovering the head, the Turks doe the contrary. Again, among Chriſtians, 'tis cuſtomary for men ſo to expreſſe their reverence, but for women, ſaith the Apoſtle, it is not, but the contrary; and ſo it is ſtill among us. Nay it was once among ſome Heathens (that worſhipt Mercury) an 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 Countries; the Jews that threw ſtones at Christ, and the Daemoniack that cut himſelf with them, were neither of them interpretable to worſhip him.
Jeanes.
1. Unleſſe you can prove, that there cannot be outward ſignifications and expreſſions of reverence in Gods ſervice, without humane Symbolical ceremonies, all this your enlargement about the expreſſions of reverence will be to no purpoſe. We require reverence in all parts of Gods worſhip as well as you; but then we hold, that Gods worſhip may be performed reverently, and in a ſeemly manner, without myſtical ceremonies of humane invention.
2. Kneeling in Prayer is an expreſſion of the higheſt degree of Reverence, Adoration; and it hath a higher rule than Cuſtome, viz. Scripture and the light of Nature: No Cuſtome can render this Kneeling undecent; unleſſe you will ſay thoſe words of the Pſalmiſt, Pſal. 95.6, doe not oblige Chriſtians: O come,8 let us worſhip and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord our maker.
3. There be ſome cuſtomary expreſſions of reverence, that are undeniably unjuſtifiable, and you cannot ſay that they are implyed in the Apoſtles〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thus for expreſſion of reverence, 'tis a cuſtome with Papiſts not to touch the bread with their hands, but to have it put into their mouths; and upon the like pretence of reverence, it is cuſtomary amongſt them, for Lay-men to abſtain from the Cup altogether.
Laſtly, why you bring in the Heathens throwing of ſtones at Mercury in a way of worſhip, I cannot divine; for I cannot imagine, that you think it to be a decent way of worſhip, and if it be undecent, then it ſerveth nothing unto the exemplification of your meaning.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 9.
This therefore was no dark, but viſible foundation of what I ſaid; In aſſigning any rite or ceremony for the ſervice of God, decency, ſaith the Apoſtle, was to be obſerved, the onely rule to judge of that, is, ſay I, to conſider the Cuſtomes of that particular place, of which we conſult. Where bewing 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 found one of his arguments upon 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.
Jeanes.
1. If the Apoſtle had ſaid, as you ſay, he ſaith, there ought to be no farther controverſie about the lawfulneſſe of humane ceremonies; but that clauſe [in aſſigning any rite or ceremony for the ſervice of God, &c. •is an Apocryphal addition of yours, without any colour from the Text it ſelf, or from the coherence; and therefore all you build upon it is but fancy and fiction: That the Apoſtles decency cannot be obſerved without aſſigning ſuch Rites and Ceremonies as you diſpute for, you may dictate and boldly affirm, but can never with all your learning ſolidly prove; and unleſſe you can make proof hereof, you and your party have juſt reaſon to be aſhamed of urging this place for ceremonies, with ſuch an unſhaken confidence as you do.
2. Whereas you tell us, 'tis evident that you mean not〈◊〉the frequent uſage of that ceremony in oppoſition to the firſt uſage of it: This evidence of your meaning you have not ſo much as attempted to prove; and if you ſhall for the future make ſuch an attempt, it would, I am afraid, prove ſucceſleſs. The cuſtome of a thing (unleſſe you can faſten upon it a ſenſe or meaning never yet heard of) is oppoſed unto the firſt uſage of that thing; for cuſtome implyeth the frequent uſage of a thing, and to ſay that the frequent uſage of a thing is the firſt uſage of it, is an evident repugnancy and an apparent contradiction, contradictio in adjecto oppoſitum in oppoſito, as they ſay. I am therefore much to ſeek for the ſenſe and reaſon of that Antitheſis you make in theſe words, I mean, not the frequent uſage of that ceremony in oppoſition to a firſt uſage of it, but the ſtanding cuſtome of the place, &c. for 'tis impoſſible that the ſtanding cuſtome9 of the place in a ceremony, ſhould be the firſt uſage of that ceremony; where the miſtake is let the Reader judge.
3. In that which followeth, there is nothing of argument, unleſſe you can prove every ceremony, which can plead the ſtanding cuſtome of a place, to be a fitting and decent expreſſion of that reverential reſpect, which is due unto God. Biſhop Morton in his Book of the Inſtitution of the Sacrament of the bleſſed Body and Blood of Chriſt, p. 80, 81. ſheweth that the opinion of reverence, hath been the damme and nurſe of manyfold ſuperſtitions; and after ſuch demonſtration he quotes a ſaying of Chryſoſtome upon Joh. 13.8. Let us therefore learne to honour and reverence Christ as he would, and not as we think fit.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.
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 dented but that decency doth imply ſuch cuſtomes, the omiſſion of which neceſſarily inferres indecency]
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. But upon pondering, it will appear 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.
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 naturall meaſures of honeſt and diſhoneſt, that the omiſſion of them infers indecency, yea and neceſſarily infers it, this ſort of decency being naturall to all men that ever were, or ſhall be in the world, born and educated in what nation, or inured to what cuſtome ſoever, and this the very firſt hour after our firſt Parents fall, before any cuſtome had been contracted which might recommend it to them.
13. And as of theſe his rule is true, that the omiſſion of theſe neceſsarily inferrs undecency, ſo it is in a manner proper to theſe, and belongs not to any other ſort of things ▪ whoſe decencie 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 applyed; 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 onely dependently on the law, and conditionally, inferre indecency; ſo in like manner the rule holds not in thoſe things, whoſe decency is introduced onely by cuſtome, for that Mr. J. truly ſaith, ariſing from frequency of actions, it must againe bee granted, that there was a time when that which now is cuſtome, was new, and ſo not custome; and againe, there are, or may bee Nations, with whom that cuſtome (whatſoever can be instanced in) hath not prevailed, which prejudges ſtill the neceſſity spoken of, that ſuch omiſſion ſhould inferre indecencie.
And ſo we ſee the Jumme of Mr. J. his liberal conceſſion, viz. that decency implyes10 naturall decency, or ſuch cuſtomes, which are naturally decent, and ſo the omiſſion of them naturally indecent; and if the Doctor or his party do not prove, or make good, that the adminiſtration of Baptiſm without the Croſſe is againſt the law of nature, that the Preaching without the Surplice beares analogie to the diſcloſing of nakedneſſe, he is utterly refuted by Mr. J. in his interpretation of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or notion of decency.
Jeanes.
1. That I had no deſign in putting in the word neceſſarily, is evident by my leaving it out in the next words; but that the omiſſion of ſuch ceremonies as ours doth inferre undecency, the Doctor and all his party can never make good. You ſhall have my good leave inſtead of neceſſarily to place truly, or convincingly. Vociferations I have heard many againſt the undecency of Gods worſhip and ſervice amongſt Presbyterians, and when I have called for proof, I have been told, amongſt o•her things, that they Baptiſed without the Croſſe, that they put up prayers unto God without a Surplice; but that God is undecently worſhipped, where ſuch toyes as theſe are omitted, you may ſtoutly affirme, but can never prove, by ſo much as one convictive argument: the word neceſſarily may then very well be inſerted, in oppoſition to the groundleſſe ſurmiſes of the ignorant, and proofleſſe dictates of ſome learned men. Ignorant men may ſurmiſe, and learned men may dictate, that the omiſſion of our ceremonies doth infer indecency, but this ſurmiſe and dictate can never be made good by argument.
2. In Logick, a neceſſary inference is oppoſed unto that which is fallacious, as alſo that which is but probable and contingent; and therefore I wonder why you ſhould quarrell at the word neceſſarily? for doe you think in earneſt, that decency implyes ſuch cuſtomes, the omiſſion of which doth ſophiſtically, or at the beſt, onely probably inferre undecency, you cannot, I know, harbour ſo ſenſleſſe and irrational a thought, and therefore you muſt ſay as I doe, that decency here implyeth onely ſuch cuſtomes, the omiſſion of which, neceſſarily inferre undecency.
3. When you ſay that my rule is in a manner proper to thoſe cuſtoms, which the Law, of at leaſt, laps'd Nature preſcribes, that limitation in a manner is a backdoor, out of which how farre you may run, I know not, and therefore untill you ſomewhere make a ſtand, I ſhall not run after you.
4. Whereas you faſten upon me this aſſertion, that decency here implyeth onely ſuch cuſtomes which are naturally decent, viz. preſcribed immediately by the Law of Nature, and ſo the omiſſion of them naturally indecent, you have for this no colour, but that which you take from the word neceſſarily, and how weak a ground this is for ſuch an imputation, you muſt needs confeſſe, when you remember what I now told you, that neceſſarily here is oppoſed unto fallaciouſly and probably. Dr. Ames himſelf in the diſpute about humane ceremonies, pag. 58. confeſſeth, that comelineſſe, in the very place of the Apoſtle, containeth all naturall and civill handſomneſs; and in his Reply to Mortons general Defence, &c. cap. 3. ſect. 28. he acknowledgeth the womens vailes, 1 Cor. 11. to be an inſtance of this decency; for by the example of it, he concludes that other Churches may be directed ſo farre, juſt as the Apoſtles rule ſtretcheth, 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done comely: when Biſhop Morton deſired to know whether this matter were not a thing indifferent? his anſwer is, it is indifferent in the general nature of it; yet at that time, and in that place, they ſinned11 that did otherwiſe, even before Paul, or any of their overſeers gave them charge about it. By this his anſwer it is apparent, that he did not think it dictated by Nature unto the Corinthians, before any cuſtome had recommended it unto them. As for my own part you ſhall have here my frank conceſſion, that decency here implyeth even that decency which is introduced by civill cuſtome, provided,
1. That it be, conſuetudo rationabilis;Suarez de legib. for no other cuſtome can have the force and authority of a law, and if you, or any other can bring any arguments, that it was confuetudo rationabilis which introduced our ceremonies, they ſhall have, God willing, an anſwer.
2. That the omiſſion of it renders Gods worſhip undecent: the equity of this limitation appeareth from this reaſon, becauſe the Apoſtles command of decency is not violated but by undecency: This is at large ſet down in Ames his diſpute about humane ceremonies, pag. 77, 78.
Laſtly, your, and my learned friend Mr. Barlow, reſolveth and proveth, Exercit. Metaph. p. 29. every morall evill, every evill of ſin, to be againſt the law of Nature, if not proximè and immediatè, yet mediatè ex interventu legis poſitivae, now the undecency here prohibited by the Apoſtle is a morall evill, a ſin, malum culpae, therefore 'tis at leaſt mediately againſt the Law of Nature. Your great and learned Hooker, pag. 95. of his Eccleſiaſtical Politie ſaith, that this rule of the Apostle is an edict of Nature, a Canon of that Law which is written in all mens hearts; the Church had for ever, no leſſe then now, ſtood bound to obſerve it, whether the Apoſtle had mentioned it or no. And hereupon I ſhall infer, that if you or your party doe not prove or make good, that the adminiſtration of Baptiſme without the Croſſe, that Preaching, Praying, without the Surplice, is againſt the Law of nature, in ſome ſenſe at leaſt, mediately, he is utterly refuted by Mr. Hooker his interpretation of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or notion of decency; and I doe not deſire to live ſo long, as to ſee ſuch a proof as this made.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 15.
This is indeed his meaning, which (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 onely 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, & 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 ſpeaks 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 civill 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 praecepti alſo to obtaining a just end, this ſure is more than the omiſſion of an indifferent cuſtome, which may, or may not be continued12 without any offence againſt nature, even the omiſſion of ſtrict univerſal duty, either natural decency, or ſomewhat that bears proportion with it.
Jeanes.
Both Ames and my poor ſelf confeſs, that God hath by the Canon of the Apoſtle, and by the light of Nature, appointed and commanded, that decency in his worſhip and ſervice, the neglect whereof would be undecent; but that hee holds that there is need of a special divine inſtitution to render a thing decent, is diſclaimed by Ames in ſeveral places of his writings: Medul. Theol. lib. 2. c. 14. ſect. 24, 25, 26. Hujuſmodi igitur circumſtantiae, quae ſuâ naturâ ſunt civiles, aut communes ▪ non ſunt particulariter in ſcripturis praeceptae, partim, quia in communem hominum ſenſum incurrunt; & partim, quia infra dignitatem & majeſtatem legis divinae eſſ•t, ut talia figilla•im in illa praeſcribantur, hâc etenim ratione ridieula multa fuiſſent ſingulari lege cavenda: Exempli gratiâ, ne in eccleſiaſtico coetu unus in alterius ſinu ſeſe colocaret, in alterius faciem cenſpueret, aut ne popijmos faccret in ſacris actionibus. Habendae tamen ſunt tanquam ex voluntate Dei praeceptae. 1. Quia in genere praecipiuntur, ſub lege ordinis, decori, & aedificationis. 2 Quia pleraeque earum neceſſario ſequuntur ex iis quae à Deo ſunt expreſſè conſtituta. Cum enim Deus constituit, ut fideles omnis generis convenirent, ad ipſius nomen & cultum celebrandum, conſequentèr etiam inſtituit, ut idoneum & commodum aliquem locum habeant, in quo poſſint convenire. & horam etiam aſſignatam, qua ſimul p•ſſint adeſſe; c•m etiam miniſter à Deo ſit conſtitutus ad alios publice inſtituendos, ſimul etiam conſtituitur, ut ſedem & ſitum corporis illum habeat, qui tali actioni congruit.
25. Illa igitur quae pertinent ad ordinem & decorum, non ita relinquuntur hominum arbitrio; ut poſsint, quod ipſis libet, ſub illo nomine Eccleſ•is obtrudere; ſed partim determinantur generali•us De•praeceptis, partim natura ipſarum rerum, & partim circumſtantiis illis, quae ex occaſione ſeſe offerunt.
26. Variae enim ord•is & decori circumſtantiae tales ſunt, ut nulla inſtitutione publica accedente, debeant tamen à ſingulis obſervari, neque poſſunt ab hominibus prohiberi ſine peccato.
24. Such like circumſtances therefore, which of their own nature are civil or common, are not particularly commanded in the Scriptures, partly becauſe they come into mens common ſenſe, and partly becauſe it would not ſtand with the dignity and majeſty of the Law of God, that ſuch things ſhould be ſeverally preſcribed in it. For by this means many ridiculous things ſhould have been provided for by a ſpecial Law; as for example, that in the Church aſſembly one ſhould not place himſelf in anothers boſome, ſpit in anothers face, or ſhould not make mouthes in holy actions: Yet they are to be accounted as commanded from God: 1. Becauſe they are commanded in generall under the Law of Order, Decency, and Edification. 2. Becauſe moſt of them doe neceſſarily follow from thoſe things which are expreſly appointed by God. For when God appointed that the faithfull of all ſorts ſhould meet together to celebrate his name, and worſhip, he did conſequently ordaine that they ſhould have a fit and convenient place, wherein they may meet together, and an hour alſo aſſigned at which they may be preſent together; when alſo there is a Miniſter appointed by God to teach others publiquely, it is withall appointed that he have a ſeat which is meet for ſuch an action.
25. Thoſe things therefore which pertain to order and decency, are not ſo left to mens wills, that they may under the name of that, obtrude what13 they pleaſe upon the Churches: but they are partly determined by the general precepts of God, partly by the nature of the things themſelves, and partly by thoſe circumſtances which doe offer themſelves upon occaſion.
26. For divers circumſtances of order and decency are ſuch, as though there be no publique inſtitution of them, yet they ought to be obſerved of every one, neither can men forbid them without ſin. Unto this adde another place in his f•eſh ſuit againſt Ceremonies, diſput. pag. 29. We never ſaid, or thought, that all particular rites pertaining to order and decency are punctually determined in the Scripture. We never dreamed, that all ſuch rites being beſide the particular determination of the Scripture, are againſt it, we ſpeak of double, or treble rites as the Rejoinder ſtileth them, which no meer order and decency doth neceſſarily require, but onely the meer will of man injoyne.That which is inſtituted by God in his worſhip, Ames knew very well to be a part of Gods worſhip; but that decency is no part of Gods worſhip, Ames in his diſput. pag. 176. proves by a Reaſon quoted out of Dr. Abbot, Def of Mr. Perk. pag 844Order and comelineſs (ſaith the Popiſh Biſhop) is ſome part of Gods worſhip. But (ſaith Dr. Abbot) who taught him this deep point of Philoſophy, that an accident is a part of the ſubject, that the beauty or comelineſſe of the body is a part of the body, order and comelineſſe properly and immediately reſpect men, and therefore can be no parts of the worſhip of God.To be inſtituted by God, if we ſpeake ſtrictly & properly, is to be injoyned by a divine poſitive Law ſuperadded unto the law of nature; and in conformity hereunto it is that our Author Ames divides Gods worſhip, Med. lib. 2. cap. 5. into natural and inſtituted: Now if this be your meaning, when you impute unto Ames and me, that our opinion is, that nothing is decent in ſacris, which is not instituted by God, as the charge is falſe in it ſelf, ſo it proveth not that which you bring it for, viz. that in our ſenſe decency in the Apoſtle, is only that decency which the law of nature preſcribes; but confirmeth the clean contrary, becauſe that which is inſtituted by a poſitive law ſuperadded to the law of nature, is not preſcribed proximè and immediatè by the law of nature.
You are by this time, I hope, conſcious of the great injury you have done unto poor Dr. Ames, in affixing unto him ſo irrational an opinion, and hereupon I ſhall be bold to give you this advertiſement, that however you may deſpiſe him as a mean Author, unworthy of your peruſal, yet, if you undertake to cenſure and refute him, you muſt read him, or elſe you will be very lyable unto the breach of the ninth Commandement, Thou ſhalt not bear falſe witneſſe againſt thy neighbbour.
But you will perhaps ſay in defence of your ſelf, that if it were not the opinion of Ames, it is the ſequele of his words; and for this you have two reaſons.
The 1. becauſe the mode or manner agreeable unto the dignity of ſacred things is inſtituted by God, as the ſacred things are inſtituted by God: But this propoſition, if it be particular, proves nothing, and if it be univerſal, is falſe, as you might have ſeen in the next reaſon of Ames, but that you cannot ſee wood for trees, as the Proverb is; There is a mode or manner in the uſe of ſacred things agreeable unto their dignitie, that is not adequate, proper, and peculiar to them, but common unto civill matters of a grave nature together with them; and this is a matter inculcated by Dr. Ames in many places,14 which if you had weighed, you would never have troubled the Reader with this objection, Medul. Theol. lib. cap. 14. th: 23. Quamvis igitur hujuſmodi circumſtantiae vocari ſoleant à nonnullis ritus & ceremoniae ▪ religioſae, aut eccleſiaſticae, nihil tamen habent in ſua natura, quod proprium eſt religionis, atque adeo in iis non propriè conſiſtit cultus religioſus, quamvis ex eorum neglectu, & contemptu violatur aliquo modo ſancti•as cultus religioſi; quia communis illa ratio ordinis & decori quae aequè convenit religioſis actibus, atque civilibus, à religioſo cultu non poteſt ſeparari, quin aliquo modo laedatur ipſius dignitas & majeſtas. Although theſe circumſtances of time, place, and other lïke, are wont by ſome to be called rites, or religious Eccleſiaſtical ceremonies, yet in their nature they have nothing that is proper to Religion, and therefore religious worſhip doth not properly conſiſt in them, however by neglect and contempt of ſuch circumſtances, the ſanctity of ſuch religious worſhip is in ſome ſort violated, becauſe the common reſpect of order and decency, which do equally agree to religious and civil actions cannot bee ſevered from religious worſhip, without diminiſhing of the ſanctity and dignity of it.
Thus alſo largely in his Manuduction to the diſpute about humane Ceremonies, pag. 55, 56. If men and women come purpoſely in their beſt apparel to Church, if they compoſe themſelves to a grave poſture, give the upper place to the chiefeſt perſons, and take ſuch to themſelves as they may hear the Preacher in, and yet have no exception taken againſt them for it, if all the places and ſeats be made cleanly, and fit for a meeting, to be held in a comely faſhion, all theſe are Ceremonies according to the Rejoinder his definition, yet no man but out of contention will affirm, they are meerly religious or eccleſiaſticall: For all theſe in the ſame manner, and to the ſame immediate end, the ſame perſons would doe, if the meeting were to hear the Magiſtrate propound unto them a grave civil buſineſſe, concerning the Commonwealth affairs. And ſurely that which remaining the ſame may be civil, is not meerly and properly eccleſiaſtical, but common to both uſes, and rather meerly civil, than meerly eccleſiaſtical; becauſe civility is ſuppoſed and included in eccleſiaſtical affairs, but eccleſiaſtical proceedings are not ſuppoſed and included in civil. Dr. Jackson in his original of unbelief, pag. 337. doth well obſerve, that decent behaviour doth change the ſubject onely, not alter its own nature and form, whilſt it is uſed in matters ſacred: nor is the habit of civil complement, or good manners, ſuch an unhallowed weed, as muſt be layd aſide when wee come into the Sanctuary. And indeed there is no more reaſon to ſhut civility out of the Church or ſacred buſineſſe, than to ſhut Religion out of the Town-houſe, or civil affairs.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 15.
And ſo likewiſe on the ſecond head that of civill offices, for that indecency which is a vice or ſin muſt be contrary to ſome law of God, &c.
Jeanes.
Indecency in things civil, however it may be a vice in Ethicks againſt civility and good manners, yet it is not alwaies a ſin in divinity contrary to ſome law of God: but undecency in things ſacred in the worſhip and ſervice of God, if it be voluntary and avoydable, is againſt the command of the Apoſtle, which is a rule of the law of nature, ſaith Hooker; and this I beleeve you will not deny in cold blood: and15 indeed you have no reaſon to deny it; for it will not hereupon follow that the Apoſtle injoyneth onely that decency which is immediately preſcribed by the Law of Nature, and my reaſon is, becauſe as the Apoſtle, ſo the light of Nature injoyneth as that decency the neglect whereof would be undecent by the light of nature; ſo alſo that, the omiſſion whereof would be uncomely by civi••cuſtome, and therefore as undecency by the light of nature is againſt the light and Law of Nature immediately, ſo alſo undecency by civill cuſtome is againſt the law of nature mediately. The long hair of women is one note by which cuſtome hath diſtinguiſhed them from men; and therefore 'tis undecent for men to wear ſuch long hair as women, and this ſuppoſed, mens wearing of ſuch long hair is a mediate tranſgreſſion of the Law of nature; whereupon the Apoſtle propounds this ſmart interrogation unto the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11.14 Doth not even nature it ſelf teach you, that if a man have long hair, 'tis a ſhame to him? We may ſay the ſame of the long garments of women: doth not even nature teach you that if a man wear ſuch garments it is a ſhame unto him, and very undecent, and yet the undecency thereof ariſeth immediately from civil cuſtome, and not from any immediate Law of Nature.
Dr. Hammond.
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 praecepti alſo, to obtain in a juſt end, this ſure is more then 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 naturall decency, or ſomewhat that bears proportion with it.
Jeanes.
That decency in Gods worſhip and ſervice, the neglect of which would be undecent, is neceſſary both neceſsitate med•i and praecepti.
1. Medii is required as a means unto the acceptable celebration of Gods worſhip, but then it is not a means proper and peculiar thereunto, for it hath the ſame immediate end both in civil and religious matters, and therefore is common unto both.
2. That it is neceſſary neceſſitate praecepti you cannot queſtion, unleſſe you will deny the title and obligation unto the Apoſtles injunction, for that it binds as an edict of nature we have the teſtimony of your own Hooker: if this twofold neceſſity of decency be chargeable with any abſurdities, you are as deeply concerned to anſwer them as my ſelf: indeed that decency, from the omiſſion whereof we cannot inferre indecency is neceſſary, neither neceſſitate praecepti, nor medii.
But with ſuch a decency we have nothing to doe; for it comes not within the compaſſe of the Apoſtolical command, and ſuch is the decency of your ceremonies altogether unneceſſary; neither commanded by any Law of God, nor neceſſary as a means for the better ſervice of God. But perhaps you may attempt to prove, that God is better ſerved with your Ceremonies, than without them; when I ſhall have ſuch proof from you, I ſhall return it an anſwer.
In the mean while let us conſider the abſurdity with which you charge the aſſertion of the, but now mentioned, double neceſsity of decency in Gods worſhip: If that be neceſſary, neceſsitate praecepti, or medii, then undecency, ſay you,16 which is oppoſed thereunto, is more than the omiſſion of an indifferent cuſtome, which may, or may not be continued without any offence againſt nature.
For anſwer, the undecency here prohibeted by the Apoſtle, is either by the light of nature, or by civil cuſtome.
The former is more than the omiſsion of an indifferent cuſtome, and is an immediate tranſgreſsion againſt nature.
As for the latter, we muſt diſtinguiſh of a twofold conſideration of ſuch cuſtomes, they may be conſidered either actu ſignato in the generall, as abſtracted from all ſingularizing circumſtances, or actu exercito hic & nunc, as clothed with ſuch and ſuch circumſtances, and ſo they are not indifferent but neceſſary neceſſitate both praecepti and medii. I might exemplifie this by inſtancing in the long hair, proper apparel, viz. long garments of women, and the like. There is a paſſage in Ames, already quoted, that will be here very appoſite; Biſhop Morton had demanded of him whether the womens vailes, 1 Cor. 11. were not a thing indifferent, and his anſwer is, it is indifferent in the generall nature of it, yet at that time, and in that place, they ſinned that did otherwiſe, even before Paul, or any of their Overſeers gave them charge about it.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 16.
Now this being thus far explained, it is time to cloſe with Mr: J. and mind him, what he cannot but know, that the decency which I ſaid, implyed custome, is certainly another thing from natural decency, and hath place onely in thoſe things, the omitting of which doth not neceſſarily inferre indecency. That omiſſion which neceſſarily infers indecency, infers it in all that ever did it, or ſhall omit it: We know in Logick that no propoſition is neceſſary, which is not〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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. Prelatiſts, I ſuppoſe) doe conceive, that Adam, (whether in, or out of Paradiſe) Noah in, or out of the Ark, &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 baptiſed not, but his Diſciples) that thoſe Diſciples, euen before the death of Chriſt, might not baptiſe any without the ſign of the Croſſe, but under the ſame penalty?
Jeanes.
Natural decency is a branch, nay the principal branch of that decency commanded by the Apoſtle, and therefore I could not think it excluded by you; but withal, I muſt conclude your interpretation of the Apoſtle, to be very imperfect and defective, when you ſaid the clear importance of the Apoſtles words was, Let all things be done according to cuſtome; I was ſo fooliſh to ſuppoſe that you meant this clear importance of the Apoſtles words, was alſo the full importance of them, neither can you aſſign any reaſon, why I ſhould think otherwiſe.
But that, I ſee, which ſo much ſtumbleth you, is the word neceſſarily, concerning which I hope you are ſatisfied by what I have already ſaid, and therefore I ſhall only adde this one thing, that neceſſarily hath two acceptions.
1. In regard of an abſolute neceſſity.
2. In respect of an Hypothetical neceſſity ariſing from ſome extrinſecal circumstance or condition. Now, I doe not reſtrain it unto either of theſe ſenſes, but take it abſtractively in ſuch a latitude, as that 'tis appliable unto either of the ſignifications17 according unto the nature of the things ſpoken of: the omiſſion of natural decency infers undecency neceſſarily, in regard of an abſolute neceſſity; the omiſſion of civil undecency, infers undecency neceſſarily onely ex Hypotheſi: and that inference of indecency which is only neceſſary ex Hypotheſi, is more than an inference thereof, which is fallacious, or at the moſt but probable; and if we ſpeak of this neceſſity, it is very falſe which you ſay, that that omiſſion which thus neceſſarily inferres undecency, inferres it in all that ever did, or ſhall omit it.
But you ſay that, we know in Logick, that no propoſition is neceſſary, which is not de omni true in the whole species of all and every one.
Unto which I anſwer, that he who hath any tolerable knowledge in Logick, knoweth that what you ſay is to be limited onely unto that neceſſity which is ſcientifical and demonſtrative; for to ſay nothing of ſuch propoſitions as are neceſſary onely hypothetically, there are divers propoſitions abſolutely in themſelves neceſſary, ſetting aſide all outward circumſtances and conditions, which are not yet de omni.
1. I ſhall inſtance in divers particular propoſitions, as, Quaedam ſubſtantia eſt spiritus: quo•dam corpus eſt mixtum.
2. In ſeveral negative propoſitions, as, nullus spiritus eſ•corpus: nullus lapis eſt rationalis. Now theſe are neceſſary propoſitions, becauſe of an immutable truth, and they are not de omni: For,
1. A particular propoſition is not de omni, but de aliquo: And then 2. a negative propoſition is not de omni; for de omni is oppoſed unto that which is〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉de nullo.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 17.
Nay, 'tis already past queſtion, that Mr. J. 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 onely cuſtome: And if ſo, then cuſtome is a rule of decency alſo, and not only 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 speak ſenſe, if I ſpake, either of any other, or of the generall notion of decency, which is competible to any other) and from thence it follows 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 onely 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.
Jeanes.
1. I called your aſſertion, viz. Cuſtome is the onely rule of decencie, a dictate, and ſhall call it ſo ſtill, untill you can prove it, and when you bring any ſolid proof of it, abſtracted from your ſubterfuges, for limitations I cannot call them, I ſhall be contented to be your vaſſal.
2 You ſeem to intimate, that in the things you ſpeak of, cuſtome, and not the light of nature is the rule, but this is very falſe; for cuſtome is menſura paſſiva, as well as activa: When it is a rule of decency, it is firſt meaſured and regulated18 by the light of nature, and without ſuch regulation it is no rule of decency in any matter whatſoever; for cuſtome hath not the force of a law niſi ſit rationabilis, that is agreeable unto the dictate of right reaſon and the law of Nature; the law of Nature then is ſtill the principal rule of decency, ſpeake of what decency you will or can, and cuſtome is but a rule ſubordinate thereunto, and to be examined thereby.
3. If you ſpeak of ſuch decency alone, the omiſſion whereof doth not neceſſarily inferre undecency, in reſpect either of an abſolute, or hypo•hetical neceſſity, you doe not ſpeak of that decency which the Apoſtle commandeth; for that the Apoſtle ſhould command ſuch a decency, in the omiſſion of which, men onely boldly affirm, or meerly opine there is undecency, and cannot make good ſuch an affirmation or opinion, by any other than ſophiſtical, or at the beſt, but probable arguments, me thinks ſhould not ſink into the head of any rational man.
Yea, but you ſay, that you could not ſpeak ſenſe, if you ſpake either of any other, or of the generall notion of decency which is competible to any other.
Suppoſe I grant this, what then? this argument is of little prevalency with me, who am in this particular your Antagoniſt; for though I acknowledge and admire your great parts and learning, yet I think it not onely poſſible, but probable for you, or any other, though never ſo great a ſcholar, to ſpeake nonſence in oppoſition of the truth.
2. It is evident and certain that the Apoſtle ſpake of the general notion of decency, which is competible unto natural decency, and from thence it follows demonſtratively, that if it be ſo certain, that you ſpeak not of this decency, it is as certaine that your gloſſe of the Apoſtles〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is la•e and maimed; for it leaves out what is chiefly meant by it, but of this before.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 18.
Secondly, then to his ſecond charge, the unſufficiency of that limited truth (which is the utmoſt he will yeild 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 yeilded me in his limited conceſſion, as hath already been largely manifeſted, and 2. my concluſion is regularly conſequent to that which was alone my meaning. This latter the addition of a few words will clear alſo.
Jeanes.
For anſwer unto this I ſhall referre unto what hath been ſaid already.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 19.
My concluſion deſigned in that Section was the juſtifying of Ʋniformity 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 cuſtom of the place in which ſuch and ſuch a ceremony was an uſual indication, and expreſſion of that reverence, which being due from all inferiours to their ſuperiours, is much more due from all Christians to God.
Jeanes.
1. Humane ceremonies have two acceptions. 1. They are taken largely for all circumſtances of order, decency; as alſo for all meere indicant ſigns of reverence, and theſe for diſtinction ſake may be called circumſtantial ceremonies: but theſe are not the ceremonies in queſtion; for the Non-conformiſts acknowledge theſe law full, and ſo alſo Uniformity in them; but yet of theſe ceremonies, cuſtome is neither the onely or principal rule, as ſhall be manifeſted when I come unto the examination of your Anſwer unto my Objections againſt this your dictate.
In a ſecond place, humane ceremonies are taken ſtrictly, onely for ſuch as are doctrinal ▪ ſymbolical, and ſacramental, and unto ſuch neither decency nor reverence obligeth us.
Not, firſt, the Apoſtles decency; becauſe in the omiſſion of them there is no undecency.
Not, ſecondly, that reverence which is due unto God in his worſhip, becauſe in the omiſſion of them there is no irreverence committed; you may think my notion of reverence to be too narrow; but 'tis the utmoſt I can grant you; and indeed 'tis all that Scripture and Reaſon call for: reverence and irreverence are privatively oppoſed, and between privative oppoſites, in a capable ſubject, there is no medium, either of abnegation or participation, and therefore when there is no irreverence in the external worſhip of God, that worſhip is reverently adminiſtred: now that Baptiſme is unreverently adminiſtred when the Croſſe is omitted, or that publique Prayers and Preaching are unreverent, when the Surplice is left off, may perhaps be very affectionately averred by you and others, but I do not hope to live ſo long as to receive from you, or any man living, for it, ſo much as the ſhadow of an argument.
In the firſt place then you ſee that reverence bindeth not to humane, religious, myſtical ceremonies.
Nay, in a ſecond place, it bindeth to lay them quite aſide, becauſe Gods Ordinances are treated very irreverently, when mens inventions are joyned with them, when men ſet their threſholds by Gods threſholds, and their poſts by his posts, Ezek. 43.8. that is, when humane inventions are added unto Gods precepts.
Yea, but you may perhaps ſay our Ceremonies are joyned with Gods Ordinances onely as adjuncts, or annexaries, not as parts of Gods worſhip.
But unto this I reply in the words of Ames unto Morton, all external ceremonies, whoſe proper uſe is the honouring of God, are external worſhip, as all divinity ſheweth. Reply unto gen. Def. pag 19.
Thirdly, the pretence of reverence in Gods worſhip, hath oftentimes been an inlet unto many ſuperſtitious practiſes; this Ames ſheweth in his Reply unto Mortons particular Defence, &c pag. 69. Out of ſuch conceits as this, ſaith he, all ſuperſtition hath crept into the Sacrament. For expreſſion of reverence, ſome would not touch the bread with their hands, or the cup either, but have both bread and wine put into their mouthes. Some more agreeably to Courtly faſhion (urged by the Defendant) where meat is taken with ſilver forks, inſtead of hands, deviſed a ſilver pipe to ſuck up the wine through. Some would not have bearded Lay-men taft of the wine at all: And many for m•ere reverence (as they ſay) will neither touch wine nor bread, abſtaining altogether from the Sacrament. All theſe uſages might have been, and may be cuſtomary,20 and yet cuſtome cannot legitimate them and make them decent. I ſhall conclude all that I have to ſay unto theſe two laſt Sections with a remarkable paſſage in Parker his Treatiſe of the•roſſe, part. 1. pag. 112. The ſecond office of the Croſſe is to procure reverence to aptiſme, nè putetur eſſe communis ablutio: Which is the office of the Salt, the Taper, and the reſt of Popiſh ſigns, which how cut we off, but with this Ax that beheadeth the Croſſe as wel. Non exiſtimandum, &c. We muſt not think but that the Baptiſm of Chriſt, and of the Apoſtles was performed with reverence enough, when theſe ſigns were wanting; neither muſt we take upon us to be wiſer than they. To procure right reverence to the Sacrament, is to lay open the inſtitution by the Preaching of the Word, and then to deliver it in that ſimplicity in which we have received it. To adde ſigns over and above is not to honour it, but to defile it. Indeed the A•k had been more honourably intreated, if it had been ſent home again as it came into the land and hand of the Philiſtines. They thought they could not honour it ſufficiently, unleſſe they ſet a budget by it of certain new deviſed ſigns to wait upon it, which did defile it. David emptyed this budget, and did wel: Howbeit, their Cart he thinketh cannot well be ſpared, for which the Lord made a breach in Iſrael, untill he drave him to confeſs that he was not ſought in due order, as long as one Ceremony of the Philiſtines did remain. The Lord ſhew mercy to our Church, otherwiſe he will ſhew, that our emptying of the Popiſh budget, in baniſhing the ſalt, the oyl, the ſpittle, with the reſt, will not be judged ſufficient, unleſs we ceaſe alſo with a Croſs of theirs to cart Baptiſme, which ſhould be born up to reverence no other way than by the ſhoulders of the Levites, I mean the labours of thoſe Preachers which now (alaſs) lye in the duſt, becauſe they wil not defile their hands by touching of this Philiſtim cart for to uphold it.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 20, 21.
In theſe it is certain, cuſtome is the rule and the onely rule of decency: Neither nature nor Gods Law obliges all mankind to this, or that expreſſion freverence. Severall nations have their ſeveral manners of doing it; onely nature tels us, that the moſt reverent manner of treating is beſt becomming God, and that it cannot be decent, to treat God in that manner as we would not doe any Superiour beſide, and Gods own expoſtulation about the offering of polluted bread upon his Altar, and of ſacrificing the lame and the ſick, Mal. 1.8. is a confirmation of that; Offer it now, ſaith God, unto thy Go•ernour, will he be pleaſed with thee?
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, regula•ly conclude from cuſtome, the only 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.
Jeanes.
Your exemplification of the indications and expreſſions of that reverence of which cuſtome is the only rule, by inſtancing in kneeling in prayer, when wee21 tender our petitions or requeſts to the infinite majeſty of God, is very impertinent; for it is very evident, that cuſtome is not the only rule of it, becauſe it is ſufficiently warranted both by Scripture and the light of Nature.
Unto all this I ſhall adde a diſtinction of reverence; it may be taken ſometimes largely, and ſo it comprehends adoration: ſometimes ſtrictly, & ſo it is diſtinguiſhed there from; for reverence, is due unto the Ordinances of God, adoration, and worſhip onely unto God: cuſtome may be a partial and ſubordinate rule of the ſigns of reverence, taken ſtrictly, whereupon by cuſtome, uncovering of the head is a general or common geſture of reverence, to be uſed with diſcretion in all religious exerciſes; but now as for the indications and expreſsions of adoration, I do think the Scripture a ſufficient rule of them, where, I do not exclude the law and light of nature, for materially conſidered, it is a part of Scripture.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 22.
This I did not apply to the Croſſe in Baptiſm, and the Miniſters uſing of the Surplice, as being not pertinent to that place. Another head was ſet apart for thoſe, and proceeded to ſect. 28. the Croſſe expreſly named, and the Surplice implyed 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 indecen•y, but that ſtanding on th•ſe grounds, whereon they are known to ſtand, Conſcience duly inſtructed, cannot think it neceſsary ▪ or tending to edification to caſt them ca•ſ•eſly out of this Church, or the whole Liturgie for their ſakes.
Jeanes.
What you ſaid, was applyable unto the Croſſe in Baptiſme, and the Miniſters uſing of the Surplice ▪ for your concluſion was, the more then lawfulneſſe of preſcription of ceremonies in a Church, and of Ʋniformity therein; and here ſect. 19 you acknowledge that your concluſion, deſigned in that Section, was the juſtifying of Uniformity of Ceremonies in the ſervice of God: now I had reaſon to think that you ſpeak of humane, religious, myſtical ceremonies, becauſe ſuch onely were oppoſed by the Non-conformiſts, and ſuch the Croſſe and Surplice were, eminently, though no•excluſively.
2. If your deſign be to juſtifie doctrinal ceremonies from the Apoſtles command of decency, then 'tis incumbent on you to prove that the omiſſion of ſuch ceremonies doth infer undecency; for if it doth not infer undecency, then therin there is no tranſgreſſion of the Apoſtles precept, and if the Apoſtles precept be not tranſgreſſed by the omiſſion of them, the Aſſembly had no cauſe, upon that account, to repent of their caſting ſuch ceremonies out of the Church of God.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 23, 24.
And yet if Mr. J. ſhall now deſire to know what the grounds of theſe two Eccleſiaſtical rites are, which alone he is pleaſed to name, on perſwaſion, I ſuppoſe, that they were as fit, if not fitter than any others for the diſproving my poſition, of (cuſtome being the onely rule of decency) I ſhall now render him a brief account of them, ſuch as may in ſome degree confirm the truth of it.
24. And firſt for the Croſse in Baptiſm. 1. 'Tis known to all, that our Chriſtian courſe is a ſpirituall Warfare under Chriſt our great Generall: Now it is, and alwaies22 hath been cuſtomary over the world, that in a militia there ſhould be ſome Banner, or Enſign, 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.
Jeanes.
1. As our Chriſtian courſe is a ſpiritual warfare, ſo unto this the Ordinances of Chriſt Jeſus are a more ſuitable Banner or Enſign, than any hu•ane invention whatſoever: But you think that the Banner requiſite in our ſpiritual warfare muſt be of humane invention, not divine inſtitution; for otherwiſe you ſpeak nothing to the purpoſe; and if the omiſſion of ſuch a Banner or Enſign be undecent, you may arraign Chriſt and his Apoſtles as guilty of undency.
2. The ſigne of the Croſſe hath been a long time uſed by Antichriſt, as an Enſign or Banner, and is it undecent to lay aſide the Enſign or Banner of an enemy?
3. How little weight there is in the cuſtomary uſe of a Banner for the decency of the ſign of the Croſſe in Baptiſme, will be apparent by theſe following conſiderations.
1. It is a cuſtome in Armies for different companies or troupes to have Banners or Enſigns; but it was never the cuſtome of any Armies for every ſeverall ſouldier to carry a Banner or Enſign: from the cuſtome of a Banner or Enſign then, how you can conclude for the ſigning of every ſingular Chriſtian with the ſign of the Croſſe paſſeth my in agination.
2. The cuſtomary uſe of a Banner is in the whole war, and not onely at the firſt enrolement of Souldiers, and therefore if it prove any thing for the Sign of the Croſſe, it will conclude for the frequent and conſtant uſe of it all the time of our warfare; and this I hope you will not plead for.
3. A permanent Croſſe hath more proportion unto the Banners and Enſigns of Armies than the tranſient and aërial Croſſe; and yet there be ſome of your party, who allow of the tranſient Croſſe in Baptiſme, that diſlike permanent Croſſes in Gods worſhip; becauſe they think there is more danger of ſuperſtition in them: Now theſe men, in all probability, lay no great ſtreſſe upon this your reſemblance of the ſign of the Croſſe to a Banner or Enſign, and my reaſon for this my conjecture (for I u•ge it onely as a conjecture) is, becauſe they reject all permanent Croſſes in Gods ſervice, which doe more reſemble a Banner or Enſign than a tranſient Croſs.
4. I have done my beſt to ſound the depth and ſtrength of your argument, and if I be not deceived, thus it ſtands: The omiſſion of a Banner or Enſign, in our ſpiritual warfare, that was uſed by the Primitive Chriſtians, is undecent; but the ſign of the Croſſe in Baptiſm was thus uſed by the Primitive Chriſſtians, therefore omiſſion of it is undecent.
By Primitive Chriſtians, I ſuppoſe you doe not mean the Apoſtles, or ſuch Apoſtolical perſons as were guided by an infallible ſpirit, and then I deny your Major, and for this my denial I ſhall give you two reaſons.
1. In Chriſt our great Generall, the Captain of our ſalvation, were hidden all the treaſures of wiſdome and knowledge, and therefore he knew better what was decent in his worſhip, than all Primitive Chriſtians, han all the Fathers and Councils that ever were in the world; and therefore ſeeing there is ſuch a deep ſilence23 of the Croſſe in his word, I ſhall never think it ſo highly decent as you pretend, ſo decent, that the omiſſion of it is undecent.
2. It is, and alwaies hath been cuſtomary over the world, at leaſt in civil and wel-governed Nations, that in a Militia all ſhould be done by Commiſſion derived from the General. Manlius put his own Son to death for fighting with an enemy, though he had the Conqueſt, becauſe it was without order, and L. Papyrius Curſor had, for the ſame reaſon, executed Q. Fabius Rutilianus, though he had gained a great Victory over the Samnites, but that the general interceſſion of the people of Rome pacified him. But now our Prelatiſts can produce no Commiſſion from our great General, to uſe any Banner or Enſign in his worſhip, but ſuch as he hath already inſtituted, his Word, Sacraments, Diſcipline, and therefore I ſhall condemn the uſage of any ſuch Banner or Enſign, as a tranſgreſſion againſt his Military diſcipline. Af•er the writing of this, I found this your objection both propounded and anſvvered by S•ha•pius. Scharp. curſ. theol. tom. 2. pag 39, 40
Ob. Milites debent habere ſignum militare, quo ab aliis distinguantur: At Chriſtiani omnes ſunt milites, Eph 6 11. ergo & ſig••m h•bere debent, & per conſequens ſignum crucis.
Reſp. Negando illud conſeq quia habent alia ſigna, nempe internum ſignum fidei,•xternam confeſſionem, & participationem verbi & S•cramentorum, &c. What he ſpeaks of external confeſſion and participation of the Word and Sacraments, wil ſatiſfie what you ſay.
I cannot here paſſe by a paſſage in Whitaker againſt Duraeus, pag 191, 192. in the Edition of his Works in Fol. Duraeus having cited many Fathers for the Ceremonies added unto Baptiſme, Whitaker thus replyeth unto him: M•â vero non intereſt quid Clemens, quid Leo, quid Damaſus, quid quiſquam alius Pontifex ad Baptiſmi Sacramentum adjecerit. Chriſtus eccleſiae nihil de iſtis ceremoniarum nugis mandavit, nec in illis•rebris, quos in ſcriptura legimus, baptiſmis, ulla harum rerum mentio reperitur. Nam vero putemus recentiorem eccleſiam melius perspectum habuiſſe, quibus in Baptiſmo ceremoniis uti oporteret, quam Chriſtum ejuſque Apostolos?
Before I proceed further, I ſhall take notice of the limitation that you have in the cloſe of ſect: 24. of your affection of undecency in the omiſſion of a Banner in an Army: It is not ſo undecent, ſay you, as things diſhoneſt, or breaches of the Law of Nature; Now if you apply this unto the omiſſion of a Banner in our ſpiritual Militia, I thus object againſt it: The publique worſhip of God is a chief part of our ſpiritual warfa•e, and the command of decency in that is, ſaith your Hooker, an edict or Law of Nature, and whatſoever is therein undecent tranſgreſſeth againſt this Law: If the omiſſion then therein of a Banner or Enſign of humane invention (for of ſuch only you ſpeak) be undecent, 'tis ſo undecent as things diſhoneſt, or breaches of the Law of Nature are undecent.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 25, 26, 27, 28.
And the Croſſe on which Chriſt was crucified, the Embleme alſo of that ſtate that every Chriſtian enters into, a conſtant, courageous patience for all afflictions, was by the Primitive Chriſtians thus uſed, as their Symbol or Enſigne, and every man that is inrolled in the Chriſtian Militia, is by him that inro•les him, ſigned with it; and this practiſe being thus founded, and revived in the Church, Saint Auguſtines words are worth remembring, and cannot be denyed to have truth in them: Signum24 crucis niſi adhibeatur, five frontibus eredentium, ſive ipſi aquae quâ regenera mur &c. nihil ritè perficitur: Ʋnleſſe the ſign of the Croſſe be uſed either to the foreheads of the beleevers (who are baptiſed) 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. cap. 20. tom. 4. p. 915.) thou muſt be ſigned now in the forehead with the ſign of the Croſſe, as the Iſraelites on their door-poſts, and ſo muſt all Chriſtians. In the forehead particularlyccTom. 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 not be aſhamed.
26. The uſage of this ceremony of ſigning with the Croſſe, was, we alſo know, frequent in the Church (while the gifts of healing continued) in(d)(d)See Aug. de Civit Dei. l. 2. c. 8. curing diſeales, and caſting out Devils, to that Athanaſius frequently offirms of it,(e)(e)De Incarnat. Tom. 1. pag. 84. So pag. 101. D. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And pag. 102.6. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And contr. Arian. Or. 1. pag. 285. A. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And Praeſente ſigno crucis obmuteſcit Paganitas. Aug. T. 4.229. B. And 832. B. Daemonia nominatâ cruce Chriſti terrentur, ſi impenſius fiat, fugantur. Dii Paganorum metu crucis reſponſa dare non poſſunt.〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; by the ſign of the Croſſe all Magick, and Witcheraft is brought to nought, all the Idol Temples laid waſte and empty.
27. And then Baptiſme being the exorciſing of Devils (the ancient Catechiſts wee know were called Exorciſts) the reſcuing of a perſon from the power of Satan into Gods Sonſhip and Family, what can be more proper, or agreeable, or exactly ſymbolical, than the uſe of this in Baptiſme, according to that of Tertul. de Reſurr. Carn. Caro fignatur, ut anima muniatur, the fleſh or body is ſigned, that the ſoul may be defended or fortified?
28. And if inſtead of the(f)(f)Ad omnem progreſſum frontem crucis ſignaculo. Tertul. de Cor. Mil. c. 3. frequent uſe of it among the ancients, even(g)(g)Vide Narrat. Hippolyti Apoſtolorum〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, apud Pallad. Hiſt. L•uſ. pag. 1049. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. before the cumberſome weight of Ceremonies came in, (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ſaith the Author of the Queſt. and Reſp. aſcribed to Juſtin Ma•tyr, Qu. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. pag. 364. in time of prayer we ſign thoſe that are any way ill affected) we in our Church retain it onely in our ſolemne entrance into Chriſts•camp, in token that we mean valiantly to fight under his banner, and in confidence that he that thus ſigned to Conſtantine victory from Heaven (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 uſ•ge among us?
Jeanes.
Here you heap up many Teſtimonies of the Fathers for the Sign of the Croſs, unto which it is no difficult matter to adde more, but you might very wel have ſpared all this labour; for firſt, it is not unknown unto you, how your Adverſaries hold, that the Hyperbolical ſayings of the Fathers, touching the Croſſe, are no wales juſtifiable; hear what Biſhop Morton quotes out of the Abridgement, and Mr. Hy, pag. 237, 238. Sundry of the Fathers put holyneſs in the Sign of the Croſse, and wrote of it very ſuperſtitiouſly. Some telling us that it was a terrour against D•vils, attributed a power thereunto of working Miracles; What ſhall we ſay? but that the Croſse hath been as ſuperstitiouſly abuſed by the Fathers, as by the ranckest Papists, ſaving that the Papiſts have rancked it with divine worſhip, and ſo beſtowed more honour upon•t than ever the Fathers did afford it. Biſhop Morton hath attempted to give an Anſwer hereunto, but Dr Ames hath ſo replyed unto him, as that hee hath ſate down, and neither he, or his Second, have in this rejoyned any thing unto Ameſius.
Unto this of the Abridgement, and Mr. Hy, let me adde what Mr. Farker hath obſerved in the Fathers ſpeeches concerning the Croſſe, Treat, of the Croſs, part. 1. pag. 90. Chew a little upon theſe ſpeech•s, it may be they will tell thy taſte how unſavoury the Fathers are, in the matter of the Croſſe:ooAuguſt. de tempor. 181. With the ſign of the Croſſe it is that the Body of our Lord is conſecrated, and the Font of Baptiſm ſanctified. WithppIdem Cont. Pelagium. lib. 6 c. 8. the Sign of the Croſſe is the wave of Bapt•ſme conſecrated. qqChryſoſt. in Mat. 16. homil. 55.By the Sign of the Croſſe is the Lords Body conſecrated. The Font of Baptiſme ſanctified, and all things whatſoever are made holy, they are made holy with the ſign of the Lords Croſſe.rrCypr. lib. de bapt. we glory in the Croſſe of the Lord, whoſe virtue worketh throughout all Sacraments: without which ſign nothing elſe is holy, nor any other conſecration that commeth to effect. ſſAug. de Sanct. Serm. 19.With the ſign of the Croſſe is the Fonte of Regeneration made holy; and to ſpeak fully, all Sacraments are perfected by his virtue. ttAug. in Johan tractat. 18.Unleſſe the ſign of the Croſſe be applyed to the foreheads of the Beleevers, or to the water whereby they are regenerated, or to the ſacrifice whereby they are fed, none of theſe are rightly performed. uuAug. de utilitat. poenitent. The water of ſalvation is not the water of ſalvation, unleſſe being conſecrated in Chriſts name, it be ſigned with his Croſſe. Again. wwAmbroſ. de iis qui initiatur. Myſt. cap. 3,The water is good for no uſe of future health, without the Preaching of the Lords Croſſe. But when it is conſecrated with the Myſterie of the ſaving Croſſe, then it is tempered to the uſe of a ſpiritual waſhing, and of a ſaving Cup. As therefore Moſes threw the wood into the waters of Marah, and made them ſweet, ſo the Prieſt ſends the Preaching of the Lords Croſſe into this Font, and the water thereof is made ſweet unto grace.
By this you may ſee that your allegations out of the Fathers are in vaine, unleſſe you had added a proof of their infallibility, or that they are to be a rule of our faith in matters of this nature.
2. One Papiſt is found (ſaith Parker, part. 1. pag. 77.) who ſaith,the Fathers meant not of the outward ſign, but of the thing ſignified, which is Chriſts death:It is well, that we have this confeſſion from him, that the26 Fathers cannot be juſtified, in caſe they mean the outward ſign, which they mean undoubtedly, or elſe our oppoſites doe us great wrong, who object the Fathers againſt us in the Outward ceremony of the Croſſe, &c.
3. Thoſe that are but tolerably verſed in the Fathers, cannot but confeſſe, that they aſcribe very ſtrange things unto the ſign of the Croſſe; as that it is a neceſſary requiſite of Baptiſme, that it was an Amulet againſt the Devil, and an inſtrument of Miracles, a fence or fortification of the ſoul againſt all ſpirituall adverſaries; but theſe Hyperbolies, however you may excuſe them, yet they are ſo groſſe, as that they are utterly uncapable of any juſt Apology to be made for them; and this without more adoe might ſuffice for anſwer unto ſect. 25, 26, 27, 28. But I ſhall farther give you ſome general exceptions againſt thoſe teſtimonies of the Fathers you alledge, and next, ſay ſomething unto them taken ſeverally and apart.
My general exceptions ſhall be ſix.
The firſt, the not uſing of the Croſſe by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, is a greater prejudice againſt it, than all the countenance can be given unto it by the Fathers of after ages; alaſſe! what are Auguſtine, Athanaſius, Tertullian, &c. whom you quote, in compariſon of our bleſſed Saviour: unto them the Spirit was given but in meaſure, unto him without meaſure, Joh. 3.34. And, it was a ſpirit of wiſdome and underſtanding, a ſpirit of counſel and knowledge, Iſa. 11.12. and ſo was able to make ample and ſufficient proviſion for any religious Ceremonies in his Church that he thought requiſite: Why ſhould not we content our ſelves with thoſe few that he hath ordained? eſpecially ſeeing no mortal men can produce a patent from him for the inſtitution of any other: and why ſhould we think the omiſſion of the Croſs in Baptiſm undecent? ſeeing it was omitted by Chriſt himſelf and his Apoſtles; for that it was omitted by them, is confeſſed by a learned Conformiſt, Dr. Fulk, in anſwer unto the Rhemiſts, pag ▪ 252. Neither was the ſign of the Croſſe, ſaith he, in any eſtimation with the Apoſtles, or the faithful in their time. Tertullian indeed, reckoneth ſigning with the Croſſe to be an old Tradition, which yet is no more certain to have been uſed by the Apoſtles, than other like Ceremonies which he there nameth, as the taſting of Milk and Honey by them that were baptiſed, and the abſtinence from waſhing for a week after baptiſm, oblations for birth dayes, and ſuch other,•long ſince aboliſhed, which they ſhould not have been, if they had been ordained by the Apoſtles as neceſſary for Chriſtian Religion. As a man runneth to the Fountain, ſaith Cyprian, when the channels are defiled, ſo muſt we repair to the practiſe of the firſt Church, which is the Fountain of all piety: non eſt attendendum (ſaith he) quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putaverit, ſed quid, qui ante omnes eſt, Chriſtus fecerit, & faciendum praeceperit. Agreeable hereunto is that which Mr. Parker part. 1. pag. 100. quotes out of Sadeel againſt the Monks of Burdeaux. When the Monks of Burdeaux affirm the ſigns which are added to Baptiſme, are an ornament to it, we thus reply: Are they wiſer than Chriſt Jeſus, who hath ordained his Sacrament in ſo great purity and ſimplicity, and who knoweth better than all the men in the world, what ornament was fitteſt for it? If it be but the covenant of a man, when it is confirmed, no man abrogateth it, or addeth any thing to it: What arrogancy is it then to adde to the inſtitution of Chriſt?
A ſecond exception of the Non-conformiſts againſt the Teſtimonies of the Fathers for the ſign of the Croſſe, is, that they doe not contribute ſo much honour27 thereunto, as the ſuſpected infamous birth and original of it doth diſcredit: In all probabilities, ſay they, that Devilliſh Heretick, Valentinus, was the firſt Author and Father of it, the firſt that advanced it unto any religious uſe; and this they prove out of Irenaeus. Parker part. 1. pag. 75 averreth, that it appeareth by the Text of Irenaeus, that Valentinus did uſe the figure of the Croſſe, to expreſſe one of his Aeones by; and as Valentinus was the Father of it, ſo Montanus, ſay they, was the Nurſe of it. Dr. Fulk, as I told you, was a Conformit•ant, and no enemy unto the ſign of the Croſſe, ſo he profeſſeth of himſelf in his confutation of the Rhemiſts pag. 87. As for the ſign of the Croſse, ſo it be without ſuperſtition, we can abide well enough. And yet this man pag. 252. tels us, that Valentinus the Heretique was the firſt that made any great account of it; and cites for it too Irenaeus, as well as the Non-conformiſts.
A third exception againſt the pretended antiquity of the Croſſe, and the Teſtimonies of the Fathers in that behalf, is, that divers Ceremonies Coëval with the Croſſe are not urged, but aboliſhed, and yet they were never proſtituted unto ſuch ſuperſtitious and idolatrous abuſes as the Croſſe hath been: And therefore why ſhould the Croſſe be ſuch a Favourite, as to be retained? This exception you may ſee thus managed by Parker, part. 1. pag. 39. If our Oppoſites muſt needs drink of this Ciſtern of antiquity, then let theqqBeat. Rhenan. in Tertul: de Coron. milit. Magdebu•genſ. centur. 3 ▪ cap. 6. tit. rit. Baptiſ. Oyle it ſelf of Baptiſme, be revived: Yea,rrMadgeburg. ex Tertulde Baptiſt. Baptizing by Lay-men; for theſe be as ancient as the Croſſe, and ſprang about the ſame time with it. Sure with farre better reaſon may they rake out of their graves, the ceremonyſſCypri lib. 3 Epiſ. 8. of Kiſſing the Infant Baptiſed; the ceremony of thettTertul. de pudicit. Ring given in Baptiſm, for an obſignation of Faith and Profeſſion; the ceremony of putinguuTertul. lib. de coron. milit. Milk and Hony into his mouth; And laſtly•he Ceremony of thewwIdem de Bapt. & Beat. Rhenan. in lib. de coron. milit. White Garment, wherewith the Baptiſed was wont to be clothed. Theſe being equal to the Croſſe, both for Antiquity, and for profitableneſſe of ſignification, and ſurmounting it in other reſpects, as that they were never ſo much abuſed as the Croſſe hath been, nor now import ſo much perill as the Croſſe bring eth with it, may give wiſe men cauſe to wonder, why thoſe ſhould be buried in a tomb ſealed up, while the Croſſe not onely liveth, but alſo domineereth.
A fourth exception againſthe ancient uſe of the Croſſe by the Fathers, is that it is over-ballanced by the Papiſts abuſe of it unto Idolar•y: The Brazen Serpent was ordained by God, and yet when it was abuſed unto Idolatry, Hezekiah did well to break it in pieces, 2 King. 18.4. And therefore the Croſſe being a humane invention altogether unneceſſary in Gods worſhip, is for the Idolattous abuſe of it rightly aboliſhed. The force of this conſequence may be gathered from what two Engliſh Biſhops ſay.
1. From what Biſhop Abbot hath from a tranſlation of a paſſage out of the Canon Law, Def•of Mr. Perkins part. 1. pag. 168. If our Predeceſſors have done ſome things, which at that time might be without fault, and afterwards be turned to errour, and ſuperſtition, we are taught (ſaith the Law) by Hezekiahs breaking the Brazen Serpent, that the Poſterity may aboliſh the ſame without any delay, and with great authority.The very ſame words are urged in the like manner by Dr. John Rainolds in his Conference with Hart, page 510. As alſo by Hooker in his Eccleſiaſtical Politie, pag. 347.
282. From what Jewel ſaith for the abolition of Images, becauſe of their Adoration, Repl to Hardings Anſw: artic 14. pag 383. The beſt remedy in this behalf, and moſt agreeable with Gods Word, is utterly to aboliſh the cauſe of the ill ▪ So the godly King Hezechtas took down, and brake in pe•ces the Brazen Serpent; notwithſtanding Moſes himſelf by Gods ſpecial commandment had erected it; notwithſtanding it were an expreſſe figure of Chriſt hanging upon the Croſſe; notwithſtanding it had continued ſo many years; notwithſtanding God by it had wrought ſo many Miracles. So the godly Biſhop Epiphanius•ent in ſunder the Image of Chriſt painted in a cloth; and ſaid, It was againſt Gods commandment, a thing ſuperſtitious and unmeet for the Church, and people of God; notwithſtanding it were the Image of Chriſt. So the godly Emperour Theodoſius made his Proclamation over all his Dominions in this ſort; Signum Servatoris noſtri, quocunque l•co reperietur, toll jubemus: We ſtraitly command, that the Image of our Saviour be taken down, in what place ſoever it ſhal be found: notwithſtanding it were the Image of our Saviour. So it is decreed in the late Council of Ments, that, when Images happen to be abuſed by the people, they be either notably al•ered, or utterly aboliſhed.
Unto theſe two I ſhall adde the teſtimony of Auguſtine, De Civitate Dei lib. 10. c. 8. Aeneum ſane Serpentem propter facti memoriam reſervatum cum poſtea populus errans tanquam Idolum colere coepiſſet, Ezechias Rex•eligioſa poteſtate Deo ſerviens, cum magna p•e•atis laude contrivit. Suppoſe then, though not grant, that the Ancients lawfully and laudably uſed the ſign of the Croſſe, as a commemorative ſign of Chriſts death, and a monitory ſign of their duty, yet ſeeing it hath been made by the Papists ſuch an abominable Idol, there is very good reaſon for the utter caſheering it out of Gods worſhip.
A fifth exception is, that our Croſſe is not the Fathers Croſſe, who never annexed any word unto it, and therefore ours is the more Sacramental; for this ſee Ames in his Reply to Mortons particular Def page•7. As alſo Mr. Parker part. 1. pag. 114.
My ſixth exception I ſhall give you in the words of Mr. Parker, part. 1. page 133. What though the cuſtome of the Fathers, who uſed the Croſſe for a ſign of Chriſt, were on all ſides good, the times doe differ. They lived in an age when it was deſpiſed; wee in a time when it is adored. They in a time when it profeſſed the Faith; we in a time when it is common to Papiſts. They in a time when it was uſed over all the Church for the ſign of Chriſtianity; we in an age, when out of our own Church it is no where uſed but for a ſign of Antichriſtianity.In regard whereof we may wel appeal to the old Canons, Regulae Patrum traditae ſunt (ſaith Gregory) prout res postulare videbatur, temporis, loci, perſonarum, reique i•ſius habitâ ratione. And Leo, ſ•cut quaedom ſunt, quae nulla poſſunt ratione convelli, ita multa ſunt, quae pro neceſſitate temporum, ac conſideratione aetatum•porteat temporari.
But I ſhall proceed to the examination of your teſtimonie•apart.
Dr. Hammond.
Saint Auguſtines words are worth remembring, and cannot be denied to have truth in thembbIn Joh. Tr. 118. Signum crucis niſi adhibeatur, ſive f•ontibus credentium, ſive ipſi aquae qua regeneramur, &c. nihil ritè pe•ficitur; unl•ſſe the figh of the Croſſe be uſed either to the foreheads of the beleevers (who are baptiſed) or to the water it ſelf by29 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.
Jeanes.
Saint Augustins words at large are as followeth, Quod ſignum niſi adhibeatur, ſive frontibus credentium, ſive ipſi aquae qua regeneramur, ſive oleo quo Chriſmate unguntur, ſive ſacrific•o qu•aluntur, nihil eorum ritè perficitur. Saint Auguſtine here you ſee approves of the Ch•iſm, and of the croſſing of the Oyle therein, and ſets it check by joule with the water in Baptiſm and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; now your friends doe hope that you doe not concurre with him herein; and if you doe nor, why doe you urge us with the authority of his Teſtimony?
2. If you apply Saint Auguſtines words to our times, and aver, that they cannot be denyed to have truth in them, then your opinion is, that unleſſe the ſign of the Croſſe be uſed to the water in Baptiſm, and to the Elements in the Lords Supper, theſe Sacraments are not duly performed with ſuch ceremonies, as by cuſtome of the Church, the rule of decency, belong unto them; and then what Apology can you make for the Church of England, that never ſince the Reformation uſed any of•heſe Croſſings.
3. Suppoſe Baptiſm in Auguſtines time had been adminiſtred without Croſſing of either the forehead of the Baptiſed, or the water wherewith they were baptiſed, it had then indeed been performed not with ſuch ceremonies as by the Cuſtome of the then Church belonged unto it: and ſo Fulk, in his Confutation of the Rhemiſts, expoundeth Auguſtines ritè, page 693. but this concludes nothing againſt us; for we hold that ſuch Baptiſme hath been ritè, that is, duly, lawfully, and laudably adminiſtred, becauſe it would have been agreeable unto Chriſts inſtitution, which alone, and not the cuſtome of the Church, is the rule of its adminiſtration,
4. Theſe words of Auguſtine are at beſt, but propoſitio malè ſonans; for they carry a palpable appearance of evill, becauſe they plainly ſeem to aſſert the neceſſity of the Sign of the Croſſe unto Baptiſme and the Lords Supper. Bellarmine bringeth them to prove, that nothing can be conſecrated without the ſign of the Croſſe, de Sacra confirm. lib. 2. c. 13 as alſo to juſtifie their Croſſings, that they uſe in the Maſſe, de Miſſa, lib. 3. c. 13. And there's a Popiſh Ballad mentioned by the Abridgement, and tranſcribed in Parker, wherein I beleeve this is one of the places in Auguſtine, related unto, part. 1. p. 92.
But the very Canons of the Convocation doe diſclaime all neceſſity of the ſign of the Croſſe in Baptiſme,The Church of England, ſince the aboliſhing of Popery, hath ever held and taught, and teacheth ſtil, that the ſign of the Croſs uſed in Baptiſme is no part of the ſubſtance of that Sacrament; for when the Miniſter, dipping the Infant in water, or laying water upon the face of it (as the manner alſo is) hath pronounced theſe words (I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt) the Infant is fully baptized; ſo as the ſign of the Croſſe being afterwards uſed, doth neither adde any thing to the virtue, or perfection of Baptiſm; nor being omitted, doth detract any thing from the effect and ſubſtance of it.
Dr. Hammond.
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 Croſſe, as the Iſraelites on their door poſts, and ſo muſt all Christians.
Jeanes.
Whereas you ſay above, that Auguſtines words cannot be denyed to have truth in them, you mean theſe laſt quoted, as well as the former; and if this bee ſo, then it will be an eaſie matter for you to clear up by argument this undeniable truth that is in them. God commanded the Iſraelites to ſtrike the lintel and the two ſide poſts of the door with the blood of the Paſſeover; therefore all Chriſtians are obliged to be ſigned in the forehead with the ſign of the Croſſe, ſounds with me as a very wild and looſe inference; and therefore I ſhall intreat you to confirm it, or elſe relinquiſh this place of Auguſtine, as containing nothing of an argument in it.
Bellarmine alledgeth this place of Auguſtine to prove that the blood of the Lamb ſprinkled upon the poſts of the doors was a figure of the ſign of the Croſs: Tom. 2. de Eccleſ: triumph: lib. 2. c. 29. And unto him Chamier thus anſwereth; Tom. 2. pag. 878, 879. Nego crucem ſignificatam in veteri Teſtamento; niſi per accidens: hoc eſt, quatenus Chriſtus ſignificatus eſt crucifigendus. Sed crucem directè ac per ſe ſignificatam ullis figuris, nego. Nec ignoro tamen produci poſſe in contrarium teſtimonia quaedam ex Patribus. Sed ego quicquid Patribus in buccam venit, non cenſeo amplect endum, ut verbum Dei. Poteſt, inquiebat Auguſtinus in Pſalmum trigeſimum ſextum, nihil aliquid videri, alteri aliud: ſed neque ego, quod dixero, praeſcribo alteri ad meliorem intellectum, nee ille mihi. Idem de reliquis dicendum. Itaque liceat in earum ſententias inquirere. Certe illud de ſanguine agni poſito ſuper utroque poſte, remotiſſimum eſt à Cruce. Hoc ſolum tenuiſſimum veſtigium; poſitio in poſte, nonnihil alludit ad poſitionem in fronte; quae in corpore ſupremum locum occupat, ſicut in oſtio poſtis. Sed ſanguis, quanto aptiùs ſanguinem Chriſti ſignificaret? ut apud Gregorium homilia vigeſima ſecunda in Evangelia. Quid ſit ſanguis agni, non ja•n audiendo, ſed bibendo didiciſtis. 31Qui ſanguis ſuper utrumque poſtem ponitur, quando non ſolum ore corporis; ſed etiam ore cordis hauritur. Gretſerus excipit; poſſe unum idemque plura ſignificare. Ita ſane, inquam; ſed primo variis rationibus. Itaque eadem ratione qua ſignificat ſanguinem, non poteſt ſignificare crucem; At unius loci unica eſt ratio. Quare fi hoc uno loco ſignificat ſanguinem Chriſti, non ſignificat crucem. Deinde unum idemque potest varia ſignificare, at non quaelibet: ſed ea tantum, ad quae habet analogiam. Quaenam eſt vero analogia ſanguinis agni ad crucem? nam agno ſignificari Chriſtum nemo inficias eat. Quomodo ergo ſanguis ex agno eductus; ſignificabit crucem non eductam ex Chriſto? ſanguis, inquam, effuſus, crucem compactam?
Dr. Hammond.
In the forehead particularlyccTom. 10. p. 289. B. in fronte figat ubi ſedes pudoris) becauſe the ſeate of ſhame is there, which wee render, in token that the baptiſed ſhall not bee aſhamed.
Jeanes.
This weighs little or nothing, unleſſe withall you can prove, that the Apoſtles command of decency enjoyneth, that the ſeate of ſhame in the baptized ſhould be marked with the ſign of the Croſſe, in token that he ſhould not bee aſhamed. Doubtleſſe Saint Pauls practiſe was ſuitable unto his precept, and you doe not, you cannot pretend, that ever hee was ſigned in the forehead with the ſign of the Croſſe, either by himſelf or any other: he propounds his example for imitation, and gives this for a reaſon, that his pattern was that of our bleſſed Saviour, 1 Cor. 11.1. Be ye even followers of me, as I alſo am of Christ. We ſhall not then think that ſo requiſite unto Baptiſme which hee never uſed; ſo ſo long as wee follow ſo great a precedent, wee ſhall not bee much ſollicitous, though we ſwarve from the advice of Auguſtine, that hath no warrant from the Word of God. Paul makes large profeſſions, that he was not aſhamed of the Goſpel, which held forth a crucified Chriſt, Rom. 1.16. Phil. 1.20. 2 Tim 1.12. But no man can ſay that he ever expreſſed this his profeſſion by the ſign of the Croſſe; and therefore we ſhall make no other account of the Signe of the Croſſe, than as of a ſupernumerarie in Gods ſervice; and thoſe Beleevers that want it, may have confidence when Chriſt ſhall appear, and not be aſhamed before him at his comming, 1 Joh. 2.28.
But perhaps you think we muſt ſtoop unto the bare words of Auguſtine, though not ſeconded with any reaſon; and this is more then Auguſtine himſelfe would have expected from us: for after this manner the holy Scriptures alone are to be entertained, as Biſhop Jewel proveth againſt Harding, Def. Apol. Chur. Engl. part. 1. p. 55. out of ſeveral places of St. Auguſt. Therfore St. Aug. ſaith, Alios Scriptores ita lego, ut quanta libet ſanctitate doctrinâque praepolleant, non ideo verum putem, quod ipſi ita ſenſerint, ſed quod id mihi, vel per alios Authores Canonicos, vel probabili ratione perſuadere potuerint. Other Writers or Fathers (beſides the holy Scriptures) I read in this ſort, that be their learning and holyneſſe never ſo great, I will not think it true, becauſe they have thought ſo, but becauſe they are able to perſwade me ſo, either by other Canonical Writers, or elſe by ſome likely reaſon.Likewiſe again he ſaith, Hoc genus literarum non cum credendi neceſſitate, ſed cum judicandi libertate, legendum eſt:This kinde of Writings (of the holy Doctors and Fathers) muſt bee read, not with neceſſity to beleeve each32 thing, but with liberty to judge each thing.
Likewiſe St. Auguſtine diſputing againſt the Arians, refuſeth, as I have ſaid before, both Councils and Fathers, and appealeth onely to the Scriptures:Nec ego Nicoenam Synodum tibi, nec tu mihi Ariminenſem debes objicere: Scripturarum authoritatibus, res cum re, cauſa cum cauſâ, ratio cum ratione concertet. Neither will I alledge the Council of Nice againſt you, nor ſhall you alledge the Council of Ariminum againſt me. By the authority of the Scriptures let us weigh matter with matter, cauſe with cauſe, reaſon with reaſon.
I ſhall conclude all that I have to ſay unto the foregoing Teſtimonies of Auguſtine (and you may apply it alſo unto thoſe which follow) with the Anſwer of Whitaker, Tom. 1. pag. 293. unto a place quoted out of the 118. Epiſt. of Aug. ad Januar. Respondeo, Magnum eſſe Auguſtini nomen in Eccleſiâ Dei, & merito quidem: Sed meminiſſe debemus, hominem fuiſſe, ac proinde errare potuiſſe. Et licet hoc loco quidem videatur favere Traditionibus, tamen in aliis locis, ſcripturae perfectionem acerrimè defendit, ut poſtea melius patebit. Senſit enim apertiſſimè, nullum dogma reci•iendum eſſe, quod non ſcripturis nitatur. Aut•gitur de Traditionibus non neceſsariis loquitur, aut fibi ipſi non conſentit.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 26.
Secondly, the uſage of this Ceremony of ſigning with the Groſſe, was, wee alſo know, frequent in the Church (while the gifts of healing continued) inddSee Aug. de civ. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8. curing diſeaſes, and caſting out Devils, ſo that Athanaſius frequently affirmes,(e)(e)De Incarnat. Tom. 1. pag. 84. So pag. 101. D. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And pag. 102.6. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And contr. Arian. Or. 1. pag. 285. A. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And, Praeſente ſigno crucis obmuteſcit Paganitas. Aug. T. 4.229. B. And, 832. B. Daemonia nominatâ cruce Chriſti terrentur, ſi impenſius fiat, fugantur. Dii Paganorum metu crucis reſponſa dare non poſſunt.〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; by the ſign of the Croſse all Magick and Witchcraft is brought to naught, all the Idol Temples layd waſte and empty.
Jeanes.
Biſhop Morton in his particular Defence of the Ceremony of the Croſſe, pag. 231, 232. tels us. That our Church doth not aſcribe unto it any miraculous power of driving out devils, or of curing diſeaſes, &c. And what he ſaith of our Church he ſpeaks by juſt conſequence of the Primitive Church; For our Church (ſaith he, ibid. ) profeſſeth, that ſhe uſeth it onely as primitively it was uſed; that is, onely as a token whereby there is proteſtation made of a future conſtancy in the profeſſion of Chriſtianity: If it were uſed onely thus, then it was not uſed for the miraculous cure of diſeaſes, and chaſing away of Devils; and this will be denyed by none,33 that knows the force of the excluſive particle onely; but you have a higher opinion of the efficacy of the ſigne of the Croſſe, than ever Biſhop Morton had, or the Church of England, as he thought; and therefore I ſhall addreſſe my ſelf to give ſome anſwer unto your miracles of the Croſſe.
1. I ſhall in general ſay unto them three things.
1. If there were any ſuch Miracles, as are pretended, they were wrought onely at the ſign of the Croſſe, and not by the ſigne of the Croſſe (as you bring in Athanaſius affirming) ſo much as by a Moral inſtrument they were done for the ſake onely of the faith and prayers of thoſe that uſed the ſign of the Croſs, and were conſequent unto the ſigne of the Croſſe, onely per accidens; and for this that I ſay, Biſhop Morton alledgeth a ſaying out of Pe•kins: Hee confeſſeth (ſaith hee) that miracles were done of God at the ſign of the Croſſe, that had joyned unto it a manifeſt, or at leaſt a ſecret invocation of the name of Chriſt crucified: ſo that the virtue was not to be imputed unto the ſign of the Croſs, but unto the faith of the worker, and invocation of Chriſt.
2. Many Miracles were wrought by the Brazen Serpent; for it came to paſs, that if a Serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the Serpent of Braſſe, he lived, Numb. 21.9. Yet Hezechias brake it in pieces, 2 King. 18.4. and the reaſon is aſſigned why he did ſo; for unto thoſe dayes the children of Iſrael did burn incenſe to it. This fact of Hezechias is praiſe worthy; and therefore it was no evill act to throw aſide the ſign of the Croſſe: for ſuppoſe, though not grant, that Miracles were wrought by it, yet the Papiſts have burnt incenſe unto it: for as Dr. Rainolds in his Conference with Hart, page 509, 510. It is written in your Maſſe-book, that in ſolemn Maſſes, the Prieſt having made obeyſance to the Croſſe, doth incenſe it thrice: The Jews gaveuuExod. 30.8. the honour of God to creature, in that they burned Incenſe to it. And therefore Hezechias did cala it brazen ſtuff; as if you ſhould call your Roodes wooden ſtuff; your Agnus•Dei's waxen ſtuff, your Crucifixes and Croſſes made of Copper, Copper-ſtuff, becauſe you impart the honour of God to them, by putting truſt and hope in them. And ifxxEph. 5 5. the covetous man be called an Idolater, becauſe he maketh mony his God, not as though he thought the coyn to be God, but becauſe hee truſteth to live and proſper by it,yyJer. 17.7. which confidence and hope he ſhould repoſe in God onely: then worſhip you the ſign of the Croſſe as an Idol, becauſe you truſt to be ſaved by it, as in yourzzBreviar. Roman: Sabat. quarta ▪ quadrag. Church ſervice you profeſſe notoriouſly, andaaThom. Aqu•n. Sum. Theol. part. 3. quaeſt. 25. art. 4. Andrad. orthod. Explicat. lib. 9. ſo your ſelves confeſſe, you worſhip it as God; wherefore ifbb2 Kings 18 3.5. Hezechias be praiſed by God for breaking in pieces the Serpent of braſſe, becauſe the children of Iſrael did burn Incenſe to it, we who have removed the ſign of the Croſſe, becauſe you put the hope of ſalvation in it, may content ourſelves to be diſpraiſed by men. But if you ſay therefore, that we be againſt the ancient Fathers in Religion, becauſe we pluck down that which they did ſet up, take heed left your ſpeech doth not touch the Holy Ghoſt who ſaith that Hezechiasccver. 6. did keep Gods commandements which he co•manded Moſes; and yet withall ſaith, thatddver. 4. he brake in peices the Serpent of braſs which Moſes had made.
3. A third anſwer ſhall bee that which Cartwright giveth concerning thoſe Miracles which the Rhemiſts alledge were done by the uſe of Holy Wa•e, and the ſign of the Croſſe: In all which, and the like Miracles (ſaith he, page 303) not to overthrow their credit; we yet further anſwer, that the good ſucceſs that theſe means had, prove no more the lawfulneſs of them, than the ſacrifices of living men amongſt34 the Gentiles unto their Idols, accompanied with ſome deſired iſſue out of their troubles wherein they were, prove the lawfulneſſe of that horrible and most detestable worſhip of their God.
4. That the former uſe of the ſign of the Croſſe in Miracles, obligeth not to a uſe of it (now all miraculous uſe thereof is by the generall confeſſion of Proteſtants ceaſed) may be gathered, in a way of Analogie and proportion from what the above-mentioned Biſhop Morton ſpeaks, pag. 58. of Spittle and Oyle: We confeſs that spittle was uſed by our Saviour Chriſt, in healing of the dumb; and oyle by the Apoſtles, in curing of many other diſeaſes; yet both miraculouſly: but to imitate the work of a Miracle without the miraculous power, is but an apiſh〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for to hold ſuch a miraculous ceremony, after the virtue be gone, is but to preſerve a carkaſs, becauſe it had been once poſſeſsed of a ſoul.
From this general Anſwer proceed we to ſome particulars of the Croſſes efficacie.
1. You ſay that the uſage of this Ceremony of ſigning with the Croſſe, was we alſo know, frequent in the Church (while the gifts of healing continued) in curing diſeaſes. But now for this frequencie you onely quote in the Margin Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8. And in that place there is but one inſtance of any cure wrought upon the uſage of the ſign of the Croſſe, and that in Innocentia, a Carthaginian Matron, and the ſtory hereof I ſhall give unto the Reader, as it lyeth in the Book and Chapter quoted.
In eadem Carthagine, Innocentia religioſiſſima faemina de primariis ipſius civitatis, in mammilla cancrum habebat, rem, ſicut medici dicunt, nullis medicamentis ſanabilem. Aut ergo praeſcidi ſolet, & à corpore ſeparari membrum ubi naſcitur, aut, ut aliquanto homo quietius vivat fomentis eſt peſtis mitiganda frequentibus. Nam ut inde mortem quantumlibet tardius aff•turam confidamus, ſecundum Hippocratis, ut fertur, ſententiam, omnis eſt omittenda curatio. Hoe illa à perito medico, & ſuae domui familiariſſimo acceperat, & ad ſolum Deum ſe orando converterat. Admonetur in ſomnis appropinquante paſcha, ut in parte faeminarum obſervanti ad baptisterium, quaecunque illi baptizata primitus occurriſſet, ſignaret ei locum ſigno crucis Chriſti, fecit, & confeſtim ſanitas ſecuta eſt.
But the Miracles related in this Chapter are of a ſuſpected credit, it ſeemed unto Ludovicus Vives to bee a matter without doubt, that many things in this Chapter were added, &c. by thoſe, who with their filthy hands have defiled all the Writings of great and famous Authors: In hoc capite non dubium, quin35 multa ſint addita, velut declarandi gratia, ab iis, qui omnia magnorum autorum ſcripta spurcis ſuis manibus contaminabant, &c. Of this annotation of Ludovicus Vives Rivet ſpeaks thus, Critic. ſacr. pag. 453. Lud. Viv. ad cap. 8. lib. 22. In quo miracula multa narrantur, quae omnia non ſapiunt exactam judicii limam, quam in aliis Auguſt. operibus lectores ſagaces obſervant, annotat, in hoc capite non dubium, quin multa ſint addita, velut declarandi gratia, ab iis, qui omnia magnorum autorum ſcripta ſpurcis ſuis manibus contaminabant: Huic nothae non refragantur cenſores Belgici in indice expurgatorio: neque Hispani inquiſitores in ſuo: quod ideo no•andum lectori, ne ſemper quae ex genuin is autorum libris afferuntur, genuina eſſe putet, quod per Monachorum corruptelas non licet. Hîc igitur etiam opus eſt ſagacitate, & judicii libra. Chamier in reference to another paſſage in the Notes of Lud: Viv. paſſeth this cenſure upon other miracles, alledged by Papiſts from that place of Auguſtine to juſtifie their Invocation of Saints, de Vigeſim: Octav. lib. de Civit. Dei: Poſſum ex Vive dicere, multum in eo luſiſse ſciolorum laſciviam, aut potius ſuperſtitioſorum audaciam: the Divines of Rhemes in their Annotations on John 14.12. charge Proteſtants, that they diſcredit, as other Miracles, ſo in particular, thoſe teſtified by St. Augustine in this place; and unto this charge neither Fulk nor Cartwright entred any diſſent, and therefore it is probable that they acknowledged it: whereas Fiſher in his Anſwer to the Queſtions propounded by King James, goes about to juſtifie the Oblations made to Saints by ſome of the Miracles here recorded, ſaid to be done at their Tombs and Shrines, Dr. Francis White ſeems to think that a doubt of the truth of ſome of theſe Miracles is defenſible, becauſe, ſaith he, theſe things were extraordinary; and the credit of divers of them dependeth upon fame (which is many times uncertain)bbTertul. Apol. c. 7. cur malum fama? Quia velox, an quia plurimum mendax? quae nè tunc quidem cum veri aliquid adfert fine mendacii vitio eſt detrahens, adjiciens, demutans de veritate. and Saint Auguſtine himſelf ſaith, they are not commended unto us by ſuch weighty authority, as that without all doubt they must needs be creditedccAug. de civit. Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. non tanta ea commendat authoritas, ut ſine difficultate vel dubitatione credantur. they cannot be ſufficient grounds or foundations of Catholike Doctrine or Practiſe.
2. You ſay that by the ſign of the Croſſe all Magick and Witchcraft is brought to nought.
1. Surely, Sir, if ever the ſign of the Croſſe had ſuch an influence, it is queſtionable, whether there was ever any word or promiſe of the Lord for it, and without ſuch word or promiſe, to uſe the ſign of the Croſſe for ſuch a purpoſe, was virtual and interpretative Witchcraft.
Beſides 2. if it were ſo efficacious againſt Magick and Witchcraft in the Primitive times, yet, that ſince it hath been abuſed unto Magick and Witchcraft, is confeſſed by Biſhop Abbot, a man of great piety and learning, part. 1. pag. 169. But ſince the Harpie of Rome hath had the handling of it, and made it a matter of Magical Inchantment, and through the current of her prophanations, it hath runne into the hands of Conjurers, Charmers, Witches, to be defiled with their divelliſh and damnable practiſes, we have had a religious care to clear the firſt Church in the uſing of it; but no further to uſe it our ſelves than it may be waſhed from the ſoyl and filth of theſe abominations.
3. By what you ſay in the Margin out of Athanaſius and Auguſtine, you inſinuate36 a great efficacy of the ſign of the Croſſe in the routing and chaſing away of Devils: unto this I anſwer:
1. That the whole Armour of God, the compleat harneſſe of the Spirit, dererres not Satan from aſſailing the beſt and moſt perfect of Chriſtians: Chriſts unſpotted innocency, and his abſolute all-fulneſſe of Grace, was temptation proof, and yet the Devil adventured upon the aſſault of him, and therefore it is very ſtrange that he ſhould be ſo perillouſly, and terribly afraid of ſo weake a ſhield as the ſign of the Croſſe in the forehead: No, no, ſaith Fulk, in anſwer to the Rhemiſts, pag. 69.4. the Devil is too craf•y and ſtrong to yeeld to ſo weak a weapon, but when he is dispoſed to play with men, that they may more eaſily be ſeduced by him.
2. It is but a ſorry Sophiſme, to conclude the Devils terrour at the ſigne of the Croſſe, from his running away upon then ſe thereof; for this might be done out of deſign to get ground upon men, to return upon them with the more advantage: It might be like the flight of an Enemy to draw into an Ambuſcado, into the ſuperſtition of the Croſſe, that hath ſince ſo prevailed. It is to be feared therefore, that that which the Phariſees blaſphemouſly ſpake of Chriſt, may truly be objected unto the ſign of the Croſſe, that it hath caſt out Devils by Beelzebub the Prince of the Devils. Hear what Whitaker ſaies of the Devils feare of the ſign of the Croſſe, Tom. 1. pag. 390. Hoc omnium interim memoriis infixum eſſe debet, Daemonem eſſe callidum, verſutum, verſipellem, fallacem, mendacem. praeſtigiatorem. Fingit igitur ſe timere ſignum crucis, ut faciat nos externo magis ſigno confidere, quam Chriſto ipſi crucifixo.
3. Some excuſe the Fathers, as if they held, that the ſign of the Croſſe drived away Devils ex opere operantis, only by the faith and prayers of thoſe that uſed it; but others think, that they held it to be done ex opere operato, by the Ordinance of God; and they give this reaſon, becauſe they held it to bee done by aliens and unbeleevers, by Pagans and Jews, who had not the Chriſtian Faith. Naz•••zene relates, how that Julian the Apoſtate being about ſome fears of Necr••••, the Devils that he had conjured ranne all away, when he by chance had made the ſign of the Croſſe, without any purpoſe or thought of a Miracle; for he marvelled at the matter, as that which was more than he expected: And Gregory reports that a Jew, as yet unconverted unto the Faith of Chriſt, being benighted, and taking up hi•lodging in a Temple of Apollo, routed a great multitude, or Troup of Devils that were there aſſembled, by ſigning his forehead with the•ign of the Croſſe: Unto theſe examples Bellarmine, Eccleſ. Triumph. lib. 2. cap. 30, addes the teſtimony of Augustine: Quare S. Auguſtinus lib. 83. quaeſtionum, qu. 79. dicit indictum à Deo Daemonibus ut cedant cruci, tanquam ſceptro Summi Regis, quomodo populi militibus cedunt, cum ab illis profertur ſignum Imperatoris: Nec mirum eſt, inquit, quod haec ſigna valent, cum à bonis Chriſtianis adhibentur, quando etiam cum uſurpantu•ab excraneis ▪ qui omnino ſuum nomen ad iſtam militiam non dederunt, propter honorem tamen excellentiſſimi Imperatoris valent, Cum autem non cedunt his ſignis hujuſmodi poteſtates, Deus ipſe prohibet occultis modis, cum id juſtum, atque utile judicat; nam nullo modo ulli spiritus•••ent haec ſigna contemnere: Conrimeſcunt haec, ubicunque illa prospexerint. By〈◊〉you may ſee, how farre the Fathers went in their opinion touching the efficacy of the Croſſe, and I am ſo charitable as that I thinke you doe not come up unto them herein, and if you do not, you have no reaſon to preſſe me with their ſayings.
373. You ſay out of Athanaſius, that by the ſigne of the Croſſe, all the Idoll Temples were layd waſte and empty: I could wiſh that you had exemplified this by ſome inſtances, that we might have conſidered of what weight they had been: The Papiſts of the Seminary of Rhemes have referred us unto a famous ſtory in Theodoret, which ſaith Fulk, pag 694. is a Miracle wrought by Marcellus Biſhop of Apamea in ſerting the Temple of Jupiter a fire, with ſprinkling of water, after he had ſigned it with the Croſſe, and prayed, when it would not burn with fire: This is a pretty ſtory, if true, and will ſerve aptly for your purpoſe: But, Sir, wee ſhall hope for ſo much charity from you, that you will nor brand for Infidels, all, that have not ſaith ſtrong enough to ſwallow theſe Miracles of the Croſſe. Theodoret might have this at the ſecond hand, and hee himſelf might be deceived, though he were unwilling to deceive, and in all ages devout and wel-meaning perſons have been over-credulous in entertaining counterfeit and fained Miracles.
As for the places quoted out of Auguſtine, I cannot find them in Frobenius his Edition of Auguſtine, and I have no other, and therefore I think you follow ſome other Edition; but the thing is not material; for I hope, that what I have ſaid already will be a ſatisfactory anſwer unto them.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 27.
And then Baptiſme being the exorciſing of Devils (the ancient Catechiſts wee know were called Exorciſts) the reſcuing of a perſon from the power of Satan into Gods Sonſhip and family, what can be more proper, or agreeable, or exactly ſymbolical, than the uſe of this in Baptiſm, according to that of Tertullian, de Reſurr. Carn. Caro ſignatur, ut anima muniatur, the fleſh or body is ſigned, that the ſoul may be defended or fortified.
Jeanes.
Your ordinary Readers will thinke you Conjure, when they hear you term Baptiſme an exorciſing of Devils; for they never heard of any Exorciſme in Baptiſme, ſave of the Papiſts, which our Divines brand for Magical; and whether this expreſſion might not have been forborn to avoyd all appearance of evill, in complyance with Papiſts in their uſe of Exorciſme. I ſhall not determine, but leave it unto your own prudence to think of. Whereas you ſay, that the ancient Catechiſts were called Exorciſts, the reaſon of this may probably be, becauſe the Catechumeni were exorciſed before Baptiſme, Aquin. Sum. part. 3. quaeſt. 71. artic. 2. But I ſhall not contend about this with you, for fear I ſhould bee thought as very a fool as the Philoſopher, who read a Lecture of Warre before Hannibal. There is a paſſage in Auguſtine that ſeemes to favour ſomewhat what you ſay, Tom. 7. pag. 577. Ab hac igitur poteſtate tenebrarum, quarum eſt Diabolus princeps, id eſt, à poteſtate Diaboli, & angelorum ejus quiſquis erui, cum baptizantur, negaverit parvulos, ipſorum eccleſiae ſa cramentorum veritate convincitur, &c. In veritate itaque no•in falſitate poteſtas diabolica exor••zatur in parvulis, eique renunciant, quia per ſua non poſſunt, per corda & ora geſtant•m, ut eruti à poteſtate tenebrarum in regnum ſui Domini transferantur. Unto this teſtimony I beleeve it is eaſie for you to adde many more.
But yet notwithſtanding all this, it is very well known, by all that know the difference betwixt the Predicaments, that the Sacrament of Baptiſme cannot be38 ſaid to be the Exorciſing of Devils, the reſcuing of a perſon from the power of Satan, the delivery of him from the tyranny, otherwiſe than in an improper, tropicall, and metonymicall praedication, viz. as it is a ſign and ſeal, and if you will, a moral inſtrument of the conditionall promiſe thereof.
But what advantage reap you unto your cauſe by this? why unto this Exorciſing of Devils, the reſcuing a perſon from the power of Satan into Gods family, the uſe of the Croſſe in Baptiſme is exactly ſymbolical? Your argument (if there be any argument in your words) as I conceive, ſtands thus: That which is ſo exactly ſymbolical unto any thing ſigned, ſealed, conveighed, and exhibited in Baptiſme, is ſo decent, as that the omiſſion thereof would be undecent: but the uſe of the Croſſe in Baptiſme is exactly ſymbolical unto that which is ſigned, ſealed, and conveighed, or exhibited in Baptiſme, viz. the Exorciſing of Devils, the reſcuing a perſon from the power of Satan into Gods Sonſhip and Family, therefore the uſe of it is ſo decent, as that the omiſſion thereof would be undecent; you cannot but expect that the Major will be denied, and 'tis very ſtrange that you leave it deſtitute of all proof; for you cannot be ignorant if you have read the Non-conformiſts, whom you oppoſe, that their great quarrell againſt our Ceremonies, was their ſymbolicalneſſe and myſtical ſignification; their arguments againſt which you may read at large in the Abridgement, page 41, 42, &c. uſque ad 49. Ames his Reply to Mortons Generall Def. page 33, 34, &c. uſque ad 58. As alſo in his Triplication to Dr. Burges Disp. about humane Ceremon. page 209, 210. uſque ad 336. Parker. Treat. of the Croſſe, part 1 page 97, 98, &c. uſque ad 112. Didoclave, page 522, 523, &c. uſque ad 536.
But, Sir, you may thinke to blow off all the Arguments with a ſilent ſcorne and contempt, and this indeed many doe with thoſe arguments which they cannot anſwer; but if you will not vouchſafe to read theſe Authors, if you pleaſe to accept of my ſervice, I will abridge the ſubſtance of their arguments, and attend your anſwer unto them.
Then, for the Minor, I have four things to ſay unto it.
1. Baptiſme it ſelf is more proper, agreeable, or exactly Symbolical, unto the reſcuing of a perſon from the power of Satan into Gods Sonſhip and Family, than the ſigne of the Croſſe; and therefore the ſign of the Croſſe in Baptiſme is a ſuperfluous ſupernumerary, like the dimme and ſmoakie light of a candle in the preſence of the clear and glorious light of the Sun at noon-day.
2. The Popiſh Exorciſme and Exſufflation are as, if not more, proper, agreeable, and exactly ſymbolical, unto the Exorciſing of Devils as the uſe of the Croſſe in Baptiſme, and they have not been ſo much abuſed as it, and may as eaſily be purged from all Superſtition and Idolatry, and therefore you may as well conclude concerning them as the Croſs, that they are ſo decent as that the omiſſion of them would be undecent.
3. I much queſtion whether or no two croſſe motions of a finger or a thumb be ſo proper, agreeable, and exactly ſymbolical, unto ſo high, dreadfull and profound a myſtery, as the delivery of us from the power of Satan and darkneſſe, and the tranſlation of us into the kingdome of the dear Son of God, as you affirm; and I ſhall hardly beleeve you, unleſſe you bring other proofs, beſides the Hyperbolies of the Fathers.
As for that which in confirmation of the Minor, you quote out of Tertullian:
1. It is urged by ſome, not onely for the ſignification, but alſo for the operation39 and efficacy of the Croſſe, and whether you will go ſo far I cannot tell.
2. Unto it Mr. Whitaker, when urged by Papiſts for Traditions, gives this anſwer, Tom. 1. pag. 390. At anima ſide contra Satanam munienda eſt, non cruce. Veteres quidem ſe hoc ſigno adverſus Daemonas munitos eſſe putârunt, ſed hoc ex haereſi Montani fluxit.
And of him Mr. Fuller in his Hiſtory of the Univerſity of Cambridge pag. 125, gives this deſerved character; He was one ſo exactly qualified, that the Profeſsors Chair may ſeem made for him, and he for it, they mutually ſo fitted each other.
3. I would deſire to know, how you like the companion of the Croſſe in Tertullian, the holy oile? caro ungitur, ſaith he, in the words immediately foregoing, ut anima conſecretur: but perhaps you are for the reviving of that, as well as for the uſing of the Croſſe; and ſome ſtick not to ſay, that 'tis as ancient as the Croſſe.
One thing more I cannot but remember you of, before I leave this Section, and it is a diſtinction of myſtical ſignification by the learned and reverend Morton, the word mystical ſignification hath two acceptions, ſaith he, General Def. pag. 52. The one Sacramental, by ſignification of grace conferred by God; the other is onely Moral, by ſignification of mans duty and obedience towards God. The ceremonies which we defend (ſaith he) are onely myſtical Moral, not Sacramental; and for his diſclaiming theſe, he gives this reaſon, page 53, 54. A ſacramental ſign (being, as ſacramental, ſo likewiſe〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a ſeal of Gods promiſes,Rom. 4. as the Apoſtle calleth Circumciſion) is alwaies founded upon the expreſſe Covenant of God, therefore none but the Author of the Covenant may inſtitute or appoint any ſuch ſign. For whoſoever ſhall undertake to adde a ſeal unto the Will and Covenant of any Teſtator amongſt men, is forthwith held Falſarius, and thereby made obnoxious to the Law, and lyable to the grievous judgements of man: How much more damnable an Act were it for any to affix any ſign, properly Sacramental, unto the Teſtament of our Lord Jeſus? which whoſoever ſhall attempt to do, becommeth guilty of ſacrilegious depravation of the bleſsed Myſteries of Salvation.
Now you make the ſign of the Croſſe to be that which Morton calls a Sacramental ſigne; for he deſcribes a Sacramental ſigne to be that which ſignifieth Grace conferred by God: & is not the reſcuing of a perſon from the power of Satan into Gods Sonſhip and Family (as for your other expreſſion: Baptiſme is the Exorciſing of Devils, I am not much delighted with the repetition of it) a grace conferred by God? and unto this you ſay the ſign of the Croſſe is exactly Symbolicall, and therefore a Sacramental ſign.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 28.
And if inſtead of theffAd omnem progreſſum frontem crucis ſignaculo terimus. Tertul. de Cor. Mil. c. 3. frequent uſe of it among the Ancients, evenggVide Narrat. Hippolyti Apoſtolorum〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, apud Pallad. Hiſt. Lauſ. pag. 1049. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. before the cumberſome weight of Ceremonies came in (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ſaith the Author of the Queſt. and Reſp. aſcribed to Juſtin Martyr, Qu. •in pag. 364. in time of Prayer we ſign thoſe that have any need of it, thoſe that are any way ill affected) wee in this our Church retain it onely in our ſolemne entrance into Christs40 Camp, in token that we mean valiantly to fight under his Banner, and in confidence that he that thus ſigned to Conſtantine Victory from heaven (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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?
Jeanes.
Here the argument to prove the perfect decency of the uſage of the ſigne of the Croſſe in Baptiſm, is the frequent religious uſe of it amongſt the ancients; I ſay the religious uſe, becauſe we oppoſe not the civil uſe of it in Coins and Banners. But
1. You know, it is generally denyed by the Non-conformiſts, that the frequent uſe of the Croſſe amongſt the Ancients was lawfull and juſtifiable, and untill this bee cleared, your argument will bee little better than Petitio principii.
2. Bellarmine uſeth the like argument, de Miſſa lib. 2. cap. 15. for their croſſings in the Maſſe, having quoted divers Fathers for the antiquity of the ſign of the Croſſe, who teach that it is to be uſed in every buſineſſe: he propounds hereupon an interrogation, very like unto that of yours: Quod ſi in omni negotio ſignum crucis adhibendum, cur non in actione tremendi ſacrificii? But this perhaps ſtartles you not.
3. I demand whether the uſe of the Croſſe amongſt the Ancients was decent or undecent? If it was decent, then why was it abrogated? If it was undecent, then how can you infer therefrom, the perfect decency of the uſe of the Croſſe in Baptiſm?
But though I doe not deny the frequent uſe of the Croſſe among the Ancients, yet I have ſomething to obſerve concerning the witneſſes which you alledge therefore.
The firſt is Tertullian de Cor. Milit. cap. 3.
But this Book was written by him when a Montaniſt, this is confeſſed on all hands, but I ſhall content my ſelfe with the naming onely of two Witneſſes.
The firſt is a moderate Conformiſt, Doctor Whitaker, Tom. 1. pag. 392. Reſpondeo, Tertullianum faiſſe Montaniſtam, quando hunc librum ſcripſit. Facit enim mentionem novarum prophetiarum, quarum Montanum inventorem fuiſſe, dubium non eſt. Fuit vero Montanus multarum Traditionum author, quae poſtea extirpari non poterant. Dixit, ſe habere illum paracletum, quem promiſit Chriſtus; & fretus hujus paracleti authoritate, multa〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in Eccleſiam invexit. Impius hic Montanus Tertullianum ipſum fefellit, cujus viri jacturam caſumque merito lugere poſſumus. Illo enim tempore nullus d•ctior, nullus ſanctior, nullus pro fidei Chriſtianae defenſione vehementior fuit Tertulliano. Sed haereſis illa Montani omaem Tertulliano fidem detraxit. Sic enim Hilarius ait, in Comment. in Matth. Canon. 5. Quanquam & Tertullianus (inquit) hac de•re aptiſſima volumina ſcripſerit, conſequens error homi•i•detraxit ſcriptis probabilibus authoritatem. Hieronymus verò, in lib. contra Helvidium affirmat, eum Eccleſiae hominem non fuiſſe. Et in Catal. de Te•talliano idem ait, eum multa contra Eccleſiam ſcripſiſſe; & reverâ ſcripſit. Quae cum ita fint, quàm abſurdum eſt, Montanicas Traditiones Tertulliani nomine nobis obtrudere.
The other is a zealous and rigid pleader for humane religions Ceremonies, Mr. Hooker in his Eccleſiastical Politie, pag. 65, when Tertullian diſputed againſt41 the Chriſtian ſouldiers wearing a Crown or Garland on their heads, when they receive their Donative; He was a Montaniſt, and an enemy unto the Church, for condemning that prophetical spirit, which Montanus and his followers did boaſt they had received, as if in them Chriſt had performed his laſt premiſe; as if to then he had ſent the Spirit, that ſhould be their perfecter and final inſtructer in the myſteries of Chriſtian truth. Which exulceration of mind made them apt to take all occaſions of contradiction. Wherefore in honour of that action, and to gall their minds, who did not ſo much commend it, he wrote his book De Cotona Militis, not diſſembling the ſtomack wherewith he wrote it.
2. The Croſſings which Tertullian ſpeaks of, would be a weight cumberſome enough without any other Ceremony, and this cannot be denyed by ſuch indifferent perſons as will read his words at large; for thus they are, Ad omnem progreſſum, atque promotum, ad omnem additum, & exitum, ad veſtitum, ad calceatum, ad lavaera, ad menſas, ad lumina, ad cubicula, ad ſedilia, quandocunque nos converſatio exerce•, frontem crueis ſignaculo terimus. Here you ſee, that the Croſſing in Tertullians time was at every ſtep, at every coming to and going out, at the apparrelling themſelves, at waſhing, at eating, at lighting candles, and at ſitting, &c.
3. The frequent uſe of the Croſſe, mentioned by Tertullian at every ſtep, and in every action that we do, was not, could not be decent, becauſe it could not but be a great hinderance, diſturbance, and diſtraction unto the more neceſſary, and important actions of mens lives, eſpecially ſeeing you will ſay, it was to be accompanied with inward action of the ſoul ſuitable thereunto: now how can that, which is not decent in it ſelf, derive that, which it hath not, unto another: this perpetual Croſſing, was ſo farre from being decent, as that it was ridiculous; and ſhould we now ſee a man after this manner croſſing of himſelf, we would think either that he was out of his wits, or elſe that he was tranſported with ſuch deluſions of Satan, as the Quakers are now, or the Montaniſts were in Tertullians time.
A ſecond witneſſe is Palladius de Hiſtoria Lauſiaca. This Author I ſuſpected to be fabulous by the two tales related out of him by Bellarmine, de Reliq. & Imaginib. Sanctorum, cap. 29. and I cannot but wonder that you ſhould alledge him, conſidering the character that Hierome and Epiphanius give of him; but not having the Book in my own Study, I ſent unto a friend in Oxford, to make ſome ſearch after the place, and in a ſhort time this anſwer was returned unto me.
What authority is to be given to that quotation out of Palladius concerning Hippolytus, whom he would have to be Apoſtolorum〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? Queſt.
None at all, or very little: For
1. Palladius, hee lived in the end of the forth Century, anno 389,Anſw. ſaiesaaIn Chronelog. Authorum praefixa Hiſt. vet. Patrum Pariſ. 1583. Laurentius de la Barre, Bellarmine (deſcript. Eccleſ. pag 156. in Palladio, puts him ad annum 390) ſaith he was coetaneous with Hierom and Ruffine, and a man of no great repute. Reprehenditur (ſaithbbDe Scriptor. Eccleſ in Palladio pag. 156. Bellarmine) ut Origeniſta Pallactius (ſaithccPreaemio adverſus Pelagianos ad Creſiphentem. Hierome) ſervus nequitiae, candem haereſim inſtaurare conatus eſt, & novam tranſlationi calumniam Hebraicae mihi ſtruere, nunc quoquemyſteriū iniquitatis operatur And at the ſame time Epiphanius,ddEpiſt. 60. apud Hieron. Palladium, qui quondem nobis•harus fuit, & nunc miſericordiâ Dei indiget, cave, quia nunc Originis baereſim praedidicat, &c. And though he ſeemed afterwards to have forſaken42 his Haereſies, yet (if we may beleeveeeIn Apparatu Sacro. pag. 60. Palladius pag. 207. Poſſevine) Mutavit perſonam, non animum.
2. This Hiſtoria Lauſiaca, was called ſo, not by Palladius himſelf, who inſcribes it thusffVide Palladium graecè editum per Jo. Meurſium pag. 1.〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Paliadii Epiſcopi Hiſtoria vitas ſanctorum Patrum continens. But becauſe he dedicated that Hiſtory,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lauſo Praepoſito, to an eminent man then in authority; ſo it was that from this Lauſus it was called Lauſiaca.
3. This Narration of Hippolytus here cited, occurs in theggIn Hiſt. Vet. Patrum per Laurentium de la Barre, cap. 1.9. pag. 88. who puts theſe words in the Margin, Crucis ſignum tempere Apostolor. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. MS. in Bibl. Bodlianâ. Palladius graecè per Ioh. Meurſ. Lug. Bat. 1616. 4•. Latine Edition of Palladius by Gentianus Hervetus, thus, Quae cum ſic feciſſet, & ſe totam ſigno crucis muniiſset, egreſſa eſt, &c. He ſpeaks of a Corinthian Virgin, a Chriſtian, damned by the Judge to the Stews, out of which place ſhe eſcaped (a pious young man giving her the cloaths) in mans apparel,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(that is, putting on mans apparel) 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and ſigning her ſelf all over with the Myſtery of the Croſſe, ſhee eſcaped ſafe. So the ſtory is, in the Greek Edition by Meurſius pag. 154. what other Greek copy the Doctor made uſe of, I know not; he cites pag. •049. whereas in Meurſius his Edition there are but 212. pages in all.
3. He tells us where he had this Fable, or Hiſtory (for Palladius does not affirm it to be true) 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(i.e. in alio libello, qui inſcribebatur (Hippolyti ipſis Apostolis cogniti, ſeu Apoſtolorum coaetanei) Iſtiaſmodi Natrationem inveni: And then he tels this ſtory of the Corinthian Virgin.
4. So that the Summe is: He found a Pamphlet (for ſo the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſignifies) which was inſcribed to Hippolytus, who was known to the Apoſtles, but that it was not〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a falſe and ſpurious inſcription, he tels us not, onely he found a Pamphlet ſo inſcribed.
2. It is very likely he had no great opinion of that Pamphlet, for then he would have told us ſo, to give reputation to the ſtory. For in the very nexthhPalladius ex Edit. Joh Meurſii, pag. 152. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ſtory before this, which is concerning a Virgin called Juliana, he tels us, he had it out of a moſt ancient book of Hymns, writ by Origens own hand,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; whereas he hath nothing of this, but that he ſaw a Pamphlet ſo inſcribed.
3. And this is more probable, becauſe I find not any Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtorian (or other Author) mention any ſuch Hippolytus, who was Apostolorum〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
4. Nor is there any foundation in Antiquity, in the teſtimony of any good Author, that any ſuch Croſſing was uſed in the Apoſtles time, though I know in Tertullians time, and afterwards, it grew much in faſhion, eſpecially in the43 fourth Century in the time ofiiAuguſt in Evang. Joh. Tract. 118. ChryſostomekkChryſoſt. demonſtrat quod Chriſtus ſi•Deus. Auguſtine, and this Palladius, who was Biſhop of Helenopolis, and this is confeſſed byllIn his Conference with Hart, page 504. Edit. London, Anno 1598. Dr. Rainolds againſt Hart (where you have much about Croſſing) who denies (and juſtly too) that any ſuch uſe of the Croſſe was uſed in the Apoſtles times, nor do I finde any affirm it, but they of Rome, who (againſt all reaſon and antiquity) would have all their ridiculous and ſuperſtitious Ceremonies to be Apoſtolical: It is obſervable further, that the Latin Tranſlation by Gentianus, differs very much from the Greek put out by Joh. Meurſius (as hemmJo. Meurſius in Praefat. Lectori Palladio Praepoſitae. himſelf tels us) and both of them very much (even in this preſent ſtory we now ſpeak of) from an ancient Greek Manuſcript copy of Palladius in Bodlyes Library. So that 'tis evident the book hath been much interpolated; ſo that he had need of a ſpirit of Prophecy, who would certainly tell us which is genuine, which ſpurious.
For inſtance, in Meurſius his Edition Lugd. Batav. 1616. pag. 152. The〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉of the 93 Narration or Chapter is thus,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And then the narration begins thus,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. And then the next Narration (Narratio 94. pag. 154. hath this〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
Now in the Manuſcript ancient Copy in Bodlyes Library thoſe two Chapters are but one, and the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉one, thus〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And then the Narration begins thus,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Difference enough, and therefore negligence or knavery enough in the Tranſcribers.
Beſides this Univerſity friend, I conſulted another in the Country, who had, I knew, a well furniſhed ſtudy, and from him I received this following Anſwer.
Palladius his Hiſtoria Lauſiaca I find in the ſeventh Tom. of Bibliotheca Sanct. Patrum, put forth by Margarinus de la Bigne at Paris, Anno 1589. of which Author Bellarmine himſelf in his Book de Scriptoribus Eccleſiaſticis ad annum 390. confeſſeth (after he had firſt praiſed this Hiſtory, as not a little profitable to the Reader of it) that this Palladius is reproved by Saint Hierome, in an Epiſtle of his to Cteſiphon, for an Origeniſt, and ſo accounted alſo by Epiphanius in an Epiſtle of his to John of Jeruſalem, which Epiſtle is to be ſeen (as he ſaith) in the ſecond Tom. of Hieroms Works. This Hiſtory of Palladius hath the name Lauſiaca, from one Lauſus, to whom it is dedicated both by Palladius and Heraclides. a Biſhop of Cappadocia; both which Epiſtles dedicated to Lauſus, are prefixed to this Hiſtory. The Hiſtory hath more Miracles in it than are in the New Teſtament, and as ſtrange ones as are in any Legend, and it ſeemeth the Author, (as he ſaith at the 56. Sect. of this Hiſtory) could have reported ſtranger, but that they did excedere miraculi modum; not that they were falſe though, but becauſe men wanted faith to believe them. In the firſt Sect one Dorotheus, cum prius ſignaculo crucis ſe muniviſſet, draweth, and drinketh the water of a Well, wherein there were Aſps: Abbot Copres, ſect. 49. went into the flames of a great fire, and ſtaid there half an hour, and had no hurt, but as he entred the fire he was in nomine Chriſti ſignatus. One Abbot Be, at the entreaty of ſome Husbandmen of that Country, commanded a Sea horſe (Hipp-potamus) who44 waſted that Country to be packing, and not to ſpoil the Country any more. And ſo forthwith this Sea horſe, as if he had been driven away by an Angell, aniſhed, omnino evanuit. Sect. 17. An Hyaena brings her whelpe unto Abbot Macarius and layeth it down at the Abbots feet, this whelp was blind, the Abbot ſpits upon the eyes of this blind whelp, prayeth, and the whelp recovereth its ſight; the Hyaena taketh up the whelp, and deparreth: But then the next day the ſame Hyaena bringeth a great ſheep-skin unto the Abbot, offereth it unto him (belike as a token of her thankfulneſs for the cure) the Abbor refuſeth the preſent, ratleth the Hyaena for killing the ſheep, adviſeth her to kill no more ſheep, the Hyaena, capite ſuo annuit, ut quae ſancto Macario aſſentiretur, Saith my Authour: upon the report of St. Paphnutius in another Place, the Divell in the habit of a Presbyter offereth the Sacrament to one, but the good Presbyter diſcovereth the Divell, and defies him, and his Sacrament. In another place one liveth many yeares, and had no other ſuſtenance, but the Sacrament once every Sabbath day.
By this time the Reader is, I hope, ſufficiently ſatisfied, that your Author Palladius is a Legendary writer, the Gentlemen who have made this ſearch for me, deſire for the preſent, to have their names concealed, but however they will be reſponſible for what they have written, when ever you ſhall be pleaſed to call them to an account.
A third witnes is the Author of the Queſt. and Reſp. aſcribed to Juſtin Martyr, but this Author is unknown, and the book a forgery, unworthy of Juſtin Martyr, and as ſhort of his former writings as Lead is of Gold, this you know a great deal better then my ſelf, but others may ſee as much demonſtrated by Rivet. Critie. ſacr. lib. 2. cap. 5. Out of Poſſevinus, Sylburgius and Scaltetus.
But you have perhaps another argument, hinted towards the concluſion of this ſection, and it is the apparition of the ſigne of the Croſſe unto Constantine, of which you ſpeak in thoſe words; he that thus ſigned to Conſtantine victory from Heaven (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in this overcome &c.
But it is much queſtioned, whether or no that which you call the ſigne of the Croſſe, was that which appeared unto Conſtantine. Biſhop Abbot in his anſwer unto Dr. Biſhop his Epiſtle unto King James pag. 167. ſaith, that the ſigne of the Croſſe, unto which Conſtantine was ſo much affectioned (and that which he was ſo affectionate unto, was that which appeared unto him) was indeediiEuſeb. de vit. Conſt. lib. 1 c. 25. the ſigne of the name of our Saviour, consisting of the two Greek letters x and p, and in the form of a〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which are the two firſt letters of the name of Chriſt, and did import the ſame whole name, by the ſight whereof in the skie Conſtantine was advertiſed, thatkkIb. c. 22. by Chriſt be muſt conquer and overcome. To which name of Chriſt, repreſented to Conſtantine, his moſt excellent majesty giveth the ſame honour that Conſtantine did, repoſing therein the whole truſt of his Victory, and ſafety, both ſpirituall and corporall, and knowing that nollActs 4.7. other name is given under heaven, by which we muſt be ſaved, but only the name of Jeſus Chriſt. This opinion•s embraced by many; but Dr. John Rainolds of all others, I beleeve, ſpeakes moſt fully of it in his conference with Hart, pag. 507, 508. The ſign that appeared to Conſtantine in the Element was a ſigne of the name of Chriſt, not his Croſſe: howſoever the Coiners andmmMartials treatiſe of the Croſſe art. 2. Harpesfeildes Cope. dialog 4. Croſſe-maintainers of your Church doe falſly paint it out. For asnnDe vit. Conſtant. lib. 1. cap. 15. Euſebius writeth, (unto whom Conſtantine did report the thing, and ſhewed him that enſign, which he had cauſed to be made in the likeneſs45 thereof) it was the forme of a [illustration] 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. which words tranſlated amiſſe by Interpreters (erat litera p inſerta in medio literae x) have occaſioned ſome to make the ſigne otherwiſe then Euſebius deſcribeth it. Spear standing ſtrait upright, with a Crown on the top of it, and as it were a horn, which did croſſe the mideſt of the Spear aſlope. So that at repreſented two of the Greek letters, x and p: which being the two firſt letters of the name of Chriſt, the name of Chriſt was ſignified by that ſign to Conſtantine. Thus be deſcribeth it who ſaw it.
Vnto this Hart thus replyeth, but out of doubt he calleth it the ſigne or the monument of the Croſſe alſo.
And unto this Dr. Rainolds thus rejoyneth. But5 cap. 25. himſelf ſheweth, that he calleth it ſo, becauſe it reſembledoo〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. the ſigne of a Croſſe. For neither was it like the Croſse fully, which hadppThe figure of the letter T. Tertull. adverſ. Marcion. lib. 3. Hieron. lib. 3. Comment. in Ezec. c. 9. another figure: and where he deſcribeth it, he ſaith in plain termes that it was66〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. a ſigne of the name of Chriſt. Neither were thoſe words that you rehearſed written by it, In this ſigne overcome, as yourqqHarpsfeild in his Cope-Dialog. 4. c. 3. Doctor ſaith: (belike becauſe he read it coined in the Cruſeado ſo, or in the Portigue) bu•rr〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euſeb. de vit. Conſtant. l. c. 22.by this overcome: as if God ſhewing him the name of Chriſt, ſhould have ſaid unto him thatſſActs 4.12. there is no other name given under Heaven whereby we must be ſaved. In the which meaning it ſeemeth that Conſtantine did understand it alſo: becauſettEuſeb. de vit. Conſt. lib. c. 25. he uſed afterward to carry in his Helmet, not the ſigne of the Croſse, but thoſe two letters by which the name of Chriſt was repreſented to him.
But ſuppoſe it was the very ſigne of the Croſſe, which you imagine, appeared unto Constantine, yet this will make nothing for the perfect decency of the uſage of the ſigne of the Croſſe in Baptiſme amongſt us: and my reaſon is, becauſe apparitions in the aire, though they be not illuſions of Satan, the Prince of the aire, but true & reall miracles, doe not oblige us unto an imitation of the like in Gods ordinances: ſtrong and powerfull motives they are unto the worſhip of Chriſt, but were never deſigned to be a rule of it, and he that uſeth it to ſuch a purpoſe perverts it from its right end.
Dr. Hammond.
And then for the Surplice: It is no newes, I hope, for ſeverall ſorts of men to have ſolemne Garments, for ſolemne actions which they doe 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 cuſtomary in civill matters (viz, to difference perſons and imployments, yea and dayes, by diſtinction of garments) and is allowed to be decent therein, this by analogy 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 Superiours being added to this decency of the matter,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is, I am ſure, more than undecent for inferiors to be46 obſtinate, and deny obedience to them. In the choice of the garment, there hath been alſo, as near 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 beſides this of ours, Eaſtern as well as Weſtern, for ſo many Centuries together, be conſidered, it will be competently able to eſtabliſh an Eccleſiaſtical cuſtome alſo, which, in things of this nature, externall ornaments and formalities, is a more rat onal ground, and rule or meaſure of decency, than any Mr. J. (or Ameſius to boot) will readily be able to produce for the rejecting of them, or breaking and caſting away thoſe bands which tyed no harder a yoak than this upon their ſhoulders.
Jeanes.
The Surplice was uſed not onely 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 onely 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 lawfull47 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,48 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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(which Mr. J. ſaith St. Paul oppoſes to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) 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,49 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.
Jeanes.
In theſe three Sections I ſhall ſtay upon nothing but your charge of m•and Ameſius with this ſenſleſſe and irrational poſition, that nothing is indifferent; who almoſt that hath heard of your great parts, learning and ingenuity (and50 who is there ſuch a ſtranger in our Jſrael unto whoſe eares the ſame thereof hath not arrived) but wil upon this conclude us both guilty? whereas we are both free. & innocent, and moſt untruly aſperſed by you, for which I expect & challenge ſatisfaction. Sir, herein I deſi•e no favour at your hands, but ſhall intreat you to put any of our words upon the ra•ke, and if by all your Logick y•u can extort any ſuch inference from them, I ſhall confeſſe my ſelf worthy of all that diſgrace which your pen can powre upon me To c•ea•my ſelf from this your impuration I have joyned herewi•h a Treatiſe concerning the indifferent actions of man; And as for Ames, his own writings will ſufficiently acquit him in his Modul. Theolog. lib 2. cop. 3. theſ. 13 he exprefly affirmeth that many acts in the generall a•e in their own nature indifferent, and in his Caſes of Conſcience he hath a whole chapter de Adiaphor is and there too his reſolution is, that var•e dontur•ctiones quae in ſua communi ac nuda natura antequam circamſtant•s v•ſtiantur, nullam includum bonitatem aut ma•itiam. Taies ſunt c•medere, bibere, iter facere, ambulare &c. lib. 3. cap. 18 There be divers actions which in their common and bare nature, before they be as it were cloathed with circumſtances, doe include in themſelves no goodneſs or badneſs; as to eat, to drink, to take a journey, to walk &c. Dr. J. Burges impureth unto Bradſhaw his opinion, which you father upon Ames, and Ames his defence of Mr. B•adſhaw will ſerve for his own apology. Dr. Burges ſaies th•t Mr. Bradſh•w h•d good reaſon to reverſe his opinion•f things indifferent, for againſt all learning and ſenſe, he reſolves that there is nothing indifferent, and unto this Ames thus anſwereth T••pli•at. cap. 2 S. 8, 9If this were ſo as tis related, reaſon would perſw de to ſome reca•tation, but tis only the Bejoinder his telling again without any ſhew or proof. The Bejoynder raiſeth up a report, without ſhewing from wh••h•received it, which untill it be ſome other way confirmed, then by an adverſaries bare telling and that in a humour of di•gracing his perſon, it moſt be accounted a meer tale. I for my part, can find no ſuch word: in Mr. Bradſhaw his treatiſe, neither any thing from whence ſuch a raw ſentence may be reaſonably collected. He concludeth indeed cap. 3. that there is no abſolute indifferent thing j. e. every way, a•well in order of nature, as of moralitie. He affirmed alſo cap. 7 there is nothing actually indifferent, which is not potentially good or evill, and cap. 8 there is no action of mans will ſo indifferent, but the d•ing thereof by ſome circumſtances, may be evil. There is no action that a man can doe, by the power of his will, that is meerly and abſolutely indifferent. Humanum act•in ind•v•duo conſideratum ex•elther at â rat•one pro cedentem vel bonum eſſe vel malum neceſſe eſt. Theſe paſſages come the neareſt to that which is here fathered upon the treatiſe: in all which this crudity appeareth not: there is nothing indifferent. Nay the ha•ſheſt of theſe aſſertions, may be found not only in little Pamphlets made by Ca•pent•s Boyes, againſt learning and ſenſe, but in great volumes, written by thoſe that goe for very learned, and ſenſible in ſuch matters as this is. Thomas Aquinas, in the great book called his Summe, prima ſecunde. q. •8 r. 9 hath this concluſion: it muſt needs be that every individuall act of man (proceeding from del•herate reaſon) is either good or bad. And all (or almoſt all) thoſe which have written upon that place, doe confi••e and defend th•ſame, who yet were men, that in queſtions of ſuch a nature, did not uſually write againſt all learning and ſenſe.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 34.
This argument of Ameſins againſt things indifferent, that learned Biſhop was well ac••••ted with, by his familiar conferences with Mr. Gla•thorn, a vehement diſputer51 againſt Ceremonies, and whom the Biſhop thought fitter to refute by trifling inſtances, of unb•ttoning and buttoning his Caſſock, than by more ſerious attempts of conviction. i. e. in plain rearms to deſpiſe and ſmile at, than to dread; and if Mr. J. have really read Mr. Hooker, whom he ſomewhere entitles our Patron of Ceremonies, hee may in him remember a diſcourſe of Laws, which will ſuperſede all neceſſity or benefit of my farther inlarging on it.
Jeanes.
Here we have a groſſe miſtake, and a bitter jeer.
1. A groſſe miſtake, to ſay no worſe, for Ames hath no where any Argument againſt things indifferent; it is a Concluſion which he never dreame of, and therefore you moſt injuriouſly faſten it upon him, and hereof, I hope, you will repent, and give ſome publique reſtimonial thereof.
Next we have a bitter jeere at Non conformiſts, as if their opinion concerning humane, religious Ceremonies, were ſo filly and ridiculous, that Biſhop Morton deſpiſed it, and ſmiled at it, and could refute it eaſily, by trifling inſtances by unbuttoning and buttoning his Caſſock: There may be truth in this your relation concerning Mr. Hynde and Glapthorne, but your falſe accuſation of Ames will render your bare word queſtionable, if it be not backed with farther proofs; but ſuppoſe your relation true, yet all that you can gather hence is, that they were weak Reſpondents, and knew not the ſtate of the Queſtion; and unto that you ſeem as great a ſtranger as they, for you dare not ſay that Biſhop Mortons buttoning and unbuttoning his Caſſock, was a religious Ceremony, and if it were not, was it not a proper medium to prove the lawfulneſſe of humane religious Ceremonies?
The Non conformiſts layd downe four qualifications in the Ceremonies which they oppoſe: 1. Humane Inſtitution. 2. Ordained ſignification. 3. Myſticall ſignification. 4. Appropriation unto Gods ſolemne Worſhip and Service.
1. Humane Inſtitution, they are humane inventions, now Kneeling, Bowing, Proſtrating, lifting up of the eyes and of the hands, ſhouting and dancing for joy, they abſolutely deny to be humane inventions, as you may ſee in Ames his diſpute about Ceremonies, pag. 495.
2. A ſecond thing is ordained ſignification, though they have an aptneſſe to ſignify, yet they doe not actually ſignifie, without ſpecial inſtitution of man•thoſe ſignes then that ſignifie without inſtitution by nature or by civil cuſtome a••ſhut out of this controverſie.
1. By nature, naturall Ceremonies as they are called, ſuch as to looke up to Heaven, to lift up our heads, to bow our knees in prayer; for theſe Nature•t ſelf, ſaith Ames, doth teach all nations to obſerve without any institution, though not without ſome government of counſel, nor without ſuch varle••y, as Nature it ſelf is ſubject unto. Manuduct unto diſp about humane Ceremon. pag. 27.
2. By civil cuſtome, and of this nature was the womans vail, 1 Cor. 11. By received uſe and ancient cuſtome, it ſhewed the ſubjection of a woman unto the husband, and ſo was an indicant ſigne thereof without any new inſtitution of man.
3. They are of myſtical ſignification, they ſignifie either ſome grace or duty, they teach ſome ſpiritual and religious thing by their inſtituted ſignification, and therefore are termed by ſome, doctrinal Ceremonies.
524. They are appropriated unto the acts of Religion in Gods ſervice, and ſo are religious in ſtate, and have, as Parker phraſeth it, a kinde of immobility in Gods worſhip, and hereupon they are termed rel•gious Ceremonies, and by this all circumſtances, or if you will call them circumſtantial Ceremonies, all Ceremonies of meere order and decency are excluded out of the controverſie, becauſe they are common to things civil as well as ſacred, and uſed as well out of Gods worſhip, as in it.
Whereas Doctor Morton objecteth, that a Pulpit-cloath, Communion cup, the Church and place of Gods ſervice it ſelf, may be appropriated and aſſigned onely unto Gods Worſhip: Ames for anſwer diſtinguiſheth betwixt appropriation of this or that individual, and of the kinde;Individuals (ſaith he) may be extrinſecally and accidentally appropriated, the kind remaining intrinſecally common and indifferent, and the individuals that are thus extrinſecally appropriated, are of the ſame uſe out of Gods ſervice that they are in it; this, ſaith Ames, is occaſion of admiration unto Dr. Burges the Rejoinder, but hee might have conſidered, that the immediate end of a Cloath, is to cover; of a Cup, to drink out of; of Meeting places to meet in; and then where is the ſtrangeneſſe of this aſſertion? Is there nor the ſame immediate uſe of a mans eyes, in reading one booke, as another, of a mans ears, in hearing one voice, as another, however the ſubject ſeen, or heard, may differ in nature or kind?
This is a true ſtate of the Queſtion, made, not by me, but by Parker, Ames, Didoclave, and other learned Non-conformiſts long agoe: And now I hope you are ſenſible that Biſhop Morton his buttoning and unbuttoning his Caſſock, came not within many leagues of it; there is no doubt, but that either you have, or may eaſily procure a Caſſock of the like ſtuffe and faſhion, as that of the Biſhops; and why ſhould not this fear be as feaſible•nto you as unto him? P•ay, Sir, try the utmoſt of your skill, and let all the Biſhops in the Land bee your aſſiſtants; nay, take in what help you can from Mr. Hooker his diſcourſe of Lawes that you referre mee unto, and if from the buttoning and unbuttoning of your Caſſock, you can with all your united forces, prove the lawfulneſſe of humane religious Ceremonies, ſymbolical ſignes; that is, thoſe which teach ſome things ſpiritual by their myſtical inſtituted ſignification, and are appropriated unto Gods worſhip, I will then confeſſe that there is as miraculous a virtue in your Caſſock, as you aſcribe unto the ſign of the Croſſe in the Primitive times, and ſhall be ready publiquely to terract whatſoever I have written, or ſpoken againſt theſe Ceremonies; but untill ſuch proof be made, it will bee no act of imprudence in you to forbear for the future, ſuch unſavoury girds; for however they bewray a paſſionate, high, and ſcornfull contempt of your poore Antagoniſts, yet upon examination they will be found to be ſapleſſe and irrational, to have in them nothing of truth, and as little of charity and humility.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 35.
Mean while, to the reproach 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 rendered concludent. The Apoſtle commands that all things be done53 decently, and in order: ergo, he condemns all inſtitution of Ceremonies for Gods worſhip. He that can maintain this conſequence not onely to be true but (as Mr. J. affirms it) plain and evident, will be a formidable adverſary indeed, much better deſerving that title, than one whom he knows not, and therefore honours with it.
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 onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely 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. 54For 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,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: 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,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 459. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.55 and p. 530. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 uſquepag. 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,56 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 unknown57 tongue in Gods ſervice, out of the very pl•ce: pugnat hoc vero cum〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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 onely 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 onely to ſhew by compariſon how the•ej. doth ſometime over flow in his terms.
3. For D Whitaker, he telleth•s, that hee onely ſaith, that Eccleſiaſtica. Laws belong onely 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 the58 firſt allegation. And yet here upon this nothing, it pleaſeth him to accuſe, not onely 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 onely 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 onely, 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 onely 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 the59 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 new60 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 the61 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.
622. 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 onely 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. Beſide63 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 alſo64 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.
65I 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 ▪66 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 buttoned67 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 onely 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.
Jeanes.
1. I had no reaſon to imagine that your words were to be reſtrained unto things indifferent, geſtures and other Ceremonies in Gods ſervice, for you undertook to give us the importance of the Apoſtles words: Let all things be done decently, and the Apoſtles words reach unto even naturall decency, now of that the light of nature is a rule.
2. There be, as Bel•armine rightly lib. 2. de effectu ſacramentor. cap. 29. ſome Ceremonies, which receive their inſtitution as it were from nature it ſelf, which may be called naturall Ceremonies, as to looke up to Heaven, to lift up our hands, to bow our knees, and knock our breaſts when we pray unto God: Quaedam Caerem•niae ſunt ab ipſa natura quodammodo inſtitutae, quae naturales dici poſſunt, quale eſt reſpicere in coelum, tollere manu•, flectere genua, tundere pectus, eum Deum oramus; i••a enim natura ipſa docet, unde et•am communes ſunt Gentilibus & quibuſcunque ſectis.
3. Thoſe Ceremonies which we oppoſe, ſymbolicall Ceremonies, ſuch as the Croſſe and Surplice, are not things indifferent, becauſe they are impoſed and uſed as parts of Gods worſhip, and no worſhip of God is indifferent.
684. Suppoſe that I concurred with you in holding the queſtioned Ceremonies to be lawfull, yet I ſhould deny Cuſtome to be the onely rule of their Decency, and that becauſe the light and Law of Nature, right Reaſon is a rule thereof too. My argument I ſhall thus re•enforce; If Cuſtome be in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice, the only 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: therefore in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice Cuſtome is not the onely rule of Decency.
The ſequele of the Major is evident from what Logicians ſay concerning, firſt, the expoſition, ſecondly, converſion, and thirdly, conſecution of excluſive propoſitions.
1. Concerning the expoſition of them, Propoſitio excluſiva ſubjecti affirmativae exponitur per duas exponentes, quarum prima eſt affirmata, & appellatur praejacens, eſtque nihil alind quam propoſitio excluſiva, dempto ſigno excluſivo: & ſecunda eſt negativa de ſubjecto excluſivè infinitato, vel negato. This excluſive propoſition then in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice, Cuſtome is the only rule of Decency, muſt be expounded by theſe two.
1. By an Affirmative: in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice, Cuſtome is a rule of Decency: And then
2. Negative: whatſoever is not Cuſtome, that is not in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice a rule of Decency.
2. Concerning the converſion of them, Propoſitio exeluſivae ſubjecti affirmativa convertitur in univerſalem affirmativam de tranſpoſitis terminis. The Doctors propoſition then, Cuſtome in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice, is the onely rule of Decency, is converted into this Univerſall Affirmative, every rule of Decency is Cuſtome.
Well, upon this premiſed concerning the expoſition and converſion of excluſive propoſitions, Logicians lay down concerning the conſecution of them this rule: Ab excluſiva ad exponentes propoſitiones itemque ad univerſalem converſam bona est conſequentia: By this rule then it will follow, that if Cuſtome in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice be the only rule of Decency, that then in them nothing but Cuſtome is the rule of Decency, and that every rule of Decency is Cuſtome. The Major then is fortified beyond all exception.
The Min•r I ſhall confirme by inſtancing in the light or law of Nature, right reaſon, this to joyn iſſue with you, would bee in the controverted Ceremonies of Gods ſervice, if they were lawfull, a rule of Decency.
For firſt, what is the end of a rule but to regu•ate and direct? now the light and law of Nature regulates all geſtures and Ceremonies in Gods worſhip, as touching their Decency.
2. It is in theſe particulars not only a rule, but a principall rule of Decency, by which all Cuſtomes are to be tryed, examined, and regulated.
For the confirmation of this I ſhall adde three reaſons.
1. Geſtures, Ceremonies agreeable unto Cuſtome may be found to be diſſonant unto the light and law of Nature, and to be rejected as undecent.
2. Cuſtome is not the rule of decency unleſſe it have the force of a Law, and that it cannot have, ſay the School-men, rightly, unleſſe it be rationabilis, and ſuch it cannot be, unleſſe it be agreeable unto right reaſon, which is all I meane by the light and law of nature; though the light of nature doe not dictate the neceſſity of it, yet it muſt give allowance and approbation of it; without its69 warrant it is not to be received as Decent.
A 3. Argument ſhall be ad hominem: by nature you ſay, out of Suldas, is meant 1 Cor. 11.14, Cuſtome of ſome continuance in that place, and what more probable reaſon can be aſſigned for terming of a Cuſtom Nature, then its conformity unto its allowance and approbation by the Law of Nature?
It being thus proved, that even in the Veſtures, Geſtures, and Ceremonies of Gods ſervice, upon ſuppoſition of their lawfulneſſe, the law and light of nature is a principall rule, it will follow that wee may with farre better reaſon ſay of it, than of cuſtome, that 'tis, in the matters ſpoken of, the onely rule of Decency: For
1. We may truly ſay of the law and light of Nature, that it is in Ceremonies the only rule of Decency, though Cuſtome be a rule thereof alſo; becauſe the excluſive particle onely doth not exclude things ſubordinate: Now Cuſtome is a rule of Decency ſubordinate unto the light of Nature, and therefore is not excluded, when I ſay, the light and law of nature is the onely rule of Decency.
2. We cannot ſay of Cuſtome, with any truth at all, that it is the onely rule of Decency in the matters before you, wherein Eccleſiaſtical conformity conſiſteth, becauſe the onely things excepted from being excluded by the particle onely, are things ſubordinate, and things neceſsarily contomitant; but now the light and law of Nature as it is not ſubordinate unto cuſtome, ſo neither is it neceſſarily concomitant therewith; for divers cuſtomes in Ceremonies may be, and have been irrational againſt the light and law of Nature: The law and light of Nature then is excluded from being a rule of Decency, by ſaying Cuſtome is the onely rule of Decency.
Adde hereunto, that the particle ſolum, onely, doth not alwaies exclude à totâ specie, but ſometimes onely à ſummitate speciei, as may bee ſeen in Scheibl. topic. c. 2. n. 29. Now Cuſtome is a leſſe principall rule, that muſt undergoe tryal and examination by the light and law of Nature, as a ſuperiour rule.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 37, 38.
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 in two ſeveral Syllogiſmes. The firſt is this.
Nothing can be undecent which is agreeable to the onely rule of Decency.
But divers things are undecent, which yet can plead cuſtome. The concluſion now muſt be, Therefore Cuſtome is not the onely rule of Decency.
38. But this is no regular Syllogiſme, 'tis in no mood or figure, not readily reducible to any; and therefore 'twas his onely way to preſume it evident, and never to endeavour any proof thereof.
Jeanes.
I never ſaid that it was an exact and regular Syllogiſme.
But firſt, here is matter for a Categorical Syllogiſme, and it is eaſily reducible
1. Unto a Hypothetical Syllogiſme.
2. Ad Syllogiſmum ducentem ad impoſſibile.
1. Here is matter for a Categoric al Syllogiſme: The only rule of Decency hath not any thing undecent agreeable unto it: Cuſtome hath many undecent things agreeable unto it: Therefore Cuſtome is not the onely rule of Decency.
702. 'Tis eaſily reducible,
1. Unto a Hypotheticall Syllogiſme.
2. Ad Syllogiſinum ducentem ad impoſſibile.
1. It may be reduced unto an Hypotheticall Syllogiſme thus: If Cuſtome be the onely rule of Decency, then nothing can be undecent, that is agreeable unto Cuſtome: But divers things are undecent which are agreeable unto Cuſtome; Therefore Cuſtome is not the onely rule of Decency.
The ſequele of the Major is evident, becauſe nothing can be undecent that is agreeable to the onely rule of Decency.
And the Minor cannot bee denyed: In the Syllogiſme then there is only a Crypſis, the Major is concealed, and the proof thereof placed in its roome, and Cryptical Syllogiſmes are in all diſcourſes juſtifiable, when they may be reduced: If you call upon me to reduce the hypothetical Syllogiſme, unto which it is reduced, unto a Categorical, you will herein be unreaſonable; for thoſe hypothetical Syllogiſmes that have four terms in the Major, are hardly capable of reduction unto a Categorical Syllogiſme; So Scheibler hath inſtructed me, de Propoſ. &c. cap. 12, n. 24.
2. It is reduced unto that Syllogiſme which is〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which doth ducere ad impoſſibile, as it is taken largly for that argumentation which doth reduce an adverſary unto an abſurdity upon his own principles; for from this your principle, that Cuſtome is the onely•ule of Decency, this Syllogiſme will ine, vitably follow,
Nothing that is agreeable to the onely rule of decency can be undecent.
All things cuſtomary are agreeable to the onely rule of decency: Therefore nothing cuſtomary can be undecent.
But now this concluſion is apparently falſe, therefore one of the premiſes is alſo falſe; for ex vero nil niſi verum ſequitur: It is not the Major, for the only rule of decency makes and denominates every thing conformable unto it to be decent, therefore it is the Minor, which is, that all things cuſtomary are agreeable unto the only rule of decency; and if this propoſition be falſe, then your poſition is falſe too, that cuſtome is the only rule of decency, becauſe all things cuſtomary are agreeable unto cuſtome.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 39, 40•
But he hath thought fit to vary this Syllogiſme, and give it in other terms, and the•one might hope it would be exactly formed, 'Tis-thus,
It is impoſſible that the onely 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 onely rule of decency.
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 granted truth, that Law is the onely rule of Iuſtice, yet this I ſhall diſprove by a Syllogiſme exactly formed by Mr. J. his model. Thus,
It is impoſſible, that the onely rule of Iuſtice ſhould be unjuſt. But yet it is very poſſible that many Laws ſhould be unjuſt, Therefore I ſhall conclude that Law is not the onely rule of Juſtice,
Jeanes.
This is a modall Syllogiſme, framed exactly according to the rules of Logick touching modall Syllogiſmes; as for that Syllogiſme which you parallel unto it, it hath no alliance with it; for both the premiſes of mine are true, and the Minor of yours is groſly and palpably falſe; for unjuſt lawes are not, in propriety of ſpeech, lawes, but are ſo termed only equivocally, as a painted, a dead man, is ſaid to be a man: turpe praeceptum non eſt lex, ſed in•quitas, for obligation is eſſentiall unto a law; now every law obligeth in the name of God, by authority derived from him, and the glorious name of God cannot oblige unto any thing that is unjuſt: the Fathers, Schoolmen and ancient Philoſophers are all ſo unanimous in aſſerting of this, and have for this their aſſertion ſuch pregnant and convincing reaſons, as that I cannot but wonder, that a man of your learning ſhould be of an other opinion; but in your next we ſhall hear what arguments you have for your diſſent: In the mean while, I ſhall deſire the Reader to take notice of the witneſſes, and reaſons produced, amongſt many others, by Suarez, and Gregory de Valentia, for what I affirme,
1. Suarez de legib. lib. 1. cap. 9. De ratione, & eſſentia legis, eſt, inquit, ut praecipiat justa: Aſſertio eſt non ſolum certa ſecundum fidem, ſed etiam clara ſecundum naturalem rationem. Et ita eam tradunt non ſolum Theologi, & Patres inferius allegandi, ſed etiam paſſim Philoſophi &c. Verum tamen haec ipſa conditio dupliciter explicari poteſt, ſcilicet vel negative, ut ſcilicet quod praecipitur, nec injuſtum, nec turpe ſit; vel poſitive, ut ſit juſtum & honestum.
Conditio ergo hae•praecipue intelligitur priori modo, & ſic eſt evidens, alia vero ratione invenitur in legibus divinis, & aliter in humanis. In divinis enim ratio eſt recti•udo per eſſentiam divinae voluntatis. Eſt enim Deus ſumme bonus, & ideo non poteſt aliquid pravum praecipere. &c.
De legibus autem humanis, hoc fundatur in alio principio. Nam legiſlator humanus men habet voluntatem perfect•m, ſicut Deus, & ideo quantum est ex ſe, & quoad factum, poteſt interdum iniqua praecipere, ut conſtat: non tamen habet poteſtatem ad obligandum per iniquas leges, & ideo licet iniqua praecipiat, tale praeceptum non est lex, quia vim, aut valorem ad obligandum non habet. &c.
Et ita eſt clara ratio aſſertion is, tum quia illa potestas, ſcilicet obligandi, est a Deo, quae tem a Deo ſunt, ordinata ſunt: Ergo eſt data in honum, & in aedificationem, non in malum, ſe•in deſtructionem: Tum etiam quia nullus inferior potest obligare contra legem, & veluntatem ſuperioris; ſed lex praecipiens pravum actum eſt contra legem Dei prohibentis illum: Ergo non poteſt obligare, quia impoſſibile eſt, homines ſimul obligari ad agendum, & non agendum aliquid: ſ•autem opus pravam eſt prohibitum lege d•vina, non poteſt lex inferioris tollere illam ſuperioris obligationem: Ergo nee potest inducere ſaam: Ergo ejus lex tali opere non poteſt eſſe valida. Et de hac juſtitia legis loquebatur Auguſt, lib. 1. de libero arbit. cap. 5. cum dixit, mihi lex eſſe non videtur, quae juſta non fuerit. Et de eadem intelligi poteſt, quod dicit lib. de vera relig. cap. 31. Conditor legum temporalium, ſi vir bonus eſt & ſapiens, legem conſulit aeternam, ut ſecundum ejus incommutabiles regulas, quid ſit pro tempore vitandum, jubendumque diſcernat. Vnde ſicut lex aeterna ſolum justa praecipit, quia eſt i•ſa juſtitia per eſſentiam, ita vero lex humanae eſſe debet participatio ejus, & ideo non poteſt valide praecipere, niſ•juſta, & homeſta, juxta illud Prov. 8. Per me Reges regnant, & legum conditores juſta decernunt.
Atque hinc ulterius concluditur, hanc conditionem, etiam poſitive intellectam eſſe de••tione legis. ; quamvis non uno & eodem modo ſingulis applicanda ſit, &c.
72Ex h•c aſſertione ſic declarata duo inferre poſſumus. Vnum eſt ad illam maxime pertinere primam conditionem poſitam ab Iſidoro,•cilicet, ut lex ſit honeſta, quod ex ipſa vocis proprietate ▪ ſatis pate•. &c.
Secundo infertur ex dictis, legem non habentem hanc juſtitiam, ſeu honeſtatem, non eſſe legem, neque obligare, ve•um etiam nec ſervari poſſe &c.
Unto this of Suarez I ſhall adde what Gregory de Valentia hath to the ſame purpoſe, tom. 2. diſp. 7. quaeſt. 1 punct. 3. Nomen legis mag•prop•re ſignificat rectam aliquam regulam praeſcribentem communitati alicui perfectae modum neceſſarium ad bonum ejuſdem communitatis &c.
Atque hoe mod•accipit D. Thomas legem, cum infra quaeſt. 96. art. 4, inquit leges iniquas magis eſſe violentias, quam leges. Item quaeſt. 90. art. 2 & 3. Vbi defin•t, legem ad bonum commune ordinari, & ab eo, qui curam gerit communitatis ferri.
Sic etiam D. Auguſtinus lib. 1. de libero arbitrio cap. 5. leg•m accepit, cum dixit, legem non videri, quae justa non ſit. In quam ſententiam lib, 19. de civitate Dei, cap. 21. inquit etiam, non eſſe jura dicenda, vel putanda, iniqua hominum conſtituta, Atque etiam legem eſſe regulam aliquam rectam cenſuit Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 1. Stromatum, cum dixit: legem eſse opinionens bonam, & regulam juſtorum, & injustorum. Item Plato in Dialogo primo de legibus, & in Epinome, ubi aſſeruit, finem legis eſſe Deum & cultum ejus. Item Philoſophus lib. 5. Ethi•or. cap. 1. inquiens, legalia juſta eſse factiva & conſervativa falicitatis, omniumqueelariſſime Cicero lib. 2. de legitus: Conſtat, inquit, profecto adſalutem civium•ivitatumqueincolumitatem, vitamque quietam, & beatam, conditas eſſe leges. Et poſt, cum dixiſſet eos, qui pernicio•a, & injuſta populis jara deſcripſiſſent, quidvis aliud potius tuliſſe, quam leges, concludit, perſpicuum eſſe in ipſo no mine leges interpretando, ineſſe vim, atque ſententiam juſti, & juris colendi.
By this you may ſee, that in your Syllogiſme there are four termes, for lawes in the Minor are taken improperly and equ•vocally, in the concluſion properly and univocally; But custome in my Syllogiſme, both in Minor and Concluſion, is taken properly and univocally, for cuſtome is predicated univocally of the moſt undecent cuſtomes.
For farther juſtification of my Syllogiſme I ſhall reduce it in like manner that Logicians reduce Syllogiſmes made in Baroco and Bocardo, to wit, with that reduction which is ad impoſſibile or per deductionem ad abſurdum: I ſuppoſe, that you will grant my premiſes, for the minor you confeſſe in terminis in the next Section; And the Major cannot be denyed with any colour of reaſon; for the rule of decency is, in ſome ſo•t, an exemplary cauſe of decency, and it is impoſſible for the exemplary cauſe of decency to be undecent. Well then, I ſuppoſe, that you grant the premiſes, and only deny, that the inference of the concluſion from theſe premiſes is legitimate; if you grant the premiſes to be true, then you grant the Propoſitions, that are contradictory unto them, to be falſe, and hereupon it will follow, that if I take the contradictory of my Concluſion, and can thence, joyned with one of my premiſes conclude, that one of the premiſes which I ſuppoſe, you grant, is falſe, hereby I ſhall convince you, that the principall concluſion, which is contradictory unto this, was true: The contradictory of my concluſion is, cuſtome is the only rule of decency (I take contradictory largely, as ſome oppoſite propoſitions are ſaid by Logicians, to be contradictory de lege) Now this I take and ſubjoyn unto my Major, and here hence I inferre the contradictory of my Minor, all which will make up this following Syllogiſme.
73It is impoſſible for the only rule of Decency to be undecent.
But Cuſtome is the only rule of Decency.
Therefore it is impoſſible that any cuſtome ſhould be undecent.
But the concluſion is falſe, and, I ſuppoſe, that you grant the contradictory thereof. Now if•he concluſion be falſe, one of the premiſes muſt needs be falſe; for, ex vero•il niſi verum ſequitur. Now 'tis not the Major, for I ſuppoſe, and that with very good reaſon, that it is granted by you, therefore ' ••s the Minor: now the Minor is contradictory unto the concluſion which you deny, and therefore the concluſion, which you denyed, is true, viz. that Cuſtome is not the only rule of decency: for of contradictory propoſitions both cannot be true, Contradictio ſemper dividit verum à falſo.
Thus you ſee my Syllogiſme is demonſtrated to be true, demonstratione ducente ad impoſſi•ile vel abſurdum.
But for the fuller clearing of it, I ſhall propound and anſwer two objections, that I foreſee may be made againſt it, by ſuch as are not well skilled in Modal Syllogiſmes.
The firſt is, that the duo modi impoſſibile and poſſibile are repeated but once a peece in my Syllogiſme, and in a good Syllogiſme every term is to be put twice.
The anſwer unto this in breif is, that in a Modal Syllogiſme, the modus is none of the terms, but onely a Syncategorematical word, ſo Vallius Introduct. Log. par. 3. cap. 12. In terminis, inquit, non numera tur modus ſicut; enim in converſione propoſitionum modus non numeratur inter praedicata vel ſubjecta, ſed eſt quid additum ill is, ſie in Syllogiſmis modalibus, modus non numeratur inter terminos, unde etiam ſaepe in Syllogiſmo modali non potest inferri concluſio ' •um modo, ſed ſine illo. The very ſame thing is taken notice of by Scheibl. concerning ſuch Modal Syllogiſms as conſiſt of Modal compounded propofitions, Ihi enim inquit, quod modalis particula non habeat vel rationem ſubjecti, vel rationem praedicati; ſed ſimpliciter habeat ſe ex parte copulae: inde clarum eſt, quod in iſtis modalibus Syllogiſmis, particula modalis ter poni poteſt, nempe in ſingulis taelium Syllogiſmorum partibus, veluti: Neceſse eſt hominem eſſe animal. Neceſſe eſt Petrum eſse hominem. Ergo neceſſe eſt Petrum eſſe animal. Hîc aio, particulam neceſſe, nec habere rationem praedicati, nec ſubjecti, ſed eſſe ex parte copulae, quia in propoſitione, aſſumptione, & concluſione reperitur. At nullus terminus in Syllogiſmo ter poni•poteſt.
A ſecond objection is, that in the Modal Syllogiſmes mentioned by Ariſtotle, this mixture or combination of impoſſibile and poſſibile is not at all mentioned.
For anſwer, Ariſtotle inſtanceth in Modal Syllogiſmes, wherein there is a mixture of neceſse and contingens, and Logicians generally hold that impoſſibile is reduced unto neceſſarium and poſſibile unto contingens. Let two ſpeak for all.
1. The but now quoted Vallius in lib. 1. prior pag. 38. Impoſſibile. (inquit Philopenus) comprehenditur ſub neceſſario, quia quod eſt neceſſarium, eſt impoſſibile ut non ſit, ſicut quia homo eſt neceſſario animal, impoſſibile eſt ut non ſit animal: & eâdem ratione quod eſt impoſſibile, eſt neceſſarium ut non ſit. Similiter poſſibile comprehenditur ſub contingenti, quod enim contingit eſſe, hoe fieri poteſt,•eu eſt poſſibile, & quod poteſt non eſſe, contingit non eſſe: adeoque id, quod proprie vocatur poſſibile, concurrit cum contingenti. He quotes alſo for it, if my memory fail not, Burana affirming as much ex Alexandro.
The ſecond Author is a late one read by every Freſh-man, Burgerſdicius inſtitut. Log. lib. 2. c. 14. Propoſitiones modi impoſſibile annumerantur propoſitionibus modi neceſſe; & propoſitiones modi poſſibile, iis quae ſunt modi contingit.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 41.
To diſcover this deceit then, the Syllogiſme, which is now no Syllogiſme, must he•ſomewhat better formed, 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 onely rule of Decency.
But cuſtome is it ſelf undecent.
Therefore Cuſtome cannot be the onely rule of Decency.
Here before it can be defined, whether this be a regular Syllogiſme, or no? It muſt bee demanded, quanta eſt minor, is the aſſumption univerſal or particular? If it be particular, then either the concluſion muſt be particular alſo, or elſe 'tîs a falſe Syllogiſme. And if the concluſion be particular, then it inferres no more, than that ſome undecent cuſtome cannot be the onely rule of decency, which is willingly granted by me, who doe not at all affirm it of undecent cuſtomes. But if the Minor be univerſal, then 'tis a falſe propoſition; for certainly all cuſtomes are not indecent. The ſhort is, Nature may bee the rule of one ſort of decency, and Cuſtome the onely rule of another; yet if the cuſtome be in it ſelf indecent, then of ſuch indecent cuſtome it is not pretended, that it is either onely, 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 leſse to what is by nature, or in it ſelfe 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 naturall comelineſſe and honeſty, ſhould by pretenſe of any cuſtome whatever, be introduced into Gods worſhip: 'Tis ſufficient that ſome cuſtomes may bee 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.
Jeanes.
My Syllogiſme is, as I have demonſtrated, a true Syllogiſme; you might the•very well have ſpared the paines you have taken to reduce it, as neare as you could, to a true Syllogiſme; for there was no need of it: You deſerve then no thanks for your labour, but I have reaſon to expect reparation from you for defamation of my Syllogiſme: This Section therefore I might wholly paſſe over, but yet I ſhall ſtay a while upon the examination of a ſecond reſtriction that you put upon your dictate: you have already told us, that it is not to be underſtood of all decency. Now you give us to underſtand, that 'tis not meant of all cuſtoms, but onely of ſome ſuch as are not undecent; when you ſay cuſtome is the onely rule of decency, your meaning is ſome cuſtomes are the only rule of ſome kind of decency in the Ceremonies of Gods worſhip.
But whether this liberty which you aſſume in thus limiting your poſition bee juſtifiable, is very queſtionable; for after this rate, what groſſe abſurdities may any man maintain? If I ſhould ſay, that ſolum brutum eſt animal: that a ſpirit only is ſubſtance: that number onely is quantity: that Baptiſme is the only Sacrament of the New Teſtament: would not every one cry out againſt theſe propoſitions as untrue, as well they might? and doe you thinke they would paſſe for currant? though I ſhould come with an after game, and goe about to limit them, in ſuch a manner as you have done, by your aſſertion, and ſay, my meaning was, that ſolum brutum eſt animal irrationale: that a ſpirit onely is an incorporeal75 ſubſtance: that number onely is diſcrete quantity: that Baptiſme is the onely Sacrament of the New Teſtament of initiation; and yet theſe reſtrictions are altogether as fair and allowable as yours.
2. I did not think your propoſition capable of having an univerſal ſign affixed unto it; and my reaſon was, becauſe as Aquinas p. 1. q. 31. art. 3. obſerveth out of the Summularii, dictio excluſiva immobilitat terminum cui adjungitur, ut non poſſit fieri ſub eo deſcenſus pro aliquo ſuppoſiterum, non enim ſequitur, ſolus homo is animal rationale mortale: Ergo ſolus Socrates.
But yet notwithſtanding this, I thought your propoſition might be propoſitio de Idaea, as they ſay; and ſo, though it were not formally, it would be equivalently univerſal.
But now I ſhall lay aſide this conjecture, becauſe you inform us, that your indefinite propoſition, was intended by you for a particular propoſition, only I ſhall propound ſome objections againſt your making it a particular propoſition.
1. When you ſay Cuſtome is the only rule of Decency, you ſpeak of Cuſtome either formally or materially; if you ſpeak of Cuſtome formally and reduplicativè as Cuſtome, why then every Cuſtome is a rule of Decency, becauſe à quatenus ad de omni valet conſequentia, that which doth agree to a thing as ſuch, doth agree to every ſingular contained under it: but if you ſpeak of Cuſtome only materially, and your meaning be, that Cuſtome ſub tali formali under ſuch a conſideration or qualification, is the only rule of Decency, why then this formale, this conſideration or qualification of Cuſtome, may, with farre better reaſon, be ſaid to bee the importance of the Apoſiles〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, then according unto Cuſtome, becauſe Cuſtome will be but the materiale in the rule of Decency.
2. Untill you expréſſe how thoſe ſome Cuſtomes may be qualified, that you make to be the onely rule of Decency, your interpretation of the Apoſtles words, Let all things be done decently, will be very obſcure, explicatio ignoti, if not per ignotius, yet per aequè ignotum, and your proof that you bring for your Expoſition will be as dark and doubtſome: Thus both will runne, Let all things be done according to ſome cuſtomes, becauſe ſome cuſtomes are the only rule in ſome things of ſome decency, whether that which you call the clear importance of the place, do not leave the Reader in an uncertainty, be you your ſelf judge.
3. The quantity of indefinite propoſitions may be gathered from their matter; in a neceſſary matter they are univerſal, in a contingent, particular: Now I demand whether to be the rule of decency be predicated of cuſtome neceſſarily or contingently? if neceſſarily, then cuſtome cannot but be the rule of decency, and then all cuſtome is a rule of decency: A neceſſary propoſition that is affirmative, direct, natural, where ſuperius praedicatur de inferiori, or aequale de inaequali, is alſo de omni: if it be predicated of it contingently, then cuſtome may bee, and may not be a rule of decency, and then I deſire you to evidence unto us how cuſtomes being thus a rule of decency, viz. contingently, will be a ſolid proof, that the clear importance of the Apoſtles words, Let all things bee done decently, is, let all things be done according unto cuſtome? and your beſt and ſpeedieſt way to clear this unto us, will bee by reducing your argument into a Syllogiſme.
4. If to be a rule of decencie be predicated contingently of cuſtome, then cuſtome is onely a fallible rule of decencie, and therefore it needs regulation by a higher rule; and if there be in the Ceremonies of Gods worſhip a higher rule76 then cuſtome, it will hereupon inevitably follow, that cuſtome is not in them the onely rule of decency.
5. You implyedly give us the Character of thoſe Cuſtomes which you affirm to be the only rule of decency, when you ſay, that of ſuch undecent cuſtoms it is not pretended, that 'tis either only, or at all the rule of decency: Now all cuſtoms, in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice, are either decent or undecent: the Cuſtome that is undecent is not at all a rule of decency, and therefore your poſition is to be underſtood of that Cuſtome which is decent: for betwixt decent and undecent cuſtomes in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice there is no medium, as I have ſhewed already: the upſhot of your meaning then is, that ſome Cuſtomes, viz. ſuch as are decent, are the onely rule of decency, &c. What ſobrietie is in this limitation will appeare, if we will conſider that herein we have a twofold decency: one in the rule, decent cuſtomes; another in the thing, regulated decency: The former is different from, and antecedent unto the latter: now of the former decency, in the rule, in cuſtome it ſelf, I demand, What is the rule of that decency, whether custome it ſelf, or ſome other thing? I preſume you will not ſay Cuſtome it ſelf; for then it would be an underived, unſubordinate, and independent rule, a rule of it ſelfe: and if you ſhould ſay that ſome other thing beſides cuſtome is the rule of the decency which is in cuſtome, th••by conformity unto this, we muſt judge of the decency of Cuſtomes in the Ceremonies of Gods worſhip, whether they be decent or undecent? and from this it is obvious to inferre, that in Ceremonies there is a rule of decency antecedent unto Cuſtome, by which Cuſtome it ſelf is to be regulated and meaſured; and therefore Cuſtome is not the onely rule of Decency. Your limitation then is ſo farre from being any ſupport unto your poſition, as that it giveth unto it a plain overthrow.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 42.
His laſt argument [becauſe there is decency 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 caſtomary, before it is decent in any kind: (knowing unqueſtionably that there is a naturall 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 doe allow to be reverentiall among them; or, in yet plainer words, the civil cuſtomes of any nation, by which this or that ſort of geſture is rendered a token of reverence, are the onely rule, by which the decency of indifferent geſtures, &c. is to be judged of, in order to Gods ſervice. And ſo much for the laſt argument alſo, and conſequently for the firſt part of his exception, that againſt my interpretation of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉decently.
Jeanes.
You talke indeed, Section the ninth, of ſuch a miſtake of your words, but prove it not. Now to prevent all miſtakes, I ſhall come up unto your limitation: Cuſtome is not the onely rule of all decency in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice, wherein God and Nature have preſcribed nothing particularly: Verbi gratiâ, in77 the Surplice and Croſſe: For your Principles I ſuppoſe will lead you to aſſert the decency of the firſt uſage of the Croſſe in Baptiſme, and of the Surplice in Preaching and Praying; and indeed if the firſt uſage of theſe Ceremonies was undecent, it was ſinfull: and beſides, this decency was not a natural decency, dictated by the Law of Nature, as you your ſelf will confeſſe; but now if there were a decency in the firſt uſage of theſe Ceremonies, Cuſtome was not, could not be rule thereof, becauſe, as I declared out of Ariſtotle and Aquinas, the frequent uſage of a thing is required unto Cuſtome.
For concluſion of this firſt part of mine exception, I ſhall intreat the Reader to take notice of the definition of Cuſtome, uſually quoted out of Iſiodore: Conſuetudo eſt jus quoddam moribus inſtitutum quod pro lege ſuſcipitur cum lex deficit. By this definition, Cuſtome hath not the force of a Law, but where the Law is defective, and the Word, the Law of God is not defective in appointing religious mystical Ceremonies, for 'tis ſo ſufficiently profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for inſtruction in righteouſneſſe, as that the man of God may thereby be perfected, throughly furniſhed unto all good works, 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. I ſhall the efore conclude that Cuſtome doth not, cannot oblige unto any religious, myſtical Ceremonies, beſides thoſe which God hath inſtituted in his Word.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48.
But there is yet a ſecond charge behind againſt my rendering〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to appointment] which he hath managed in theſe words.
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 onely 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 elſwhere, But the Doctor, that the words, may give ſome countenance unto our Ceremonies, adventureth upon a new interpretation of them.
The words〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(ſaith he) literally import, according unto appointment,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſometimes ſignifies to appoint, as Match. 28.16. Acts 22.10, and 28.23. And wee may hereupon argue à conjugatis, that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉may bee ſometimes rendered appointment. But becauſe it may ſometimes be rendered appointmen•, will it therefore follow that it muſt be ſo rendred in this place?
We may ſay as well as the Doctor, that the words〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉literally import according unto order, as order is taken ſtrictiy for the right placing, and ordering of things one before, another after, and this we have confeſſed even by Doctor John Burgeſſe in his Rejoinder unto Ames, pag. 78. a booke publiſhed by the ſpeciall 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,78 ye may all propheſy one by one &c. and not all or many ſpeak 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 D. hath a hard taske to performe, before he can come nigh his concluſion, that the words of Paul, are a proof of the more than lawfulnes 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 onely 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 eaſy, as he may imagine.
I am ſenſible that I have by this diſcourſe provoked a very learned and formidable adverſary, but it is onely love of the truth that ingaged me in ſo unequal an incounter, and therefore I hope the D. will pardon and excuſe my boldnes. 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.
45. To this, my anſwer will be very breif, 1. By giving the reaſon of my rendring, 2. By evidencing, that if the vulgar were acknowledged the righter rendring, yet my cencluſion would very regularly follow thence, and that therefore I have no need to contend with any gainſayer, about my rendring. 46. For the firſt it is manifeſt to any that knowes but the elements of Greek, that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉literaly and properly ſignifies (according to ordination or appointment) 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉[according to] not (in) and〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉[an ordinance or conſtitution] millions of times in authors, and〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉[ord•rly, or in order] lying more conſonant with〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,••reaſon can be rendred, why if that had been the deſigned meaning, that word ſhould not have been uſed there.
47. That it may ſo ſignify M. J. acknowledges, and ſo I have obtained all I ſeek in my firſt propoſal, which was not that it muſt neceſſarily thus ſignify, but that this being the literal regular rendring of it, I had ſufficient reaſon to tender it thus.
48. I proceed then to the ſecond thing, that if what he prepends to be poſſible alſo, were indeed the onely poſſible, or (by way of ſuppoſition, but not conceſſion) if〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] did really inport no more than [in order] as that is oppoſed to diſorder or confuſion, yet-I-ſay, it will ſoon appear, that that Apoſtles commanding ſuch order or orderlineſs, and forbidding all confuſion in Ecclefioſtical affaires, muſt by conſequence be interpreted to command the inſtituting and obſerving uniformity of Ceremonies in a Church.
Jeanes.
1. Our laſt tranſlators of the Bible ſurely knew ſomething more then the Elements of Greek, or elſe King James was ill adviſed to make ſuch a choice of them, and yet they thought fit to tranſlate〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in order. 2. Few mortals perhaps, beſides your ſelf, have read〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉millions of times77 in Authors; but to know the meaning of that word, there is no need of ſuch great reading, one that knowes but the Elements of Greek may by the help of a Greek Concordance and Stephanus his Theſaurus Linguae Graecae, make it manifeſt, that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſignifieth literally & properly order in oppoſition to confuſion.
But〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉you ſay ſignifieth according to, not in. But Stephanus in the book, but now mentioned, will furniſh the Reader with ſtore of inſtances, wherein,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſignifies [in] and a ſchool boy may be able to do as much, for the Latine word, Secundum, out of Cicero and Suetonius.
But ſuppoſe that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉were tranſlated here, according, yet this will no waies diſadvantage our ſenſe, for, according, applied to actions, ſignifieth, uſually, the manner of ſuch actions; ſo that both it, and the no•ne unto which it is joined, may be paraphraſed, by an adverb, and ſo〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉may be as much as, orderly.
Adde unto all this, that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſignifies many times, with, and ſo it is tranſlated in the Dutch Bible; and let all things be done with order is equivalent unto, let all things be done in order.
Dr. Hammond ſect. 47.
That it may ſo ſignify Mr. J•acknowledges, and ſo, I have obtained all I ſeek in my firſt propoſal, which was not, that it muſt neceſſarily thus ſignify, but that this being the literal regular rendring of it, I had ſufficient reaſon to render it thus.
Jeanes.
Indeed I acknowledged that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉may ſometimes be rendred appointment; but I added, that it doth not therefore follow that it muſt be ſo rendred in this place, & unleſſe you can prove that it muſt be ſo rendred in this very place, I am to ſeek, what ſufficient reaſon you had to render it thus: for if a word hath ſeveral acceptions, that is to be imbraced that hath moſt countenance from the context, now I gave you for the vulgar ſenſe a reaſon from the Coherence, unto which you ſay nothing, and you ſay as little from the coherence for the juſtification of your own reading, and therefore I am not to be blamed for adhering unto the vulgar reading, eſpecially ſeing 'tis favoured by the generall conſent of both Tranſlators, and Commentators, though, as you obſerve in the foregoing ſection,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉lye more conſonunt in ſound with〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for I doe not think that the Apoſtle was bound alwayes to obſerve Paronomaſies.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 48, 49.
I proceed then to the ſecond thing, that if what he pretends to be poſſible alſo, were indeed the only poſſible, or (by way of ſuppoſition, but not conceſſion) if〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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 orderlineſſe, and forbidding78 all confuſion in Eccleſiaſticall affaires, muſt by conſequence be interpreted to command the inſtituting and obſerving Vniformity of Ceremonies in a Church. This I thus deduce.
Firſt there is no poſſibilitie of worſhiping God externally and publickly, without uſe of ſome Ceremonies, or circumstances of time, place, and geſtare, &c.
2. There is no poſſibility of order in a multitude, without uniformity in the ſame circumſtances.
3. There is as little poſſibility of uniformity among many, without either agreement one with another, or direction of ſome ſuperior to them all, what ſhall by all be uniformely performed.
4. The agreement one with another, if it be only voluntary, 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 Prelate can be thought to be. And ſo the concluſion regularly followes, that to the preſerving but of order, or orderlineſſe in a Church, it is neceſſary, there be appointment, what ſhall by all be uniformity performed; confuſion anavoidably coming in, where no certain rules are preſeribed for uniformity. What can be denyed in this proceſſe I foreſee not.
Here it ſhall ſuffice to note, that time, place, and ſuch like circumſtances, are ſo manifestly neceſſary in their kind, that the particulars may be deduced from them, by particular conſiderations, without any inſtitution; but no man can deduce our Ceremonies from thoſe kinds named. Mans will is the only reaſon, of them, as Gods will is the only reaſon of Ceremonies truly divine by inſtitution. No man can conclude thus: we muſt every where have ſome garment, and therefore in England a Surplice. We muſt alwaies in Baptiſme, have ſome admonition to profeſſe the faith, and iherefore in England, a Croſſe. We must uſe reverent geſtures in receiving the holy communion; and therefore in England we muſt kneel in the act of receiving. But we may conclude thus; we muſt have a fit place to meet in, and this place is generally fitteſt for our Congregation, therefore we must have this. We muſt have a convenient time to meet in, and this hour is generally most convenient for our Congregation: therefore this. The Monks may as well conclude: we muſt have ſome garments; therefore we muſt in one order have black; in another white; in a third, black over white, or white over black; in a fourth, gray; a fifth, party coloured; in ſome, all woollen; in ſome, all linnen; &c. ad infinitum, as well (I ſay) every whit, as the Rejoynder can conclude from a garment, to a Surplice; from admonition, to the ſign of the Croſſe, or from reverence in a table-gesture;•o kneeling.
Jeanes.
Though you cannot ſee what can be denied in this proceſs, yet he that runs may read what is conſtantly denied by the Non-conformiſts, if he ever read their books: they deny over and over, over and over &c. Your two firſt concluſions if applied unto the Ceremonies in queſtion: Indeed they grant, that circumſtances of time, place, order and decency, and the like, are neceſſary genere in their kind, but theſe, I will tell you, are not the Ceremonies in controverſy; the Ceremonies which they oppoſe are not circumſtantial, but doctrinal, of moral ſignification, and the mere diviſes of men, ſuch as the ſurplice, Croſs, &c. And you may affirm, but can never prove, that there is no poſſibility of worſhipping God externally, and publickly without ſuch ceremonies, for it is manifeſt, that ſuch Ceremonies are not neceſſary in their kind. In hoc vertitur cardo controverſiae:79 therefore if you can prove this, we ſhall yield you the cauſe, and ly proſtrate at your feet to be trampled upon and triumphed oven: and until this proof be made, you can never regularly inferre, that to the preſerving but of order or orderlyneſs in a Church, it is neceſſary there be appointment, what humane religious Ceremonies ſhall by all be uniformely performed.
If you ſhall ſay that by Ceremonies you underſtand onely circumſtances of time, place, decency, order, and the like, I ſhall confeſſe my-ſelfe to be miſtaken, but muſt withall for my own diſcharge averre, that you alone are guilty of this my miſtake, for who could reaſonablely imagine that in a controverſy with the oppoſers of Ceremonies, you ſhould exclude from the Ceremonies mentioned by you, all ſuch Ceremonies as they oppoſe.
Your ſecond concluſion call's for confirmation, and until you ſhall bethink your ſelfe of ſome reaſon to confirme it, I ſhall offer againſt it theſe following inſtances, unto which it is no difficult matter to adde many more; ſuppoſe the members of Churches in a City meet at nine of the clock for Gods worſhip, and in the Country Pariſhes adjoining, where many people live at a great diſtance from their Churches, they meet at tenne or halfe an houre after nine, nay in the ſame Church at one and the ſame time, whilſt the word of God is read or preached, thoſe that ſit in ſeats may have their heads uncovered, and thoſe that ſtand in allies may keep on their hats the whole Sermon time, becauſe the crowd or throng may render it in convenient to keep them off ▪ Now in both theſe inſtances there is not uniformity in the ſame circumſtances, and yet there may be order obſerved, and confuſion may very well, notwithſtanding, be avoided in all the parts of Gods worſhip and ſervice.
But to give an inſtance ad hominem out of Parker, ſome of our Churches in England had Organs, ſome not; ſome diſcant and broken ſinging, ſome plaine; here was no uniformity, but you will not, I beleeve, ſay, that there was confuſion. This point of uniformity in rites and Ceremonies, the Reader may find at large debated in the now mentioned Mr. Parker Treat. of the Croſs part 2. pag. 91. uſque ad 99. Theſe two concluſions being thus overthrowne, I need not ſtay upon the following, which will be uſeleſſe and impertinent, without the two former be preſuppoſed as true.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 50. 51, 52, 53, 54.
What can be denied in this proceſſe, I foreſee not, yet when 'tis granted, one reſerve Mr. J. hath ſtill left him. For ſaith he, if it were granted that〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſignifies appointment or ordination, yet ſtill it will be incumbent on the Dr. to prove that this extends not onely to the cuſtomes and appointments of the Apoſtolicke Churches, but alſo to the Churches of the ſucceeding ages. And my anſwer to this will conclude this whole debate.
51. Firſt then I acknowledge, that it is not here neceſſarily ordained by the Apoſtle, that all the Churches of ſucceeding ages ſhould inſtitute Ceremonies in worſhip, for, provided thoſe Ceremonies were once inſtituted, all that this text inforces, is uniforme obedience to them.
52. But then Secondly, When for many circumstances of Gods worſhip, there is n•order particularly taken by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, as in what geſture publicke 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 more over in other places, that obedience be paid to thoſe ſuperiors, which watch over our ſoules;80 and when thoſe rules are not given onely to the perſons that then lived in the Church of Corinth, &c. But to all that ſhould ever live in that, and in all other Churches, it can not 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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ſet in order the things that were wanting, ſuch as the Ap•ſtles had left undiſpoſed of, or that inferiors ſhould not be bound to obey them Ʋniformely, when they thus gave order to them.
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 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? Certainely it cannot: and as little can it be doubted, either whether our eccleſiastical parents have power to inſtitute in things omitted, & thereby remitted to their care by the Apoſtles, or whether we their obedient children, that are commanded to act〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉according to appointment, ſhould from time to time be diſobliged, and free to diſobey them in whatſoever they appoint us.
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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whether regularly, or according to appointment; but for the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in which they have made no rules, but left order to Titus, &c. (i e. by parity of reaſon, to the Biſhop in every Iſland) to make them, here what power is left them, may certainely with perfect ſafety be exerciſed by them, and that neceſſarily inferres our obligation to yeild obedience to their exerciſes of them.
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 either81 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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 onely 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.
82Your 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 onely 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 ▪
832. 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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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 new84 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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉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〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 onely 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, neither85 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 onely 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 onely 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 of86 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.
Dr. Hammond.
This is all the obſervance M. J. ſeemes to expect of me at this time, unleſs his intimation to all admirers of M. Hooker, that they ſhould vindicate their great patrone of Ceremonies, may paſſe for an admonition to me, who acknowledge my ſelfe a thankful adorer of Gods graces in that godly learned man, and ſo exact a few lines more above the regular account.
56. This will detaine me no longer, then whilſt I mind the Reader, that in a diſcourſe of the benefits which we receive from Chriſt in the Saerament, & otherwiſe, M. Hooker undertakes to ſet downe how Chriſt in his humane nature is communicated to us, and ſo preſent with us; To this end three 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 or can have any preſence but onely local. 2. That this cannot be rendred poſſible, either by the grace of union with the Diety, nor by any other poſſible meanes, 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 farre as the Deity, the actual poſition being reſtrained, and tied to a certain place, and 2. By cooperation with the Deity, and that in all things.
57. Now on this third head, (without reflecting on the two former, which aſſure us of the authors meaning in it) two paſſages M. J. takes hold of, which if he know any thing in either Philoſophy, or ſcholaſtical divinity, are both guilty of a groſſe miſtake, and cannot be ſufficiently wondred at by him, that they ſhould fall from ſo a learned a pen.
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 onely (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.
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 reconciliation 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 onely reſpects? All which are ſtill more than intimations, that he thinks him to be abſolutely, and in ſimplicity and propriety of ſpeaking, in a groſs errour, impoſſible even to the power of God to have truth in it.
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 M. J. think fit to leave his ſubject, and let looſe for three leaves toge•••r, and pawne 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 withal ſolemnely to refute this or that improper figurative ſpeech, ſo perfectly acknowledged by the Speakers to be ſuch?
8761. If he have that great leiſure, and any prevalent temptation thus to lay it out, I ſhall onely 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 explicite, or particular ſurvey of it: And ſo much for Mr. Hooker alſo.
Jeanes.
I beleeve that moſt ordinary Readers wil think me guilty of this diſingenuous carriage towards Mr. Hooker, which the Doctor accuſeth me of; but if they would have but the patience to read me in the paſſage related unto, they would ſoon acquit me, and find the Doctor guilty of a great deal of injury towards me. Indeed Mr. Hooker ſayes, that it may well enough be granted in ſome ſenſe, and after a ſort, that Chriſt is every where preſent as man, viz. in two reſpects; but whether this were lyable to exception, I meddle not, 'tis the firſt of the reſpects which he mentioneth, that I queſtion, and the words that I challenge, the Reader may find page 141, of my Treat. of the Fulneſſe of Chriſt thus ſummed up. Then for the great Hooker, whereas he ſaith, That the conjunction of the Manhood with Deity, is extended as farre as Deity, that the Body of Chriſt is joyned unto Deity, whereſoever Deity is, that his Bodily ſubſtance hath every where a preſence of true conjunction with Deity This alſo is eaſily refuted, &c. Now this he affirmeth abſolutely and ſimply without any limitation, and not in a ſort, or in ſome ſenſe, and in two reſpects; and this any man that hath his eyes in his head may ſee, that will compare Mr. Hooker and me together; and if any learned and impartial Reader will but make this compariſon, I ſhall be very well contented that hee ſhall judge betwixt us, who of us hath moſt treſpaſſed againſt practical Divinity, I in my charge of Mr. Hooker, or the learned Doctor in his groſſe and undeniable falſification of my ſaid charge? But I ſhall in charity hope, that this falſification was but a miſtake, proceeding from his haſty and over paſſionate zeal towards the memory of Mr. Hooker: Whereas he is pleaſed to talk his pleaſure of my pawning all my Philoſophy and ſcholaſtical Divinity, I ſhall only humbly aſſume the boldneſſe to intimate thus much unto the Reader, that though I have no great ſtore of either, yet I hope I have enough to attend (that I may borrow the Doctors phraſe) the motions of him, and all other admirers of Mr. Hooker in the Defence of the matter queſtioned: but if he ſhall decline all future further debate of it, I ſhall with a great deal of probability conclude, that what Mr. Hooker ſaith is uncapable of any tolerable vindication: for if he were defenſible, Dr. Hammond is ſo able as that he could, and withall ſo zealous a lover and admirer of him, as that he would continue the juſtification of him: Now from the undefenſibleneſſe of Mr. Hooker in this one point, I ſhall onely take occaſion to admoniſh his followers, that ſeeing he hath erred in ſo weighty a point, therefore he might erre in matters of a farre inferiour nature, eſpecially ſeeing the times were ſuch, as that they tranſported with prejudice many men, that were unqueſtionably otherwiſe very learned and godly.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 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 refutation88 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 candour it hath been, to have propoſed his exceptions in ſuch a manner, or friendly addreſſe, as might have brought him home the ſame ſatisfaction, and 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.
Jeanes.
We poor ignorant men, that uſe the trite, but not illogical Method of Doctrine and Uſe in Preaching, doe uſually firſt confirme our Doctrine, before we inferre any Uſes therefrom. Now Sir, if you will be pleaſed. firſt to prove, that it is much more agreeable to the Laws of Brotherly kindneſſe or candour, to propoſe a mans exceptions againſt a printed Book in a way of private Letter (for that I conceive is the manner of friendly addreſſe that you ſpeake of) than in a publique way from the Preſſe, eſpecially when the ſaid exceptions are propounded, not for any perſonal ſatisfaction, but for the undeceiving of others, unto which end the private way is no apportionare means; I ſhall then proceed unto the uſe of, not only examination, but alſo reprehenſion of this mine action; but in the mean while I ſhall ſtand upon my juſtification, and maintaine that I am guiltleſſe of any unbrotherly, uncandid, and diſreſpective carriage towards you in the propoſall of my objections, which was in as civil and friendly a manner, I am confident, as ever you received any from any Antagoniſt whatſoever.
An Explication of a paſſage in the Treatiſe of Things Indifferent, &c.
WHereas in the Treatiſe concerning the Indifferency of humane actions, pag. 54. as alſo in my Reply to Dr. Hammonds Vindication, &c. page 5. I layd down this for a Rule out of ſome School•men, viz. That betwixt things privatively oppoſite there's no medium, no middle, either of abnegation, or of participation, in capable ſubjects; I finde ſome to make a doubt concerning the latter, the middle of participation; for ſuch a medium (ſay they) is the dawning and twi-light betwixt light and darkneſſe; to have one eye betwixt ſight and blindneſſe; ſuch a medium is a diſpoſition unto a diſeaſe, betwixt health and that diſeaſe. But this doubt would ſoon vaniſh, if men would heed the limitations that are uſually given of it.
The firſt is, that there is not ſuch a medium of participation betwixt privative oppoſites, as there is in adverſis, in contrary qualities; for here, each of the extreams is poſitive and affirmative, verè ens, whereas in privative oppoſites, one of them is more non ens than ens.
A ſecond you have in Scheibler in his Topicks, c. 20. n. 72. having quoted a ſaying out of Plutarch, that non datur〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he referreth, for limitation, unto what hee had ſaid concerning the intenſion and remiſſion of privation, n. 43, 44, 45. There he layeth down this Canon, privatio non ſuſcipit magis & minus. Privations have no degrees, are not intended nor remitted. But this he tels us is to be underſtood of not partial privations, ſuch as thoſe now inſtanc'd in: for ſuch are privations onely ſecundum quid; but of total privations, ſuch as blindneſſe, dumbneſſe, deafneſſe, death. Theſe are uncapable of degrees, and ſo likewiſe there can be no mixture, or coheſion of them. The ſame for ſubſtance we have in Aquinas, 1.2 ae q. 18. a. 8. ad 1 um. Duplex eſt privatio, quaedam quae conſiſtit in privatum eſſe: & haec nihil relinquit, ſed totum aufert: ut caecitas totaliter aufert viſum, & tenebrae luncem, & mors vitam; & inter hanc privationem, & habitum oppoſitum non poteſt eſſe aliquod medium circa proprium ſuſceptibile, Est autem alia privatio, quae conſiſtit in privari, ſicut aegritudo eſt privatio ſanitatis, non quod tota ſanitas ſit ſublata, ſed quòd eſt quaſi quaedam via ad totalem ablationem ſanitatis, quae f•••er mortem. Et ideò talis privatio, cùm aliquid relinquat, non ſemper eſt immediate cum oppoſito habitu. The ſumme and ſenſe of this is, that privations and their habits are immediately oppoſite, if we ſpeak of privations in facto eſſe, not in fieri. Now that Aquinas here ſpeaks of medium participationis, is the Comment of Gregory de Valentia, Tom. 2 diſ. 2. q. 13. punct. 5. This advertiſement I thought fit to inſert, for the prevention of unneceſſary cavils: But yet I muſt confeſſe, that medium participationis was put into the rule ex abundanti, and contributes nothing to the matter in hand: So that the Reader, if hee pleaſe may leave it out; for the ſtreſſe of the proof lyes only upon this, viz. that betwixt things privatively oppoſite, theres no medium of abnegation in capable ſubjects. And this is affirmed ſo unanimouſly by all, as that I know not ſo much as one Diſſentient.