A discourse of schism

Our Lord Christ, who knew better than all men what Decency is, never instituted any such Ceremonies. The Apostles, who gave the Rule of Decency, never used them. They did administer Ordinances decently, but without them. Hence it appears that their Precept never extended to them; for had it done so, they would not have omitted them, but had practised that Precept which they had given. The Worship of the Apostles, which was without Ceremonies, was either decent, or undecent, (for Decency and Undecency are privatively opposite, and between ⟨p. 95⟩privative opposites there is no medium of abnegation in subjecto capaci.) If the Apostles Worship, void of all Ceremonies, be decent, then Decency doth not consist in Ceremonies; if undecent, they did not (which cannot be imagined) observe their own Rule of Decency, and act as they taught.

Order and Decency in the Worship of God are things necessary, not merely by a positive Law, but by a natural. Not only the Apostolical Precept, but the very dictate of Nature is, that the Service of God should be performed in an orderly and decent manner. The Heathen Oracle could say, That in the Worship of God men should follow, morem optimum, the best manner. ¹Seneca out of Aristotle tells us, That when men have to do with the Gods, they should be, verecundiores & compositi, modest and composed in their demeanour. The Light of Nature teacheth us, that we should serve God in a way suitable and congruous to his Divine Majesty. Thus Order and Decency are necessary, but so are not Ceremonies. Hence it appears, that the difference between ⟨p. 96⟩them is as great, as between necessary and unnecessary.

1. 1Nat. Quaest. l. 7. c. 30.