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
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 't is 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus for expression of reverence 't is 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 't is 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. â—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 't is 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 't is impossible that the standing custome 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
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
Sacraments Discipline and therefore I shall condemn the usage of any such Banner or Ensign as a transgression against his Military discipline Afâ—er the writing of this I found this your objection both propounded and ansvvered by Sâ—haâ—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 sigâ—â—m hâ—bere debent per consequens signum crucis Resp Negando illud conseq quia habent alia signa nempe internum signum fidei â—xternam confessionem participationem verbi Sâ—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 Mâ—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 â—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 warfaâ—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 't is 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 inroâ—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 Signum crucis nisi adhibeatur five frontibus eredentium sive ipsi aquae quâ regenera mur c. nihil ritè perficitur Vnlesse 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 particularly c Tom. 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) See Aug. de Civit Dei l. 2. c. 8. curing diseales and casting out Devils to that Athanasius frequently offirms of it (e) De Incarnat Tom. 1. pag. 84. So pag. 101. D. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And pag. 102.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And contr Arian Or. 1. pag. 285. A. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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) Ad omnem progressum frontem crucis signaculo Tertul de Cor. Mil. c. 3. frequent use of it among the ancients even (g) Vide Narrat Hippolyti Apostolorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Pallad Hist Lâ—us pag. 1049. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the cumbersome weight of Ceremonies came in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Author of the Quest and Resp ascribed to Justin Maâ—tyr Qu. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Christsâ— 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 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 usâ—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 Dâ—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 â—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
j. e. every way aâ— 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 dâ—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 actâ—in indâ—vâ—duo consideratum ex â—elther at â ratâ—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 haâ—shest of these assertions may be found not only in little Pamphlets made by Caâ—pentâ—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. â—8 r. 9 hath this conclusion it must needs be that every individuall act of man proceeding from delâ—herate reason is either good or bad And all or almost all those which have written upon that place doe confiâ—â—e and defend thâ— 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 acâ—â—â—â—ted with by his familiar conferences with Mr. Glaâ—thorn a vehement disputer against Ceremonies and whom the Bishop thought fitter to refute by trifling instances of unbâ—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 manâ— those signes then that signifie without institution by nature or by civil custome aâ—â— 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 â—t self saith Ames doth teach all nations to observe without any institution though not without some government of counsel nor without such varleâ—â—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 4. 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 relâ—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 â—nto you as unto him Pâ—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
whether regularly or according to appointment but for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 either institute Ceremonies in Gods worship or else appoint and command such as have been already instituted If you thinke them all free and disobliged from both institution and appointment of Ceremonies in worship why then all Churches might lawfully have abstained from such both institution and commandment and if such abstinence were lawfull I may I beleeve presume that it will be a very hard matter to prove such an abstinence to be inexpedient and against edification If you should say that some though not all the Churches of God are obliged either to institute Ceremonies in Gods worship or to appoint and command such as are already instituted by precedent Churches succeeding the Apostles time why then we shall justly expect that you should specifie or nominate such Churches and give some reason for the appropriation of such an obligation unto such Churches rather than unto others 3. In your view of the Directory page 19. you affirm that in the command of St. Paul there is a proof of the more than lawfulnesse of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prescription of Ceremonies in a Church and of Vniformity 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Your first instance is in the gesture in which publick prayer is to be addrest But this instance is very impertinent for 1. This is in the general necessary so that it is utterly impossible for Prayer to be put up but in some gesture or other but the Ceremonies which Non-conformists oppose are meere humane inventions and so unnecessary in the generall 2. We have for the particular gesture in Prayer sufficient warrant and direction from the light of Nature and Scripture without any humane institution But we have no direction in Scripture for particular humane Ceremonies This is very well set down in Ames disp about Ceremon pag. 139. pag. 151. No such thing can with any colour be averred of Surplice Crosse and the like I doe not quote Ames as if I thought you any thing valued what he said but that the Reader might know the true state of the question and that in the laying of it down you have not so much as consulted your adversaries But now to prevent as much as may bee the multiplying of needlesse Controversies betwixt us I shall acknowledge that a Church may enjoyne the usage of any reverent lowly submissive gesture in publique supplications when there is conveniencie for the usage thereof But yet it will not hereupon follow that all things are to be done in the gestures of publique Prayer according unto the Churches appointment for suppose the Church should prohibit in publique Prayers the gestures of kneeling lifting up the eyes and the hands to heaven I should conclude such an appointment of any Church whatsoever to be unlawfull because contrary unto the expresse direction of Scripture Your second instance is impertinent too for the gestures of Lauds Hymnes and Confessions of the Faith c.