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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Mr. J. saith St. Paul opposes to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. down right confusion Jeanes Here we have a great deale of confidence in your conclusion but upon a diligent and most impartial search I cannot find any premises of a proportionable strength to bear it up indeed you are like to meet with some partial Readers who will think your proofs irrefragable because you have poured our so many quotations out of the Fathers whereas all the while there is nothing in all this your discourse that looks like an Argument If you think my censure injurious you may right your self by reducing your Arguments unto form and then if they be found convincing the shame will be mine and until this be done I shall satisfie my self with that which Ames speakes concerning the pretence of decency In his reply to Mortons particular def c. pag. 3. As for the rule of decency which is here made the ground of all this affirmation it were to be wished that the Defendant would have brought it into a Syllogisme that we might have seen the force of it for now I cannot devise what Logick will conclude different Ministerial Garments from decency â—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 â—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 eâ—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 theâ—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 Faâ—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 mâ— and Amesius with this senslesse and irrational position that nothing is indifferent who almost that hath heard of your great parts learning and ingenuity and 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 desiâ—e no favour at your hands but shall intreat you to put any of our words upon the raâ—ke and if by all your Logick yâ—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 câ—eaâ— my self from this your impuration I have joyned herewiâ—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 aâ—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 varâ—e dontur â—ctiones quae in sua communi ac nuda natura antequam circamstantâ—s vâ—stiantur nullam includum bonitatem aut maâ—itiam Taies sunt câ—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. Bâ—adshaw will serve for his own apology Dr. Burges saies thâ—t Mr. Bradshâ—w hâ—d good reason to reverse his opinion â—f things indifferent for against all learning and sense he resolves that there is nothing indifferent and unto this Ames thus answereth Tâ—â—pliâ—at cap. 2 S. 8 9 If this were so as t is related reason would persw de to some recaâ—tation but t is only the Bejoinder his telling again without any shew or proof The Bejoynder raiseth up a report without shewing from whâ—â— hâ— received it which untill it be some other way confirmed then by an adversaries bare telling and that in a humour of diâ—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
have made rather snares then lawes for his Church As if he had appointed sitting at the table in a communion or kneelâ—ng in prayer This is strange stufle 1. So much is granted as is desired viz. that God haâ—h left nothing about his worshâ—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 â— 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 parâ—icular what snare had it been When God appointed all the Ceremonies of the Old Testament he did not I hope make snares for his Church though he did lay a burden upon it 3. Whereas the Rejoynd maketh sitting at a table in the Lords-Supper and kneeling at Prayer to be such things as the Lord could not command but as snares because sometime a Table may bee wanting or something to siâ— 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 â—epl having as he thought sufficiently grounded the generall that a perfect Law leaveth nothing more then needs must unto inseriour officers goeth on to assume that in the worship of God all but particular circumstances of order might easily be as indeed they were appointed by Christ and therefore need not be left to the Churches wisdom Upon this it pleaseth the Rej. to say little to the purpose in many words 1. He saith that circumstances of order were not harder to determine than those of decency Now it is plaine enough that the Repl here naming order did also understand decency though he named order only 2. He asketh what School of Divinity hath taught the Repl. to say that our Lord forbore the determining of such circumstances because all else was easie I answer no rule of Divinity did ever teach the Repl. to say so nor yet the Rejoinder to impute unto him what he never said But if he meaneth as it seemeth he doth because it was not so easie to determine circumstances of time and place as real worship I then answer that this as I think the Replyer learned out of that Divinity School out of which the Def. and Rejoinder learned That which they cite out of Calvin pag. 15 16. Junius is cited to the contrary out of Cont. 3. l. 4. cap. 17. n. 12. which place the Rejoinder looked upon by occasion of the Replyer his former citation of it But he in that very place distinguisheth betwixt Laws properly so called and cautions leaving 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. â—elleth us of cumber and much ado that would have been in naming every
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 â—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 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 't is granted one reserve Mr. J. hath still left him For saith he if it were granted that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 nâ— 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set in order the things that were wanting such as the Apâ—stles had left undisposed of or that inferiors should not be bound to obey them Vniformely 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to appointment should from time to time be disobliged and free to disobey them in whatsoever they appoint us 54. 'T is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉