THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEY ARE MONUMENTS OF BY-PAST
IDOLATRY, WHICH NOT BEING NECESSARY TO BE RETAINED, SHOULD BE UTTERLY
ABOLISHED, BECAUSE OF THEIR IDOLATROUS ABUSES: ALL WHICH IS PARTICULARLY
MADE GOOD OF KNEELING.
_Sect._ 1. I have here proved the ceremonies to be superstitious; now I
will prove them to be idolatrous. These are different arguments; for every
idolatry is superstition, but every superstition is not idolatry, as is
rightly by some distinguished.(507) As for the idolatry of the
controverted ceremonies, I will prove that they are thrice idolatrous: 1.
_Reductive_, because they are monuments of by-past idolatry;
2._Participative_, because they are badges of present idolatry;
3._Formaliter_, because they are idols themselves.
First, then, they are idolatrous, because having been notoriously abused
to idolatry heretofore, they are the detestable and accursed monuments,
which give no small honour to the memory of that by-past idolatry which
should lie buried in hell. Dr Burges(508) reckons for idolatrous all
ceremonies devised and used in and to the honouring of an idol, whether
properly or by interpretation such. “Of which sort (saith he) were all the
ceremonies of the pagans, and not a few of the Papists.” If an opposite,
writing against us, be forced to acknowledge this much, one may easily
conjecture what enforcing reason we have to double out our point. The
argument in hand I frame thus:—
All things and rites which have been notoriously abused to idolatry, if
they be not such as either God or nature hath made to be of a necessary
use, should be utterly abolished and purged away from divine worship, in
such sort that they may not be accounted nor used by us as sacred things
or rites pertaining to the same.
But the cross, surplice, kneeling in the act of receiving the communion,
&c., are things and rites, &c., and are not such as either God or nature,
&c.
Therefore they should be utterly abolished, &c.
_Sect._ 2. As for the proposition I shall first explain it and then prove
it. I say, “all things and rites,” for they are alike forbidden, as I
shall show. I say, “which have been notoriously abused to idolatry,”
because if the abuse be not known, we are blameless for retaining the
things and rites which have been abused. I say, “if they be not such as
either God or nature hath made to be of a necessary use,” because if they
be of a necessary use, either through God’s institution, as the
sacraments, or through nature’s law, as the opening of our mouths to speak
(for when I am to preach or pray publicly, nature makes it necessary that
I open my mouth to speak audibly and articularly), then the abuse cannot
take away the use. I say, “they may not be used by us as sacred things,
rites pertaining to divine worship,” because without the compass of
worship they may be used to a natural or civil purpose. If I could get no
other meat to eat than the consecrated host, which Papists idolatrise in
the circumgestation of it, I might lawfully eat it; and if I could get no
other clothes to put on than the holy garments wherein a priest hath said
mass, I might lawfully wear them. Things abused to idolatry are only then
unlawful when they are used no otherwise than religiously, and as things
sacred.
_Sect._ 3. The proposition thus explained is confirmed by these five
proofs: 1. God’s own precept,—“Ye shall defile also the covering of thy
graven images of silver, and the ornaments of thy molten images of gold:
thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth, thou shalt say unto it,
Get thee hence,” Isa. xxx. 22. The covering of the idol here spoken of,
Gaspar Sanctus(509) rightly understandeth to be that, _quo aut induebantur
simulacra Gentilico ritu, aut bracteas quibus ligneae imagines integantur,
aut quo homines idolis sacrificaturi amiciebantur_; so that the least
appurtenances of idols are to be avoided. When the apostle Jude(510) would
have us to hate garments spotted with the flesh, his meaning is,
_detestandam essevel superficiem ipsam mali sive peccati, quam tunicae
appellatione subinnuere videtur_, as our own. Rolloke hath observed,(511)
If the very covering of an idol be forbidden, what shall be thought of
other things which are not only spotted, but irrecoverably polluted with
idols? Many such precepts were given to Israel, as “Ye shall destroy their
altars, break their images, and cut down their groves,” Exod. xxxiv. 13.
“The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not
desire the silver nor gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest
thou be snared therein; for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God,”
Deut. vii. 25, 26. Read to the same purpose, Num. xxxiii. 52; Deut. vii.
5; xii. 2, 3.
Secondly, God hath not only by his precepts commanded us to abolish all
the relics of idolatry, but by his promises also manifested unto us how
acceptable service this should be to him. There is a command “That the
Israelites should destroy the Canaanites,” Num. xxxiii. 52, _evertantque
res omnes idololatricas ipsorum cui mandato_, saith Junius,(512)
_subjicitur sua promissio_, namely, that the Lord would give them the
promised land, and they should dispossess the inhabitants thereof, ver.
53; yea, there is a promise of remission and reconciliation to this work:
“By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged, and this is all the fruit
to take away his sin; when he maketh all the stones of the altar as
chalk-stones that are beaten asunder, the groves and images shall not
stand up.” Isa. xxvii. 9.
_Sect._ 4. Thirdly, The churches of Pergamos and Thyatira are reproved for
suffering the use of idolothites, Rev. ii. 14-20, where the eating of
things sacrificed to idols is condemned as idolatry and spiritual
adultery, as Perkins(513) noteth. Paybody, therefore, is greatly mistaken
when he thinks that meats sacrificed to idols, being the good creatures of
God, were allowed by the Lord, out of the case of scandal, notwithstanding
of idolatrous pollution; for the eating of things sacrificed to idols is
reproved as idolatry, Rev. ii.; and the eating of such things is condemned
as a fellowship with devils, 1 Cor. x. 20. Now idolatry and fellowship
with devils, I suppose, are unlawful, though no scandal should follow upon
them. And whereas he thinks meats sacrificed to idols to be lawful enough
out of the case of scandal, for this reason, because they are the good
creatures of God, he should have considered better the Apostle’s mind
concerning such idolothites; which Zanchius(514) setteth down thus: _Verum
est, per se haec nihil __ sunt, sed respectu eorum quibut immolantur
aliquid sunt; quia per hoec illis quibus immolantur, nos consociamur. Qui
isti? Daemones._ For our better understanding of this matter, we must
distinguish two sorts of idolothites, both which we find, 1 Cor. x. Of the
one, the Apostle speaks from the 14th verse of that chapter to the 23d; of
the other, from the 23d verse to the end. This is Beza’s distinction in
his Annotations on that chapter. Of the first sort, he delivers the
Apostle’s mind thus: That as Christians have their holy banquets, which
are badges of their communion both with Christ and among themselves; and
as the Israelites, by their sacrifices, did seal their copulation in the
same religion, so also idolaters, _cum suis idolis aut potius daemonibus,
solemnibusillis epulis copulantur_. So that this sort of idolothites were
eaten in temples, and public solemn banquets, which were dedicated to the
honour of idols, 1 Cor. viii. 10. Cartwright showeth(515) that the Apostle
is comparing the table of the Lord with the table of idolaters; whereupon
it followeth, that as we use the Lord’s table religiously, so that table
of idolaters of which the Apostle speaketh, had state in the idolatrous
worship like that feast, Num. xxv. 3; _quod in honorem falsorum Deorum
celebrabatur_, saith Calvin.(516) This first sort of idolothites
Pareus(517) calls the sacrifices of idols; and from such, he saith, the
Apostle dissuadeth by this argument, _Participare epulis idolorum, est
idololatria_. Of the second sort of idolothites, the Apostle begins to
speak in ver. 23. The Corinthians moved a question, Whether they might
lawfully eat things sacrificed to idols? _In privatis conviviis_, saith
Pareus.(518) The Apostle resolves them that _domi in privato convictu_,
they might eat them, except it were in the case of scandal; thus
Beza.(519) The first sort of idolothites are meant of Rev. ii., as Beza
there noteth; and of this sort must we understand Augustine(520) to mean
whilst he saith, that it were better _mori fame, quam idolothites vesci_.
These sorts are simply and in themselves unlawful. And if meats sacrificed
to idols be so unlawful, then much more such things and rites as have not
only been sacrificed and destinated to the honour of idols (for this is
but one kind of idolatrous abuse), but also of a long time publicly and
solemnly employed in the worshipping of idols, and deeply defiled with
idolatry, much more, I say, are they unlawful to be applied to God’s most
pure and holy worship, and therein used by us publicly and solemnly, so
that the world may see us conforming and joining ourselves unto idolaters.
_Sect._ 5. Fourthly, I fortify my proposition by approved examples; and,
first, we find that Jacob, Gen. xxxv. 4, did not only abolish out of his
house the idols, but their ear-rings also, because they were
_superstitionis insignia_, as Calvin; _res ad idololatriam pertinentes_,
as Junius; _monilia idolis consecrata_, as Pareus calleth them; all
writing upon that place. We have also the example of Elijah, 1 Kings
xviii. 30: he would by no means offer upon Baal’s altar, but would needs
repair the Lord’s altar, though this should hold the people the longer in
expectation. This he did, in P. Martyr’s judgment, because he thought it a
great indignity to offer sacrifice to the Lord upon the altar of Baal;
whereupon Martyr(521) reprehendeth those who, in administering the true
supper of the Lord, _uti velint Papisticis vestibus et instrumentis_.
Further, we have the example of Jehu, who is commended for the destroying
of Baal out of Israel, with his image, his house, and his very vestments,
2 Kings x. 22-28. And what example more considerable than that of
Hezekiah, who not only abolished such monuments of idolatry as at their
first institution were but men’s invention, but brake down also the brazen
serpent (though originally set up at God’s own command), when once he saw
it abused to idolatry? 2 Kings xviii. 4. This deed of Hezekiah Pope
Steven(522) doth greatly praise, and professeth that it is set before us
for our imitation, that when our predecessors have wrought some things
which might have been without fault in their time, and afterward they are
converted into error and superstition, they may be quickly destroyed by us
who come after them. Farellus saith,(523) that princes and magistrates
should learn by this example of Hezekiah what they should do with those
significant rites of men’s devising which have turned to superstition.
Yea, the Bishop of Winchester acknowledgeth,(524) that whatsoever is taken
up at the injunction of men, when it is drawn to superstition, cometh
under the compass of the brazen serpent, and is to be abolished; and he
excepteth nothing from this example but only things of God’s own
prescribing. Moreover, we have the example of good Josiah, 2 Kings xxiii.,
for he did not only destroy the houses, and the high places of Baal, but
his vessels also, and his grove, and his altars; yea, the horses and
chariots which had been given to the sun. The example also of penitent
Manasseh, who not only overthrew the strange gods, but their altars too, 2
Chron. xxxiii. 15. And of Moses, the man of God, who was not content to
execute vengeance on the idolatrous Israelites, except he should also
utterly destroy the monument of their idolatry, Exod. xxxii. 17-20.
Lastly, we have the example of Daniel, who would not defile himself with a
portion of the king’s meat, Dan. i. 8; because, saith Junius,(525) it was
converted in _usum idololatricum_; for at the banquets of the Babylonians
and other Gentiles, _erant praemessa sive praemissa, quoe diis
proemittebantur_, they used to consecrate their meat and drink to idols,
and to invocate the names of their idols upon the same, so that their meat
and drink fell under the prohibition of idolothites. This is the reason
which is given by the most part of the interpreters for Daniel’s fearing
to pollute himself with the king’s meat and wine; and it hath also the
approbation of a Papist.(526)
_Sect._ 6. Fifthly, Our proposition is backed with a twofold reason, for
things which have been notoriously abused to idolatry should be abolished:
1. Quia _monent. Quia movent._ First, then, they are monitory, and
preserve the memory of idols; _monumentum_ in good things is both
_monimentum_ and _munimentum_; but _monumentum_ in evil things (such as
idolatry) is only _monimentum_, which _monet mentem_, to remember upon
such things as ought not to be once named among saints, but should lie
buried in the eternal darkness of silent oblivion. Those relics therefore
of idolatry, _quibus quasi monumentis posteritas admoneatur_ (as Wolphius
rightly saith(527)), are to be quite defaced and destroyed, because they
serve to honour the memory of cursed idols. God would not have so much as
the name of an idol to be remembered among his people, but commanded to
destroy their names as well as themselves, Exod. xxiii. 13; Deut. xii. 3;
Josh. xxiii. 7; whereby we are admonished, as Calvin saith,(528) how
detestable idolatry is before God, _cujus memoriam vult penitus deleri, ne
posthac ullum ejus vestigium appareat_: yea, he requireth,(529) _eorum
omnium memoriam deleri, quoe semeldicata sunt idolis_. If Mordecai would
not give his countenance, Esth. iii. 2, nor do any reverence to a living
monument of that nation whose name God had ordained to be blotted out from
under heaven, much less should we give connivance, and far less
countenance, but least of all reverence, Deut. xxv. 19, to the dead and
dumb monuments of those idols which God hath devoted to utter destruction,
with all their naughty appurtenances, so that he will not have their names
to be once mentioned or remembered again. But, secondly, _movent_ too;
such idolothous remainders move us to turn back to idolatry. For _usu
compertum habemus, superstitiones etiam postquam explosoe essent, si qua
relicta fuissent earum monumenta, cum memoriam sui ipsarum apud homines,
tum id tandem ut revocerantur obtinuisse_, saith Wolphius,(530) who
hereupon thinks it behoveful to destroy _funditus_ such vestiges of
superstition, for this cause, if there were no more: _ut et aspirantibus
ad revocandam idololatriam spes frangatur, et res novas molientibus ansa
pariter ac materia proeripiatur_. God would have Israel to overthrow all
idolatrous monuments, lest thereby they should be snared, Deut. vii. 25;
xii. 30. And if the law command to cover a pit, lest an ox or an ass
should fall therein, Exod. xxi. 23, shall we suffer a pit to be open
wherein the precious souls of men and women, which all the world cannot
ransom, are likely to fall? Did God command to make a battlement for the
roof of a house, and that for the safety of men’s bodies, Deut. xxii. 8,
and shall we not only not put up a battlement, or object some bar for the
safety of men’s souls, but also leave the way slippery and full of snares?
Read we not that the Lord, who knew what was in man, and saw how propense
he was to idolatry, did not only remove out of his people’s way all such
things as might any way allure or induce them to idolatry (even to the
cutting off the names of the idols out of the land, Zech. xiii. 2), but
also hedge up their way with thorns that they might not find their paths,
nor overtake their idol gods, when they should seek after them? Hos. ii.
6, 7. And shall we by the very contrary course not only not hedge up the
way of idolatry with thorns, which may stop and stay such as have an
inclination aiming forward, but also lay before them the inciting and
enticing occasions which add to their own propension, such delectation as
spurreth forward with a swift facility?
_Sect._ 7. Thus, having both explained and confirmed the proposition of
our present argument, I will make my next for the confutation of the
answers which our opposites devise to elude it. And, First, They tell us,
that it is needless to abolish utterly things and rites which the Papists
have abused to idolatry and superstition, and that it is enough to purge
them from the abuse, and to restore them again to their right use. Hence
Saravia(531) will not have _pium crucis usum_ to be abolished _cum abusu_,
but holds it enough that the abuse and superstition be taken away. Dr
Forbesse’s answer is,(532) that not only things instituted by God are not
to be taken away for the abuse of them, but farther, _neque res medioe ab
hominibus prudenter introductoe, propter sequentem abusum semper tollendoe
sunt. Abusi sunt Papistoe templis, et oratoriis, et cathedris, et sacris
vasis, et campanis, et benedictione matrimoniali; nec tamen res istas
censuerunt prudentes reformatores abjiciendas. Ans._ 1. Calvin,(533)
answering that which Cassander allegeth out of an Italian writer, _abusu
non tolli bonum usum_, he admits it only to be true in things which are
instituted by God himself, not so in things ordained by men, for the very
use of such things or rites as have no necessary use in God’s worship, and
which men have devised only at their own pleasure, is taken away by
idolatrous abuse. _Pars tutior_ here, is to put them wholly away, and
there is by a great deal more danger in retaining than in removing them.
2. The proofs which I have produced (or the proposition about which now we
debate,) do not only infer that things and rites which have been
notoriously abused to idolatry should be abolished, in case they be not
restored to a right use, but simply and absolutely that in any wise they
are to be abolished. God commanded to say to the covering, and the
ornaments of idols, “Get you hence,” Isa. xxx. 22. It is not enough they
be purged from the abuse, but _simpliciter_ they themselves must pack them
and be gone. How did Jacob with the ear-rings of the idols; Elijah with
Baal’s altar; Jehu with his vestments; Josiah with his houses; Manasseh
with his altars; Moses with the golden calf; Joshua with the temples of
Canaan; Hezekiah with the brazen serpent? Did they retain the things
themselves, and only purge them from the abuse? Belike, if these our
opposites had been their councillors, they had advised them to be
contented with such a moderation; yet we see they were better counselled
when they destroyed utterly the things themselves, whereby we know that
they were of the same mind with us, and thought that things abused to
idolatry, if they have no necessary use, are far better away than a-place.
Did Daniel refuse Bel’s meat because it was not restored to the right use?
Nay, if that had been all, it might have been quickly helped, and the meat
sanctified by the word of God and prayer. Finally, Were the churches of
Pergamos and Thyatira reproved because they did not restore things
sacrificed to idols to their right use? Or, were they not rather reproved
for having anything at all to do with the things themselves?
_Sect._ 8. As for that which Dr Forbesse objecteth to us, we answer, that
temples, places of prayer, chairs, vessels, and bells, are of a necessary
use, by the light and guidance of nature itself; and matrimonial
benediction is necessary by God’s institution, Gen. i. 28; so that all
those examples do except themselves from the argument in hand. But the
Doctor(534) intendeth to bring those things within the category of things
indifferent; and to this purpose he allegeth, that it is indifferent to
use this or that place for a temple, or a place of prayer; also to use
these vessels, and bells, or others. And of matrimonial benediction to be
performed by a pastor, he saith there is nothing commanded in Scripture.
_Ans._ Though it be indifferent to choose this place, &c., also to use
these vessels or other vessels, &c.; yet the Doctor, I trust, will not
deny that temples, houses of prayer, vessels and bells, are of a necessary
use (which exempteth them from the touch of our present argument);
whereas, beside that it is not necessary to kneel in the communion in this
place more than in that place, neither to keep the feast of Christ’s
nativity, passion, &c. upon these days more than upon other days, &c., the
things themselves are not necessary in their kind; and it is not necessary
to keep any festival day, nor to kneel at all in the act of receiving the
communion. There is also another respect which hindereth temples, vessels,
&c. from coming within the compass of this our argument, but neither doth
it agree to the controverted ceremonies. Temples, houses of prayer,
vessels for the ministration of the sacraments, and bells, are not used by
us in divine worship as things sacred, or as holier than other houses,
vessels, and bells; but we use them only for natural necessity,—partly for
that common decency which hath no less place in the actions of civil than
of sacred assemblies; yea, in some cases they may be applied to civil
uses, as hath been said;(535) whereas the controverted ceremonies are
respected and used as sacred rites, and as holier than any circumstance
which is alike common to civil and sacred actions, neither are they used
at all out of the case of worship. We see now a double respect wherefore
our argument inferreth not the necessity of abolishing and destroying such
temples, vessels, and bells, as have been abused to idolatry, viz. because
it can neither be said that they are not things necessary, nor yet that
they are things sacred.
_Sect._ 9. Nevertheless (to add this by the way), howbeit for those
reasons the retaining and using of temples which have been polluted with
idols be not in itself unlawful, yet the retaining of every such temple is
not ever necessary, but sometimes it is expedient, for farther extirpation
of superstition, to demolish and destroy some such temples as have been
horribly abused to idolatry, Calvin also(536) and Zanchius(537) do plainly
insinuate. Whereby I mean to defend (though not as in itself necessary,
yet as expedient _pro tunc_,) that which the reformers of the church of
Scotland did in casting down some of those churches which had been
consecrate to popish idols, and of a long time polluted with idolatrous
worship. As on the one part the reformers (not without great probability)
feared, that so long as these churches were not made even with the ground,
the memory of that superstition, whereunto they had been employed and
accustomed, should have been in them preserved, and, with some sort of
respect, recognised; so, on the other part, they saw it expedient to
demolish them, for strengthening the hands of such as adhered to the
reformation, for putting Papists out of all hope of the re-entry of
Popery, and for hedging up the way with thorns, that the
idolatrously-minded might not find their paths. And since the pulling down
of those churches wanted neither this happy intent not happy event, I must
say that the bitter invectives given forth against it, by some who carry a
favourable eye to the pompous bravery of the Romish whore, and have
deformed too much of that which was by them reformed, are to be detested
by all such as wish the eternal exile of idolatrous monuments out of the
Lord’s land, yet let these Momus-like spirits understand that their
censorious verdicts do also reflect upon those ancient Christians of whom
we read,(538) that with their own hands they destroyed the temples of
idols, and upon Chrysostom, who stirred up some monks, and sent them into
Phœnicia, together with workmen, and sustained them on the expences and
charges of certain godly women, that they might destroy the temples of
idols, as the Magdeburgians(539) have marked out of Theodoret, likewise
upon them of the religion in France, of whom Thuanus recordeth, that
_templa confractis ac disjectis statuis et altaribus, expilaverant_,
lastly, upon foreign divines,(540) who teach, that not only _idola_, but
_idolia_ also, and _omnia idololatria instrumenta_ should be abolished.
Moreover, what was it else but reason’s light which made Cambyses to fear
that the superstition of Egypt could not be well rooted out if the temples
wherein it was seated were not taken away; so that _offensus
superstitionibus AEgyptiorum, Apis cœterorumque Deorum œdes dirui jubet:
ad Ammonis quoque nobilissimum templum expugnandum, exercitum mittit_,
saith Justinus.(541) And is not the danger of retaining idolatrous
churches thus pointed at by P. Martyr: _Curavit_, &c. “Jehu (saith
he(542)) took care to have the temples of Baal overthrown, lest they
should return any more to their wonted use. Wherefore, it appears, that
many do not rightly, who, having embraced the gospel of the Son of God,
yet, notwithstanding, keep still the instruments of Popery. And they have
far better looked to piety who have taken care to have popish images,
statues and ornaments, utterly cut off; for, as we read in the
ecclesiastical histories, Constantine the Great, after he had given his
name to Christ, by an edict provided and took order that the temples of
the idols might be closed and shut up; but, because they did still remain,
Julian the Apostate did easily open and unlock them, and thereafter did
prostitute the idols of old superstition to be worshipped in them,—which
Theodosius, the best and commended prince, animadverting, commanded to
pull them down, lest they should again any more be restored.” But because
I suppose no sober spirit will deny that sometimes, and in some cases, it
may be expedient to rase and pull down some temples polluted with idols,
where other temples may be had to serve sufficiently the assemblies of
Christian congregations (which is all I plead for), therefore I leave this
purpose and return to Dr Forbesse.
_Sect._ 10. As touching matrimonial benediction, it is also exempted out
of the compass of our present argument, because through divine institution
it hath a necessary use, as we have said. And though the Doctor, to make
it appear that a pastor’s performing of the same is a thing indifferent,
allegeth, that in Scripture there is nothing commanded thereanent; yet
plain it is from Scripture itself, that matrimonial benediction ought to
be given by a pastor; for God hath commanded his ministers to bless his
people, Num. vi., which by just analogy belongeth to the ministers of the
gospel; neither is there any ground for making herein a difference betwixt
them and the minister of the law, but we must conceive the commandment to
tie both alike to the blessing of God’s people. Unto which ministerial
duty of blessing, because no such limits can be set as may exclude
matrimonial blessing, therefore they are bound to the performance of it
also. And if farther we consider, that the duty of blessing was performed
by the minister of the Lord, Heb. vi. 7, even before the law of Moses, we
are yet more confirmed to think, that the blessing of the people was not
commanded in the law as a thing peculiar and proper to the Levitical
priesthood, but as a moral and perpetual duty belonging to the Lord’s
ministers for ever. Wherefore, notwithstanding of any abuse of matrimonial
benediction among Papists, yet, forasmuch as it hath a necessary use in
the church, and may not (as the controverted ceremonies may) be well
spared, it is manifest that it cometh not under the respect and account of
those things whereof our argument speaketh.
_Sect._ 11. Lastly, Whereas the Doctor would bear his reader in hand, that
in the judgment of wise reformators, even such things as have been brought
in use by men only, without God’s institution, are not to be ever taken
away, for the abuse which followeth upon them; let reformators speak for
themselves: _Nos quoque priscos ritus, quibus indifferenter uti licet,
quia verbo Dei consentanei sunt, non rejicimus; modo ne superstitio et
pravus abusus eos abolere cogat_.(543) This was the judgment of the wisest
reformators,—that rights which were both ancient and lawful, and agreeable
to God’s word, were notwithstanding of necessity to be abolished, because
of their superstition and wicked abuse.
_Sect._ 12. Secondly, Our opposites answer us, that beside the purging of
things and rites abused by idolaters from the idolatrous pollution, and
the restoring of them to a right use, preaching and teaching against the
superstition and abuse which hath followed upon them, is another means to
avoid that harm which we fear to ensue upon the retaining of them. _Ans._
1. This is upon as good ground pretended for the keeping of images in
churches: _At inquiunt statim, docemus has imagines non esse adorandas.
Quasi vero_, saith Zanchius,(544) _non idem olim fecerit diligentius Deus,
per Mosen et prophetas, quam nos faciamus. Cur igitur etiam volebat tolli
imagines omnes? quia non satis est verbo docere non esse faciendum malum;
sed tollenda etiam sunt malorum offendicula, irritamenta, causœ,
occasiones._ It is not enough, with the scribes and Pharisees, to teach
out of Moses’ chair what the people should do, but all occasions, yea,
appearances of evil, are to be taken out of their sight. _Efficacious enim
et plus movent, quae in oculos quam quae in aures incidunt. Potuerat et
Hezekias populum monere, ne serpentem adorarent, sed muluit confringere et
penitus e conspectu auferre; et rectius fecit,_ saith one well to this
purpose.(545) 2. Experience hath taught to how little purpose such
admonitions do serve. Calvin,(546) writing to the Lord Protector of
England of some popish ceremonies which did still remain in that church
after the reformation of the same, desireth that they may be abolished,
because of their former abuse, in time of Popery. _Quid enim_, saith he,
_illae ceremoniae aliud fuerunt, quam totidem lenocinia quae miseras
animas ad malum perducerent?_ &c. But because he saw that some might
answer that which our Formalists answer now to us, and say, it were enough
to warn and teach men that they abuse not these ceremonies, and that the
abolishing of these ceremonies themselves were not necessary; therefore
immediately he subjoineth these words: _Jam si de cautione agitur,
monebuntur homines scilicet, ne ad illas nunc impingant, &c. Quis tamen
non videt obdurari ipsos nihilominus, nihil ut infelici illa cautione
obtineri possit._ Whereupon he concludes, that if such ceremonies were
suffered to remain, this should be a means to nourish a greater hardness
and confirmation in evil, and a veil drawn, so that the sincere doctrine
which is propounded should not be admitted as it ought to be. In another
epistle to Cranmer,(547) archbishop of Canterbury, he complaineth that
external superstitions were so corrected in the church of England, _ut
residui maneant innumeri surculi, qui assidue pullulent_. And what good,
then, was done by their admonitions, whereby they did, in some sort, send
the reviving twigs of old superstition, since forasmuch as they were not
wholly eradicate, they did still shoot forth again? If a man should dig a
pit by the way-side, for some commodity of his own, and thou admonish the
travellers to take heed to themselves, if they go that way in the darkness
of the night, who would hold him excusable? How then shall they be excused
who dig a most dangerous pit, which is like to ruin many souls, and yet
will have us to think that they are blameless, for that they warn men to
beware of it?
_Sect._ 13. Thirdly, we are told that if these answers which our opposites
give get no place, then shall we use nothing at all which hath been used
by idolaters, and by consequence, neither baptism nor the Lord’s supper.
But let Zanchius answer for us,(548) that these things are by themselves
necessary, so that it is enough they be purged from the abuse. And
elsewhere(549) he resolveth, that things which are by themselves both good
and necessary, may not for any abuse be put away. _Si vero res sint
adiaphorae sua natura et per legem Dei, eoque tales quae citra jacturam
salutis omitti possunt, etiam si ad bonos usus initio fuerunt institutae;
si tamen postea videamus illas in abusus pernitiosos esse conversas;
pietas in Deum, et charitas erga proximum, postulant ut tollantur, &c._ He
adds, for proof of that which he saith, the example of Hezekiah in
breaking down that brazen serpent; which example doth indeed most
pregnantly enforce the abolishing of all things or rites notoriously
abused to idolatry when they are not of any necessary use, but it
warranteth not the abolishing of anything which has a necessary use,
because the brazen serpent is not contained in the number of those things,
_quibus carere non possumus_, saith Wolphius,(550) answering to the same
objection which presently I have in hand. Now, that the ceremonies have
not in themselves, nor by the law of God, any necessary use, and that
without hazard of salvation they may be omitted, is acknowledged by
Formalists themselves; wherefore I need not stay to prove it.
_Sect._ 14. Besides these answers which are common in our adversaries’
mouths, some of them have other particular subterfuges, which now I am to
search. “We must consider (saith Bishop Lindsey(551)) the ceremony itself
(dedicated to, and polluted with idolatry,) whether it be of human or
divine institution. If it be of human institution it may be removed, &c.;
but if the ceremony be of divine institution, such as kneeling is,—for the
same is commended by God unto us in his word,—then we ought to consider
whether the abuse of that ceremony hath proceeded from the nature of the
action wherein it was used; for if it be so, it ought to be abolished,
&c.; but if the abuse proceed not from the nature of the action, but from
the opinion of the agent, then, the opinion being removed, the religious
ceremony may be used without any profanation of idolatry. For example, the
abuse of kneeling in elevation, &c., proceedeth not only from the opinion
of the agent, but from the nature of the action, which is idolatrous and
superstitious, &c., and, therefore, both the action and gesture ought to
be abolished. But the sacrament of the supper, being an action instituted
by God, and kneeling being of its own nature an holy and religious
ceremony, it can never receive contagion of idolatry from it, but only
from the opinion of the agent: then remove the opinion, both the action
itself may be rightly used, and kneeling therein,” &c. _Ans._ 1. Since he
granteth that a ceremony dedicated to and polluted with idolatry, may (he
answereth not the argument which there he propounded, except he say must)
be abolished, if it be of human institution, he must grant from this
ground, if there were no more, that the cross, surplice, kneeling at the
communion, &c., having been so notoriously abused to idolatry, must be
abolished, because they have no institution except from men only. But, 2,
Why saith he that kneeling is a ceremony of divine institution? which he
pronounceth not of kneeling, as it is actuated by some individual case, or
clothed with certain particular circumstances, (for he maketh this
kneeling whereof he speaketh to be found in two most different actions,
the one idolatrous, the other holy,) but kneeling in the general, _per
se_, and _praecise ab omnibus circumstantiis_. Let him now tell where
kneeling thus considered is commended unto us in God’s word. He would
possibly allege that place, Psal. xcv. 6, “O come, let us worship and bow
down: let us kneel before the Lord our Maker,” which is cited in the Canon
of Perth about kneeling; but I answer, whether one expounded that place
with Calvin,(552) in this sense, _ut scilicet ante arcam faederis populus
se prosternat, quia sermo de legali cultu habetur_: whereupon it should
follow that it commendeth only kneeling to the Jews in that particular
case, or whether it be taken more generally, to commend kneeling (though
not as necessary, yet as laudable and beseeming) in the solemn acts of
God’s immediate worship, such as that praise and thanksgiving whereof the
beginning of the psalm speaketh,—whether, I say, it be taken in this or
that sense, yet it condemneth not kneeling, except in a certain kind of
worship only. And as for kneeling in the general nature of it, it is not
of divine institution, but in itself indifferent, even as sitting,
standing, &c., all which gestures are then only made good or evil when in
_actu exercito_, they are actuated and individualised by particular
circumstances. 3. If so be the ceremony be abused to idolatry, it skills
not how, for, as I have showed before, the reasons and proofs which I have
produced for the proposition of our present argument, hold good against
the retaining of anything which hath been known to be abused to idolatry,
and only such things as have a necessary use are to be excepted. 4. The
nature of an action, wherein a ceremony is used, cannot be the cause of
the abuse of that ceremony; neither can the abuse of a ceremony proceed
from the nature of the action wherein it is used, as one effect from the
cause, for _nihil potest esse homini causa sufficiens peccati_, except
only _propria voluntas_(_553_). 5. The abuse of kneeling in the idolatrous
action of elevation, proceedeth not from the nature of the action, but
from the opinion of the agent, or rather from his will, for (_principium
actionum humanarum_, is not opinion, but will, choosing that which opinion
conceiteth to be chosen, or _voluntas praeunte luce intellectus_,) it is
the will of the agent only which both maketh the action of elevation to be
idolatrous, and likewise kneeling in this action to receive the contagion
of idolatry. For the elevation of the bread _materialiter_ is not
idolatrous (more than the lifting up of the bread among us by elders or
deacons, when in taking it off the table, or setting it on, they lift it
above the heads of the communicants), but _formaliter_ only, as it is
elevated with a will and intention to place it in state of worship. So
likewise kneeling to the bread _materialiter_ is not idolatry (else a man
were an idolater who should be against his will thrust down and holden by
violence kneeling on his knees when the bread is elevated), but
_formaliter_, as it proceedeth from a will and intention in men to give to
the bread elevated a state in that worship, and out of that respect to
kneel before it. 6. What can he gain by this device, that the abuse of
kneeling in the Lord’s supper proceeded not from the nature of the action,
but from the will of the agent? Can he hereupon infer, that kneeling in
that action is to be retained notwithstanding of any contagion of idolatry
which it hath received? Nay, then, let him say that Hezekiah did not
rightly in breaking down the brazen serpent, which was set up at God’s
command, and the abuse whereof proceeded not from the thing itself, which
had a most lawful, profitable, and holy use, but only from the perverse
opinion and will of them who abused it to idolatry.
_Sect._ 15. But the comparing of kneeling to the brazen serpent is very
unsavoury to the Bishop; and wherefore? “The brazen serpent (saith he), in
the time it was abolished, had no use: that ceased with the virtue of the
cure that the Israelites received by looking upon it; the act of kneeling
continueth always in a necessary use, for the better expressing of our
thankfulness to God.” _Ans._ 1. Both kneeling, and all the rest of the
popish ceremonies, may well be compared to the brazen serpent. And divines
do commonly allege this example, as most pregnant to prove that things or
rites polluted with idols, and abused to idolatry, may not be retained, if
they have no necessary use; and I have cited before the Bishop of
Winchester, acknowledging that this argument holdeth good against all
things which are taken up, not at God’s prescription, but at men’s
injunction. J. Rainold(554) argumenteth from Hezekiah’s breaking down of
the brazen serpent, to the plucking down of the sign of the cross. 2. Why
saith he that the brazen serpent, in the time it was abolished, had no
use? The use of it ceased not with the cure, but it was still kept for a
most pious and profitable use, even to be a monument of that mercy which
the Israelites received in the wilderness, and it served for the better
expressing of their thankfulness to God, which the Bishop here calleth a
necessary use. 3. When he saith that kneeling continueth always in a
necessary use, we must understand him to speak of kneeling in the act of
receiving the communion; else he runs at random; for it is not kneeling in
the general, but kneeling in this particular case, which is compared to
the brazen serpent. Now, to say that this gesture in this action is
necessary for our better expressing of our thankfulness to God, importeth
that the church of Scotland, and many famous churches in Europe, for so
many years have omitted that which was necessary for the better expressing
of their thankfulness to God, and that they have not well enough expressed
it. And, moreover, if kneeling be necessary in the Lord’s supper for our
better expressing of our thankfulness to God, then it is also necessary at
our own common tables. Though we be bound to be more thankful at the
Lord’s table, and that because we receive a benefit of infinite more
worth, yet we are bound to be _tam grati_, as well thankful at our own
tables, albeit not _tanta gratitudine_. If, then, the same kind of
thankfulness be required of us at our own tables (for _intentio et
remissio graduum secundum magis et minus, non variant speciem rei_,) that
which is necessary for expressing of our thankfulness at the Lord’s table
must be necessary also for the expressing of it at our own. When I see the
Bishop sitting at his table, I shall tell him that he omitteth the gesture
which is necessary for the expressing of his thankfulness to God. 4. Did
not the apostles’ receiving this sacrament from Christ himself well enough
express their thankfulness to God? yet they kneeled not, but sat, as is
evident, and shall be afterwards proved against them who contradict
everything which crosseth them. 5. God will never take a ceremony of men’s
devising for a better expressing of our thankfulness than a gesture which
is commended to us by the example of his own Son, and his apostles,
together with the celebration of this sacrament in all points according to
his institution. 6. How shall we know where we have the Bishop and his
fellows? It seems they know not where they have themselves; for sometimes
they tell us that it is indifferent to take the communion sitting, or
standing, or passing, or kneeling, yet here the Bishop tells us that
kneeling is necessary. 7. I see the Bishop perceiveth that no answer can
take kneeling at the communion out of the compass of the brazen serpent,
except to say it hath a necessary use; this is the dead lift, which yet
helpeth not, as I have showed. All things, then, which are not necessary
(whereof kneeling is one), being notoriously abused to idolatry, fall
under the brazen serpent.
_Sect._ 16. Paybody also will here talk with us, therefore we will talk
with him too. He saith,(555) that God did not absolutely condemn things
abused to idolatry, and tells us of three conditions on which it was
lawful to spare idolatrous appurtenances. 1. If there were a needful use
of them in God’s worship. 2. In case they were so altered and disposed, as
that they tended not to the honour of the idol, and his damnable worship.
3. If they were without certain danger of ensnaring people into idolatry.
_Ans._ 1. Either he requires all these conditions in every idolothite and
idolatrous appurtenance which may be retained, or else he thinks that any
one of them sufficeth. If he require all these, the last two are
superfluous; for that which hath a needful use in God’s worship, can
neither tend to the honour of the idol, nor yet can have in it any danger
of ensnaring people into idolatry. If he think any one of those conditions
enough, then let us go through them: The first I admit, but it will not
help his cause, for while the world standeth they shall never prove that
kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, and the other controverted
ceremonies, have either a needful, or a profitable, or a lawful use in
God’s worship. As for his second condition, it is all one with that which
I have already confuted,(556) namely, that things abused to idolatry may
be kept, if they be purged from their abuse, and restored to the right
use. But he allegeth for it a passage of Parker, _of the Cross_, cap. 1,
sect. 7, p. 10, where he showeth out of Augustine, that an idolothite may
not be kept for private use, except, 1. _Omnis honor idoli, cum
appertessima destructione subvertatur_. 2. That not only his honour be not
despoiled, but also all show thereof. How doth this place (now would I
know) make anything for Paybody? Do they keep kneeling for private use? Do
they destroy most openly all honour of the idol to which kneeling was
dedicated? Hath their kneeling not so much as any show of the breaden
god’s honour? Who will say so? And if any will say it, who will believe
it? Who knoweth not that kneeling is kept for a public, and not for a
private use, and that the breaden idol receiveth very great show of honour
from it? He was scarce of warrants when he had no better than Parker could
afford him. His third condition rests, and touching it I ask, what if
those idolatrous appurtenances be not without apparent danger of ensnaring
people into idolatry? Are we not commanded to abstain from all appearance
of evil? Will he correct the Apostle, and teach us, that we need not care
for apparent, but for certain dangers? What more apparent danger of
ensnaring people into idolatry than unnecessary ceremonies, which have
been dedicated to and polluted with idols, and which, being retained, do
both admonish us to remember upon old idolatry, and move us to return to
the same, as I have before made evident?(557)
_Sect._ 17. Now, as for the assumption of our present argument, it cannot
be but evident to any who will not harden their minds against the light of
the truth, that the ceremonies in question have been most notoriously
abused to idolatry and superstition, and withal, that they have no
necessary use to make us retain them. I say, they have been notoriously
abused to idolatry. 1. Because they have been dedicated and consecrated to
the service of idols. 2. Because they have been deeply polluted, and
commonly employed in idolatrous worship. For both these reasons does
Zanchius condemn the surplice,(558) and such like popish ceremonies left
in England, because the whore of Rome has abused, and does yet abuse them,
_ad alliciendos homines ad scortandum. Sunt enim pompae istae omnes, et
ceremoniae Papistisae, nihil aliud quam fuci meretricii, ad hoc
excogitati, ut homines ad spiritualem scortationem alliciantur._ O golden
sentence, and worthy to be engraven with a pen of iron, and the point of a
diamond! for most needful it is to consider, that those ceremonies are the
very meretricious bravery and veigling trinkets wherewith the Romish whore
doth faird and paint herself, whilst she propineth to the world the cup of
her fornications. This makes Zanchius(559) to call those ceremonies the
relics and symbols of popish idolatry and superstition. When Queen Mary
set up Popery in England, and restored all of it which King Henry had
overthrown, she considered that Popery could not stand well-favoredly
without the ceremonies; whereupon she ordained,(560) _ut dies omnes
festicelebrentur, superioris aetatis ceremoniae restituantur, pueri
adultiores __ ante baptisati, ab episcopis confirmentur._ So that not in
remote regions, but in his Majesty’s dominions,—not in a time past memory,
but about fourscore years ago,—not by people’s practice only, but by the
laws and edicts of the supreme magistrate, the ceremonies have been abused
to the reinducing and upholding of Popery and idolatry. Both far and near,
then, both long since and lately, it is more than notorious how grossly
and grievously the ceremonies have been polluted with idolatry and
superstition.
I cannot choose but marvel much how Paybody was not ashamed to deny that
kneeling has been abused by the Papists.(561) Blush, O paper, which art
blotted with such a notable lie! What will not desperate impudency dare to
aver? But Bishop Lindsey seemeth also to hold that kneeling hath been
abused by the Papists(562) only in the elevation and circumgestation of
the host, but not in the participation, and that Honorius did not command
kneeling in the participation, but only in the elevation and
circumgestation. _Ans._ 1. _Saltem mendacem oportet essememorem._ Saith
not the Bishop himself elsewhere of the Papists,(563) “In the sacrament
they kneel to the sign,” whereby he would prove a disconformity between
their kneeling and ours; for we kneel, saith he, “by the sacrament to the
thing signified.” Now if the Papists in the sacrament kneel to the sign,
then they have idolatrously abused kneeling, even in the participation;
for the Bishop dare not say that, in the elevation or circumgestation,
there is either sacrament or sign. 2. Why do our divines controvert with
the Papists, _de adoratione euchuristiae_, if Papists adore it not in the
participation? for the host, carried about in a box, is not the sacrament
of the eucharist. 3. In the participation, Papists think that the bread is
already transubstantiate into the body of Christ, by virtue of the words
of consecration. Now, if in the participation they kneel to that which
they falsely conceive to be the body of Christ (but is indeed corruptible
bread), with an intention to give it _latria_ or divine worship, then in
the participation they abuse it to idolatry. But that is true; therefore,
&c. 4. Durand showeth,(564) that though in the holidays of Easter and
Pentecost, and the festivities of the blessed Virgin, and in the Lord’s
day, they kneel not in the church, but only stand (because of the joy of
the festivity), and at the most do but bow or incline their heads at
prayer, yet _in praesentia corporis et sanguinis Christi_, in presence of
the bread and wine, which they think to be the body and blood of Christ,
they cease not to kneel. And how will the Bishop make their participation
free of this idolatrous kneeling? The Rhemists show us,(565) that when
they are eating and drinking the body and blood of our Lord, they adore
the sacrament, and, humbling themselves, they say to it, _Domine non sum
dignus, Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori_. 5. As for that which Honorius
III. decreed, Dr White calleth it the adoration of the sacrament,(566)
which, if it is so, then we must say, that he decreed adoration in the
participation itself, because _extra usum sacramenti_, the bread cannot be
called a sacrament. Honorius commanded that the priest should frequently
teach his people to bow down devoutly when the host is elevated in the
celebration of the mass, and that they should do the same when it is
carried to the sick. All this was ordained in reference to the
participation. _Ad usum illa instituta sunt_, says Chemnitius,(567)
speaking of this decree, _quando scilicet panis consecratur, et quando ad
infirmos defertur, ut exhibeatur et sumatur_. So that that which was
specially respected in the decree, was adoring in the participation.
Lastly, Here we have to do with Dr Burges, who will have us to think, that
adoration in receiving the sacrament(568) hath not been idolatrously
intended to the sacrament in the church of Rome, neither by decree nor
custom. Not by decree, because albeit Honorius appointed adoration to be
used in the elevation and circumgestation, yet not in the act of
receiving. And albeit the Roman ritual do appoint, that clergymen coming
to receive the sacrament do it kneeling, yet this was done in veneration
of the altar,(569) or of that which standeth thereupon, and not for
adoration of the host put into their mouths. Not by custom; for he will
not have it said that kneeling in the time of receiving was ever in the
church of Rome any rite of or for adoration of the sacrament, because
albeit the people kneel in the act of receiving, yet I “deny (saith he)
that they ever intended adoration of the species, at that moment of time
when they took it in their mouths, but then turned themselves to God,” &c.
_Ans._ 1. As for the decree of Honorius, I have already answered with
Chemnitius, that it had reference specially to the receiving. 2. When
clergymen are appointed in the Roman ritual to receive the sacrament at
the altar kneeling, this was not for veneration of the altar, to which
they did reverence at all times when they approached to it, but this was
required particularly in their receiving of the sacrament, for adoration
of it. Neither is there mention made of the altar as conferring anything
to their kneeling in receiving the sacrament; for the sacrament was not
used the more reverently because it stood upon the altar, but by the
contrary, for the sacrament’s sake reverence was done to the altar, which
was esteemed the seat of the body of Christ. It appeareth, therefore, that
the altar is mentioned, not as concerning the kneeling of the clergymen in
their communicating, but simply as concerning their communicating, because
none but they were wont to communicate at the altar, according to that
received canon, _Solis autem ministris altaris liceat ingredi ad altare et
ibidem communicare_.(570) The one of the Doctor’s own conjectures is, that
they kneeled for reverence of that which stood upon the altar; but I would
know what that was which, standing upon the altar, made them to kneel in
the participation, if it was not the host itself? Now, whereas he denies,
as touching custom, that people did ever intend the adoration of the
species, I answer: 1. How knows he what people in the Roman church did
intend in their minds? 2. What warrant hath he for this, that they did not
in the participation adore the host, which was then put into their mouth?
3. Though this which he saith were true, he gaineth nothing by it; for put
the case, they did not intend the adoration of the species, dare he say,
that they intended not the adoration of that which was under the species?
I trow not. Now, that which was under the species, though in their conceit
it was Christ’s body, yet it was indeed bread; so that, in the very
participation, they were worshipping the bread. But, 4, What needeth any
more? He maketh himself a liar, and saith plainly,(571) that after
transubstantiation was embraced, and when all the substance of the visible
creature was held to be gone, they did intend the adoration of the
invisible things, as if there had been now no substance of any creature
left therein, whereby he destroyeth all which he hath said of their not
intending the adoration of the species.
_Sect._ 20. Last of all, for the other part of my assumption, that the
ceremonies have no necessary use in God’s worship, I need no other proof
than the common by-word of Formalists, which saith they are things
indifferent. Yet the Bishop of Edinburgh(572) and Paybody(573) have turned
their tongues bravely, and chosen rather to say anything against us than
nothing. They spare not to answer, that kneeling hath a necessary use.
They are most certainly speaking of kneeling in the act of receiving the
communion, for they and their opposites, in those places, are disputing of
no other kneeling but this only. Now we may easily perceive they are in an
evil taking, when they are driven to such an unadvised and desperate
answer. For, 1. If kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord’s supper be
necessary, why have themselves too written so much for the indifferency of
it? O desultorious levity that knows not where to hold itself! 2. If it be
necessary, what makes it to be so? What law? What example? What reason? 3.
If it be necessary, not only many reformed churches, and many ancient too,
but Christ himself and his apostles have, in this sacrament, omitted
something that was necessary. 4. If it be necessary, why do many of their
own disciples take the communion sitting, in places where sitting is used?
What need I to say more? In the first part of this dispute I have proved
that the ceremonies are not necessary, in respect of the church’s
ordinance, howbeit if it were answered in this place, that they are in
this respect necessary, it helpeth not, since the argument proceedeth
against all things notoriously abused to idolatry, which neither God nor
nature hath made necessary. And for any necessity of the ceremonies in
themselves, either our opposites must repudiate what hath unadvisedly
fallen from their pens hereanent, or else forsake their beaten ground of
indifferency, and say plainly, that the ceremonies are urged by them, to
be observed with an opinion of necessity, as worship of God, and as things
in themselves necessary. Look to yourselves, O Formalists, for you stand
here upon such slippery places, that you cannot hold both your feet.