that the omission of such ceremonies as ours doth inserre 〈◊〉 the Doctor and all his party can never make good You shall have my good leave instead of necessarily to place truly or convincingly Voeiferations I have heard many against the undecency of Gods worship and service amongst 〈◊〉 and when I have called for proof 〈◊〉 have been told amongst other things that they Baptised without the 〈◊〉 that they put up prayers unto God 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 but that 〈◊〉 is undecently 〈◊〉 where such toyes as these are omitted you may stoutly affirme but can never prove by so much as one convictive 〈◊〉 the word necessarily may 〈◊〉 very well be inserted in opposition to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the ignorant and prooflesse dictates of some learned men Ignorant men may 〈◊〉 and learned men may 〈◊〉 that the omission of our ceremonies 〈◊〉 infer indecency but this surmise and dictate can never be made good by argument 2. In Logick a necessary inference is opposed unto that 〈◊〉 is follacious 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 inserre undecency you cannot I know harbour so 〈◊〉 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 back-door 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 when you remember what I now told you that accessarily here is opposed unto fall ciously and probably Dr. 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 sinned that did otherwise 〈◊〉 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 for no other custome can have the force and 〈◊〉 of a law and if you or any other can bring any arguments that it was consuetudo 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 't is at least mediately against the Law of Nature Your great and learned 〈◊〉 pag. 95. of his Ecclesiastical Politie saith that this rule of the 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 requires not that any sacred things be instituted de 〈◊〉 but onely that those things which are instituted by God be used in that 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 ad corum justum finem usum consequendum 〈◊〉 is a vice opposed to that due manner which is 〈◊〉 to the obtaining the just end and use of those things Now if in the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 the mode he speaks of as agreeable to the dignity of those things which are 〈◊〉 be it self-supposed by him to be 〈◊〉 by men then must he acknowledge humane 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 ceremonies which being so contrary to his design I must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by him but rather 〈◊〉 as the sacred things 〈◊〉 instituted by 〈◊〉 so the mode which is consentaneous to their dignity is instituted 〈◊〉 God also and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is decent in sacris which is not so instituted And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the second 〈◊〉 that of civill 〈◊〉 For that indecency which is a vice or sin must be 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 Law of Gods and so also that which is 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 manner which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so is necessary either necessitate medii or praecepti also to obtaining a just end this sure is more than the omission of an indifferent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
intervene and their obligation never ceaseth such like are those that forbid lying perjury hatred of God Idolatry c for these facts are so intrinsecally sinfull as that they cannot by any circumstances be made lawfull others now bind not simply and absolutely but with certaine circumstances and therefore they bind as long as those circumstances remaine they cease to bind when those circumstances are changed Such is the precept forbidding to kill for that 〈◊〉 with these circumstances that we kill not by our private authority except in case of necessary defence Take away these circumstances and it binds not for it is lawfull to kill upon the command of authority or in our necessary defence such also is the precept of eschewing scandall for however it be dictated by the law of nature yet it obligeth not absolutè quomodocunque but with certaine circumstances and one circumstance necessarily requisite to make it bind us is that there occurre not any other precept either naturall or positive The reason is because every one is bound to have a greater care of his own than others salvation and consequently rather to avoid sin in himselfe than to prevent it in his brethren And therefore that precept which is given us for the prevention of sin in others is but of a secondary obligation Now the precept of eschewing scandall is imposed onely for the hindring of sin in others and therefore doth not tie us when there occurreth any other precept which is given for the avoiding of sinne in our selves But it may be objected that the precept of shunning scandall is of the Law of nature and therefore is more obligatory than those precepts that are but positive Unto this 〈◊〉 answereth that a naturall precept is more obligatory than that which is 〈◊〉 caeteris paribus that is if each precept both that which is naturall and that which is positive be primarily referred unto the furthering of our own salvation unto the preventing of sin in our selves But now if on the other side the primary scope of the naturall precept be to hinder sin in others as it is in the precept of scandall and the principall end of the positive precept be to shun sin in our selves then that precept which is positive doth more deeply bind us than that which is naturall Againe secondly it may be objected that if the obligation of the naturall precept of eschewing scandall ceaseth upon occurrence of but a positive precept why then it seems this positive precept detracts or derogates from the naturall precept of avoiding scandall as being of greater force and validity In no wise onely it takes away a circumstance requisite to make the precept of avoiding scandall obligatory quare cum dicimus saith Vasquez non esse omittendum praeceptum positivum 〈◊〉 vitandum scandalum proximi non dicimus praeceptum naturale derogari 〈◊〉 positivo tanquam fortiori sed dicimus occursu praecepti positivi 〈◊〉 quandam circumstantiam necessariam ut 〈◊〉 praeceptum de vitando scandalo etiamsi naturale sit But all this labour would have been saved if the question had been rightly stated for whereas it is said that one circumstance necessarily requisite to make the precept of eschewing scandall bind us is that there occurre not any other precept either naturall or positive this is to be understood cum grano salis with this limitation in case such precepts bind all circumstances considered to the performance of what they enjoyne 〈◊〉 nunc at such a particular time and place for then omission of what they enjoine would be sinfull and we are not sinfully to omit any thing for prevention of scandall in our brother Unto the proofe of which the reason of Vasquez and 〈◊〉 may be applyed But the obligation of affirmative precepts is not universall ad 〈◊〉 but only loco tempore debitis and therefore what they enjoyne may sometimes in the case of scandall be prudéntly omitted but perhaps this which I say is all that Vasquez and 〈◊〉 aime at and then they have no adversary that I know of Every one will grant unto them that one circumstance necessarily requisite to make the precept of 〈◊〉 scandall bind us hic nunc in such a time and place is that there occurre not any other precept binding us to what it enjoyneth at that very instant time and place for it is evident unto all that upon occurrencie of such obligations though scandall ensue it would not be on our parts a culpable scandall an active scandall But it may be thought that I have staied too long upon this digression to returne therefore where we left Secondly if the action in which this appearance of evill is supposed to be be but indifferent why then the best direction that we can have will be from what the Apostle Paul writes unto the Romans chap. 14. and unto the 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 8. and chap. 10. of converts amongst the Romans there were some strong and knowing ones that were well principled and so knew very well their deliverance from the yoake of the mosaicall Law and hereupon without any scruple did eat such meats as were prohibited thereby perhaps Swines flesh or the like Now at this their practise severall weak Christians who were as yet ignorant and uninstructed touching the latitude of their Christian liberty were in severall regards scandalized as I have shewen in a foregoing treatise But yet here the practise of the strong was a thing indifferent in it selfe vers 14. 20. and the appearance of evill to wit a prophane and irreligious contempt of the Law of Moses was only imaginary arising from the ignorance and errour of the weak who thought that Law of Moses to be still in sorce and unabrogated and the scandall consequent hereupon was only 〈◊〉 accidens flowing not from the nature of the action in it selfe but from the misapprehension of the weake and yet the Apostle blames the strong for scandalizing the weake and therefore in this their action though indifferent in it selfe there was an active scandall a scandall culpably given as well as taken The Apostle gives the same resolution unto the Corinthians concerning things offered unto Idols to eat them at the Pagan religious feast and in the temple of an Idoll carrieth a reall appearance of communion with and approbation of an Idolatrous worship of the Idoll and so is scandalous per se of it selfe and in its own nature 1 〈◊〉 8. 10. cap. 10. vers 20 21. But now to eat these same meats when sold and bought in the shambles or set before them in private meetings the Apostle resolves to be a thing lawfull and indifferent 1 Cor. 10. v. 25 26 27. And indeed it could not carry a reall but only an imaginary appearance of evill for they were the good creatures of God and so uncapable of any 〈◊〉 pollution and they had no religious use and so did not reflect any glance 〈◊〉 the least honour credit or countenance
ever the Gentiles in their times of ignorance heard of to wit because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in 〈◊〉 by that man whom he hath ordained c. Unto these answers I shall adde one of mine owne which I hope will be satisfactory Repentance may be considered under a twofold notion sub ratione officii and sub ratione medii as a dutie and as a means or way unto salvation 1. Sub ratione officii as a duty and so the law of nature commanded it alwaies unto all that had the actuall use of reason for what is Repentance but a returning from sin unto God Now this the law of nature enjoyneth for it obligeth to love God with all your soule heart might and strength and impossible that this should be done by those that do not turne from their sins and returne unto God 2. Repentance may be considered sub 〈◊〉 medii as a meanes or way unto Salvation and so the Gospel only declares that all men unto whom it is preached should repent for the Law is so rigorous and inexorable as that it admits not of Repentance in order to life and salvation Cursed is every 〈◊〉 that continueth not in all things which are written in the 〈◊〉 of the Law to doe them Gal. 3. 10. Indeed the Law may presse our obligation unto repentance and discover its opposite to be a damnable sinne but it is only the Gospel the Covenant of grace that propounds it as an anteccdent condition of salvation and promiseth the reward of eternall life and happinesse unto it And thus I have done my best to explaine this darke assertion that God 〈◊〉 Commandeth all men every where to repent which before he did not But the Confirmation of it 〈◊〉 he hath appointed a day 〈◊〉 the which he will judge the world in righteousnesse by that man whom he hath ordained c. is as obscure as the assertion it selfe for this decree or appointment of judging the world by Christ was from all eternity and therefore no Congruent proofe that God in and since the fulnes of time propoundes it unto all men every where as of avayle unto everlasting Salvation For the clearing of this we must take a rule that is vsuall in the interpretation of Scripture Many things are said in scripture to be done when they are only manifested to be done And so here the appointment of the day in which God will judge the world is put for the manifestation 〈◊〉 The words then may be thus Paraphrased God by the preaching of the Gospell hath revealed and manifested that there shall be a day in which he will judge the world in righteousnes by that man whome he hath ordained c. And that this is a competent argument to provoke men unto Repentance is evident from the manner of Gods procedure in this day he will judg men according to their repentance or unrepentance he will acquit all true penitents and Condemne all 〈◊〉 impenitents 〈◊〉 ye therefore and be converted saith Peter that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the 〈◊〉 of the Lord Acts 3. 19. without Repentance all our sins our sins of baro and naked omission Matth. 25. 42. 43. Our idle words Matth. 12. 32. that have no obliquity in them but 〈◊〉 and what is said of idle words is appliable unto idle thoughts and works shall all be fully charged upon our soules those who are not by the 〈◊〉 of God led unto repentance after their 〈◊〉 and impenitent 〈◊〉 treasure up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God Rom. 2. 5. they pile up plagues Curses and Torments the day of judgment is termed the day 〈◊〉 wrath in opposition unto 〈◊〉 time of this life which alone is the 〈◊〉 of grace and mercy Behold 〈◊〉 is the accepted time behold now is the day of salvation 2 Cor. 6. 2. and therefore repent now if ever for in the day of wrath there will be no place or time for no acceptation of repentance though sought with never so many and bitter teares Repentance implieth 1. Examination Consession of and sorrow for past sins 2. Caution and resolution against future sins And unto all these the day of judgment perswades First Unto Examination 〈◊〉 of and sorrow for past sins a voluntary selfe-inspection will avoid the severe scrutinie of that day to Confesse unto an earthly Judge is a speedy and an assured way unto Condemnation but with our Heavenly Judge it secures our pardon I acknowledged my sin unto thee and mine iniquity have I not hid I said I will 〈◊〉 my transgressions unto the Lord and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin Psal. 32. 5. qui 〈◊〉 vult peccata detegat is 〈◊〉 rule the way to have our sins covered in this and the next life is to uncover them in this before God in an humble and 〈◊〉 Confession and without this God will discover them to the knowledg of all the world unto our Confusion in the day when he will judge the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 by Jesus Christ c. if now we would accuse our selves it would then stop all the accusations of the Law Satan and our owne Consciences if we would now judge our selves we should not then be judged if we would now privately in our owne bosomes arraigne and Condemne our selves for our sins and lie prostrate at the feet of Christ for mercy we may be certaine that we shall publiquely be acquitted by proclamation in the great Assises of the whole world wh n Christ shall Come with Clouds it is said that all kindreds of the earth shall waile because of him Rev. 1. 7. Many thinke that this is meant of the obstinate and incorrigible enemies of Christ Jesus and that the wailing here spoken of is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wailing of hellish desperation to prevent which no such way as Planctus 〈◊〉 the wayling of Evangelicall repentance and contrition and is it not infinitely better to mourne weep sigh and sob for sin here then hereafter to roare houle and yell for it unto all eternity Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his Saints to execute judgment upon all and convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him Jude 14. 15. The conviction here spoken of hath for its end the unrepealeable condemnation and irremediles confusion of the parties convicted The Lord will execute judgment upon all the ungodly whom he convinceth of ungodly deeds and hard speeches against him but yet now even the most ungodly may escape this conviction by a timely internall penitentiall conviction of conscience in this life which as an Eccho answereth the spirits convincing the world of sin Joh. 16. 8 9. Now those whom the spirit convinceth of sin it convinceth also of righteousnesse
admirers how it can be an argument against the greatnesse of his knowledge before the fall It is a common opinion among'st both Papists and Protestants that this greedy appetite proceeded not from error or ignorance but from incogitancy inconsideration or inadvertency But I proceed on unto the last place Ephes. 4. 24. And that ye put on the new man which after God is created in righteousnesse and true holinesse here by the consent of most Interpreters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after God is as much as after or according to the image of God and by this interpretation it will follow that the image of God consisted principally in righteousnesse and true holinesse and these are so comprehensive as that they take in all graces and vertues whatsoever Junius in his conference with Arminius speakes of some who understand that clause after God concerning the power and vertue of God working this righteousnesse and true holinesse 〈◊〉 contendam inquit quod multi interpretantur secundum Deum ac si 〈◊〉 Apostolus virtute Dei agentis in nobis But Dr. 〈◊〉 in his animadversions upon the said conference tel's Junius first that this interpretation is opposite unto his own interpretation of the words and then he confesseth his ignorance os any that are the authors of such an exposition 〈◊〉 contenderes 〈◊〉 ipsi contradiceres ut qui ad Gen. 1. 26 hac ipsa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de imagine Dei in homine interpreteris Qui vero illi sint qui contra instituunt mihi nondum 〈◊〉 est pag. 39. cap. 1. But I shall further unto this sense of the place oppose an argument from the signification of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which here in all probability rather denoteth the relation of righteousnesse and true holinesse unto it's 〈◊〉 than unto it's cause physically procreant By what hath been said the reader may be informed how remote from truth an other passage of Dr. Taylors is in his Unum necessarium p362 What gifts and graces or supernaturall endowments God gave to Adam in his state of innocency we know not God hath no where told and of things 〈◊〉 we commonly make wild conjectures God you see hath told us that he created man after his image in knowledge righteousnesse and true holinesse that he made him very good that he made him upright now whether the Dr. hath the forehead to affirme that all this signifieth noe gifts graces or supernaturall endowments which God gave to Adam in his state of innocency and what proofes he will bring for so strange an assertion we will leave unto the issue Unto the above mentioned scriptures there are usually added two reasons the first drawne from the end of the first man the second from the laws prescribed unto him for without a positive righteousnesse it was impossible for him to reach this end to obey these laws but of these two arguments I shall hereafter speake more fully and therefore for the present I shall passe on from the Quod sit unto the Quid sit of this originall righteousnesse and here we have a double Quid sit of it to be inquired into Quid nominis and Quid rei To begin with Quid nominis why the righteousnesse of the first man is called originall righteousnesse Foure reasons may be given for it First because 't was seated in the originall and parent of all mankind Secondly because 't was the first righteousnesse of mankind that ever was in the world it was before any other either habituall or actuall Thirdly because Adam received it from his very originall and beginning as soone as he was created God created him in his image after his likenesse Gen. 1. 26 27. God's image was stamp'd upon him the very first moment of his creation and his righteousnesse was the principall part of this image God made man upright Eccl. 7. 29 he made him and made him upright at the same time the essence of his soule was in order of nature before it's uprightnesse as being the subject thereof and accordingly it was created before it in order of nature but yet this is no hindrance but that the creation of the essence of his soule and the superinfusion of righte ousnesse thereinto might be simultaneos in regard of time unto these scriptures I shall only adde a congruence out of the school-men All the other creatures were created in a perfect state with abilities for operations suitable unto their respective ends the hearbs were created yeelding seed and the trees bearing fruit Gen 1. 12 29 congruent therefore was it that man the noblest of sublunary creatures should be created in such a state too but if he had been created without originall righteousnesse he had been in a worse condition than the meanest of the creatures for he would have been unfurnished for the ends of his creation the glorification of communion with God and destitute of the seeds of his glory and happinesse Fourthly it is called originall righteousnesse in respect of Adam's posterity because if he had stood it would have been coevall with the very beginnings of their beings so they would have received it together with their very natures for it was not given unto Adam only as a personal endowment but as a gift unto the whole humane nature he had it as the head and representative of all mankind and therefore his posterity were to receive it in regard of the habits that were the foundation of it when they had their humane nature derived from him this the School-men further confirme from the opposite of originall righteousnesse originall sin originall sin is privatively opposed unto originall righteousnesse but because of the sin of Adam all his posterity are borne in originall sin therefore if he had never sinned all of them had been borne in originall righteousnesse But to passe on from it's Quid nominis unto it's Quid rei what is meant by the thing it selfe and for the clearing of this we shall explicate these seven following particulars First the materiale secondly the formale of it which are as it were the essentiall parts of which is consisteth Thirdly the subject in which 't is seated Fourthly the causation or production Fifthly the effects of it Sixthly the difference of it from sanctifying grace seventhly the manner of it's relation unto the first man whether it were naturall or supernaturall to him First the materiale the matter or foundation of it and that was all the moral perfections all the graces and virtues of the whole man it was not one single habit but an aggregate of all those habits by which man was rendred right and perfect according to all his parts and powers Solomon saith that God made man upright Eccl. 7. 29 but upright he had not been unlesse he had been sanctifi'd wholy in spirit soule and body the least deformity or defect had been inconsistent with his uprightnesse the integrity and universality of the righteousnesse of the first
mind God is not loved with all our soule and mind and the soule is faulty when 't is divided betwixt God and sinne their heart is divided saith the Prophet now shall they be found faulty Hosea 10. 2. This argument Dr. Abbot Bishop of Salisbary brings in his defence of Mr. Perkins his reformed Catholique against Dr. Bishop pag. 187. 188. He erreth saith he in that be maketh Originall 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 only in the integrity of the will and the forme of sin to stand only in the aversion of the will from God by the 〈◊〉 of the same originall justice whereas originall justice was in truth the integrity of all the parts of 〈◊〉 not subjecting the 〈◊〉 to the mind and the mind to God but 〈◊〉 whole man to God the image whereof is set forth unto us in the commandment Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy mind with all thy soule with all thy thoughts and strength The forme of sinne therefore is not only in the aversion of the will but in the aversion of any part or power or faculty of the soule if in any of these there be a declining from the law of God it is the sinne of man Now 〈◊〉 so long as there is any matter of concupiscence to be yet 〈◊〉 and restrained God cannot be loved with all the soule for how can 〈◊〉 have all the soule so long as concupiscence hath any part therefore in the 〈◊〉 of any matter of concupiscence there is sinne because it is sinne when either there is not love at all or it is lesse than it should be when it is not with all the soule But further as these first motions and agitations of concupiscence are virtually and implyedly contrary unto our Saviour's summary of all the commandements of the first table so they are particularly and expressely forbidden by the last commandement of the second table the tenth commandement that God here dealeth with the first motions and thoughts of the heart is the sense of Bishop Andrewes upon the commandements and Dr. Taylor cannot say that he was a Calvinist or Presbyterian But this his exposition hath for it very good 〈◊〉 because those motions unto sinne which are consented to are forbidden in the severall commandments as appeareth by our Saviour's glosse upon the seventh commandment Matth. 5. 28. Now if they be forbidden in the severall commandments 't is unlikely that there should be alloted for the prohibition of them a distinct commandment considering how short a breviary of man's duty the 〈◊〉 is Indeed Ames rightly holdeth that the first motions unto unjustice are here only expressely forbidden but from the forbidding of them we may conclude by way of proportion the prohibition also of the first motions which are against the duties of religion and 〈◊〉 commanded in the first table But though the first motions of concupiscence had not been forbidden by any written law yet 't is sufficient to make them sinne that they are repugnant unto the light of right reason for this is truly properly and univocally the law of God the law of nature written in the hearts of all men and as for the repugnancy of the first motions of concupiscence unto right reason it cannot be denyed if we instance in those which are in the sensitive powers of man against the dominion of his mind and so much may be gathered from what Aquinas acknowledgeth concerning concupiscence it selfe part 3. quaest 15. art 2. Ad rationem fomitis inquit pertinet inclinatio sensualis appetitus in id 〈◊〉 est contra rationem and againe afterwards ad 1 m ratio somitis consistit in resistentiâ sensualis appetitus ad rationem and ad 2 m fomes peccati importat concupiscentiam delectabilium praeter ordinem rationis This reason is urged by Augustine to prove concupiscence to be not only a punishment and cause of sinne but also sinne it selfe the concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit striveth is a sin saith he quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis by reason ther 's in it disobedience against the dominion of the mind A second argument to prove that concupiscence is a sinne and not a sinlesse infirmity is taken from the subject of it It is only found in sinfull men such as are descended from Adam in an ordinary way of naturall generation Hence now I thus reason All sinlesse infirmities so they were generall unto our nature and not personall were found in the humanity of Christ for he was made like unto us in all things sinne alone accepted But concupiscence was not in the humanity of Christ as is confessed by the generality of Papists And therefore 't is not a sinlesse and naturall but a morall and sinfull infirmity Unto the Major the Papists give an answer I confesse which I have upon another occasion replyed unto in my treatise of the incarnation pag. 103. 104. The Minor Dr. Taylor seemes to deny in his further explication of originall sinne pag. 494. his words I shall transcribe and then give what reason I have for my suspicion If concupiscence which is in every man's nature be a sinne it is certaine Christ had no concupiscence or naturall desires for he had no sinne But if he had no concupiscence or naturall desires how he should be a man or how capable of law or how he should serve God with choice where there could be no potentia ad oppositum I thinke will be very hrd to 〈◊〉 understood Christ felt all our infirmities yet without sinne All our infirmities are the effects of the sinne of Adam and part of that which we call originall sinne therefore all these our infirmities which Christ felt as in him they were for ever without sinne so long as they are only naturall and unconsented to must be in us without sinne for whatsoever is naturally in us is naturally in him but a man is not a man without naturall desires therefore these were in him in him without sinne and therefore so in us without sinne I meane properly really and formally Here I expect to be cold that the Dr hath explicated concupiscence by naturall desires But now I demand whether by naturall desires he understand the desires of the sensitive appetite after meat drinke and and the like if he doth then he speakes nothing to the purpose but fights with his own shadow for those whom he opposeth 〈◊〉 and Calvinists hold such desires to be lawfull and indifferent and never affirme that they were in themselves sinne unlesse vitiated by circumstances but to prevent his shifting and to sift out his meaning I shall propound unto him this following Dilemma either he speakes of concupiscence in that sense it is understood by Protestants and Papists in this controversy or not If not then he playeth the egregious 〈◊〉 and runnes away 〈◊〉 the question and whither such a trifler be meet to reforme the Divinity of Christendome
sinne be not of the nature of man sor that is all I meane by essentiall if it be not how came Adam to sinne his first sinne if it be I aske whether shall the Saints in the resurrection be raised up with it or no If yea then you blaspheme God's full glorification of the Saints in the resurrection for impeccability is certainly a part of their full glorisication If nay then it is no blasphemy to say that in the resurrection the Saints shall be raised up without something that is essentiall to them or to their nature Jeanes That possibility to sinne is essentiall unto every rationall creature I grant and hereupon 〈◊〉 that 't is not separated from the Saints in 〈◊〉 full 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall I 〈◊〉 your charge of blasphemy herein having the 〈◊〉 of Schoolemen both Thomists and Scotists and reason too on my side Indeed the Saints of Heaven do constantly and interruptedly shun and decline sinne yet 't is an 〈◊〉 possible unto their nature considered in it selfe 〈◊〉 they are 〈◊〉 therefrom by their glorisied state and 〈◊〉 for though sinne and a fullnesse of glory 〈◊〉 inconsistent yet ' 〈◊〉 no 〈◊〉 or repugnancy that their natures abstractly considered secluding the consideration of their glory should be sinfull Yea but you say 〈◊〉 is certainely a part of the full glorification of the Saints and what is impeccability but an impossibility of sinning if God then make the Saints impeccable he 〈◊〉 away from them all 〈◊〉 of sinning For answer 1. There is a twosold impeccability 1. By nature 2. By the grace and 〈◊〉 of God 〈◊〉 by nature takes away all possibility of sinning but it is received generally as a rule among the School-men that a creature cannot be made 〈◊〉 per 〈◊〉 that is such a one as cannot by nature sinne And if you please you may view the proofes thereof in 〈◊〉 lib 2. Dist 22. quaest 1. 〈◊〉 by the gift and grace of God doth not eradicate the remote power of sinning but only keeps it from being actuated and 't is this impeccability only that is part of the Saints glorification 2. A thing may be said to be impossible sensu diviso or sensu 〈◊〉 In sensu diviso 't is not impossible but possible for the Saints in Heaven to sin for that considered in themselves without the custodient grace of God alwayes underpropping them they are liable unto sin the lamentable fall of the Angels of darkenesse is an evident proofe But now 〈◊〉 composito 't is indeed impossible for glorified Saints to sinne that is 't is impossible for them to sinne considered under this reduplication as fully glorified because fullnesse of glory and sinne cannot stand together This answer is in Scotus lib. 4. dist 49. quaest 6. whose words I shall insert for the sake of some Readers who may not have him in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 patet quod beatus est impeccabilis in sensu compositionis hoc est non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beatus peccare sed in sensu divisionis quod manens beatus 〈◊〉 habeat potentiam possibilitatem ad peccandum potest 〈◊〉 duplicitèr vel per aliquid sibi 〈◊〉 quod excludit potentian talem vel per causam 〈◊〉 quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propinquam ab illo c 〈◊〉 est causa intrinseca in 〈◊〉 Michaelis 〈◊〉 beati per quam 〈◊〉 potentia ad peccandum pro alias in sensu divisionis non est autem causa intrinseca 〈◊〉 istam 〈◊〉 omnino reduci ad actam sed per causam 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illa propinqua ad peccandum 〈◊〉 per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 semper 〈◊〉 actum fruendi it a 〈◊〉 possit 〈◊〉 suam remolam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad actum siquidem 〈◊〉 causa secunda praeventa à causâ superiori agente ad 〈◊〉 oppositum potest 〈◊〉 propinqua exire in aliud oppositum Concedo ergo quod infert quod 〈◊〉 beatus sit peccabilis in sensu divisionis loquendo de 〈◊〉 remotâ Dr. Taylor But Sir 〈◊〉 think you of Mortality is that essential or of the nature of man I suppose you will not deny it But yet I also believe you will 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 we are sown a corruptible body yet we shall be raised an incorruptible and the mortal shall 〈◊〉 on immortality Ieanes For answer I shall propound a distinction of mortality that is very obvious and ordinary A thing may be said to be mortal either respectu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propinquae 1. In respect of a remote power of dying which hath in it the remote cause of dissolution an elementary matter 2. In regard of a near power of dying arising from the actual conflict and 〈◊〉 influence of the Elements and their contrary qualities The latter Mortality is separable but then it is not essential As for the former Mortality which alone is essential I think very few doubt but that 't is also inseparable from the nature of a man body for the 〈◊〉 and incorruption of the bodies of the Saints in the resurrection will not be by taking away out of their bodies the remote causes of corruption the Elements and their contrary qualities for then their bodies would not be mixt and so not for substance the same that they were but by an hinderance or prevention of the corruptive influence of the Elements and their contrary qualities That I am not singular in this I shall manifest by transcribing the Testimonies of some few School-men who though they differ one from another in assigning the cause and reason of the impassibility and 〈◊〉 of glorified Bodies yet they all agree with Durand in this That glorified Bodies are not impassible per privationem 〈◊〉 passivae sed per aliquod 〈◊〉 impedimentum actualis 〈◊〉 nè siat The first shall be of Scotus lib 4. dist 49. quaest 13. Dico ergo quod causa impassibilitatis est voluntas divina non 〈◊〉 causae secundae corruptivae per hoc est illud impassibile 〈◊〉 potentia remota sed propinqua non à causâ 〈◊〉 sed 〈◊〉 impediente 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est de 〈◊〉 supra c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 in camino qui non 〈◊〉 ad 〈◊〉 trium puerorum non 〈◊〉 per aliquam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pueris 〈◊〉 ex carentiâ potentiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex contrario 〈◊〉 impediente sed quia Deus ex voluntate suâ non 〈◊〉 ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The second is of Durand lib. 4. dist 44. quaest 4. Restat ergò quod 〈◊〉 gloriosa non 〈◊〉 impassibilia simplicitèr absolutè per privationem principii 〈◊〉 cùm natura corporum gloriosorum sit 〈◊〉 eadem quae prius sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliquid praestans impedimentum actualis passionis nè siat Quid autem sit illud utrum sit aliqua forma 〈◊〉 an solum virtus divina 〈◊〉 duplex 〈◊〉 opinio 〈◊〉 enim quidam quod talis impassibilitas 〈◊〉 per aliquam forman inexistentem c. Alius modus est quod impassibilitas corporum gloriosorum
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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 yet mediately ex interventu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 to your discourse of Ceremonies Dr. Hammond sect 7. But this exemplification of my meaning he thought 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 and no exemplification of your 〈◊〉 and therefore I had no reason to take notice of it But 2. suppose it were an exemplification yet unlesse it were also for 〈◊〉 of your 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 onely rule of 〈◊〉 I was no wise obliged to 〈◊〉 what you said herein for I 〈◊〉 told the Reader I would transcribe what was 〈◊〉 in your words now what I 〈◊〉 out was not argumentative 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 nations expresse reverence by uncovering the 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. 〈◊〉 that these customes were not observed by other Countries the Jews that 〈◊〉 stones at Christ and the 〈◊〉 that cut himself with them were neither of them 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 expression of reverence 't is a 〈◊〉 with Papists not to touch the bread with their hands but to have it put into their 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 it to be a decent way of worship and if it be undecent then 〈◊〉 serveth nothing unto the exemplification of your meaning Dr. Hammond sect 9.
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. 〈◊〉 igitur hujusmodi circumstantiae vocari soleant à nonnullis ritus ceremoniae religiosae 〈◊〉 ecclesiasticae nihil tamen habent in sua natura quod proprium est religionis atque adeo in iis non propriè consistit cultus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex corum neglectu contemptu violatur aliquo modo 〈◊〉 cultus religiosi quia communis illa ratio ordinis decori quae aequè convenit religiosis actibus 〈◊〉 que civilibus à religioso cultu non potest separart quin oliquo modo 〈◊〉 ipsius dignitas majestas Although these circumstances of time place and other like 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 Gods 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 and 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 men and therefore 't is undecent for men to wear such long hair as women and this supposed mens wearing of such long hair is a mediate 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 a man have long hair 't is a shame to him We may say the same of the long garments of women doth not even nature teach you 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 and so is 〈◊〉 either incessitate 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 also to obtain in a just end this sure is more then the 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
abstained from when they are inexpedient when they enthrall us unto either persons or things But all things are not 〈◊〉 But I will not be brought under the power of any A great difference there is amongst expositors about the coherence of these words Some thinke that the Apostle makes way for that Argument which he handles at large chap 9. All things are lawfull for me therefore to receive a salary for preaching of the Gospell is lawfull But I will not make use of this my liberty Because it will not be expedient unto the promoting of the Gospell amongst you but an hinderance rather And because I will retaine my full liberty of reproving you which I shall in great part lose if I should receive my whole livelyhood from you As it fares with the false prophets among you that are no better then Trencher chaplaines that dare not touch your sores medle with either your sinnes or errours for feare that hereupon you should shorten your benevolence I will not be brought under the power of any But the coherence is too 〈◊〉 fetcht and we may say the same of others who would make these words to cohere with chap. 8. v. 9. Others with more probability derive the connexion of the words onely from the present chapter and they are again subdivided some fetch it from the words foregoing Others from the words following 1. From the words foregoing The Apostles discourse about going to law with Brethren before the unjust and unbelievers The Corinthians might be ready to object in behalfe of this their practise that it was a thing in it's own nature indifferent not prohibited by the word of God and therefore lawfull for all things are lawfull that is all indifferent things True saith the Apostle but. 1. all things are not expedient And in particular for Christians to sue Christians before Paganish Tribunals is so far from being expedient as that it is an impediment unto Christians own glorifying of God in his immediate worship and service as also unto their quiet peaceable and comfortable communion with Brethren 2. I will not be brought under the power of any either persons or things And if you goe in this manner to law with your Brethren you will put your selves under the power of many both persons and things 1. Persons Perhaps you will lie at the mercy of an unjust judg a false witnesse may undoe you A corrupt lawyer betray you your own witnesses will command your table and purse though for attesting the truth And though your Advocates be never so faithfull you must give them your most diligent attendance As the proverb is you must not only pay but pray them too 2. Things The many matters the things of the world which you sue for will have you so farre under their power as that they will be a great hinderance to your free and full service of God for if they doe not wholly withdraw you from it they will wonderfully distract you in it Because law suits will take up the greatest part of your time and the best of your thoughts Adde unto this that for Christians especially in those primitive times to pursue their Brethren unto the judgment-seats of heathens in matters capable of an amicable compromise by the mediation of Brethren was a plaine evidence that they were under the power of the world and the things thereof for who but a muckworme a vassall to his wealth would doe a thing so much unto the discredit of the Gospell and reproach of Christianity especially seeing they might with greater probability expect justice from the umpirage of saints then the sentences of professed unbelievers Others in the next place look for the cohaesion of these words forwards upon the Apostles ensuing discours touching fornication not only the Corinthians but the Gentiles in generall held simple fornicatiō to be a thing indifferent The old man in the Comedian spake the sense of the generality of them Crede mihi non est slagitium adolescentulum scortari And you will the less wonder at this if you cōsider that Durand a Popish Schoolman held it to be unlawfull not by the law of nature but only by the positive law of God Quod autem dicunt quidam quod simplex fornicatio est peccatum mortale de se exclusâ omni lege positivâ divinâ humanâ non benè intelligo lib. 4. dist 33. quaest 2. And upon the Consideration of this opinion of the Gentiles touching the indifferency of fornication it was think interpreters that fornication is Acts. 15. by the first Council ranged amongst indifferent things bloud and things strangled The use of which was forbidden onely for a time Unto this erroneous supposition the Apostle answereth per limitationem per inficiationem He limits the generall rule touching things indifferent and then he denieth the instance in question And this his denyall he illustrateth and confirmeth from vers 13. unto the end of the chapter Unto this his deniall he premiseth limitations of the generall rule All indifferent things are lawfull He puts a double restraint upon it The first But all things are not expedient or profitable Many indifferent things sometimes prove an impediment unto our Christian race and then they are to be forborne A second restraint is in these words But I will not be brought under the power of any My affection unto indifferent things shall be so temperate as that it shall be in my power to forbeare 〈◊〉 upon reasonable and important Considerations There should be an indifferencie in our desires towards things indifferent so that they should not have the command of us but we should be able to use or not to use them as the concurrence of particular circumstances guide us To give yet further light unto these words I shall briefly consider their coherence as they lie in 1 Cor. 10. 23. with little variation The Apostle there states a case of Conscience touching the eating of Idolothytes things offered unto Idoles First he resolves that to eat them publiquely in the temple of Idoles at the idolatrous feasts of these Idoles was to have communion in the worship of these idols to have fellowship with Divels to be partakers of the table of Divels He that did thus eat them did eat them considered formally as 〈◊〉 and consecrated to idoles He did eat them in the honour of the idols unto which they were offered He did tacitly acknowledg their Deity and 〈◊〉 approve of the Idolatrous worship and service of them But now the Apostle alloweth a private use of things offered to idols If they were not eaten under a religious notion but considered onely and materially as meat matter of food and as the good creatures of God Two cases he instanceth in wherein they might be thus eaten First they might buy them in the shambles and eat them in their own houses vers 25. And secondly they might eat them at the tables of their unbelieving neighbours that invited them
This latter part of the Determination of the question he confirmes and limiteth by putting in an exception in the case of scandall And unto all this he prefixeth the extension of our Christian liberty unto all indifferent things in the generall together with two restrictions that we are to put upon it in the use and exercise Even indifferent things are to be forborne when they are not profitable and conducing unto the ends which a Christian should propound when they are destructive and scandalous unto our Brethren All things are lawfull for me but all things are not 〈◊〉 All things are lawfull for me but all things edifie not Unto these two places 1 Cor. 6. 12. 1 Cor. 10. 23. I shall adde one more 1 Cor. 8. 8. But meat 〈◊〉 us not to God for neither if we eat are we the better neither if we eat 〈◊〉 are we the 〈◊〉 Meat that is the use and eating of meat 〈◊〉 considered and in the generall commendeth us not to God for the kingdome of God is not meat and drink for 〈◊〉 if we eat are we the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have we the more that is the more vertue in our selves the more grace and favour with God Neither if we eat not are we the worse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have we the lesse the lesse vertue in our selves the lesse acceptation with God Eating then of any sort or kind of meat considered as abstracted from all singularizing circumstances is a thing indifferent that hath neither vertue nor vice in it neither pleaseth nor displeaseth God And what the Apostle speaketh of eating of meat is applyable by way of analogy and proportion unto a world of things of the like nature as shall be manifested by the reasons for the Conclusion unto which in the next place I hasten The Protestants generally thus argue The nature of things indifferent as the Learned Hooker determineth is neither to be commanded nor forbidden but left free and arbitrary But now there are divers humane and voluntary actions that are in the generall neither commanded nor forbidden as to eat drink goe a journey walke into the field Therefore there are diverse humane and voluntary actions that are in the generall and for the kind indifferent This argument the Papists dislike because they think that there are matters of Counsell which containe the highest degree of morall goodnesse and perfection And yet thinke they are uncommanded and no man will say that they are forbidden The Argument of the Schoolmen therefore generally runs thus Actions that are neither agreeable nor disagreeable unto right reason are indifferent But there are divers humane and voluntary actions that in their generall nature and consideration carry neither conformity nor repugnancy unto right reason And therefore there are divers humane and voluntary actions that are indifferent This argument is thus managed by Durand That act is neither good nor evill but indifferent Concerning which there is in the reason of man no more rectitude or irrectitude and obliquity in the affirmation then in the negation in it's dictating either the practice or in its dictating the forbearance thereof For the pursuit and eschewall of the will are in regard of morall goodnesse or badnesse correspondent unto the dictates of the practicall understanding and therefore where there is an indifferencie in point of truth in the understandings dictates concerning the doing or not doing of a thing there is an indifferency in regard of morall goodnesse or badnesse in the wills imbracing or eschewing of that thing If the understanding erre not whether it prescribe the performance or forbearance of an action then the will sinneth not whether it performe or forbeare it But there are divers acts concerning which there is in the reason of man no more rectitude or irrectitude and obliquity in the affirmation then in the negation of them in its dictating the practise or in its dictating the forbearance of them This he proveth because the rectitude of reason consists in conformity unto some naturall law or some divine law or some law derived from these But there are divers humane actions concerning which there occurreth no such law either forbidding or commanding and therefore there is no rectitude or obliquity in the reasons or understandings affirming or denying of them It is indifferent which way the understanding takes whether it dictates the doing or not doing of them and consequently it is indifferent whether the will 〈◊〉 or nilleth them Here by the way I cannot but take notice how Durand unawares crosseth their doctrine of Evangelicall Counsels for Suarez de leg lib. cap. 14. will tell him that Counsell is not properly a Law By this doctrine of Durand then in matters of Counsell there should be no rectitude of reason because no conformity unto any law But this by the by This argument is yet further improved by 〈◊〉 de Valentia The Morall goodnesse saith he which we speake of is such a congruence unto reason as carrieth praise with it according unto the usuall estimate of men and appertaineth unto mans everlasting happinesse his chiefe and soveraigne end and answerably the morall ilnesse or badnesse of an action stands in such a repugnancie unto right reason as that according to the usuall estimation of men it is worthy of dispraise and is an impediment unto his attaining his supreame end the eternall blisse of his soule But now there are severall humane actions that considered in themselves have neither praise nor dispraise neither prejudice nor advantage the salvation of our soules are neither helps nor lets unto the obtaining of our highest end and happinesse and therefore there are actions morally indifferent Unto what hath been said I shall adde two arguments more out of a late Philosopher Irenaeus A Carmelite or white Frier First upon actions morally good or bad we may lawfully passe our Censures that they are such But we should passe rash judgment if we should censure Divers actions of our Bretheren to be determinately virtuous or determinately vitious moraly good or bad Let not him that eateth not judge him which eateth Rom. 14. 2. There are therefore some actions which for their kind are neither good nor bad but indifferent Secondly Many acts are evill onely by the prohibition of some positive law As unto the Jewes it was unlawfull to eate Swines flesh to weare a garment of divers colours as of woollen and linnen together Deut. 22. 11. These actions therefore and many the like were of themselves and in their owne nature indifferent and became unlawfull onely by the ceremoniall law given unto the Jewes which law being abrogated it is now a thing indifferent and lawfull for Christians to eate swines flesh or not to eate it to weare a garment of linsey-woolsey or not Unto these scriptures and reasons I shall adde the testimony of Hierome frequently quoted for this purpose Bonum inquit est continentia malum est luxuria Inter
If indifferency were essentiall unto an humane action considered specifically then every singular or individuall thereof must be indifferent too because the essentials of every thing superiour in point of predication are imparted and attributed unto every thing that is under them in point of predication as every individuall of the humane nature is a sensitive creature a living body c. But now indifferency is ascribed unto some humane actions considered specifically onely by accident and extrinsecally from the operation of our understandings abstracting and devesting them from those circumstances good or bad wherewith in their individualls they are apparel'd and therefore agreeth not unto their individuals look't upon without such an abstraction By what hath been said you see that our most indifferent actions are liable unto sinne and therefore afford matter of humiliation for the time past matter of Caution for the future 1. Matter of humiliation for the time past In their singular and actuall existence they were morally either good or evill sanctified or sinnefull and good they could not be unlesse there did concurre all requisites And alas how seldome hath there occurred in them such a concurrence sometimes they have risen from a wrong principle other times they have been directed unto bad ends most times they have been faulty in regard of either measure or manner It is very seldome but there hath been wanting in them some circumstance or other that the word of God or law of nature requireth And the totall want of one of the least of such circumstances will so vitiate indifferent actions as that it will not onely render them sinfull but make them sinnes meritorious of all the flames and torments in hell and that which deserves so severe a punishment calls for a very eminent sorrow and contrition God hath set bounds unto the use of our liberty in things indifferent as unto the waves of the sea saying thus sarre shall ye goe and no farther He hath commanded that it should be restrained by prudence 〈◊〉 conscience Religion Authority and charity But we have transgressed these limits and have exceeded all bounds of moderation We have used this part of our Christian liberty very imprudently and intemperately in regard of our selves irreligiously and profanely in respect of God against the dictates of our conscience a deputy under him against the obligations of our oathes and vowes unto him disobediently against the lawfull commands of our superiours uncharitably with the scandall of many poore brethren And thus have we most shamefully and unthankfully abused this great priviledg of Christianity by using it as an occasion unto the 〈◊〉 as a 〈◊〉 of maliciousnesse and so have prostituted it unto the very service of Satan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Job's Sons and Daughters had feasted together Job offered burnt offerings according unto the number of them all for he said it may be that my sonnes have sinned Job 14. 5. Their feasting was a thing indifferent and very lawfull in it selfe but because it was obnoxious unto sinne therefore Jobe sacrificed in the behalfe of them all It may be saith he that my sonnes have sinned The possibility of sinne in the indifferent things of others especially such as are neerely related stirs up in the godly a feare and a holy jealousy of them and rowseth unto prayers for them and therefore much more should the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 assurance of the adhesion of sinne unto our own indifferent actions provoke us with contrite hearts to deprecate the wrath of God against us All the indifferencies of unregenerate men are sinnes Unto them that are defiled and 〈◊〉 nothing is pure Tit. 1. 15. the plowing of the wicked is sinne Prov. 21. 4. And however unto the pure all things are pure Tit. 1. 15. that is all indifferent things in themselves are lawfull yet they may and doe accidentally become sinne when they are not in all particulars rightly circumstanced And then they present us with fresh occasion for the renewall of our repentance and faith in Christ Jesus And how often this happeneth is a matter that the most wakefull and quicksighted conscience can hardly discerne so that the best of us may apply unto our indifferencies that of David Psalm 19. 12. Who can understand his errours cleanse thou me from secret faults Secondly The liablenesse of our indifferent actions unto sinne should be a motive unto all possible caution and warinesse for the future in them There is no humane action so indifferent but it is capable of sinne nay if it be not in all particulars rightly circumstantiated it becomes actually 〈◊〉 and therefore our hearts should be very watchfull against sinne in the use of all indifferencies in our meales in our feastings and merry meetings in our journey's in our ordinary talke and discourse in our walkes in the actions of our ordinary vocations Indeed the rule of Gods word doth not at all either command or forbid the matter of such actions but the manner of performing them commeth under the rule They are all to be done to the glory of God in the name of Christ every good creature is to be sanctified by the word and prayer That Command which God gave Abraham to walk before him is not to be straitned unto the ordinances of God but to be extended unto all deliberate acts of a mans life and conversation Gen. 17. 1. Zechariah in his prophecy of the generall call or conversion of Jewes and Gentiles gives this for one character of such as shall be converted that they shall have a sacred and sanctified use of things common and indifferent In that day shall there be upon the bells of their horses holinesse unto the Lord yea every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be 〈◊〉 unto the Lord of Hosts Zech. 14. 20 21. Not onely acts of immediate worship but all rationall actions whatsoever should be offered up as spirituall sacrifices acceptable unto God by Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 2. 5. The Apostle exhorts the Romans to salute one another with an holy kisse Rom. 16. 16. this kisse was no religious rite in Gods worship but a ceremony of civility and therefore in it selfe a thing indifferent And yet the Apostle requires holinesse for the qualification of it All our civill actions ought to be such as becommeth saints that is so farre forth holy for manner that they be free from sinne and unto the glory of God Indeed this is a strictnesse impossible unto lapsed man But though we cannot exactly and perfectly observe it yet we may sincerely and cordially endeavour it And this sincere and hearty endeavour is that which God for Christ's sake will accept reward and crowne and therefore it concernes us very much to use our utmost diligence herein and the rather because we are by farre more prone and ready to slide-into sinne in things indifferent ere we are aware then in such things as are for their nature and matter sinfull for in such things the danger is more apparent
obligari qui. n. obligatur debet vel tenetur id facere ad quod 〈◊〉 nec quantum est exparte suâ aliter absolvitur ab obligatione Ligari autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui 〈◊〉 dispositus est circa aliquod agibile quod non potest licitè procedere prout exigit natura illius agibilis ad modum illius qui ligatur corporalitèr nec potest procedere etiam in rectâ planâ via Conscience is said obligare to bind unto when 't is a bounden duty to doe or not doe what it dictates when t is not onely a sin to do any thing against it but also not to doe according to it Conscience is said ligare meerly to bind when t is a sin as to act against it so also to act according to it Capreolus and others that follow him quarrell with this distinction that Durand puts between ligare and obligare But Capreolus himselfe 〈◊〉 down a distinction of obligation that will come unto all one Obligatio inquit potest referri ad duo Primo ad conformandum se tali conscientiae ad nullo modo discordandum illi ad non deponendum eam secundò ad non discordandum ei sednon ad conformandum nec ad non deponendum Primò strictissimè sumitur illo modo Conscientia crronea non obligat Secundò sumitur largè illo modo intelligitur conclusio nostra quod conscientia 〈◊〉 obligat quia habens eam tenetur non discordare illi ita quod illa stante faciat oppositum quod illa dictat Nec 〈◊〉 tonetur so conformare illi nec tenetur eam conservare immo potest tenetur eam deponere Here his obligation largely so called differs nothing from Durand's ligation The Controversy then is but a strife of words and therefore not worthy the heeding These things thus premised I shall lay downe foure Conclusions First if the action in its nature be not necessary but indifferent and arbitrary and the person mis udging it be in respect thereof suijuris not determined therein by the command of any superiour power Why then he is bound in Conscience during this his opinion to abstaine from the action For we suppose it 〈◊〉 rent and a man may lawsully forbeare action where there is no necessity of doing à licitis po 〈◊〉 absque 〈◊〉 abstineri We suppose it although indifferent yet against 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 is done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a setled reluctancy of a mans own judgment and consciencè against it cannot be of faith and whatsoever is not of faith is sinne Rom. 14. 23. That is 〈◊〉 action is done without a firme perswasion of the lawfulnesse thereof let it be quoad rem and essentially in it selse lawfull nay necessary yet it becomes quoad hominem and accidentally evill unto him it is sin Now that action may lawfully must necessarily be forborne that can be omitted but cannot be committed without sinne But now on the contrary to come to a second Conclusion if either the action be in its nature necessary or the person entertaining this misprision thereof be justly enjoined persormance of it by some superiour power that can herein lawfully challenge obedience from him by a law not 〈◊〉 p nall and so the action too though indifferent for its nature be yet in its use and unto him become 〈◊〉 Why then this misperswasion of its unlawfullnesse cannot bind to abstaine from it for so it should oblige unto either omission of a necessary duty or else disobedience unto lawfull authority both great sinnes And nulla est obligatio ad illicita There is no obligation unto things unlawfull can lye upon us For first obligation is onely to that which is a morall good now nothing unlawfull can be a morall good and therefore an erroneous Conscience cannot oblige unto it Secondly no command of an inferiour power can oblige if it be contrary to the command of a superiour power But if an erroneous Conscience should bind unto things unlawfull it should oblige against the commandement of God whose 〈◊〉 Conscience is Indeed Conscience is the next rule of voluntary actions But First it is a well informed censcience that ought to be this rule the will is not bound to follow a blind guide for then being of it selfe 〈◊〉 potentia it must needs fall into the ditch And secondly conscience is but a subordinate rule unto the Law and Word of God and therefore its power to oblige is derived there from it obligeth not therefore but by vertue of some command of Gods Law or word and Gods Law cannot command things unlawfull for then it should clash with it selfe Capreolus Becanus Raynaudus with many others resolve that however a right and well informed Conscience onely binds unto a thing per se formaliter in omnem eventum yet an erroneous conscience denominated such from an invincible and involuntary errour may oblige unto a thing materially per accidens sub conditione and secundum quid It obligeth per accidens as it is apprehended and believed to be right and well informed so that an erroneous Conscience is adhered unto for the rectitude supposed to be in it It obligeth sub conditione upon condition that such errour of Conscience lasteth for it may be removed without sin and when it is removed the obligation ceaseth then that which obligeth conditionally obligeth onely secundum quid and not absolutely Unto this I have three exceptions First they limit themselves to errour invincible and involuntary which is not imputable or blameworthy This errour may be conceived to be either in matter of fact or in matter of rule Errour in matter of fact as when Jacob mistooke Leah for Rachell as when a poore subject that cannot judge of the titles of primes thinks a usurper to be his lawfull Soveraigne or as when a man takes goods left unto him by his Parents to be truly his own though perhaps a great part of them were gotten by sraud or oppression without any knowledg of his These and the like particulars are all impertinent unto our present purpose and therefore I shall not stay upon the consideration of them Errour in matter of Law right or rule is againe twofold either in regard of law naturall or law positive Now unto all that have actuall use of reason The errour of the law of nature is vincible and voluntary because the law of nature is sufficiently promulgated unto them it is written in their hearts Rom 2. 15. And we may say the same of Christians that enjoy the plenary promulgation of the Gospell and are capable of understanding it for the Gospell sufficiently reveales all divine positives so that a rationall man may know them and is bound to know them and Aquinas states it rightly 1. 2 ae q. 19. art 6. voluntas 〈◊〉 rationi erranti circaca quae quis scire tenetur 〈◊〉 est mala If a man erre concerning such things as he may know and
charity as Aquinas gives the reason 2. 2dae q. 43. a. 7. beginneth ever at home making a man cheifly desire and endeavour the salvation of his ownsoule and consequently more sollicitous to avoid sinne in himselfe then to prevent it in other I may not then omit or neglect necessary duties because to some they seem but needlesse niceties I must not fly true holinesse and the power of 〈◊〉 because unto the world it appeares but braine sick peevishnesse and an irrationall precisenesse others errour should not be seconded and countenanced with mine impiety and disobedience Scandalum nisi fallor non bonae rei sed 〈◊〉 exemplum est aedificans ad delictum Bonae res neminem scandalizant nisi malam mentem Si 〈◊〉 est modestia verecundia 〈◊〉 gloriae soli Deo captans placere agnoscant malum suum qui de tali bono scandalizantur Quod 〈◊〉 si incontinentes dicant se à continentibus scandalizari continentia revocanda est Tertullian Here it will not be an unprofitable nor much impertinent digression to give you the summe of what Thomas and his Interprerers say upon this Question An bona spiritualia sint propter scandalum dimittenda Not to mention their rotten distinction between matters of counsell and matters of precept we will only out of them take notice that there is a difference between 〈◊〉 of a precept and a temporary partiall or occasionall 〈◊〉 of the matter commanded by a precept No precept whatsoever whether of the Law of Nature or else but positive is for eschewing the scandall of any whether weake or malitious to be 〈◊〉 broken or transgressed And a precept is transgressed whensoever what is enjoyned in it is omitted at such a time and in such a case when all the particular circumstances which we ought to regard being considered we are tyed to all performance of it But yet however upon emergency of scandall that which is commanded by some precepts may pro hic nunc in some times and at some places be omitted may for a while be forborne untill the scandall taken thereby can be removed by information or instruction or untill the circumstances of the scandals be some way or other changed Promulgation of a truth and Christian reproofe are duties commanded by God and yet are to be sometimes abstained from for scandals taken by not onely the weake but all malitious Reprove not a scorner lest he hate thee Prov. 9. 8. Speake not in the eares of a foole for he will despise the wisdome of thy words Prov. 23. 9. 〈◊〉 not that which is holy unto the dogges neither cast ye your pearles before swine lest they trample them under their feet and turne againe and rent you Matth. 7. 6. To explaine this farther recourse must be had unto that old and golden rule 〈◊〉 praecepta semper obligant 〈◊〉 ad semper Affirmative precepts do alwaies bind but not to alwaies so 〈◊〉 we are not bound to performe alwaies what they enjoine but only loco tempore debitis when we have due time and place Now as by the intercurrency of other circumstances so especially by occurrence of the scandall of weake brethren there may not be opportunity and seasonablenesse of doing what we are urged unto by some affirmative precepts and so those precepts may pro his nunc cease to be obligatory For when the obligations of two precepts seeme to meete together at the very same time that which is of greater obligation tieth us and so consequently we are for the present freed from the obligation of the other Now the negative precept of eschewing the scandall of the weake is more obligatory than many affirmative precepts and therefore to use the words of Malderus contingit aliquando 〈◊〉 naturale affirmativum hic nunc non obligare propter concursum negativi 〈◊〉 naturalis de vitando scandalo pusillorum For example vindicative justice binds a magistrate to execute wrath upon him that doth evill Charity on the other side obligeth him to hinder as much as he can the scandall of the weake now Charity is a virtue of an higher note and nature than vindicative justice the precept belonging unto charity hinder as much as you can the scandall of the weake doth more strictly tie us than that pertaining unto vindicative justice punish the guilty And therefore if it be probable that a great and spreading scandall will be taken at the punishing of delinquents a Magistrate may not transgresse against justice and yet deferre the execution thereof But so manifold and different are the degrees of obligation in affirmative precepts such is the variety of circumstances appertaining unto the matters commanded by those precepts and constancy of alterations about those circūstances as that I do not see how any unvariable rules or constant directions can be given for Christian carriage in this case For particulars then every man is to be left unto the guidance of his spirituall prudence and wisdome which is to direct him in a right apprehension and discretion of circumstances to define the opportunity and seasonablenesse of practising what is commanded by affirmative precepts and to compare them and the precept of eschewing the scandall of the weake together and thereupon to determine which is hic nunc most obligatory or doth most strictly tye us to the obedience of it as being of greater moment Only in the generall wee may safely say thus much that whereas wee have said that for shunning the scandall of the weake we may forbeare the practise of things commanded by affirmative precepts Hic nunc in some places and at some times it must allwayes be taken with this proviso that there be not incurred a greater and more perilous scandall by forbearance then would probably be occasioned by practise of the thing 〈◊〉 which is done when either first more are scandalized by the forbearance than in all likely-hood would be at the practise or else secondly when the body in generall the Church and Common wealth or the greatest and 〈◊〉 part of either is scandalized at the sorbeareance and onely some few particular private persons stumble at the practise or else thirdly when others take 〈◊〉 by this partiall and temporary forbearance of what is commanded by affirmative precepts to contemne the precepts 〈◊〉 as being by this our carriage induced to beleive that we verily despise them and do not so much for a while forbeare as utterly disclaime the practise of what they command Thus you see that according to the common opinion of the schoolemen things commanded may in case of scandall for a while be omitted or forborne but Vasquez and 〈◊〉 dissent from them in this particular the explication and confirmation of their opinion I will propound and then breifely passe my censure thereon Becanus to make way for his opinion premiseth that there is a difference between naturall precepts for some saith he bind simply and alwaies whatsoever circumstances
be applied unto our Ceremonies there will be in such application a meer begging of the question for that our Ceremonies were things indifferent the command of them lawfull the practise of them a duty of justice a legall debt is the maine thing in controversy betwixt the conformists and non-conformists and therefore all this should be proved and not barely presupposed as it is But Secondly the fore mentioned rule is to be understood with this limitation caeteris paribus if the termes of the comparison be equall and equall they are not when the minims of justice are put into the ballance with the weightiest duties of charity and so 't is in the present comparison though we suppose our Ceremonies to be indifferent and the practise of them a dutie of justice for of what importance is such practise in comparison of the not scandalizing of our Brother Who that is not extreamly transported with prejudice will think that the commands of the Prelates to weare the surplice to signe children with the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme c. carry any tolerable proportion with those precepts of the Apostle destroy not him with thy meat thy indifferencies for whom Christ died for such things destroy not the worke of God Rom. 14. 15 20. What lawes of any earthly wight whatsoever concerning ceremonies can be more obligatory than the Commands of God touching the externalls of his worship and service and yet it is his will and pleasure that these externals of his worship should be laid aside for the performance of outward works of mercy I will have mercy and not sacrifice Matth. 12. 7. Thus are we to leave our prayers both publique and private to forsake a Sermon for to save the life 〈◊〉 our neighbours to quench the firing of his house to helpe his cattle out of the ditch now if the sacred Ordinances of God are to give way unto works of mercy unto the bodies of men surely then much more is the trash of humane inventions to yeild unto a worke of mercy towards the soules of men This answer which I now give was made by 〈◊〉 in his dispute of scandall unto the Duplies of the Doctors of Aberdeen pa. 50 51 52 53. his discourse there is so satisfactory as that I have thought fit to transcribe what he saies and I hope the reading of it will not be irksome unto the Reader It is true these duties which we owe to others by way of justice are more obligatory then those which we owe only by way of charity caeteris paribus 〈◊〉 duties of the Law of nature and morall Law are compared together then indeed the duties which we owe both by the tye of justice and charity are more obligatory then the duties that 〈◊〉 owe onely by the tye of charity As for example My Father is in danger before mine eyes to be drowned in one 〈◊〉 water and before my 〈◊〉 also my neighbour or friend is in danger of the like kind the two 〈◊〉 and bands of justice and charity both by the fifth and sixt Commandements are more obligatory hic nunc and do more strictly oblige that I run to succour and preserve the life of my Father than the life of my neighbour for the obligation to my neighbour is only Charity by the obligation of the sixth Commandement which obligation ceaseth hic nunc at this time when my fathers life is in hazard and thus farre the Doctors argument goeth for strong as School-men Casuists and Divines teach But it is not to a purpose for the Doctors for all offices and duties generally and universally of what ever kind which we owe by way of Justice are not more obligatory than duties which we owe only by way of charity as when duties of a positive commandement of God 〈◊〉 by our superiours and duties which we owe by charity only are compared together then the Doctors Major proposition is not cleare of it selfe as they dreame neither do Casuists or Amesius or Divines say with them but truth and all our Divines say against them Let us suppose that the King and Convocation and Assembly of Priests and Prophets of Israel make a Canon according to Gods word That no manner of man presume to eat shew-bread save the Priests only All men owe obedience to this both because it is Gods expresse Law and by the band of Justice the 〈◊〉 and assembly of the Ancients have forbidden it But if our Doctors argument st and strong David at the point and hazard of famishing for hunger sinned in eating shew-bread yet Christ acquitteth him of all sinne and saith Matth. 12. 5. he and his followers are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blamelesse Now David was under a duty by mercy and love to his own life and the lives of his followers to eat shew bread and he was under the band of Justice by the Law of the Ancients of Israel and Gods law not to eat Therefore in some cases when our superiours commandements are only positive Lawes they are not more obligatory than duties of Charity only commanded in the Law of nature I cleare it further thus I see my neighbour in danger before my eyes of drowning and my father commandeth me to goe and labour or sow his farme in that time while I am to preserve the life of my neighbour in present danger to loose his life in a great water By the Doctors maxime I am under the higher obligatory tie of Justice to obey my father who commandeth a thing both lawfull and necessary by vertue of the higher commandement to wit the first of the second Table than I am obliged by the sixth Commandement and of charity only to give present succour and helpe to my dying neighbour so I must let my neighbour dye in the waters to give a duty of Justice to my father of farre lesse necessity I would not commit my Conscience to such Casuists as are the Doctors of Aberdeen But if the Doctors would see with some new light of reason it is cleare that not only the tye of justice maketh the precept more obligatory but also the 〈◊〉 of the thing commanded yea and if the positive Commandements of the Lord our God who of Justice and Kingly soveraignty hath right to aske obedience of us above all earthly Superiours do yeild and cede as lesse obligatory then commandements of love only that are commanded in the Law of nature What do our Doctors clatter and fable to us of a right of Justice that mortall Rulers have to command in things indifferent from which the destruction of soules doth arise for these commandements of Rulers Kneele religiously before bread the 〈◊〉 image of Christ crucified keepe humane holy dayes Crosse the ayre with your thumb above a baptized infants face at best are but positive Commandements not warranted by Gods word But shall they be more obligatory by a supposed band of Justice that Prelates have over us to command such toyes than this
divine Law of God and Nature Rom. 14. For indifferent dayes meates surpsice 〈◊〉 not him for whom Christ dyed All the Casuists and Schoolemen Navarra Sylvester Sanchez Raphael dela Torre Meratius Duvallius Thomas Scotus Bonaventura Suarez Uasquez Greg de valentia Albertus Richardus Biel Corduba Angelus Adrianus Alphonsus Becanus Yea and all the host of our Divines cry with Scripture that mercy and the precepts of love and of the Law of nature are more obligatory than sacrifice burnt offerings and Gods owne positive Lawes yea and that positive Lawes loose their obligatory power and cease to be lawes when the lawes of nature and necessary dutyes of mercy and love as not to murther our brother not to scandalize standeth in their way I might weary the Reader here with citations and be wilder my selfe also but it is a point of Divinity denyed by none at all 3. What we owe of Justice to our Superiours is indeed both a morall debt of obedience and a debt of Justice and law which Rulers may seeke by their place and exjure as Aristotle saith but this right is limited Rulers have no right to seeke absolute obedience but onely in the Lord not against charity And though the place of Rulers be authoritative yet their commanding power as touching the matter of what they injoyne is only 〈◊〉 and they cannot but in Gods place exact that which is Gods due and seing God himselfe if he should immediatly in his owne person Command he would not urge a positive commandement sarrè lesse the commandement of light and vaine Ceremonies against and beyond the precept of love not to destroy a soule for whom Christ dyed Ergò Superiours under God who borrow all their light from God cannot have a higher right than God hath 4. The comparison of a man who oweth 〈◊〉 to a Creditor and oweth moneyes to the poore is close off the way sor he is obliged to pay the Creditour first but the case 〈◊〉 is farre otherwise the debt of practising indifferent seathers and straws such as 〈◊〉 crossing wearing Surplice is neither like the dept owen to the poore nor to the Creditor For natures Law and Gods word 1. Cor. 10. 18. 19. maketh the Non-practise non-murthering obedience to God when the practise of indifferent things is a soule stumbling to the weake and the practising is but at ' its best obedience to a positive Law and ought to stoope and goe off the way and disappeare when natures Law murther not doth come in ' its way When the Doctors put Loyalty above Charity they suppose obedience to Commandements commanding scandalizing of soulès to be loyalty to Superiours which is questioned it being treason to the soveraigne of Heaven and Earth to destroy his Image it is taken as loyaltie by our Doctors but not proven to be loyaltie and so a vaine question here whether Loyalty be above Charity or not This dispute of scandall is annexed unto his divine right of Church Goverment which was published 1646. since that Dr. Sanderson 1656 as I shewed you but now propounds the argument a new with a great deale of triumph but without any considerable reinforcement and withall he takes no notice of Rutherford his answer from whence I gather that he never read it and indeed it is a thing very incident unto the greatest Schollars of that party to censure but never to reade their adversaries Thirdly to say something unto Dr. Sanderson as well as unto the Duplyers I must needs confesse that I am transported with a just admiration that so great a schollar should so extenuate as he doth the guilt of an active scandall for he makes the care of not giving offence to a brother to be a matter but of courtesy he cannot saith he justly say I do him wrong if I neglect it But first the Apostle Paul speakes another language in his account to make brethren to offend is to sin against them to wound their weake consciences and so to sin against Christ. 1 Cor. 8. 12. Compared with ver 11. 13. and Rom. 14. 15. 20. he resolves that 't is a destroying of a brother for whom Christ died a destroying of the worke of God in him whereupon Divines generally determine that 't is soule-murther Now in wounding the weake conscience of our brother in murthering his immortall soule there is doubtlesse some wrong committed against him not to destroy him for whom Christ dyed c. is more than a matter of meer courtesy unto him Secondly suppose the care of not giving offence be in respect of our brother but debitum charitatis yet in regard of God 't is 〈◊〉 justitiae a legall debt he may and doth challenge it as due and we do him wrong if we disobey him Our Saviour thundereth a woe against such disobedience Woe to him through whom offences come Luk. 17. 1. and in the second verse this woe is aggravated by comparison with a very grievous punishment it were better for him that a Mill-stone were hanged about his neck and he cast into the sea then that he should offend one of these little ones But to proceed'unto the second comparison on which I insisted out of Bishop Morton and Dr Sanderson a Comparison betwixt a scandall given to a Magistrate and a scandall given to one who is only a brother I demand whether or no the offence given to or taken by a Magistrate who is a brother and withall a Magistrate be not greater than that which is given to or taken by one who is only a brother an impartiall Judge will soone determine that the double relation of brother and Magistrate weigheth down the single and naked relation of a brother c. ut suprà For answer unto this distinguish we of a twofold acception of scandall Primary and Secundary First Primary and so t is an occasioning culpably the fall of another into sin Secondly Secundary and so 't is only the angring vexing displeasing of another This distinction premised the comparison may be understood either of the scandall of a Magistrate in a secundary acception with a scandall of one who is onely a brother in a secundary acception of the word too or else of the scandall of a Magistrate in a secundary acception with the scandall of a brother in a primary acception or 3. of the scandall of a Magistrate in a primary acception with the scandall of a brother in a primary acception also First if the Comparison be on both sides to be understood of scandall taken in a secondary sense there is no doubt but the scandall of the Magistrate is more dangerous than that of one who is only a brother for the wrath of the supreame Magistrate is as the Messengers of death Prov. 16. 14. as the roaring of a Lyon Prov. 19. 12. In indifferent things then it will be our safest course to anger a brother rather then to displease the Magistrate But this acception of scandall is impertinent unto our purpose and
instruction or else some opinion or practise whereunto they have been long accustomed may cast such a mist before their weak judgments as that they may not be able presently to apprehend the reason that is given of the action at which they stumble And we should so farre pitty the simplicity of such poore soules as to abstaine from that which scandalizeth them if by such abstinence there accrue not to us any great losse or inconvenience This is observed by Cajetan upon Aquinas 2. 2 dae q. 43. art 7. Ubi dicitur inquit articulo 7 mo de scandalo pusillorum si autem 〈◊〉 redditam rationem hujusmodi scandalum duret jam videtur ex malitiâ esse adverto quod author non assertivo verbo utitur sed opinativo dicendo jam videtur ex malitiâ esse potest siquidem contingere quod pusilli non sint capaces rationis redditae vel propter pristinam consuetudinem quae facit apparere dissonum quod veritati consonat vel propter rationem apud eos magis apparentem vel aliquod hujusmodi tunc quia malitia non facit scandalum sed ignorantia vel infirmitas quamvis reddita sit ratio cessandum est ab hujusmodi spiritualibus non necessariis Cajetan in 2. 2. 0. 43. c. Whereas it is said in the 7th article touching the scandall of the weak if after a reason given the scandall do still remain it seemeth to be of malice you must note the Author doth not use verbo assertivo sed opinativo saying it seemeth to be of malice For it may fall out that the weake are not capable of the reason that is rendred either by reason of his former Custome which maketh that to appeare discordant with the truth or for some reason which in his eyes is more apparent or by reason of some such like cause and then it is not out of malice that he is offended but out of ignorance and infirmity After Cajetan Petrus de Lorica doth roundly and fully expresse the matter Verum est saith he quod Cajetanus advertit scandalum pusillorum perseverare posse adhuc postquam reddita est ratio facti vel quia rationem non capiunt ob mentis tarditatem vel ob consuetudinem diu firmatam in quo casu docet Cajetanus 〈◊〉 esse actionem ex quâ scandalum accipiunt vel differendam donec ad saniorem mentem venerint Quòd solùm verum si actio omitti potest 〈◊〉 jacturâ nostrae utilitatis Si enim magna utilitas temporalis vel spiritualis interveniat contemni potest scandalum pusillorum postquam sufficienter admoniti sint In the next place I will recite a limitation of Gregory de Valentia that comes under this head and is very remarkable Having laid downe a rule that for avoiding the scandall of our neighbour which springeth either from his ignorance or weaknesse it behooveth us by the obligation of Charity to do or omit that which may be done or left undone without sin he afterwards puts this exception Est autem animadvertendum hanc regulam intelligi debere de omni eo quod sine peccato fieri aut omitti possit non quom docunque sed moralitèr attentâ suavitate quae est in jugo legum divinarum idest quod sine peccato fieri aut omitti possit sine maxima etiam aliqua penè intolerabili 〈◊〉 spectata quoque in hac conditione 〈◊〉 c And indeed me thinks he speaks reasonably For improbable seems it that the sweet moderation which is in the yoake of divine lawes should consist with so great a rigour as in all matters whatsoever not simply unlawfull to exact not only a brotherly but also a servile compliancy with every supposed weak one whose weaknesse may be but pretended by those that are willing to speake favourably of them For the humouring and contenting of every supposed weakling in all matters at which he takes offence I conceive not my selfe bound to endanger my life to hazard my estate and fortunes or to incurre any other great or notable inconvenience for that would truly be durus sermo an hard saying who were able to beare it But now against this may be objected the resolution of the Apostle 1 Cor. 8. 13. if meat make my brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the world standeth lest I make my brother to offend flesh is of great expediency for the nourishment of mans life and yet Paul resolves upon a perpetuall abstinence therefrom in case of scandall Consequent and this example of Paul is obligatory unto all Christians For answer first this flesh may be understood only of such as was sacrificed unto Idols for words in scripture usually are to be restrained unto the subject matter spoken of and the meat and flesh here spoken of in the Context was such as had been offered unto an Idoll Secondly Calvin resolveth that 't is an Hyperbole est inquit hyperbolica locutio quia vix possibile est ut quis à carnibus totâ vitâ abstineat siremaneat in communi vitâ significat tamen se 〈◊〉 usurum potius suâ libertate quam ut fit insirmis offendiculo Nunquam 〈◊〉 licitus est usus nisi moderatus ad charitatis regulam This Hyperbole of Pauls you may Parallel with that of our Saviour 〈◊〉 5. 39 40 41. whosoever shall smite thee on thy right 〈◊〉 turne to him the other also And if any man will sue 〈◊〉 at the Law and take away thy coate let him have thy cloake also And 〈◊〉 shall compell thee to goe a mile goe with him twaine Thirdly Paul is to be understood only upon supposition that the Gospell should not be fully promulgated and brethren should remain uninstructed concerning the nature of Christian Liberty for usually 't is in this case only that to eat flesh involves in the guilt of an active scandall makes a brother to offend hence the Apostle exhorts the strong amongst the Romans to abstaine from meats forbiden by the Law of Moses for prevention of the scandall of the weake but amongst the Galathians and Colossians he dislikes such an abstinence and dehorts from it the reason of this his 〈◊〉 carriage was because the weak amonst the Romans were not fully taught the doctrine of Christian liberty the Galathians Colossians were Julian mistaking the Apostles doctrine of scâdall thought to make use of it for the starving of the Christias and therefore in Antiochia and in the region round about he dedicated all the sountaines to the Goddesses of the Gentiles and caused all the victuall that was to be sold in market places to be sprinkled with Ethnick holy waters thinking that some would be scandalized at the drinking of the water of such fountaines and at the eating of such victuall and that the Apostles doctrine obliged all to forbeare any thing in the 〈◊〉 of scandall never-thelesse Christians without scruple of conscience dranke of the water that was in the
by the King v. 21. Why even this evill appearance this seeming this making as if he did eat of the flesh taken from the sacrifice commanded by the King so deepely disrelished him as that he chose death before it For it becommeth not our age saith he in any wise to dissemble whereby many young persons might think that 〈◊〉 being four score years old and ten was now gone to a strang religion so they through mine hypocrisy and desire to live a little time and a moment longer should be deceived by me and I get a stain to my old age and make it abominable v. 24 25. But why mention I 〈◊〉 behold the example of one greater then Eleazar the example of the rule and patterne of holines unto the Church Christ Iesus God blessed for ever whose example in Morals and matters of ordinary obedience amounts ever unto the authority of a command How exemplarie he was in this particular you may reade Matth. c. 17. from v. 24 unto the end of the Chapter There you have him performing an action not for that omission of it would have been evill but because in opinion of the Jewes it would have given shew of evill For if first you understand the words as most Interpreters do of the tribute to be paid unto the secular Magistrate then sinfull it had not been in our Saviour to have refused paiment of tribute unto Caesar. For how could the Son to the living God who was King of Kinges and Lord of Lords King of heaven and earth whose the earth and all the 〈◊〉 thereof was be justly tributary unto any mortall The Kinges of the earth take tribute or custome not of their owne children however they expect obedience from them but of strangers because paying of tribute denoteth some degree or kinde of Servitude The children then are free vers 25 26. Therefore from all taxes and impositions justly was to be exempted Christ the Son of David there was no reason he should pay tribute unto Caesar nay more reason he being of the blood royall should receive tribute from the Jewes than Caesar a forrainer having no title to the Crowne but that which the sword gave him Not paiment constant denyall of paiment had not been you see morally evill in our Saviour and yet because it would have borne appearance of an evill of disloyaltie and disobedience and so have drawn prejudices against and scandall upon his unspotted person holy and heavenly office and doctrine because seemingly it would have crossed a doctrine he afterwards delivered Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars therefore he stands not to pleade his priviledge but voluntarily parted with his right payed the tribute and to pay it wrought a miracle notwithstanding Peter lest we should offend them goe thou to the 〈◊〉 and cast an hook and take up the fish that first cometh up and when thou hast opened his mouth thou shalt find a peice of money that take and give unto them for me and thee vers 27. Or if secondly with the learned Cameron you rather conceive to be here meant the halfe shekell which by prescript of the Ceremoniall Law Exod. 30. was by the Jewes to be paid for the use of the Sanctuary Why yet so also sinfull it had not been in our Saviour to have refused paying of it for first it was a Ceremonie and the Ceremoniall Law Christ was above Lord he was of the Sabbath Matth. c. 12. ver 8. Mar. c. 2. v. 28. where it is manifest thinks Cameron the Sabbath should 〈◊〉 signify the whole Ceremomall Law Then secondly this Ceremony together with Sacrifices and all other Legall typicall Ceremonies presupposed sin in the party to whom they were commanded and were a note or badge contracted by sinne and therefore reach not unto Christ a man without sin Thirdly as our Saviour well argues even as Kings of the earth take not tribute of their owne Children so neither the King of Heaven of his Sonne therefore seing this halfe shekel is a tribute to be paid to the King of Heaven for the Tabernacle of witnesse 2 Chro. 24. 6. Christ was certainely free and so might lawfully have refused to pay it Yet because the Iewes would have taken offence and umbrages at such his resusall and charg'd it with appearance of a profane contempt of the Law of Moses and the Sanctuary therefore he voluntarily paid it and so became a Jew to the Jewes as under the Law to them that were under the Law Notwithstanding lest we should offend c. And if this be the sense of the place what is said of this one Ceremonie may be applyed unto all for one of the reasons and ends why Christ observed the whole Ceremoniall Law was to prevent scandall to abstaine from all appearance of evill In nature saith Cameron there is appetitus quidem unionis which causeth things to be moved and to rest often besides the proper condition of their particular nature whence sometimes light things are moved downewards heavie things upwards Unto this appetite of union in nature there is answerable in grace the desire to promote Gods glory which often inclineth and carrieth the Godly beyond and besides the ordinary obligations arising out of their particular and personall conditions and relations And unto the measure of grace is proportionable the degree of the desire of Gods glory so that the holier any one is the more vehemently he desireth the promotion thereof and if it require any thing to be done of him why he will do it although otherwise by vertue of his particular and personall condition he be not bound thereunto Therefore although Christ secundum 〈◊〉 rationem personae suae if we eye the speciall consideration and dignity of his person was not tyed to keepe the Ceremoniall Law yet he kept it in as much as the Glory of God required him so to doe If you demand how the glory of God exacted this at Christs hands why Christ himselfe tells us Nè simus illis scandalo lest we should offend them for if Christ had not observed the Ceremoniall law he had doubtlesse wonderfully estranged the Jewes from him In observing it then he did but as Kings often doe in stooping to many things unto which they are no waies obliged for to win the hearts and affections of their humorous subjects This example of our Saviour was followed by the Apâ—stles and elders in the first generall Councill at Jerusalem where they impâ—sed upon the Gentiles abstinence from meat offered to Idols from things strangled and from blood Acts 15. 29. Not for that these meats were in themselves uncleane and abominable but because they appeared to be so to the froward and peevish Jewes who were kept off from Christ because these meats in which they supposed to be such abomination and uncleanesse were usually eaten by the Christians But this was but a temporary injunction they gave to others Let us view their own practice Maintenance for
t is the day of God 2 Pet. 3. 12. and with him a thousand yeares is as one day vers 8. and as little cause have we to stay upon the examination of that in Aquinas Suppl ad tertiam partem quaest 88. artis 2. where because he thinks it impossible that the discussion and sentencing of all the thoughts words and workes of men should be dispatched in the space of a day therefore he concludes that all things shall then be transacted not by vocall locution but mentally in the minds and Consciences of men In the next place we have the Confirmation or proofe of this prediction of a future judgment from the testimony of the Gospel according to my Gospell that is according to that doctrine which I have taught you in preaching the Gospel and this is a proofe of unquestionable credit not to be contradicted by any either humane or Angelicall testimony if any man 〈◊〉 Angell from Heaven preach any other Gospell unto you then that you have received 〈◊〉 him be accursed Gal. 1. 8 9. Here inquire we three things 1. What is meant by Pauls Gospell 2. How Paul termeth it his Gospel 3. In what sense God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according unto the Gospell of Paul First What is meant by this Gospell of Paul not any History of the birth life and sufferings of our Saviour written by Paul as by Matthew Marke Luke and John but the doctrine of the Gospel concerning Jesus Christ delivered unto them by Paul either in writing or else by word of mouth And hence we may note that the last judgment is a branch of Evangelicall doctrine it was one of the chiefe points that the Apostles had in their Commission to publish God commanded us saith Peter to preach unto the people and to testifie that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge both of quick and dead Acts 10. 42. Rolloc thinks that it belongs unto the Gospell only by way of subserviency and preparation but I shall make no scruple to affirme that it appertaineth properly unto the Gospell for it is a consummate act of Christs regall function and that not only in the perfect subduing of enemies but also in the full rewarding of his faithfull subjects unto whom therefore it will be good and acceptable tidings neither is this impeached by its terrour unto the wicked for this is only by accident and so the sweetest and most comfortable points of the Gospell are unto them a savour of death unto death 2 Cor. 2. 16 A second inquiry is why the Gospell is stiled Pauls Gospell according unto my Gospell the same expression we find also Rom. 16. 25. 2 Tim. 6. 8. For answer we must distinguish betwixt the authority and the Ministry or dispensation of the Gospell The Gospell is Gods and Christs in regard of authority for it oweth all its divine worth and authority unto them and therefore is stiled the Gospell of God Rom. 1. 1. the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ 2 Thes. 1. 8. the Gospel which was preached by me saith Paul is not after man for I neither received it of man neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Iesus Christ Gal. 1. 1 1 2. The Gospell then is termed Pauls only in regard of Ministry and dispensation because Paul was a Minister a dispensor a Steward amongst 〈◊〉 of the misteries it 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 4. 1 a dispensation of the Gospel saith he is committed to me 1 Cor. 9 17. 〈◊〉 pray I saith Christ for these alone but for them also which believe on me through their word Joh. 17. 20. where Christ termeth his own word the word of his Disciples because they were the Ministers and dispensers thereof And for the same reason the Gospelis termed the report of the Prophets and Apostles who hath believed our report Esa. 53. 1. Thus the Gospell you see is Gods 〈◊〉 and Pauls 't is the Gospel of God and Christ tanquam Authoris 't is the Gospel of Paul tanquam Praedicatoris The third and last inquiry is how and in what sence God shall judge the secrets of men according unto Pauls Gospel according unto my Gospell This clause according to my Gospell may be referrred either unto Jesus Christ or else unto Judge If it be referred unto Jesus Christ then the Apostle in referring them for evidence unto his Gospell doth not teach them so much according unto what rule God will judge as by whom to wit the Mediator which is a point taught and revealed not in the law but in the Gospel If we place this clause according unto my Gospel in order of sense and construction after judge then it may import one of these two things concerning Gods future judgment of the world either a conformity of it unto the Gospel or else the revelation of it by the Gospell 1. A Conformity of it unto the Gospell and so it signifies that the sentence then to be denounced is allready set forth and proclaimed in the Gospell from which the Judge shall not then varie he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him Joh. 3. 36. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned Mark 16. 16. This is the voice of the Gospell and according to the tenor of this Evangelicall decree as I may say shall God pronounce sentence at the last day to wit a sentence of absolution and benediction upon believers and of condemnation upon unbelievers But now though all that have not believed in Christ Jesus shall that day be condemned yet those Pagans unto whom Christ was never revealed shall not be condemned for their not believing in Christ but for transgression of the Law written in their heart and the reason is because the Obligation of any Law necessarily presupposeth promulgation thereof and therefore those unto whom Christ is not preached cannot be bound to believe in him How can they be condemned for refusall of the Gospell unto whom it was never offered the rule then by which God will judge such will be not the Gospell but the Law of Nature And therefore in a second place I rather believe that according to the Gospell signifies the revelation of the judgment to come by the Gospell God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according unto my Gospell that is as verily and certainly as I have foretold you of it in my Gospel in which sence the particle according is taken by our Saviour Matth. 9. 29. according unto your faith be it unto you that is let it be unto you as ye believe Paul least any one should think this his discourse of judgment to come to be a fable or fiction backs it with the authority of the Gospel God shall judge c. according unto my Gospel that is as I have
performance of which the Scripture propounds the day of judgment as a motive and they regard either God or our selves or others 1. God and his Son Christ Jesus and saith in him 2. Repentance of our sins against him 3. Love 4. Feare of him 5. Prayer to him First faith in him and his Son Christ Iesus and unto the exercise of this faith there are two pressing arguments in the text 1. God shall Judge by 〈◊〉 Christ now of all graces faith is that which primarily and principally ingratiates with Jesus Christ for it unites us with him and renders us his beloved spouse and members and therefore though it cannot purchase or merit yet it will infallibly procure his favour so that unto every believing soule he will when he sits upon his Throne of glory as 〈◊〉 unto 〈◊〉 at it were hold out his golden Scepter 2. God shall 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 Christ according to the Gospel according to the Covenant of grace and the condition thereof is faith a believer then hath the fidelity the promises the oath the Sacraments of God engaged for his absolution but now on the contrary unbelievers shall be judged according to a Covenant of works and the severity of such a triall even as David deprecates Enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight shall no man living be justified Psal. 14. 3. 2. That is do not try me by thy law for so wide is the perfection thereof as that I fall infinitely short of it and therefore can expect therefrom nothing but condemnation sordet in conspectu judicis quod 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 operantis those performances which most glitter in my own and other mens eyes will be found filthy if the pure eyes of the Iudge measure them by the rigour of the Law But to passe on unto other Scriptures 2 Pet. 3. 14. 〈◊〉 beloved seeing that you looke for such things be diligent that you may be found of him in peace to wit with God and this peace is an inseparable consequent of faith being justified by faith we have peace with God c. Rom. 5. 1. 1 Ioh 2. 28. And now little children abide in him that when he shall appeare we may have 〈◊〉 and not be ashamed before him at his coming Now it is by faith that we have our abode in Christ and therefore faith gives an undaunted boldnesse to stand in judgment before Christ Whereas on the contrary those that die in finall unbeliefe will hang downe their heads and be even confounded as not being able to looke the Iudge in the face with any confidence whose tenders of life and mercy they obstinately and contemptuously refused unto the very last gaspe The Guest that is without a wedding garment will in the day of judgment be speechles Matt. 22. 12. This wedding garment is the robes of Christs righteousnesse and what puts these on but saith without faith then our guilt will strike us dumb Ioh. 3. 18. He that believeth not is condemned allready as by the Law and Gospel so by the verdict of his guilty and accusing Conscience when ever it awakens now if our unbeliefe be so grosse as that our own Consciences cannot but condemne us for is how can we expect that our Omniscient Iudge should acquit us if 〈◊〉 hearts condemne us God is 〈◊〉 then our hearts and knoweth all things 1 Ioh. 3. 20. Secondly we may hence be exhorted to repentance of our sins against him The times of this ignorance God winked at but now 〈◊〉 all men every where to repent because he hath 〈◊〉 a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousnesse by that man whom he hath ordained c. Acts 17. 30 31. This place hath some obscurity and therefore I shall stay a while upon the opening of it the particle but plainly sheweth that here is an Antithesis or opposition betwixt two 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 and Gods dispensation in them 1. Here are times of Ignorance at which God wincked times before the generall publication of the Gospell 2. The present times of the Gospell But he commands all men every where to repent from this Antithesis or opposition it naturally followeth that in the times before the generall promulgation of the Gospel times of ignorance God did not Command all men every where to repent he winked at them he suffered the Gentiles to lie in their Idolatries without so much as any admonition Against this it may easily be foreseen that it may be Objected that all men even before the times of the Gospel had the law of nature written in their hearts and that Commands repentance by that then God even before the times of the Gospell commanded all men every where to repent Unto this I find those following Answers 1. Though all men since the fall of Adam were obliged by the naturall law unto repentance yet not by any positive command and revelation superadded unto the law of nature and this Answer I have in the Authour of that learned Manuscript unto which Mr Iohn Goodwin pretends to give a replie in his Pagans 〈◊〉 and dowry the generality of the Gentiles before the resurrection of Christ had no other preachers of Repentance but the light of nature and the booke of the creature but now God by the Ministers of the Gospell command all men every where that is where the Gospell is revealed to repent A 〈◊〉 Answer is that the deniall of the generality of the Command to repent in the times of ignorance before the Gospell is to be understood only in a comparative sense so that the import of the Antithesis is God now commands all men every where to repent more clearly fully distinctly and expresly then in those times of ignorance before Christ and this way Mounsieur Dallie and others of that party take The Command then to repent was given unto all men allwaies for the substance and matter of it and is new only 〈◊〉 the manner of it Unto which I may adde for a third answer that it is also new in regard of the inforcement of it by a new motive the last and generall judgment of men by Jesus Christ which was not revealed generally unto the Heathens before the Gospel times indeed the light of nature might dictate unto them the congruence and probability of a second and universall judgment and this might be ground enough for the Poets fictions touching the three Judges of Hell-Minos Aeacus and Rhadamanthus but though the light of nature and reason be never so improoved yet as Scotus well observeth lib. 4. dist 47. quaest 1. n. 5. it can never make any demonstration of the certainty thereof and he gives this reason because it is a matter lesse known unto reason then the resurrection and this is a thing we can only proove by the revelation of Scripture God then now commandeth all men in all nations unto which the Gospel is published to expect by a more pregnant and 〈◊〉 motive then
1. 3. Luk. 3. 4 5 Acts 8. 21 13 10. 2 Pet. 2. 15. elsewhere by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 righteous or just Prov. 17. 26. Numb 23. 10. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good Deut. 12. 28. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good or faire by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pure or cleane Job 3 3. 3. and doth not this amount to more then a meere innocency a bare absence of vice he noteth as much also concerning the Latine word rectus 〈◊〉 in line â non negat tantum sed ponit aliquid Cicer. 1. Offic. 〈◊〉 autem officium rectum opinor vocemus quod graeci 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem 2. de finibus quae autem 〈◊〉 aut recta aut 〈◊〉 facta dicimus si placet illi autem vocant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnes numeros virtutis continent valet ergo idem quodjustum ut cum Virgil. 1. Aeneid dicit mens sibi conscia recti But to passe on unto the New Testament and there by the Apostle Paul we have the particulars of that uprightnesse and the image of God in which the first man was created clearly expressed to instance first in that which was the leading grace unto all others a true saving and sanctifying knowledge and that man was endued with such a knowledge when he was created may be easily concluded from Col. 3. 10. And have put on the now man which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him here that knowledge which is restored to man in his regeneration hath for it's exemplar the image of God stamp'd upon man in his creation and therefore Beza renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in agnitionem 〈◊〉 imagini ejus renewed in knowledge suitable and agreable unto the image of God the knowledge therefore of the regenerate man represents at least inpart the image of God in the first man when created consequently knowledge was a branch of that image of God in which the first man was created Dr. Taylor speakes detractingly of the knowledge of Adam in his state of integrity Unum necessarium pag 373. neither can we guesse saith he at what degree of knowledge Adam had before his fall certainly if he had so great a knowledge 't is not likely he would so cheaply have sold himsefe and all his hopes 〈◊〉 of a greedy appetite to get some knowledge But we may goe further than guesses and that with good warrant from scripture for First God created man in his image and wheresoever the image of God is there is an assimilation unto God in understanding wisedome and knowledge though with great inequality Secondly that this knowledge was notitia 〈◊〉 an affectionate practicall knowledge that drew after it suitable affections and actions appeareth by these foure arguments First because words of knowledge in Scripture doe imply answerable affections and practises Secondly the word Coll. 3. 10. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 't is rendred by latine Interpreters rather agnitio than cognitio not a bare knowledge but knowledge with an acknowledgement Thirdly it could not be inferiour to that knowledge which is a part of the new man for it was the patterne and samplar thereof the new man is renewed in knowledge after the image of God Fourthly in the now quoted place Coll. 3. 10. knowledge is by a synecdoche of the part for the whole put for the whole new man and the image of God in the first man is by a synecdoche of the whole for the part put for his knowledge now for these Synecdoches what better and more probable reason can be assigned thanthe connexion of knowledge with the principall parts of God's image as in the new so in the first man Thirdly the scripture ascribes divers things unto man in his state of innocency unto which a very great measure of 〈◊〉 was requisite he was made head of all mankind Lord of the universe he gave names unto all the cattle unto the sowles of the aire and to every beast of the field Gen. 2. 20 and doubtlesse they were apt names significant of their natures because given by appointment and approbation of God himselfe God brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them and whatsoever Adam called every living creature that was the name thereof Gen. 2. 19 besides God created man for his service the Lord hath made all things for himselfe saith the wise man Prov. 16 4 to wit to serve him according to the capacity of their severall natures now man's nature was rationall and therefore his end was a reasonable service and to guide him in the way hereunto he had the law of nature written in his heart now all these particulars joined together required even a fullnesse of knowledge Politique Princes on earth will choose none but wise and prudent persons for their deputies and can we then imagine that an omniscient God made choice of an ignorant and unknowing Viceroy God gave him dominion over the fishes of the sea and over the fowle of the aire and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth and why should not his intellectualls hold proportion with his dominion and be as vast and extensive it is altogether improbable that God should give him so great and large a scepter and not qualify him for the weilding of it he was nomenclator unto the creation and for such an office he was altogether unmeet if he were ignorant of the essences and qualities of creatures doubtlesse he knew the end for which he was created the duties that were injoined him the light and law of nature shone not more dimly in his breast when he was in his integrity than it doth in his laps'd posterity and in the worst of them the law is written in their hearts Rom. 2. 15. We can doe more than ghesse at the dictates of right reason or else we should be at a losse touching all first principles both speculative and practicall and there is no question to be made but that Adam before his fall knew all the dictates of right reason and assented unto them and therefore we are not in such an utter uncertainty touching the knowledge Adam had before his sall as Dr. 〈◊〉 would beare us in hand But let us weigh the Doctor 's argument Certainly if he had so great a knowledge 't is not likely he would so cheaply have sold himselfe and all his hopes out of a greedy appetite to get some knowledge The answer is very easy and obvious This greedy appetite to get that knowledge promised by the Serpent was undenyably a great sinne and therefore to say it could be in him before his fall were a very grosse contradiction for this were to affirme that sin was in him in a state of innocency when he was without sinne that he sinned before he sinned and if it were not in him before his fall I would know of the Dr. and all his
which he prescribed and designed unto him for the utmost end unto which man was appointed was the glory of God Prov. 16. 4 and his owne eternall happinesse consisting in the beatificall vision of God's essence and the eternall fruition of his glory even the light of reason dictated this only to be the supreme end of man and all other ends to be unsatisfactory below the nature of his spirituall and immortall soule God's giving man a capacity of this end was a sufficient intimation that it was to be the chief end which he was to aime at hereupon also was it that there was naturally in man a desire of this end and no other end could give satisfaction unto his infinite and boundlesse desires so that Bellarmine himselfe sticks not to affirme that it was naturall unto man Quoad appetitum though not Quoad consecutionem Now God by thus designing man unto this end and placing in him a naturall appetite thereunto engag'd himselfe to furnish him with all necessary meanes abilities and qualifications for the compassing of it for qui destinat ad sinem destinat ad media and originall righteousnesse was undoubtedly a qualification absolutely necessary for such a purpose and if he bad been created without it he had been made not only a little lower than the Angels but beneath the very beasts that perish below the most contemptible wormes that crawle upon the face of the earth for there is none of them destitute of such furniture as is requisite for the reaching of their respective ends Thirdly his decree concerning the Lawes unto which he intended to oblige him he intended to write the Law of nature in his heart assoone as he was created and accordingly it was written so that from his creation he was obliged unto severall duties but it was impossible for man to performe acceptably these duties without originall righteousnesse and therefore God by his purpose to impose these duties upon man determined himselfe to enable him for them by making him habitually upright and holy for if he should have enjoined impossible commandements where there was no ability for obedience he had been a very unjust Law-giver like Pharoah that exacted bricke and would not allow straw God's purpose to create such a creature as man with the rational faculties of understanding and will imply'd a purpose to oblige him to serve obey and glorify him as his Creator and this againe imply'd a purpose to enable and qualify him for such service and obedience and was not originall righteousnesse a necessary qualification for this Man no sooner knew that he was a poore creature dependant upon the All-mighty maker of Heaven and Earth but he forthwith understood that he was by the Law of creation without any positive superadded Law bound to love this his Maker above all things with all his soule heart might and strength to love himselfe and all other things in reference unto him to 〈◊〉 all his voluntary and rationall actions unto his Glory at least virtually but now all these duties were unfeasible without the virtue or grace of the love of God and therefore from God's purpose to to oblige man unto these duties we may conclude his purpose to 〈◊〉 into him the habit of love and what we say of the acts and habits of love may be applied unto the acts and habits of other graces This Medium the Arminians generally make use of to prove the 〈◊〉 of universall grace Because God hath commanded all men to believe and obey therefore he hath bound himselfe to give every man power to believe and obey Their abuse of this argument it is not now pertinent to examine only I cannot but observe the inconsistency of it with their opinion in the now controverted question for Arminius and his followers generally hold that originall righteousnesse was not naturall that is due and necessary unto man in his innocency But for resutation of this their deniall wee need no other medium but that now mentioned which they bring for universall grace for that with due change will sufficiently serve our turne God commanded man in the state of innocency actuall righteousnesse therefore he had bound himselfe to furnish him with originall righteousnesse therefore originall righteousnesse was necessary and due unto man in that state and that is all we meane by the word naturall There be diverse other arguments usually alleadged by Protestants which I shall for the present wholy wave only I cannot but take notice of one that is urged by Macovius and others from the remainders of this original righteousnesse in man since the fall these are now naturall unto man therefore originall righteousnesse it selfe was naturall to man before the fall but this argument hath a tang of Pelagianisme there be reliques of Gods image in man in his corrupt and unregenerate condition but none of originall righteousnesse for this was wholy lost and extinct supernaturalia erepta naturalia corrupta however then there be left some shadowes and resemblances of it yet not any true remnants of it even Arminius himselfe in his conference with Junius confesseth that there be not left in us so much as any principles or seed of spiritual virtues Dico agnition millam quae est 〈◊〉 pietatem justitiam illam 〈◊〉 de quâ Apostolus non corruptas sed sublatas esse null áque earundem in nobis post lapsum manere principia Fateor principia semina virtutum moralium quae anologiam quandam similitudinem habent ad istas spirituales virtutes in nobis manere post lapsum quin ipsas morales virtutes licet per 〈◊〉 corruptas Haec similitudo fallere potest non accuratè inter hasce illas spirituales virtutes discriminantem In hâc sententiâ mea qua statuo illa bona esse ablata habeo praeeuntem 〈◊〉 nostrum questione 9 his verbis Homo se omnem posteritatem divinis illis 〈◊〉 orbavit Quae autem sint illa divina 〈◊〉 explicatum est quaestione sexta praecedente nempe 〈◊〉 sanctitas But what congruence this hath with other principles of Arminius I leave to be determined by his disciples Before I take my leave of this part of the question I shall desire the Reader to take notice that besides Henricus de Gandavo there have been many learned Papists of the opinion that originall righteousnesse was naturall to man in his state of integrity so much you may see at large in Estius in l. 2. sent dist 26. sect 6. who reckons up distinctly seventeene of their arguments indeed they take originall righteousnesse in a stricter sense than we only for the subjection of the inferiour faculties unto reason but yet even herein they are opposite unto the generality of Papists as well as we But proceed we unto the second part of the question whether or no originall righteousnesse were 〈◊〉 unto man in his state of innocency And here we readily grant that it was supernaturall
a morall goodnesse righteousnesse and true holinesse without it impossible that man should obtaine the end prescribed unto him that he should performe the duties injoined him and it was against the justice and goodnesse of God and so a grosse contradiction to appoint unto man an impossible end to impose upon man impossible commandments Gods chalking out such an end for man to seek implieth that he supplyed him with meanes for assecution hereof his injunction of lawes argueth that he gave power and ability to yeeld obedience unto them but of this allready more fully and distinctly in the first part of the question Unto what is there said 〈◊〉 me adde what Dr Feild in his learned booke of the Church pag. 251 252 253. hath in resutation of this fiction of the Papists that man might have been created in his pure naturals in a state of neutrality and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grace or sin his argument may briefly be thus summ'd up It was impossible for the nature of man without grace to performe its principall actions about its principall objects the sirst truth and the chiefest good without grace 't was impossible for man to know God as he ought to love him as he should amore amicitiae with a love of friendship for himselfe and his own sake and without such a love all a mans actions would have bin sins for they could not have been done unto the glory of God because t is such a love only that referreth mans actions unto Gods glory and that state cannot but be a sinfull state wherein all that a man doth is sin breifly thus without the grace of God 't is impossible to love God and without the love of God all our actions will be evill and sin and therefore à primo ad ultimum without grace all our actions will be sin and hereupon 't will follow that there can be no state of nature sinlesse without grace and consequently that there can be noe state of pure or meere nature For the surther clearing of this I shall lay downe two 〈◊〉 which cannot reasonably be denied First that God decreed that man should act rationally that he should performe rationall actions Secondly that all his rationall actions were under the law of nature some for their substance as to love seare prayse and glorify God and others for their 〈◊〉 and other the like 〈◊〉 whether a man did eate or drinke whatsoever he did he was to doe all unto the glory of God to deny this were to uncreature man take away his dependance upon and relation unto God and from this grant it undeniably followes that all a man's rationall or voluntary actions were capable of morall goodnesse or badnesse and consequently that how ever some of them might be indifferent in their generall and abstract 〈◊〉 yet considered actu exercito as singularized and cloathed with circumstances they were all either morally good or evill for morall goodnesse and badnesse are privatively opposite and 't is an unquestioned rule in Logick inter privativè opposita non datur medium in subjecto capaci Between privative opposites there can be no middle either of abnegatien or participation in a capable subject every subject capable of privative opposites must necessarily have one or the other thus a sensitive creature must be either seeing or blind the aire must be either lightsome or darke now if there could be no indifferency or neutrality in the rationall actions of man but that they must all necessarily be either good or bad then it was impossible there could be any such state of indifferency and neutrality in the rationall faculties of man they must also be morally either good or bad holy or sinfull and therefore the possibility of man's existence in a state of pure naturals without grace or sinne hath no foundation in sound reason The second conclusion It was absolutely impossible for man to be created with the contrary of originall righteousnesse concupiscence a pronenesse or inclination of all the faculties of man unto sin This conclusion is thus confirmed if man had been created with this concupiscence God had been the author of it but 't was impossible for God to be the author of it the Apostle John saith it is not from the Father but is of the world 1 John 2. 16 we may goe farther and say it could not bee from the Father and therefore it was 〈◊〉 for man to be created with it The Minor is thus prov'd it was impossible for God to be the author of sin but concupiscence is sin and therefore God could not be the author of it Unto this argument we find in Bellarmine two answers First that God would not have been the author of this concupiscence though man had been created with it Secondly that this concupiscence is not sinne and therefore though God had been the cause of it yet it would not have therefore followed that hee had been the cause of sinne First that God would not have been the author of concupiscence though man had been created with it but it would have been besides his purpose and intention for it would saith he have flowne naturally from the condition of the matter of man and so it would have been naturall unto man not as a good gift or ornament of nature but as a defect disease or infirmity of nature he endeavoureth to illustrate this by the similitude of a Smith though a Smith frame a sword of Iron and the sword grow rusty yet the rust is not caused by the Smith but proceedeth as a sequele from the nature or quality of the Iron that is the matter of the sword But this answer is first dissonant from the truth secondly repugnant unto Bellarmines owne principles First dissonant from the truth and that I shall cleare by three arguments The first argument Causa causae est causa causati in 〈◊〉 subordinatis the cause of a cause is the cause of its effects in things essentially subordinate but God is the cause of the nature and matter of a man and by the opinion of Bellarmine concupiscence is essentiall to the nature and matter of man 〈◊〉 and a 〈◊〉 for it would naturally and necessarily thinks he have resulted from the nature and matter of man but that it was supernaturally prevented by the gift of originall righteousnesse and consequently God must needs be the cause and author of it A second argument is because this concupiscence is not only in the sensitive and inferiour but also in the rationall and superiour faculties in the understanding and will St. Paul Coll. 2. 15 speakes of a fleshly mind vainly puft up by his fleshly mind so then there is flesh in the very mind of man the carnall mind or the minding of the flesh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is enmity against God Rom. 8. 7 remarkable is that saying of Augustine voluntas sine charitate est tota vitiosa cupiditas without love the will is as it were wholy turned into lust
fruition of mutable goods what is it but an unbridled lust of committing fornication with the creature which is done when the creature is idolized and placed in God's roome as it is whensoever it is loved either above God or in an equality with him By this then it undeniably followeth that concupiscence is contrary unto the grace and virtue of the love of God and abateth and diminisheth of it's strength and vigour and consequently is sinne That which hath hither-to been said against the Popish opinion concerning the possibility of man's creation with concupiscence will serve à fortiori for resutation of the Socinians and Dr Taylor who outstripping the generality of the Papists maintaine that concupiscence was actually in Adam before his fall by the creation and as naturall unto him as the 〈◊〉 of hunger and thirst concupiscence you have heard is sinne and therefore this is a downeright blasphemy making God to be the author of sinne and besides it apertly contradicts what Moses speaketh of God's complacnecy in all the workes of his creation Gen 1. 31 and God saw every thing that he had made and behold it was very good for if man was created with concupiscence he was made very defective imperfect and miserable indeed the most miserable of all creatures unable to reach his naturall end to discharge acceptably any part of that duty which even the law of nature exacted of him and to answer in any measure chose great and high relations which God had put upon him he had a law in his members warring against the law of his mind so that he might with a great deal of justice powre out the pitifull complaint of Paul Rom. 7. 24 oh wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death If Dr Taylor shall in the behalfe of himselfe stoop so low as to make any reply unto what I have said I shall not decline him and doe assure him that he shall have very faire play from me as 〈◊〉 words and as hard arguments as I can possibly give him only one thing I shall intreat of him that he would dispute and not declare against my opinion and this request will not be thought unreasonable if it be considered that in his controversiall writings his florid and Rhetoricall language doth disguise and hide the seeblenesse of his argumentation with his ordinary readers But to returne unto Bellarmine the most considerable argument that he hath to prove that concupiscence was naturall and would have been in man 〈◊〉 he had been created in his pure naturals is taken from the composition of man's nature for hence he thinks it 〈◊〉 loweth that naturally there would have been a rebellion and a repugnancy of the sensitive faculties against the rationall but let us heare his own words Naturale est corpori animali sensu appetitu praedito concupiscere bonum sensibile naturale est spiritui rationali concupiscere bonum spirituale quare si siat una natura ex spiritu rationali corpore animali conflata naturale erit illi habere diveras inter se pugnantes propensiones Quod igitur primi parentes nostri ante peccatum pugnâ ist â diversarum appetitionum carerent domum erat supernaturale non conditio naturalis de grat prim hom cap 6. it is naturall unto a sensible body endued with sense and a sensitive appetite to covet a sensuall good and 't is as naturall unto a rationall spirit to desire a spirituall good therefore if one nature be compounded of a reasonable soule a spirit and a sensitive body it will be naturall unto it to have different and repugnant propensions the sensuall appetite naturally would have rebelled against the rationall The usuall answer to this objection is very solid and rationall unto which I shall 〈◊〉 this one thing that the sensitive faculties in man are rationall though not formally yet by participation as being capable of the conduct and government of reason This being premised the answer is that before the fall all the motions of the sensitive faculties were subordinate obedient and agreeable unto reason there might then be a diversity but there could be no contrariety or repugnancy betwixt the rationall and sensitive appetites for all desires against reason are unnaturall against the very law of nature Whereupon Aquinas 12 ae q. 82 a. 3 ad 〈◊〉 confesseth that concupiscence is against the nature of man so far as t is against the reason of man such a concupiscence therefore cannot be the sequele of man's nature as it came first out of God's hands Suarez in his Metaphysicks disp 44. sect 1. n. 13. hath a dictinction concerning the sensitive appetite that will be a full and formall answer unto the present objection Appetitus sensitivus hominis ex vi sui generis naturaliter inclinatur ad sensibilia delictabilia tamen ex vj conjunctionis emanationis ex animâ rationali habet inclinationem ad obediendum rationi 〈◊〉 appetendum ipsamet bona sensibilia non tantum quatenus 〈◊〉 aut 〈◊〉 commoda sed maximè quatonus simpliciter bona homini existimantur to make application of this unto our present purpose the sensitive appetite in man might be considered ex vi gen ris or ex vi conjunctionis emanationis ex animâ rationali in regard of it's kind or in regard of it's conjunction with or emanation from the reasonable soule wee are here to speake of the sensitive appetite in the first man not as it is considered only in regard of it's kind or 〈◊〉 nature for so it was common unto beasts as well as man and so inclined unto a most intense desire of things sensuall because as Scotus lib. 2. sent dist 29. q. 1. naturale est unicuique appetitui 〈◊〉 in suum appetibile si est appetitus non liber naturale est 〈◊〉 summe ferri quantum potest quia sicut talis appetitus secundum Damas. 24. ducitur non est in potestate suaejus actus quin 〈◊〉 quantum potest as it is naturall unto every appetite to be carried unto it's object so 't is unto that appetite which is not free to be carried as highly and intensely as it is possible so that as it's act an lusting is not in it's power so neither is the intension thereof But we are to consider it in regard of it's conjunction with and 〈◊〉 from the reasonable soule and 't was rationall and free as is noted before though not formally yet participative as being under the guidance of reason and so in the first man before his fall it was inclined only regularly and orderly unto the desire of things sensuall with subordination unto the dictates of right reason and such motions of the will as were suitable unto right reason now this I shall not magisterially dictate but make good by two reasons The first reason I have 〈◊〉 of Ames Bellarm. enerv l. 4. pag. 8. Cum unio
that either of us should Your 〈◊〉 reason also is as pretty For first I demand whether a possibility to sinne be not of the nature of man for that is all I mean by essentiall If it be not how came Adam to sinne his first sine if it be I ask whether shall the 〈◊〉 in the resurrection be raised up with it or no If yea then you 〈◊〉 God's full glorification of the Saints in the resurrection for 〈◊〉 is certainly a part of their full glorification If nay then it is no blasphemy to say that in the resurrect on the Saints shall be raised up will out something that is essentiall to them or of their nature But Sir what 〈◊〉 you of mortality is that 〈◊〉 or os the nature of man I suppose you will not 〈◊〉 it But yet I also believe you will confesse that though we are 〈◊〉 a corruptible 〈◊〉 yet we shall be 〈◊〉 an incorruptible and the 〈◊〉 shall put on immortality Once more is it naturall to be naturall that will not be denyed but then remember that although to be naturall is essentiall that is of the essence of the body yet the natural body shall 〈◊〉 without it's 〈◊〉 it is sowne a naurall body it is raised a spirituall So that you see if I had said this which you charge upon me which is so contrary to my thoughts and so against my purpose yet your arguments could not have overthrowns it It is good advice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you had been pleased to have learn'd my meaning before you had published your dislike I should have 〈◊〉 my selfe oblig'd to you in a great acknowledgment now you have said very much evill of me though I deserv'd it not For suppose I had not prosperously enough express'd my meaning yet you who are a man of wit and parts could easily have 〈◊〉 my purpose and my designe you could not but know and consider too that my great 〈◊〉 was to say that sinne could not be natural that it is so sar from being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not so much as subjected in our common nature but in our persons only 〈◊〉 beside 〈◊〉 Sir I am a little to complaine of you that when you had two 〈◊〉 at your choice to explicate each other intrinsecall and 〈◊〉 you would take the 〈◊〉 and the worst sease not the easiest and most ready for you cannot but know that 〈◊〉 is not alwayes to be taken in the 〈◊〉 sense os Philosophy 〈◊〉 that which is 〈◊〉 os a nature but largely and for all sorts of proprieties and the universall accidents of 〈◊〉 as it is essentiall to man to laugh to be capable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be mortall to 〈◊〉 a body of contrary qualities and consequently by nature corruptible and in a morall 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 metaphysicall significations and not to be content with 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from an 〈◊〉 to quarrel but not from that ingenuity which will be your and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Although I have not much to doe with it yet because you are so 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 and so great an admirer of that which everyone of your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 desinition of an accident I care not if I tell you that the 〈◊〉 on is imperfect and 〈◊〉 it is not convertible with the 〈◊〉 For even 〈◊〉 things 〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sine interitu subjecti I instance to be 〈◊〉 is essentiall 〈◊〉 a ledy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have successioâ— of duration but yet in the resurrection when bodies shall be spiritual and eternal those other which are now Essential predicates shall be taken away and yet the subject remain and be improv'd to higher and more noble predicates This I have here set down not that I at all value the probleme whether it be so or no but that you may not think me a Socinian particularly in this Article or that I think the bodies in the resurrection shal be specifically distinct from what they are I believe them the same bodies but enobled in their very beings For to a specifical and substantial change is required that there be an introduction of new forms but yet the improving of Essential predicates is no specification of subjects but melioration of the first But the consequent is that abesse adesse c is not an excellent definition of an accident And yet further it follows That if sin were as essential to a man as mortality is or to be quantitative yet there is no more need that a man should rise with sin then with mortality But Aristotles Philosophy and Porphyriâ—s Commentary are but all measures in Theology and you should do well to scoure bright the armor in which you trust which unless it be prudently conducted it will 〈◊〉 a man a Sophister rather then a Theologue but you are wiser I have onely this one thing to adde That the common discourses of Original sin make sin to be natural necessary and unavoidable and then may not I use your own words This Tenet is chargeable with Libertinism It is a licentious Doctrine and opens a gap to the greatest prophaneness For it takes away all conscience of sin all repentance of it for the time past If sin be natural necessary and unavoidable as it is to us if we derive it from Adam c. What reason hath he to be humbled for it and to ask God pardon for it So that you have done well against your own Opinion and if I had not used the argument before I should have had reason to thank you for it Now as it is you are further to consider it not I. Sir Though I have reason to give you the priority to every thing else yet in civility I have far out-done you You were offended at a passage which you might easily but wou'd not understand You have urged arguments against me which return upon your own head The Proposition you charge me withal I own not in any of your senses nor as you set it down in any at all and yet your Arguments do not substantially or rationally confute it if I had said so Besides all this you have used your pleasure upon me you have revil'd me slighted me scorn'd me untempted unprovoked you never seat to me civilly to give you satisfaction in your objections but tâ—k'd it in my absence and to my prejudice yet I have sent you an answer I hope satisfactory and together with it a long Letter which in the midst of my many affairs and straitned condition is more then I can again afford And after all this I assure you that I will pray for you and speak such good things of you as I can â—â—â—de or hear to be in you and profess myself and really be Sir Your affectionate Friend and Servant in our blessed Lord and Saviour Iesus Jer 〈…〉 Taylor August 15. 1657. Postscript Sir I received yours late last night and I have returned you this early this 〈◊〉 that I might in 〈◊〉 thing be respective of you
objections If you shall say that 't was uncivil for me not to make my address immediately unto your self it is a charge will easily be wiped off I was as I thought an utter stranger unto you and Mr. C. professed a greet acquaintance with and interest in you and assured me that my Exceptions should be received with all possible candor and promised his diligence and 〈◊〉 in conveying of them unto 〈◊〉 my objections therefore were sent civilly unto you though sent by him but however you are thus 〈◊〉 the Reader I hope will have a more charitable opinion of my procedure herein and think that you have no reason to make such 〈◊〉 Out-crys against me for abusive uncivilities towards you Dr. Taylor Yet I have sent you an answer I hope satisfactory and together with it a long Letter which in the midst of my many affairs and straitned condition is more then I can again afford Jeanes Unto your long Letter I have returned a longer answer and whether yours or mine be satisfactory I am contented to refer it unto the indifferent Reader 〈◊〉 your condition be straitned I wish it were more plentiful But my affairs are I 〈◊〉 neither for number nor importance inferior unto yours and from them I have borrowed so much time as to answer you and shall be ready to do so again to perform unto you the like office Dr Taylor And after all this I assure you that I will pray for you and speak such good things of you as I can finde or hear to be in you and prosess my self and really be Sir Your affectionate friend and servant in our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Jer Taylor Ieanes For this your promise I give you hearty thanks and shall endeavor to make you as grateful a return as I can in the like Christian offices of love and so shall rest In Christ Jesus your humble servant Henry Jeanes POSTSCRIPT Dr Taylor Sir I received yours late last night and I have returned you this early in the morning that I might in every thing be respective of you Jeanes This I easily believe and am confident that upon review of your Letter you will acknowledge that according to the proverb you have made more haste then good speed Dr. Taylor But I desire not to be troubled with any thing that is not very material for I have business of much greater concernment neither can I draw the saw of contention with any man about things less pertinent I expect no answer I need none I desire none but expect that you will imploy your good parts in any thing rather 〈◊〉 in being ingeniosus in alieno libro Your talents can better if you please serve God then by cavilling with or without reason Ieanes Whether or no the controversie between us be not material but less pertinent whether your Letter be so satisfactory as that it needs no answer as also whether I cavill without reason to cavil with reason is a Catachresis as harsh as ratione 〈◊〉 and as hardly justifiable but by a licentiâ pocticâ are things in which I refuse you for my Judge and appeal unto the learned and unprejudic'd Reader Secondly That you neither expect nor desire an answer from me may be very probable but that I was obliged to return you one I have 3 Reasons that convince me First By my silence the truth which you have wronged would suffer Secondly your Papers have been with a great deal of diligence published and if I should not give them an answer I should be accessary to the Funeral of my own good name And Thirdly A friend of yours when he gave me this your Letter told me That I could not answer it and that you were as he thought infallible now I thought it my duty to undeceive him who having your person in too great an admiration greedily swalloweth whatsoever falls from your pen though never so 〈◊〉 and erroneous UNIFORMITY IN Humane Doctrinall Ceremonies Ungrounded on 1 Cor. 14. 40. OR A REPLY UNTO D r. HAMMONDS VINDICATION OF HIS Grounds of Uniformity from the 1 Cor. 14. 40. BY HENRY JEANES Minister of Gods Word at CHEDZOY OXFORD Printed by A. Lichfield Printer to the Universitie for Tho. Robinson 1660. Uniformity in Humane Doctrinall Ceremonies ungrounded on 1 Cor. 14. 40. Dr. HAMMOND 1 Cor. 14. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Decently and according to appointment 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decently custome being the onely rule of decency c. and of the latter because the words do literally import this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 in the places but new 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 〈◊〉 Doctor brings for this sense and it is because custome is the onely rule of decency This Proposition though very strange is 〈◊〉 and therefore we might as well reject it as the Doctor dictates it But I shall adde a consutation of it from these follow ing arguments 1. If custome be 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 and that 〈◊〉 2. Nothing can be undecent that is agreeable unto the onely rule of 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 thereof It is 〈◊〉 that the onely rule of decency
should be undecent but yet 〈◊〉 is very possible that many customes should be 〈◊〉 and therefore I shall conclude that custome is not the 〈◊〉 rule of 〈◊〉 3. Lastly unto custome as you may see in both Aristotle and Aquinas the frequent usage of a thing is required But new there may be decency or handsomnesse in the 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 thing here charged on me is 〈◊〉 that I 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 is the 〈◊〉 unsufficiency of that in that limited sense to prove what he 〈◊〉 I would have from it viz. that the omission of our ceremonies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indecency And the proof of this charge 〈◊〉 1. by way of question founded in two 〈◊〉 the Crosse in Baptism and the 〈◊〉 in publique Prayer and 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 I 〈◊〉 it not in another sense wherein 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a very gross evident falshood when I said that you dared not to 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 usall 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 is the immediate sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 that according to 〈◊〉 is the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the adequate and full importance of it for that you should so 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as drawn there-from as a sequele or 〈◊〉 by way of deduction or consequence it may onely be a part or peice of the importance therof to prove 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 〈◊〉 of his or any mans farther mistaking my words I shall 〈◊〉 to tell him the full of my meaning in that 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 service wherein the 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 inter 〈◊〉 opposita non datur 〈◊〉 in subjecto 〈◊〉 between privative opposites there is no middle either of 〈◊〉 or participation 〈◊〉 a capable subject The 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 speech that proves nothing in the Controversie unlesse you also prove the Ceremonies controverted to 〈◊〉 so decent as that the 〈◊〉 of them will be undecent in the service of God 2. I would 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 all 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 〈◊〉 such as are decent 3. I suppose that by gestures habits and the like circumstances in the service of God you mean such
This therefore was no dark but visible foundation of what I said In assigning any rite or ceremony for the service of God 〈◊〉 saith the 〈◊〉 was to 〈◊〉 observed the onely rule to judge of that is say I to consider the Customes of that particular place of which we consult Where bowing the knee or 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 to those particular 〈◊〉 Here 't is evident that I mean not the frequent usage of that ceremony in opposition to a first usage of it as Mr. 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 and Blood of Christ p. 80 81. sheweth that the opinion of reverence hath been the 〈◊〉 and nurse of 〈◊〉 superstitions and after such demonstration he quotes a saying of 〈◊〉 upon Joh. 13. 8. Let us therefore learne 〈◊〉 honour and reverence Christ as he would and not as we think sit 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 〈◊〉 it cannot be 〈◊〉 but that 〈◊〉 doth imply such customes the omission of which 〈◊〉 inferres indecency 11. This saying of his some Readers may look on with Reverence as not readily comprehending the importance of it others may 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 it under the appearance of a tautologie But upon pondering it will appear that the Author had a 〈◊〉 in it which be designed should bring in some advantage to his cause and without which he was not likely to advance far 〈◊〉 succeed in it 12. Some customes we know there are which are so highly decent as that the omission of then necessarily infers indecency But what are they why such as the law of at least 〈◊〉 nature prescribes covering of nakednesse and the like of which 't is 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 〈◊〉 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 uation or inured to what custome seever 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so in like manner the 〈◊〉 holds not in those things whose 〈◊〉 is introduced onely by custome for that Mr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequency of actions it must againe bee granted 〈◊〉 there was a time when that which now is 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 which prejudges still the 〈◊〉 spoken of that such omission should inferre indecencie And so we see the summe of Mr. J. his liberal concession viz. that decency 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 that the administration of Baptism without the Crosse is against the law of nature that the Preaching without the Surplice beares 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 of nakednesse he is utterly refuted by Mr. J. in his interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
poor self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God hath by the Canon of the Apostle and by the light of Nature appointed and commanded that 〈◊〉 in his worship and service the neglect 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 quae 〈◊〉 naturâ sunt civiles aut communes nen sunt particulariter in 〈◊〉 praeceptae partim quia in 〈◊〉 hominum sensum incurrunt 〈◊〉 quia infra dignitatem 〈◊〉 legis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut talia 〈◊〉 in illa praescribantur hâc 〈◊〉 ratione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fuissent singulari lege cavenda Exempli gratiâ ne in ecclesiastico 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 sinu sese colocaret in alterius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in sacris actionibus Habendae 〈◊〉 sunt 〈◊〉 ex 〈◊〉 Dei 〈◊〉 1. Quta in genere 〈◊〉 sub lege ordinis decori 〈◊〉 2 Quia pleraeque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sequuntur ex 〈◊〉 quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sunt 〈◊〉 constituta 〈◊〉 enim 〈◊〉 constituit 〈◊〉 fideles omnis generis convenirent ad 〈◊〉 nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam 〈◊〉 ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 locum habeant in quo possint convenire 〈◊〉 etiam assignatam qua 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam minister à Des sit constitutus ad alios 〈◊〉 instituendos fimul etiam constituitur ut 〈◊〉 fitum corporis illum habeat qui tali 〈◊〉 congruit 25. Illa igitur quae pertinent ad ordinem decorum non ita relinquuntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut 〈◊〉 quod 〈◊〉 libet sub illo nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partim determinantur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 natura ipsarum rerum partim circumstantiis illis quae ex occasione sese 〈◊〉 26. Variae enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 circumstantiae tales sunt ut nulla institutione publica accedente debeant tamen à singulis observari neque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hominibus prohiberi sine 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 many ridiculous 〈◊〉 should have been provided for by a special Law as for example that in the Church assenibly one should not place himself in anothers 〈◊〉 spit in anothers face or should not make monthes in holy actions Yet they are to be accounted as commanded from God 1. Because they are 〈◊〉 in generall under the Law of 〈◊〉 Decency and 〈◊〉 2. Because most of them doe necessarily follow from those things which are 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 that they should have a sit and conventent place wherein they may meet together and an hour also assigned at which they may be 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 to mens wills that they may under the name of that 〈◊〉 what they please upon the 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 to be observed of every one neither can men forbid them without sin Unto this adde another place in his 〈◊〉 soit 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 〈◊〉 being beside the particular determination of the Scripture are against it we speak of double or treble rites as the Rejoinder 〈◊〉 them 〈◊〉 no meer order and decency doth 〈◊〉 require but onely the meer will of man 〈◊〉 That which is instituted by God in his worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well to be a part of Gods worship but that decency 〈◊〉 no part of Gods worship Ames in his disput pag. 176. proves by a Reason quoted out of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Def of Mr. 〈◊〉 pag 844 Order and comeliness saith the Popish Bishop is some part of 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 properly and immediately respect men and therefore can be no parts of the worship of God To be instituted by God if we speake 〈◊〉 properly is to be injoyned by a divine positive Law superadded unto the law of 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 the clean contrary because that which is instituted by a positive law superadded to the law of nature is not prescribed 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 neighbour 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 〈◊〉 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
undecency say you 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the generall as abstracted from all singularizing circumstances or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 finned 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 not restrain it unto either of these senses but take it abstractively in such a latitude as that 't is appliable unto either of the significations according unto the nature of the things spoken of the omission of natural 〈◊〉 infers undecency necessarily in regard of an absolute necessity the omission of civil undecency insers 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 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 setting aside all outward circumstances and conditions which are not 〈◊〉 de omni 1. I shall instance in divers particular propositions as Quaedam 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corpus est mixtum 2. In several negative propositions as nullus spiritus est corpus nullus lapis est 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de nullo Dr. Hammond sect 17. Nay 't is 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 Uniformity 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 for limitations I cannot call them I shall be contented to be your vassal 2 You seem to 〈◊〉 that in the things you speak of custome and not the light of nature is the role 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 regulated 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 to prove what I would have from it It will soon appear of how little force it is when 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 Uniformity 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. 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 second place humane ceremonies are taken strictly onely for such as are 〈◊〉 symbolical and sacramental and unto such neither 〈◊〉 nor reverence 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 in the omission of them there is no irreverence committed you may think my notion of reverence to be too narrow but 't is the utmost I can grant you and indeed 't is all that Scripture and Reason call for reverence and irreverence are 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 is unreverently administred when the Crosse is omitted or that 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 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 〈◊〉 been an inlet unto many superstitious practises this Ames sheweth in his Reply unto 〈◊〉 particular Defence c pag. 69. Out of such 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 more agreeably to 〈◊〉 fashion urged by the 〈◊〉 where meat is taken with silver forks 〈◊〉 of hands devised a silver 〈◊〉 to suck up the wine through Some would not have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men 〈◊〉 of the wine 〈◊〉 all And many for meere reverence as they say will neither touch wine nor 〈◊〉 abstaining altogether from the 〈◊〉 All these usages might have been and may be 〈◊〉 and yet custome cannot legitimate them and make them decent I shall conclude all that I have to say unto 〈◊〉 two last Sections with a remarkable passage in Parker his Treatise of the 〈◊〉 part 1. pag. 112. The second office of the Crosse is to procure reverence to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse communis ablutio Which is the office of the Salt the Taper and the rest of Popish signs which how cut we 〈◊〉 but with this Ax that beheadeth the 〈◊〉 as wel Non 〈◊〉 c. We must not think but that the Baptism of Christ and of the Apostles was performed with reverence enough when these 〈◊〉 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 wh ch we have received it To adde signs over and above
is 〈◊〉 to honour it but to 〈◊〉 it Indeed the 〈◊〉 had been more honourably 〈◊〉 if 〈◊〉 had been sent home again as it came into the land and hand of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 this budget and did wel Howbeit 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 of the Popish budget in banishing the salt the oyl the 〈◊〉 with the rest will not be judged sufficient unless we cease also with a 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 lye in the dust because they wil not defile their hands by touching of this Philistim 〈◊〉 for to uphold it Dr. Hammond sect 20 21. In these it is certain custome is the rule and the onely rule of 〈◊〉 Neither nature nor Gods Law obliges all mankind to this or that expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nations have their several manners of doing 〈◊〉 onely nature tels us that the most reverent manner of treating is best becomming God and that it cannot be decent to treat 〈◊〉 in that manner as we would not doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside and Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the offering of polluted bread 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 and of sacrificing the lame and the sick Mal. 1. 8. is a confirmation of that Offer it now saith God unto thy 〈◊〉 will he be pleased with thee 21. Apply this to a particular case to a Nation where 't is customary to address to Kings kneeling and 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 will 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 to his Prince in the gesture of sitting or lying along upon a table and if he did not then I 〈◊〉 I suppose regularly conclude from custome the only rule of 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 matters that according to Gods arguing it cannot be decently done in his service 〈◊〉 is the tendring our petitions or requests to that infinite Majesty And so 〈◊〉 in other things Jeanes Your 〈◊〉 of the indications and expressions of that reverence of which custome is the only rule by instancing in kneeling in prayer when wee tender our petitions or requests to the infinite majesty of God is very impertinent for it is very evident that 〈◊〉 is not the only 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 sometimes strictly so it is distinguished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for reverence is due unto the Ordinances of God 〈◊〉 and worship onely unto God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be a 〈◊〉 and subordinate rule of the signs of reverence taken strictly whereupon by custome uncovering of the 〈◊〉 is a general or common gesture of reverence to be used with discretion in all 〈◊〉 exercises but now as for the indications and expressions of adoration I do think the Scripture a 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 as being not 〈◊〉 to that place Another 〈◊〉 was set 〈◊〉 for those and proceeded to sect 18. the Crosse expresly named and the 〈◊〉 implyed under the title of other Ceremonies of which it may there be seen what my 〈◊〉 was not what is here deem'd incambent on me to prove that the 〈◊〉 of them infers 〈◊〉 but that standing on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereon they are known to stand Conscience duly instructed cannot think it 〈◊〉 or tending to 〈◊〉 to cast them 〈◊〉 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 Uniformity therein and here sect 19 you acknowledge that your cnclusion 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 〈◊〉 though not exclusively 2. If your design be to justifie doctrinal ceremonies from the Apostles command of decency then 't is incumbent on you to prove that the omission of such ceremonies doth 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 for the Crosse in Baptism 1. 'T is known to all that our Christian course is a spirituall Warfare under Christ our great Generall Now it is and alwaies 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 humane 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 imagination 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 urge 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 Christians 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 silence of the Crosse in his word I shall never think it so highly decent as you 〈◊〉 so decent that the omission of it is undecent 2. It is and alwaies hath been 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 order and L. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had for the same reason executed Q. Fabius 〈◊〉 though he had 〈◊〉 a great Victory over the Samnites but that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the people of Rome 〈◊〉 him But now our 〈◊〉 can produce no Commission from our great General to use any Banner or Ensign in his worship but such as he hath already 〈◊〉 his Word Sacraments Discipline and 〈◊〉 I shall condemn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of any such Banner or Ensign as a transgression against his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of this I found this your objection both propounded and answered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scharp 〈◊〉 theol 〈◊〉 2 pag 39 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 militare quo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 distinguantur At Christiani omnes sunt 〈◊〉 Eph 6 11. ergo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 debent per consequens signum 〈◊〉 Resp. 〈◊〉 illud conseq 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alia 〈◊〉 nempe internum signum fidei externam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verbi 〈◊〉 c. What he speaks of external 〈◊〉 and participation of the Word and Sacraments wil satisfie what you say I cannot here passe by a passage in 〈◊〉 against Duraeus pag 191 192 in the Edition of his Works in Fol. Daraeus having cited many Fathers for the Ceremonies added unto Baptisme Whitaker thus replyeth unto him 〈◊〉 vero non interest quid Clemens quid Leo quid Damasus quid quisquam alius Pontifex ad Baptismi Sacramentum 〈◊〉 Christus ecclesiae 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 ceremoniarum nugis mandavit 〈◊〉 in illis 〈◊〉 quos in scriptura legimus baptismis ulla harum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reperitur 〈◊〉 vero putemus 〈◊〉 ecclesiam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quibus in Baptismo ceremoniis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quam Christum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before I proceed further I shall take notice of the limitation that you have in the close of sect 24. of your assertion of undecency in the omission of a Banner in an Army It is not so 〈◊〉 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 Hocker an edict or Law of Nature and whatsoever is therein undecent transgresseth against this Law If the omission then there in 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 〈◊〉 was crucified the Embleme also of that 〈◊〉 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 inrolles 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 nifi adhibeatur sive 〈◊〉 credentium sive ipsi 〈◊〉 quâ regenera 〈◊〉 c. nihil ritè perficitur Unlesse the sign of the Grosse 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 〈◊〉 tanquam in poste 〈◊〉 es omnesque Christiani signantur de Catechiz rud cap. 20. rom 4. p. 915. thou must be signed now in the forehead with the sign of the 〈◊〉 as the Israelites on their door-posts and so must all Christians In the forehead particularly in fronte figat ubi sedes 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 know frequent in the Church while the gifts of healing continued in curing 〈◊〉 and casting out Devils to that Athanasius frequently affirms of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the sign of the Crosse all Magick
〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 custome or obedience to our lawfull Superiours may render decent that whatsoever some 〈◊〉 law of nature commands not the doing of that if it be but wearing such a garment which the Canons of any Church 〈◊〉 nay by parity of reason a Cloak or a but 〈◊〉 Doublet is absolutely unlawfull by 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 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. 〈◊〉 out of the field 〈◊〉 that they thought them utterly 〈◊〉 their making reply's 〈◊〉 He that thinks 〈◊〉 is nothing 〈◊〉 nothing lawfull the omission of which is not sinne doth 〈◊〉 use other Dictionaries then we do discernes no difference 〈◊〉 lawfull and necessary 〈◊〉 as the 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 produce it which is to tell me that I sit and walk at the very i me when I stand still it being certain that I am equally able to doe both those when yet I really doe the third 〈◊〉 so he will not allow any thing morally possible which is not morally necessary which is certainly the eiving new lawes to 〈◊〉 making the word lawfull or possible which was wont to be interpreted that which may or may not be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only that which must be done and may not be on 〈◊〉 and not new reasons to 〈◊〉 old paradoxes Jeanes In these three Sections I shall stay upon nothing but your charge of 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 who almost that hath heard of your great parts learning 〈◊〉 ingenuity 〈◊〉 who is there such a stranger in our Israel 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 〈◊〉 which I expect challenge satisfaction Sir herein I desire no favour at your hands 〈◊〉 shall 〈◊〉 you to put any of our words upon the 〈◊〉 and if by all your 〈◊〉 you can 〈◊〉 any such inference from them I shall confesse my 〈◊〉 worthy of all that disgrace which your pen can powre upon me To 〈◊〉 my self from this your 〈◊〉 I have joyned herewith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the 〈◊〉 actions of man And as for Ames his own writings will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 2. cap. 3. thes 13 he expresly affirmeth that many acts in the 〈◊〉 are in their own nature indifference and in his Cases of Conscience he hath a whole chapter de 〈◊〉 and there 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ac nuda natura antequam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut 〈◊〉 Tales sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are c. lib 3. cap. 18 There he divers actions which in their common and bare nature before they be as it were 〈◊〉 with circumstances doe in lude in themselves no goodness or badness as to eat to 〈◊〉 to take a journey to walk c. Dr. J Burges impureth unto Bradshaw this opinion which you father upon Ames and Ames his defence of Mr. 〈◊〉 will serve for his own apology Dr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Bradshaw 〈◊〉 good reason to reverse his opinion f things indifferent for 〈◊〉 all learning and 〈◊〉 be resolves that there is nothing indifferent and unto this Ames thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 2 〈◊〉 8. 9 If this were so as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reason would persw 〈◊〉 some 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 only the Rejoinder his telling again without any shew or proof The 〈◊〉 raiseth up a report without 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 he received it which 〈◊〉 it be some other way confirmed then by an 〈◊〉 bare telling and that in a humour of 〈◊〉 his person it must he accounted a meet 〈◊〉 I for my 〈◊〉 can find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words in Mr. 〈◊〉 shaw his 〈◊〉 neither any thing from whence such a raw 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be reasonably collected He concludeth 〈◊〉 cap. 3 that there is no 〈◊〉 indifferent 〈◊〉 i. e. every way a well in 〈◊〉 of nature as of moralitie He 〈◊〉 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 doing 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be evil There is no action that a man can 〈◊〉 by the power of his will 〈◊〉 is meerly and absolutely indifferent These passages come the nearest to 〈◊〉 which is here fathered upon the treatise 〈◊〉 all which this 〈◊〉 appeareth not there is nothing indifferent Nay the ha shest of these 〈◊〉 may be found not only in little Pamphlets made by 〈◊〉 Boyes against learning and sense but in great volumes written by those that goe for very learned and sensible in 〈◊〉 matters as this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aquinas in the great book called his 〈◊〉 prima 〈◊〉 q 〈◊〉 or 9. hath this 〈◊〉 it must needs be that every individuall act of man 〈◊〉 from deliberate reason is either good or bad And all 〈◊〉 almost all 〈◊〉 which have written upon that place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and defend the same who yet wore men that in questions of such a nature did not usually write against all learning and sense Dr. Hammond sect 34. This argument of Amesius against things indifferent that learned Bishop was well 〈◊〉 with by his familiar conferences with Mr. 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against Ceremenies and whom the Bishop thought fitter to 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 instances of 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 than by more serious attempts of 〈◊〉 i. e. in plain 〈◊〉 to despise and smile at than to dread and if Mr. J. have really read Mr. Hooker 〈◊〉 he somewhere entitles our Patron of Ceremonies 〈◊〉 may in him remember a discourse of Laws which will supersede all necessity or 〈◊〉 of my farther inlarging on it Jeanes Here we have a grosse mistake and a bitter jeer 1. A grosse mistake to 〈◊〉 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 testimonial thereof Next we have a bitter jeere at Non conformists 〈◊〉 if their opinion concerning humane religious Ceremonies were so silly and ridiculous that Bishop 〈◊〉 despised it and smiled at it and could 〈◊〉 it easily by 〈◊〉 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
Ceremonies as we doe is not 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 and when they are beaten thence to Decency and from decency when they can defend that no longer to Edification as the 〈◊〉 doth But all will not help Let them pitch or insist upon one of these grounds without starting I will pawn my Head their 〈◊〉 will come home to them again as finding noe fast ground either in Order Decency or Edification for double significant Ceremonies such as ours to 〈◊〉 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. 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 sitter place Now here in this place he was constrained to touch upon them but so softly and sparingly that it 〈◊〉 he found this no fitter place then the former for those reserved Considerations When shall we come to the 〈◊〉 place By this I hope the Reader is satisfied that there is more in Ames his Argument than you imagined and thinks that 〈◊〉 had no reason to slight it before you had seen it I will readily acknowledge that you are farre his superiour 〈◊〉 your incomparable skill in Critical learning and Antiquity and all the world would account me a fool to 〈◊〉 or think otherwise but I hope it is no 〈◊〉 to say that hee was not much your inferiour for Logick Philosophy and Scholastical Divinity in which latter hee was more versed than most of our Protestant Writers Comparisons I know are odious but I Apologize for a dead man and therefore I hope I shall be held 〈◊〉 Indeed his memory 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 with mee for though I dissent from him 〈◊〉 some things yet I must needs 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 and for that purpose frequently made choice of scholastical expressions He lived and dyed an exile for his dislike and opposition of our Ceremonies and the 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 what sense his buttoning and 〈◊〉 of his 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 of which with the best possible managery 〈◊〉 be taught plainly to justifie humane institution of religious mystical Ceremonies in the Church appropriated unto Gods worship i. e. by what Prosyllogismes or supplies or advantages of art this Enthymeme shall be rendered concludent Bishop Morton 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 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 greatpart vanish as touching argumentation When the Spaniards came first into America the inhabitants 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 them with satisfying answers and therefore you are not in this controversy so formidable an adversary as at first I thought you but I 〈◊〉 this to the badnesse 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 〈◊〉 those things whereof alone he knowes I there 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 in all 〈◊〉 of things of which I speak not nor can by any rules of discourse be supposed to have 〈◊〉 yet as to the matters then before me wherein Ecclesiastick conformity consisted custome and only custome was the rule of 〈◊〉 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 Bellarmine rightly lib. 2. de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 20. some Ceremonies which receive their institution as it were from nature it self which may be called naturall Ceremonies as to looke up 〈◊〉 Heaven to 〈◊〉 up our hands to bow our knees and knock our breasts when we pray unto God Quaedam 〈◊〉 sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 natura 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae naturales 〈◊〉 possunt qual est respicere in 〈◊〉 tollere manus flectere genua 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum Deum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 natura ipsa docet unde ettam communes sunt Gentilibus 〈◊〉 sectis 3. Those Ceremonies which we oppose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 4. Suppose that I concurred with you in holding the questioned Ceremonie 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 subjecti 〈◊〉 exponitur per duas exponentes quarum prima est affirmata appellatur praejacens estque nihil 〈◊〉 quam propositio exclusiva 〈◊〉 signo exclusivo secunda est negativa de subjecto exclusivè in 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 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 God service a rule of Decency 2. Concerning the conversion of them Propositio exclusiva 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 〈◊〉 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 Minor 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 regulate 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 〈◊〉 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 its warrant it is not to be received as Decent A 3. Argument shall be ad hominem by nature you say out of 〈◊〉 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 't is 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 〈◊〉 because the onely things excepted from being excluded by the particle onely are things subordinate and things necessarily 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 onely doth not alwaies exclude à totâ 〈◊〉 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 'T is by him variously formed in two several 〈◊〉 The 〈◊〉 is this Nothing can be undecent which is agreeable to the onely rule of Decency But divers things are undecent which yet can plead 〈◊〉 The conclusion now must be Therefore Custome is not the onely rule of Decency 38. But this is no regular Syllogisme 't is in no mood or figure not readily reducible to any and therefore 't was his onely way to presume it evident and never to endeavour 〈◊〉 proof
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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 The but now quoted Vallius in lib. 1. prior pag. 38. Impossibile inquit Philoponus comprehenditur sub necessario quia quod est necessarium est impossibile ut non sit 〈◊〉 quia homo est necessario animal impossibile est ut non sit animal 〈◊〉 ratione quod est impossibile est necessarium ut non sit Similiter possibile comprehenditur sub contingenti quod enim contingit esse 〈◊〉 fieri potest 〈◊〉 est possibile quod 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 institut Log. lib. 2 c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 modi 〈◊〉 annumerantur propositionibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propositiones modi possibile iis quae sunt modi contingit Dr. 〈◊〉 sect 41. To discover this deceit then the Syllogisme which is now no Syllogisme must bee somewhat better formed according to the rules of Logick and reduced as 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 't is a false Syllogisme And if the 〈◊〉 be particular then it inferres no more than that some undecent custome cannot be the onely rule of decency which is 〈◊〉 granted by me who doe not at all affirm it of undecent 〈◊〉 But if the Minor be universal then 't is a false proposition for certainly all cust mes are not indecent The short is Nature may bee the rule of one sort of decency and Custome 〈◊〉 onely rule of another 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by pretense of any custome whatever be 〈◊〉 into Gods 〈◊〉 'T is 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 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with them For I said not that all customes were the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 then 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 〈◊〉 for your labour but I have reason to expect reparation from you for 〈◊〉 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 't is not meant of all custome but onely of some such as are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 absurdities 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 was that solum brutum est animal irrationale that a spirit onely is an 〈◊〉 substance that number onely is 〈◊〉 quantity that 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 immobilitat terminum cut adjungitur ut non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sub eo descensus pro 〈◊〉 suppositorum non enim sequitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is animal rationale mortale Ergo solus Socrates But yet notwithstanding this I thought your proposition might be 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 as they say and so though it were not formally it would be 〈◊〉 universal But now I shall 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 Custome is the only rule of Decency you speak of Custome either formally or materially if you speak of Custome formally and 〈◊〉 as Custome why then every Custome is a rule of Decency because à quatenus 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then according unto Custome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be but the materiale in the rule of Decency 2. Untill you expresse how those some 〈◊〉 may be qualified that you make to be the onely rule of
Decency your interpretation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let all things be done decently will be very obscure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 leave the Reader in an uncertainty be you your self judge 3. The quantity of indefinite propositions may be gathered from their 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 de in 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 then custome is onely a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 and therefore it needs regulation by a higher rule and if there be in the Ceremonies of Gods 〈◊〉 a higher rule 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 't is 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 role of it selfe and if you should say that some other thing besides custome is the rule of the decency which is in custome thon 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 customary 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 gratid in 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 〈◊〉 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 't is 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 therefore 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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