to the preserving but of order or orderlynesse in a Church it is necessary there be appointment what shall by all be uniformely performed confusion unavoidably coming in where no certain rules are prescribed for Vniformity section 50 What can be denyed in this processe I fore see not yet when ti 's granted one reserve Mr J. hath still left him For saith he if it were granted that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies appointment or ordination yet still it will be incumbent on the Dr. to prove that this extends not onely to the customes and appointments of the Apostolike Churches but also to the Churches of succeeding ages And my answer to this will conclude this whole debate section 51 First then I acknowledge that it is not here necessarily ordained by the Apostle that all the Churches of God in succeeding ages should institute ceremonies in worship for provided those ceremonies were once instituted all that this text inforces is uniforme obedience to them section 52 But then secondly when for many circumstances of Gods worship there is no order particularly taken by Christ and his Apostles as in what gesture publick supplication shall be addrest in what lauds and hymnes and confession of the faith c. and yet the rule is given by them that all shall be done according to appointment and moreover in other places that obedience be paid to those superiors which watch over our souls and when those rules are not given onely to the persons that then lived in the Church of Corinth c. but to all that should ever live in that and all other Churches it cannot then be deemed either that there were no superiors designed to succeed Christ and his Apostles in the ordering of his Church or that they should not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set in order the things that were wanting such as the Apostles had left undisposed of or that inferiors should not be bound to obey them uniformely when they thus gave orders to them section 53 When we are commanded to obey our parents civil as well as natural by a law given by God to Moses or by Christ to his disciples can it be strange that we that lived not in either of those ages should thereby be obliged when God in his providence hath given us fathers of both kinds as well as them regularly presiding over us and making use of that liberty that is presumed in all parents viz to give commands and expect obedience from their children Certainly it cannot and as little can it be doubted either whether our ecclesiastical parents have power to institute in things omitted and thereby remitted to their care by the Apostles or whether we their obedient children that are commanded to act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to appointment should from time to time be disobliged and free to disobey them in whatsoever they appoint us section 54 T is granted him if he please that what Christ and his Apostles have already prescribed should not be repealed by those that thus succeed them should they rashly assume that power they would not in so doing act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether regularly or according to appointment but for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which they have made no rules but left order to Titus c. i.e. by parity of reason to the Bishops in every Islâ—nd to make them here what power is left them may certainly with perfect safety be exercised by them and that necessarily inferres our obligation to yield obedience to their exercises of them section 55 This is all the observance Mr J. seemes to expect of me at this time unlesse his intimation to all admirers of Mr. Hooker that they should vindicate their great Patrone of Ceremonies may passe for an admonition to me who acknowledge my self a thankfull adorer of Gods graces in that Godly learned man and so exact a few lines more above the regular account section 56 This will detain me no longer than whilest I mind the Reader that in a discourse of the benâ—fits which we receive from Christ in the Sacrament and otherwise Mr Hooker undertakes to set down how Christ in his human nature is communicated to us and so present with us To this end 3. things he shewes at large 1. that as nothing created can be unlimited or receive any such accident from any as may really make it infinite so neither the soul nor body of Christ nor Christ as man nor according to his humane nature can possibly be every where present no nor the substance of the body of Christ which neither hath nor can have any presence but onely local 2. That this cannot be rendred possible either by the grace of union with Deity nor by any other possible means as he at large excellently deduceth it pag. 300 301 302. 3. That it may peradventure be well enough granted in some sense and after a sort that Christ is every where present as man viz. 1. in respect of the conjunction of the humane nature with the Deity which conjunction is extended as far as the Deity the actual position being restrain'd and tied to a certain place and 2. by cooperation with Deity and that in all things section 57 Now on this third head without reflecting on the two former which assure us of the authors meaning in it two passages Mr J. takes hold of which if he know any thing in either philosophy or scholastical divinity are both guilty of a gross mistake and cannot be sufficiently wondred at by him that they should fall from so learned a pen. section 58 But I suppose there is no great skill in either of those learned faculties required to distinguish betwixt that which truly and properly is and that which may in some sense and after a sort and in two respects onely neither of which belong to the propriety of being be well enough granted and that with a peradventure also to have influence on all these section 59 And what severity is this to require of every learned man that hath most largely refuted an adversary to be so averse from all thoughts of peace and reconcilation with him that he may not allow him to speak truth or but perhaps to speak truth in a sort and in some sense and in two onely respects all which are still more than intimations that he thinks him to be absolutely and in simplicity and propriety of speaking in a gross errour impossible even to the power of God to have truth in it section 60 If any should chance to say of an eloquent man that you might hear an Angel speak in him and I should reply that it might peradventure be well enough granted in a sort or in some sense that when he spake you might hear an Angel assuring you at large of my opinion that no bare man can truly be an Angel nay that it was impossible for God himself to bring to pass that at the same time he
nay by parity of reason a cloake or a buttond doublet is absolutely unlawfull by force of 1 Cor. xiv 40. section 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. Burgesse out of the field than that they thought them utterly unworthy their making replies to He that thinkes there is nothing indifferent nothing lawfull the omission of which is not sin doth certainly use other dictonaries than we do discernes no difference betwixt lawfull and necessary and as the Assertors of Fatall 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 not produce it which is to tell me that I sit and walke at the very time when I stand still it being certain that I am equally able to do both those when yet I really do the third onely so he will not allow any thing morally possible which is not morally necessary which is certainly the giving new lawes to words making the word lawfull or possible which was wont to be interpreted that which may or may not be done to signifie onely that which must be done and may not be emitted and not new reasons to confirme old paradexes section 34 This argument of Amesius against things indifferent that learned Bishop was well acquainted with by his familiar conferences with Mr. Lapthorne a vehement disputer against ceremonies and whom the Bishop thought fitter to refute by trifling instances of unbuttoning and buttoning his cassâ—ck than by more serious attempts of conviction i.e. in plain termes to despise and smile at than to dread and if Mr J. have really read Mr Hooker whom he somwhere intitles our Patrone of ceremonies he may in him remember a discourse of lawes which will supersede all necessity or benefit of my farther inlarging on it section 35 Meane while to the reproch of my great stupidity I willingly acknowledge that it cannot enter into my understanding what sense that text is capable of which with the best possible managery can be taught plainly to condemne all institution of ceremonies in the Church i. e. by what prosyllogismes or supplies or advantages of art this Enthymeme shall be rendred concludent The Apostle commands that all things be done decently and in order Ergo He condemnes all institution of Ceremonies for Gods worship He that can maintain this consequence not onely to be true but as Mr J. affirmes of him plain and evident will be a formidable adversarie indeed much better deserving that title than one whom he knowes not and therefore honours with it section 36 His third and last impression now remaines wherein he undertakes to prove by 3. arguments that custome is not the onely rule of decency and his first argument is because the light and law of nature is also a rule of decency To this I answer that in those things whereof alone he knowes I there speak in the § concerning Vniformity i.e. in things indifferent gestures and other ceremonies in Gods service the Law of Nature is no rule at all and I suppose he cannot think I am sure he pretends not to prove or so much as affirme it is and therefore though not simply in all sorts of things of which I spake not nor can by any rules of discourse be supposed to have spoken yet as to the matters then before me wherein Ecclesiastick Conformity consisted custome and onely custome was the rule of Decency section 37 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 into two several Syllogismes The first is this Nothing can be undecent which is agreeable to the onely rule of Decency But divers things are undecent which yet can plead custome The conclusion now must be Therefore custome is not the onely rule of decency section 38 But this is no regular Syllogisme 't is in no mood or figure nor readily reducible to any and therefore t was his onely way to presume it evident and never to endeavour any proof thereof section 39 But he hath thought fit to vary this syllogisme and give it in other termes and then one might hope it would be exactly form'd 'T is thus It is impossible that the onely rule of decency should be undecent But yet it is very possible that many customes should be indecent Therefore he shall conclude that custome is not the onely rule of decency section 40 But this is no syllogisme neither being far removed from the measure that Logicians exact and such as by which I will prove any thing true that is the most distant from it For example it is a granted truth that Law is the onely rule of Justice yet this I shall disprove by a syllogisme exactly formed by Mr J. his model Thus It is impossible that the onely rule of justice should be unjust But yet it is very possible that many Laws should be unjust Therefore I shall conclude that Law is not the onely rule of justice section 41 To discover this deceit then the syllogisme which is now no syllogisme must be somewhat better form'd according to the rules of Logick and reduced as near as it can into a true syllogisme Thus Whatsoever is it self undecent cannot be the onely rule of decency But custome is it self undecent Therefore custome cannot be the onely rule of decency Here before it can be defin'd whether this be a regular syllogism or no it must be demanded quanta est minor is the assumption Vniversal or particular If it be particular then either the conclusion must be particular also or else t is a false syllogism And if the conclusion be particular then it infers no more then that some undecent custome cannot be the only rule of decency which is willingly granted by me who do not at all affirm it of undecent customes But if the minor be Vniversal then 't is a false proposition for certainly all customes are not indecent The short is Nature may be the rule of one sort of decency custom the only rule of another yet if the custom be in it self indecent then of such indecent custom 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 less to what is by Nature or in it self 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 natural comliness and honesty should by pretence of any custome whatever be introduced into Gods worship 'T is sufficient that some customes may be decent or in themselves not indecent and that all decency in the service of God is to be regulated and judged of by conformity with them For I said not that
be they never so loud but hypocritically zealous prayers section 39 The ardency in Christ was sincere ardency accompanied with acts of love and trust of the same temper and the heightning it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was an addition of degrees to that act of ardency and so of prayer and proportionably of love and trust in God above either what there was or what there was occasion for at other times section 40 Of this I shall hope it is possible to finde some instances among men of whose graces it can be no blasphemie to affirm that they are capable of degrees suppose we a sincerely pious man a true lover of God and no despiser of his poor persecuted Church and suppose we as it is very supposeable that at some time the seas roar the tempest be at its hight and the waves boat violently upon this frailbrittle vessel may it not be a season for that pious mans ardency to receive some growth for his zeal to be emulous of those waves and poure it self out more profusely at such then at a calmer season I hope there be some at this time among us in whom this point is really exemplified if it be not it is an effect of want not fulness of love But I need not thus to inlarge It is not by this Refuter denied of the person of Christ and that is my intyre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in reference either to Mr. C. or to him the utmost that I undertook to demonstrate then or to justifie now section 41 And so I shut up this hasty paper hoping that he which invited and promised it a welcome in case it were given him in a fair and Scholastical way having nothing to accuse in it as to the first Epithet will abate somewhat in reference to the second and allow it a friendly though being unqualified it pretend not to a more hospitable reception The end ἘΥΣΧΗΜΌÎΩΣ ΚΑῚ ΚΑΤᾺ ΤΆΞΙΠOR THE GROUNDS OF UNIFORMITY From 1 Cor. 14. 40. Vindicated from Mr JEANES'S exceptions to One passage in the View of the DIRECTORY By H. Hammond D. D. LONDON Printed by J. G. for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy. Lane M.DC.LVII 1 Cor. 14. 40. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Decently and according to appointment section 1 SInce the publishing that Answer to Mr J. concerning the degrees of ardency in Christ's prayer I am advertised of another passage in that volume in which I am concern'd relating to some words of mine in the view of the Directory pag. 19. on the head of Vniformity in Gods service and particularly respecting my rendring of the Apostle 1 Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 section 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 implied 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 section 3 To the former of these he makes his first exception thus He dares not affirm that this is the immediate sense of the place but onely that it is implied It cannot be denied but that decency doth imply such customes the omission of which necessarily infer indecency but that the omission of such ceremonies as ours doth infer undecency the Doctor all his party can never make good What undecency can the Doctor prove to be in the administration of Baptisme without the Cross as also in publick prayers and preaching without a Surplice But of this see farther in Ames in the places but now quoted The Doctor may perhaps look upon him as an inconsiderable adversary But we shall think his Arguments considerable until the Doctor or some other of his party give a satisfactory answer unto them In the mean while let us examine the proof that the Doctor brings for this sense and it is because custome is the onely rule of decency This propâ—sition though very strange is prooflesse and therefore we might as well reject it as the Doctor dictates it But I shall add a confutation of it from these following arguments 1. If custome be the onely 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 infallible 2. Nothing can be undecent that is agreeable unto the onely rule of dicency But divers things are undicent which yet can plead custome and this is so evident as that I will not so much undervalue the Doctors judgment as to endeavour any proofs thereof It is impossible that the onely rule of decency should be undecent But yet it is very possible that many customes should be undecent and therefore I shall conclude that custome is not the onely rule of decency 3. Lastly unto custome as you may see in both Aristotle and Aquinas the frequent usage of a thing is required But now there may be decency or handsomeness in the first usage of a thing and of this decency custome is not the rule and therefore it is not the onely rule of decency section 4 The first thing here charged on me is timidity that I dare not say what I said not and this attended with a concession in a limited sense of the truth of what I did say the second is the impertinence or unsufficiency of that in that limited sense to prove what he conceives I would have from it viz. that the omission of our ceremonies doth infer indecency And the proof of this charge twofold 1. by way of question founded in two instances the Crosse in Baptisme and the Surplice in publick prayer and preaching 2. by reference to Ames and resolving to think his arguments considerable till a satisfactory answer be given them And his third charge is my using an unsufficient proof to prove my interpretation viz. this because custome is the onely rule of decency which he confutes by three argument section 5 These three charges I shall now very briefly 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 perspicucusly 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 cowardice that I affirmed it not in another sense wherein be doth not consent to it section 6 To make short and prevent all possibility of his or any
all customes were the rule of decency but that some were and that there was no other rule but custome This I hope hath discovered the invalidity of his second argument section 42 His last argument because there is dicency 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 natural 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 do allow to be reverential among them Or in yet plainer words the civil customes of any Nation by which this or that sort of gesture is rendred a token of reverence are the onely rule by which the decency of indifferent gestures c. is to be judged of in order to God's service And so much for the last argument also and consequently for the first part of his exception that against my interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decently section 43 But there is yet a second charge behind against my rendring of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to appointment which he hath managed in these words section 44 As for the other part of the words let all things be done in order Ames in the place forementioned sheweth that order requireth not such ceremonies as ours and he giveth this reason because order requireth not the institution of any new thing but onely the right placing and disposing of things which are formerly instituted and this he makes good from the notation of the word from the definitions of order which are given by Philosophers and Divines c. from the context of the chapter and from the usage of the word elsewhere But the Doctor that the words may give some countenance unto our ceremonies adventureth upon a new interpretation of them The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he literally import according unto appointment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies to appoint as Mat. 28. 16. Act. 22. 10. and 28. 23. And we may here upon argue à conjugatis that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be sometimes rendred appointment But because it may sometimes be rendred appointment will it therefore follow that it must be so rendred in this place We may say as will as the Dr. that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 literally import according unto order as order is taken strictly for the right placing or ranking of things one before another after and this we have confessed even by Dr John Burgesse in his rejoynder unto Ames p. 78. a book published by the special command of the late King Moreover this sense is favoured by the coherence for v. 31. we have a particular instance of order in this acception of the word ye may all prophesie one by one c. and not all or many speake at once 2. We have the opposite of order taken in this sense 1. v. 33. confusion Let all things be done in order then is as much as let all things be done without confusion And I hope confusion may be avoided in the worship of God without such ceremonies as ours But we will for once suppose though not grant that the clear importance of the words is that all be done in the Church according to custome and appointment Yet the Dr hath a hard taske to performe before he can come nigh his conclusion that the words of Paul are a proofe of the more than lawfulnesse of prescription of such ceremonies as ours in a Church For he must prove that custome and order here are taken in such a latitude as that they include not onely the customes and appointments of the Apostolical Churches but also of all the Churches of God in succeeding ages and the performance of this he will find not to be so easie as he may imagine I am sensible that I have by this discourse provoked a very learned and formidable adversary but it is onely love of the truth hath ingaged me in so unequal an incounter and therefore I hope the Dr will pardon and excuse my boldnesse If he can by dint of argument prove the truth to be on his side I shall not be sorry or ashamed to be overcome by him section 45 To this my answer will be very briefe 1. by giving the reason of my rendring 2. by evidencing that if the vulgar were acknowledged the righter rendring yet my conclusion would very regularly follow thence and that therefore I have no need to contend with any gainsayer about my rendring section 46 For the first it is manifest to any that knowes but the elements of Greeke that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 literally and properly signifies according to ordination or appointment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies according to not in and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ordinance or constitution millions of times in authors and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orderly or in order lying more consonant with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no reason can be rendred why if that had been the designed meaning that word should not have been used there section 47 That it may so signifie Mr J. acknowledges and so I have obtained all I seek in my first proposal which was not that it must necessarily thus signifie but that this being the literal regular rendring of it I had sufficient reason to render it thus section 48 I proceed then to the second thing that if what he pretends to be possible also were indeed the onely possible or by way of supposition but not concession if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did really import no more than in order as that is opposed to disorder or confusion yet I say it will soon appear that the Apostles commanding such order or orderlynesse and forbidding all confusion in ecclesiastical affaires must by consequence be interpreted to command the instituting and observing uniformity of ceremonies in a Church This I thus deduce section 49 First there is no possibility of worshipping God externally and publickly without use of some ceremonies or circumstances of time place and gesture c. Secondly there is no possibility of order in a multitude without uniformity in the same circumstances Thirdly there is as little possibility of Vniformity among many without either agreement one with another or direction of some superior to them all what shall by all be uniformely performed Fourthly the agreement one with another if it be onely voluntarie and such as by which none are obliged no way secures the end but if it be such an agreement that every single person is obliged to observe then still is that a law of that body as of a Councel c. and as truely so as the constitution of a single Praelate can be thought to be And so the conclusion regularly followes that