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 't is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 continued 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 essâ—t ut talia figillaâ—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 pâ—ssint adesse câ—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 Ecclesâ—is obtrudere sed partim determinantur generaliâ—us Deâ— praeceptis partim natura ipsarum rerum partim circumstantiis illis quae ex occasione sese offerunt 26. Variae enim ordâ—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 what 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 fâ—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 844 Order 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 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 sanctiâ—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
then that 't is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 't is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 be 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. saith Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Câ—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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for suppose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nature may sometimes signifie custome yet that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Vniformity 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 exposition 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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Deuâ— 4.2 Ye shall not adde unto the word which I command you neither shall you diminish ought from it that ye may keep the Commandements of the Lord your God which I command you And cap. 12.32 What thing soever I command you observe to do it Thou shalt not adde thereto nor diminish from it Unto these two places the conformists answer by distinguishing of the parts and the Ceremonies of Gods worship it is unlawful say they to adde unto the parts of Gods worship instituted by God but 't is lawful to adde unto these Ceremonies of worship that are instituted by God Vnto 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 Châ—ist vis hujus consequentiae inqâ—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 Baptisâ—â—e and the Lords Supper now if it doth not prescribe all Ceremonies requisite and convenient then 't is 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 thâ—y be not parts of that worship of which they are Ceremonies yet they are parts of worship in general for 1. Worship is divided into moral and Ceremonial so that Ceremonial worship is a subjective part of worship a sort and kind of worship 2. Mosaical Ceremonies under the Law were and the Sacraments under the Gospel are parts of worship the distinction then betwixt the parts and religious Ceremonies of worship is an artless and false distinction To make this yet more evident I shall propound some arguments by which the Non-conformists prove our Ceremonies to be external worship for then it will follow that they are parts of Gods worship 1. Those external Ceremonies whose proper use is the honouring of God are external worship But our Ceremonies are such and therefore they are external worship 2. All external Ceremonies in their nature formally elicited from religion are external worship But our Ceremonies are such and therefore they are external worship This argument I find thus varied in a nameless author that hath collected twelve arguments against our Ceremonies All mere and immediate actions of religion are parts of divine worship But all religious Ceremonies such as ours are mere and immediate actions of religion Therefore they are parts of divine worship And these arguments might serve to evidence that our Ceremonies the surplice Crosse c. Are imposed and used as parts of Gods worship though for want of a due and right author or efficient they are false and unacceptable worship But to return unto the Doctor from whom I may seem to have digressed 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