THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES IS FALSELY GROUNDED UPON THE HOLY
SCRIPTURE; WHERE SUCH PLACES AS ARE ALLEGED BY OUR OPPOSITES, EITHER FOR
ALL THE CEREMONIES IN GENERAL, OR FOR ANY ONE OF THEM IN PARTICULAR, ARE
VINDICATED FROM THEM.
_Sect._ 1. It remaineth now to examine the warrants which our opposites
pretend for the lawfulness of the ceremonies. But I perceive they know not
well what ground to take hold on. For instance whereof, Hooker defendeth
the lawfulness of festival days by the law of nature.(816) Dr Downame
groundeth the lawfulness of them on the law of God,(817) making the
observation of the sabbaths of rest appointed by the church, such as the
feasts of Christ’s nativity, passion, &c., to be a duty commanded in the
law of God, and the not observing of them to be a thing forbidden by the
same law. But Bishop Lindsey proveth the lawfulness of those holidays(818)
from the power of the church to make laws in such matters. “As for the
Lord’s day (saith he) which has succeeded to the Jewish Sabbath, albeit
God hath commanded to sanctify it, yet neither is the whole public
worship, nor any part of it appropriated to that time; but lawfully the
same may be performed upon any other convenient day of the week, of the
month, or of the year, as the church shall think expedient. Upon this
ground Zanchius affirmed, _Ecclesiæ Christi liberum esse quos velit præter
dominicos dies sibi sanctificandos deligere_. And by this warrant did the
primitive church sanctify those five anniversary days of Christ’s
nativity,” &c.
Nay, let us observe how one of them wavereth from himself in seeking here
some ground to rest upon. Paybody groundeth the lawfulness of kneeling at
the sacrament on nature, part 2, cap. 4, sect. 1, on the act of
Parliament, part 3, cap. 1, sect. 31; on an ecclesiastical canon, part 3,
cap. 1, sect. 33, on the king’s sovereign authority, part 3, cap. 1, sect.
36. Yet again he saith, that this kneeling is grounded upon the
commandment of God, part 3, cap. 3, sect. 11.
Well, I see our opposites sometimes warrant the lawfulness of the
ceremonies from the law of God, sometimes from the law of man, and
sometimes from the law of nature, but I will prove that the lawfulness of
those ceremonies we speak of can neither be grounded upon the law of God,
nor the law of man, nor the law of nature, and by consequence that they
are not lawful at all, so that, besides the answering of what our
opposites allege for the lawfulness of them, we shall have a new argument
to prove them unlawful.
_Sect._ 2. I begin with the law of God. And, first, let us see what is
alleged from Scripture for the ceremonies in general; then, after, let us
look over particulars. There is one place which they will have in
mythology to stand for the head of Medusa, and if they still object to us
for all their ceremonies even that of the Apostle, “Let all things be done
decently and in order,” 1 Cor. xiv. 40. What they have drawn out of this
place, Dr Burges(819) hath refined in this manner. He distinguished
betwixt _præceptum_ and _probatum_, and will have the controverted
ceremonies to be allowed of God, though not commanded. And if we would
learn how these ceremonies are allowed of God, he gives us to
understand,(820) that it is by commanding the general kind to which these
particulars do belong. If we ask what is this general kind commanded of
God, to which these ceremonies do belong? he resolves us,(821) that it is
order and decency: And if further we demand, how such ceremonies as are
instituted and used to stir up men, in respect of their signification,
unto the devout remembrance of their duties to God, are in such an
institution and use, matters of mere order? as a magisterial dictator of
_quodlibets_, he tells us(822) that they are matters of mere order, _sensu
largo_, in a large sense. But lastly, if we doubt where he readeth of any
worship commanded in the general, and not commanded, but only allowed in
the particular, he informeth us,(823) that in the free-will offerings,
when a man was left at liberty to offer a bullock, goat, or sheep at his
pleasure, if he chose a bullock to offer, that sacrifice, in that
particular, was not commanded, but only allowed. What should I do, but be
_surdus contra absurdum_? Nevertheless, least this jolly fellow think
himself more jolly than he this, I answer, 1st, How absurd a tenet is
this, which holdeth that there is some particular worship of God allowed,
and not commanded? What new light is this which maketh all our divines to
have been in the mist, who have acknowledged no worship of God, but that
which God hath commanded? Who ever heard of commanded and allowed worship?
As for the instances of the free-will offerings, Ames hath answered
sufficiently,(824) “that though the particulars were not, nor could not
be, determined by a distinct rule in general, yet they were determined by
the circumstances, as our divines are wont to answer the Papists about
their vows, councils, supererogations _not by a general law, but by
concurrence of circumstances._ So Deut. xvi. 10, Moses showeth that the
freest offerings were to be according as God had blessed them, from whence
it followeth, it had been sin for any Israelite whom God had plentifully
blessed, to offer a pair of pigeons, instead of a bullock or two, upon his
own mere pleasure. Where that proportion was observed, the choice of a
goat before a sheep, or a sheep before a goat, was no formal worship.”
_Sect._ 3. How will Dr Burges make it appear that the English ceremonies
do belong to that order and decency which is commanded? Bellarmine(825)
would have all the ceremonies of the church of Rome comprehended under
order and decency, and therefore warranteth them by that precept of the
Apostle, “let all things be done decently and in order.” The one shall as
soon prove his point as the other, and that shall be never.
For, 1. The Apostle only commanded that each action and ceremony of God’s
worship be decently and orderly performed, but gives us no leave to
excogitate or devise new ceremonies, which have not been instituted
before. He hath spoken in that chapter of assembling in the church,
prophesying and preaching, praying and praising there.
Now let all these things, and every other action of God’s worship,
ceremonies and all, be done decently and in order. _Licit ergo Paulus_,
&c. “Albeit, therefore (saith John Bastwick),(826) Paul hath committed to
the church the judging both of decency and order, yet hath he not granted
any liberty of such mystical ceremonies as by their more inward
signification do teach the duty of piety; for since the whole liberty of
the church, in the matter of divine worship, is exercised only in order
and decency, it followeth that they do impudently scorn both God and the
Scriptures, who do extend this liberty to greater things, and such as are
placed above us. Most certain it is, that Christ, the doctor of the
church, hath, by his own written and sealed word, abundantly expounded
unto us the will of God. Neither is there further need of any ceremonies,
which by a secret virtue may instruct us: neither is it less evident that
order consisteth not in the institution or use of new things, but only in
the right placing of things which have been instituted before.” “Decency
(saith Balduine)(827) is opposed to levity, and order to confusion.”
_Spectat autem hic ordo potissimum ad ritus ecclesiae in officiis sacris
in quibus nullum debet esse scandalum, nulla confusio._
Then, in his judgment, order is not to the rites of the church a general
kind, but only a concomitant circumstance; neither are the rites of the
church comprehended under order as particulars under the general kind to
which they belong; but order belongeth to the rites of the church as an
adjunct to the subject. And, I pray, must not the rights of the church be
managed with decency and order? If so, then must our opposites either say
that order is managed with order, which is to speak nonsense, or else,
that the rights of the church are not comprehended under order. But if
not, then it followeth that the rites of the church are to be managed with
levity, confusion, and scandal; for every action that is not done in
decency and in order must needs be done scandalously and confusedly. 2.
Order and decency, whether taken _largo_ or _stricto sensu_, always
signify such a thing as ought to be in all human actions, as well civil as
sacred; for will any man say, that the civil actions of men are not to be
done decently and in order? The directions of order and decency(828) are
not (we see) _propria religionis_, but as Balduine showeth(829) out of
Gregory Nazianzen, order is in all other things as well as in the church.
Wherefore sacred significant ceremonies shall never be warranted by the
precept of order and decency, which have no less in civility than in
religion.
_Sect._ 4. Now to the particulars. And first, that which Christ did, Matt.
xix. 13, 15, cannot commend unto us the bishopping or confirmation of
children by prayer and imposition of hands; for as Maldonat saith
rightly,(830) _Hebreorum consuetudinem fuisse, ut qui majores erant et
aliqua polle bant divina gratia, manuum impositione inferioribus
benedicerent, constat ex_ Gen. xlviii. 14, 15, _hac ergo ratione adducti
parentes, infantes ad Christum afferebant, ut impositis manibus illis
benediceret_. And as touching this blessing of children and imposition of
hands upon them (saith Cartwright),(831) it is peculiar unto our Saviour
Christ, used neither by his disciples nor his apostles, either before or
after his ascension, whereunto maketh that the children being brought,
that he should pray over them, he did not pray for them, but blessed them,
that is to say, commended them to be blessed, thereby to show his divine
power. These being also yet infants, and in their swaddling clouts, as by
the word which the evangelist useth, and as by our Saviour Christ’s taking
them into his arms, doth appear, being also, in all likelihood,
unbaptised. Last of all, their confirmation is a notable derogation unto
the holy sacrament of baptism, not alone in that it presumeth the sealing
of that which was sealed sufficiently by it; but also in that, both by
asseveration of words, and by speciality of the minister that giveth it,
it is even preferred unto it.
_Sect._ 5. The act of Perth about kneeling would draw some commendation to
this ceremony from those words of the psalm, “O come let us worship and
bow down, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker,” Psal. xcv. 6. Which is
as if one should argue thus: We may worship before the Lord, therefore
before a creature; we may kneel in an immediate worship of God, therefore
in a mediate; for who seeth not that the kneeling there spoken of is a
kneeling in the action of solemn praise and joyful noise of singing unto
the Lord? I wish you, my masters, more sober spirits, that ye may fear to
take God’s name in vain, even his word which he hath magnified above all
his name. Dr Forbesse goeth about to warrant private baptism,(832) by
Philip’s baptising the eunuch, there being no greater company present, so
far as we can gather from the narration of Luke, Acts viii.; as likewise
by Paul and Silas’s baptising the jailer and all his in his own private
house, Acts xvi. Touching the first of those places, we answer, 1. How
thinks he that a man of so great authority and charge was alone in his
journey? We suppose a great man travelling in a chariot must have some
number of attendants, especially having come to a solemn worship at
Jerusalem. 2. What Philip then did, the extraordinary direction of the
Spirit guided him unto it, ver. 29, 39. As to the other place, there was,
in that time of persecution, no liberty for Christians to meet together in
temples and public places, as now there is. Wherefore the example of Paul
and Silas doth prove the lawfulness of the like deed in the like case.
_Sect._ 6. Hooker muttereth some such matter as a commendation of the sign
of the cross from these two places, Ezek. ix. 4; Rev. vii. 3; alleging,
that because in the forehead nothing is more plain to be seen than the
fear of contumely and disgrace, therefore the Scripture describeth them
marked of God in the forehead, whom his mercy hath undertaken to keep from
final confusion and shame.(833) Bellarmine allegeth for the cross the same
two places.(834) But for answer to the first, we say, that neither the
sign whereof we read in that place, nor yet the use of it can make aught
for them. As for the sign itself; albeit the ancients did interpret the
sign of the letter _Tau_, to have been the sign of the cross, yet saith
Junius, _Bona illorum venia; Tquidem Graecorum, Latinorumque majusculum,
crucis quodam modo signum videtur effingere, verum hoc ad literam
Haebreorum_ Tau _non potest pertinere. Deinde ne ipsum quidem Grcaecorum
Latinorumque T, formam crucis quae apud veteres in usu erat quum
sumebantur supplicia, representat._(835)
Whereupon dissenting from the ancients, he delivers his own judgment, that
_tau_ in this place is taken _technicos_, for that sign or mark of the
letter wherewith the Lord commanded to mark the elect for their safety and
preservation. And so there was no mystery to be sought in that letter more
than in any other. As for the use of that mark wherewith the elect in
Jerusalem were at that time sealed, it was only for distinction and
separation. It had the same use which that sprinkling of the posts of the
doors had, Exod. xii. 7, only the foreheads of men and women, and not the
posts of doors were here marked, because only the remnant according to
election, and not whole families promiscuously, were at this time to be
spared, as Junius noteth.
But the use of the sign of the cross pretended by Formalists, is not to
separate us in the time of judgment, but to teach that at no time we ought
to be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ.
Shortly, the sign wherewith they in Jerusalem were marked, was for
preservation from judgment; but the sign of the cross is used for
preservation from sin. Thus we see, that neither the sign nor the use of
it, had any affinity with the cross. Now, the surest interpretation of
that place, Ezek. ix. 4, is to take _Tau_ for an appellative noun,
signifying generally and indefinitely a mark or sign, so that there is no
mark determined by this word; only there was a commandment given to set a
certain mark, some sign or other, upon the foreheads of the elect. So have
our English translators taken the place.
This exposition is confessed by Gasper Sanctius,(836) to be followed
almost by all the Hebrew masters, and by the most ancient interpreters, to
wit, the Septuagint, Aquilla and Symmachus. The word beareth this gloss,
even according to the confession of those who expound it otherwise in this
place, to wit, for an image or representation of the cross. _Tau_ (saith
Sanctius) _commune nomen est, quod signum indefinite significat_.(837)
_Tau_ is expounded by Bellarmine(838) to signify _signum_ or _terminus_.
Well then: our adversaries themselves can say nothing against our
interpretation of the word _tau_. We have also Buxtorff for us, who in his
Hebrew Lexicon turneth _tau_ to _signum_, and for this signification he
citeth both this place, Ezek. ix. 4, and Job. xxxi. 35. _Taui signum
meum._
Lastly, If _tau_ be not put for a common appellative noun, signifying a
mark or sign, but for the figure or character of the letter _tau_ as an
image of the cross, by all likelihood this character only should have been
put in the Hebrew text, and not the noun fully written; _vehithvith a
tau_, and mark a mark. As to the other place,(839) Rev. vii. 3, Pareus
observeth, that there is no figure or form of any sign there expressed,
and he thinks that seal was not outward and visible, but the same whereof
we read, 2 Tim. ii. 19, and Rev. xiv. 1, which cannot be interpreted _de
signo transeunte; nam Christianum semper nomen filii, et patris in fronte
oportet gerere_, saith Junius.(840)
Dr Fulk, on Rev. vii. 3, saith, that the sign here spoken of is proper to
God’s elect, therefore not the sign of the cross, which many reprobates
have received.
_Sect._ 7. Bishop Andrews will have the feast of Easter drawn from that
place,(841) 1 Cor. v. 8, where he saith, there is not only a warrant, but
an order for the keeping of it; and he will have it out of doubt that this
feast is of apostolical institution, because after the times of the
apostles, when there was a contention about the manner of keeping Easter,
it was agreed upon by all, that it should be kept; and when the one side
alleged for them St. John, and the other St. Peter, it was acknowledged by
both that the feast was apostolical.
I answer, The testimony of Socrates deserveth more credit than the
Bishop’s naked conclusion.
“I am of opinion (saith Socrates(842)), that as many other things crept in
of custom in sundry places, so the feast of Easter to have prevailed among
all people, of a certain private custom and observation.”
But whereas Bishop Lindsey, in defence of Bishop Andrews, replieth, that
Socrates propoundeth this for his own opinion only:
I answer, that Socrates, in that chapter, proveth his opinion from the
very same ground which Bishop Andrews wresteth to prove that this feast is
apostolical. For while as in that hot controversy about the keeping of
Easter, they of the East alleged John the apostle for their author, and
they of the West alleged Peter and Paul for themselves, “Yet (saith
Socrates), there is none that can shew in writing any testimony of theirs
for confirmation and proof of their custom. And hereby I do gather, that
the celebration of the feast of Easter came up more of custom than by any
law or canon.”
_Sect._ 7. Downame (as I touched before) allegeth the fourth commandment
for holidays of the church’s institution. But Dr Bastwick allegeth more
truly the fourth commandment against them:(843) “Six days shalt thou
labour.” This argument I have made good elsewhere; so that now I need not
insist upon it. There are further two examples alleged against us for
holidays, out of Esth. ix. 17, 18, 27, 28, and John x. 22.
Whereunto we answer, 1. That both those feasts were appointed to be kept
with the consent of the whole congregation of Israel and body of the
people, as is plain from Esth. ix. 32, and 1 Maccab. iv. 59. Therefore,
they have no show of making aught of such feasts as ours, which are
tyrannically urged upon such as in their consciences do condemn them.
2. It appears, that the days of Purim were only appointed to be days of
civil mirth and gladness, such as are in use with us, when we set out
bonfires, and other tokens of civil joy, for some memorable benefit which
the kingdom or commonwealth hath received. For they are not called the
holidays of Purim, but simply the days of Purim,—“A day of feasting and of
sending portions one to another,” Esth. ix. 19, 22. No word of any worship
of God in those days. And whereas it seemeth to Bishop Lindsey,(844) that
those days were holy, because of that rest which was observed upon them;
he must know that the text interpreteth itself, and it is evident from
ver. 16 and 22, that this rest was not a rest from labour, for waiting
upon the worshipping of God, but only a rest from their enemies.
_Sect._ 9. But Bishop Andrews goeth about to prove by six reasons, that
the days of Purim were holidays, and not days of civil joy and solemnity
only.(845)
First, saith he, it is plain by verse 31, they took it in _animas_, upon
their souls,—a _soul matter_ they made of it: there needs no soul for
_feria_ or _festum_, play or feasting. They bound themselves _super animas
suas_, which is more than _upon themselves_, and would not have been put
in the margin, but stood in the text: thus he reprehendeth the English
translators, as you may perceive.
_Ans._ The Bishop could not be ignorant that _nephesch_ signifieth _corpus
animatum_, as well as _anima_, and that the Hebrews do not always put this
word for our souls, but very often for ourselves. So Psal. vii. 2. and
Psal. lix. 3, we read _naphschi_,—_my soul_ for _me_; and Psal. xliv.
25,—_naphschenu, our soul_ for _we_; and Gen. xlvi. 26,
_col-nephesch_—_omnis animae_, for _omnes homines_.
What have we any further need of testimonies? Six hundred such are in the
holy text. And in this place, Esth. ix. 31, what can be more plain, than
that _nighal-naphscham, upon their soul_, is put for _nghalehem, upon
themselves_, especially since _nghalehem_ is found to the same purpose,
both in ver. 27 and 31.
If we will make the text agree well with itself, how can we but take both
these for one? But proceed we with the Bishop. Secondly, saith he, the
bond of it reacheth to all that _religioni eorum voluerunt copulari_, ver.
27, then, a matter of religion it was, had reference to that: what need
any joining in religion for a matter of good fellowship?
_Ans._ There is no word in the text of religion. Our English translation
reads it, “all such as joined themselves unto them.” Montanus, _omnes
adjunctos_; Tremellius, _omnes qui essent se adjuncturi eis._ The old
Latin version reads it indeed as the Bishop doth.
But no such thing can be drawn out of the word _hannilvim_, which is taken
from the radix _lava_, signifying simply, and without any adjection,
_adhaesit_, or _adjunxit se_. But let it be so, that the text meaneth only
such as were to adjoin themselves to the religion of the Jews, yet why
might not the Jews have taken upon them a matter of civility, not only for
themselves, but for such also as were to be joined with them in religion.
Could there be nothing promised for proselytes, but only a matter of
religion?
Alas! Is this our antagonist’s great Achilles, who is thus falling down
and succumbing to me, a silly stripling? Yet let us see if there be any
more force in the remnant of his reasons.
For a third, he tells us that it is expressly termed a _rite_ and a
_ceremony_, at verses 23 and 28, as the fathers read them.
In the 23rd verse we have no more but _susceperunt_, as Pagnini, or
_receperunt_, as Tremellius reads it: but to read, _susceperunt in
solemnem ritum_, is to make an addition to the text.
The 28th verse calls not this feast a rite, but only _dies memorati_, or
_celebres_. And what if we grant that this feast was a rite? might it not,
for all that, be merely civil? No, saith the Bishop, “rites, I trust, and
ceremonies, pertain to the church, and to the service of God.”
_Ans._ The version which the Bishop followed, hath a rite, not a ceremony.
Now, of rites, it is certain that they belong to the commonwealth as well
as to the church. For _in jure politico, sui sunt imperati et solemnes
ritus_, saith Junius.(846)
Fourthly, saith the Bishop, they fast and pray here in this verse (meaning
the 31st), fast the eve, the fourteenth, and so then the day following to
be holiday of course.
_Ans._ The Latin version, which the Bishop followeth, and whereupon he
buildeth this reason, readeth the 31st verse very corruptly, and no ways
according to the original, as will easily appear to any who can compare
them together. Wherefore the best interpreters take the fasting and prayer
spoken of verse 31, to be meant of the time before their delivery. Now,
after they were delivered, they decreed that the matters of their fasting
and crying should be remembered upon the days of Purim, which were to
solemnise that preservation, _quam jejunio et precibus fuerant a Deo
consequenti_, as saith Tremellius.
But Fifthly, saith he, with fasting and prayer (here), alms also is
enjoined (at ver. 22), these three will make it past a day of revels or
mirth.
I have answered already, that their fasting and praying are not to be
referred to the days of Purim, which were memorials of their delivery, but
to the time past, when, by the means of fasting and prayer, they did
impetrate their delivery, before ever the days of Purim were heard of, and
as touching alms, it can make no holiday, because much alms may be, and
hath been given upon days of civil joy and solemnity.
If the Bishop help not himself with his sixth reason, he is like to come
off with no great credit. May we then know what that is?
Lastly, saith he, as a holiday the Jews ever kept it,—have a peculiar set
service for it in their _Seders_, set psalms to sing, set lessons to read,
set prayers to say, good and godly all,—none but as they have used from
all antiquity.
_Ans._ 1. The Bishop could not have made this word good, that the Jews did
ever and from all antiquity keep the days of Purim in this fashion.
2. This manner of holding that feast, whensoever it began, had no warrant
from the first institution, but was (as many other things) taken up by the
Jews in after ages, and so the Bishop proveth not the point which he
taketh in hand, namely, that the days spoken of in this text were enacted
or appointed to be kept as holidays.
3. The service which the Jews in latter times use upon the days of Purim
is not much to be regarded. For as Godwin noteth out of Hospinian,(847)
they read the history of Esther in their synagogues, and so often as they
hear mention of Haman, they do with their fists and hammers beat upon the
benches and boards, as if they did knock upon Haman’s head. When thus they
have behaved themselves, in the very time of their liturgy, like furious
and drunken people, the rest of the day they pass over in outrageous
revelling. And here I take leave of the Bishop.
_Sect._ 10. Thirdly, We say, whether the days of Purim were instituted to
be holidays or not, yet there was some more than ordinary warrant for
them, because Mordecai, by whose advice and direction they were appointed
to be kept, was a prophet by the instinct and revelation of the Spirit,
Esth. iv. 13. _Non multum fortasse aberraverimus_, saith Hospinian,(848)
_si dicamus hoc à Mordochcæo et Hesthera, ex peculiari Spiritus Sancti
instinctu factum_.
Bishop Lindsey believeth(849) that they had only a general warrant, such
as the church hath still, to put order to the circumstances belonging to
God’s worship, and all his reason is, because if the Jews had received any
other particular warrant, the sacred story should not have passed it over
in silence.
_Ans._ Thus much we understand from the sacred story, that the Jews had
the direction of a prophet for the days of Purim; and that was a warrant
more than ordinary, because prophets were the extraordinary ministers of
God.
_Sect._ 11. Fourthly, As touching the feast of the dedication of the altar
by Judas Maccabeus, 1. Let us hear what Cartwright very gravely and
judiciously propoundeth:(850) “That this feast was unduly instituted and
ungroundly, it may appear by conference of the dedication of the first
temple under Solomon, and of the second after the captivity returned from
Babylon. In which dedication, seeing there was no yearly remembrance by
solemnity of feasts, not so much as one day, it is evident that the yearly
celebration of this feast for eight days, was not compassed by that Spirit
that Solomon and the captivity were directed by; which Spirit, when it
dwelt more plentifully in Solomon, and in the prophets that stood at the
stern of the captivity’s dedication, than it did in Judas, it was in him
so much the more presumptuous, as having a shorter leg than they, he durst
in that matter overstride them, and his rashness is so much the more
aggravated, as each of them, for the building of the whole temple, with
all the implements and furniture thereof, made no feast to renew the
annual memory, where Judas only for renewment of the altar, and of certain
other decayed places of the temple, instituted this great solemnity.”
2. The feast of the dedication was not free of Pharisaical invention. For
as Tremellius observeth out of the Talmud,(851) _statuerunt sapientes
illius seculi, ut recurrentibus annis, octo illi dies, &c._ Yet albeit the
Pharisees were called _sapientes Israelis_, Bishop Lindsey will not grant
that they were the wise men of whom the Talmud speaketh; for, saith he, it
behoved those who appointed festivities, not only to be wise men, but men
of authority also.(852)
But what do we hear? Were not the Pharisees men of authority? Why, saith
not Christ they sat in Moses’ chair? Matt. xxiii. 2. Saith not
Calvin,(853) _In ecclesiæ regimene et scriptura interpretatione, hæc secta
primatum tenebat_? Saith not Camero,(854) _cum Pharisæorum præcipua esset
authoritas_ (_ut ubique docet Josephus_)? &c.
Doth not Josephus speak so much of their authority, that in one place he
saith,(855) _Nomen igitur regni, erat penes reginam (Alexandram) penes
Pharisæos vero administratio_? And in another place,(856) _Erat enim
quædam Judæorum secta exactiorem patriæ legis cognitionem sibi vendicans_?
&c. _Hi Pharisæi vocantur, genus hominuum astutum, arrogans, et interdum
regibus quoque infestum, ut eos etiam aperte impugnare non vereatur?_
There is nothing alleged which can prove the lawfulness of this feast of
the dedication.
It is but barely and boldly affirmed by Bishop Lindsey,(857) that the
Pharisees were not rebuked by Christ for this feast, because we read not
so much in Scripture; for there were many things which Jesus did and said
that are not written in Scripture, John xxi. 25; and whereas it seemeth to
some, that Christ did countenance and approve this feast, because he gave
his presence unto the same, John x. 22, 23, we must remember, that the
circumstances only of time and place are noted by the evangelist, for
evidence to the story, and not for any mystery, Christ had come up to the
feast of tabernacles, John vii., and tarried still all that while, because
then there was a great confluence of people in Jerusalem. Whereupon he
took occasion to spread the net of the gospel for catching of many souls.
And whilst John saith, “It was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication,”
he gives a reason only of the confluence of many people at Jerusalem, and
showeth how it came to pass that Christ had occasion to preach to such a
great multitude; and whilst he addeth “And it was winter,” he giveth a
reason of Christ’s walking in Solomon’s porch, whither the Jews’ resort
was. It was not thought beseeming to walk in the temple itself, but in the
porch men used to convene either for talking or walking, because in the
summer the porch shadowed them from the heat of the sun, and in winter it
lay open to the sunshine and to heat. Others think, that whilst he saith,
it was winter, importeth that therefore Christ was the more frequently in
the temple, knowing that his time was short which he had then for his
preaching; for in the entry of the next spring he was to suffer.
Howsoever, it is not certain of what feast of dedication John speaketh.
Bullinger leaves it doubtful;(858) and Maldonat saith(859) that this
opinion which taketh the dedication of the altar by Judas Maccabeus to be
meant by John, hath fewest authors. But to let this pass, whereas the
Rhemists allege,(860) that Christ approved this feast, because he was
present at it. Cartwright and Fulk answer them, that Christ’s being
present at it proveth not his approving of it. _Non festum proprie
honoravit Christus_, saith Junius,(861) _sed cætum piorum convenientem
festo; nam omnes ejusmodi occasiones seminandi evangelii sui observabat et
capiebat Christus_.
_Quasi vero_ (saith Hospinian(862)) _Christus Encænoirum casua
Hierosloymam abierit_. Nay, but he saw he had a convenient occasion, _ad
instituendam hominum multitudenem, ad illud festum confluentiam_.
Even as Paul chose to be present at certain Jewish feasts,(863) not for
any respect to the feasts themselves, nor for any honour which he meant to
give them, but for the multitudes’ cause who resorted to the same, among
whom he had a more plentiful occasion to spread the gospel at those
festivities than at other times in the year.
I had thought here to close this chapter; but finding that, as the parrot,
which other while useth the form of a man’s voice, yet being beaten and
chaffed, returneth to his own natural voice, so some of our opposites, who
have been but erst prating somewhat of the language of Canaan against us,
finding themselves pressed and perplexed in such a way of reasoning, have
quickly changed their tune, and begin to talk to us of warrants of another
nature nor of the word of God. I am therefore to digress with them. And I
perceive, ere we know well where they are, they are passed from Scripture
to custom. For if we will listen, thus saith one of the greatest note
among them, Bishop Andrews(864) I trow they call him: “We do but make
ourselves to be pitied other while (well said) when we stand wringing the
Scriptures (well said) to strain that out of them which is not in them
(well said), and so can never come liquid from them (well said), when yet
we have for the same point the church’s custom clear enough. And that is
enough by virtue of this text” (meaning 1 Cor. xi. 16). And after he
saith, that we are taught by the Apostle’s example in “points of this
nature, of ceremony or circumstance, ever to pitch upon _habemus_, or _non
habemus talem consuetudinem_.”
_Ans._ 1. The text gives him no ground for this doctrine, that in matters
of ceremony we are to pitch upon _habemus_ or _non habemus talem
consuetudinem_, so that he is wide away, whilst he spendeth the greatest
part of his sermon in the pressing of this point, that the custom of the
church should be enough to us in matters of ceremony, and particularly in
the keeping of Easter; for the custom of the church there spoken of, is
not concerning a point of circumstance, but concerning a very substantial
and necessary point, namely, not to be contentious: neither doth the
Apostle urge those orders of the men’s praying uncovered, and the women’s
praying veiled, from this ground, because so was the church’s custom (as
the Bishop would have it), but only he is warning the Corinthians not to
be contentious about those matters, because the churches have no such
custom as to be contentious. So is the place expounded by Chrysostom,
Ambrose, Calvin, Martyr, Bullinger, Marlorat, Beza, Fulk, Cartwright,
Pareus, and our own Archbishop of St. Andrews, in his sermon upon that
text. And for this exposition, it maketh that the Apostle, in the
preceding part of the chapter, hath given sufficient reasons for that
order of covering or veiling the women; wherefore, if any would contend
about the matter, he tells them they must contend with themselves; for
they nor the churches of God would not contend with them,—they had no such
custom. But if we admit Bishop Andrews’ gloss, then why doth the Apostle,
after he hath given good “reason for the veiling of women, subjoin, if any
man seem to be contentious,” &c. The Bishop resolveth us, that the
apostles saw that a wrangling wit would elude these reasons which he had
given, and he had no other reasons to give, therefore he resolves all into
the church’s practice,—enough of itself to suffice any that will be wise
to sobriety. _Ans._ If any seem to be blasphemous, we have no such custom,
neither the churches of God. What! shall a wrangling wit elude the reasons
given by the Spirit of God, in such sort, that he must give some other
more sufficient proof for that which he teacheth? Then the whole
Scriptures of God must yet be better proved, because the unstable do wrest
them, as Peter speaks, 2 Pet. iii. 16.
(Transcriber’s Note: There is no section 12 in the original book.)
_Sect._ 13. 2. The custom of the church is not enough to pitch on, and it
is found oftentimes expedient to change a custom of the church.
Basilius Magnus(865) doth flatly refuse to admit the authority of custom:
_Consuetudo sine veritate_ (saith Cyprian),(866) _vetustas erroris est.
Frustra enim qui ratione vincuntur_ (saith Augustine),(867) _consuetudinem
nobis objiciunt, quasi consuetudo major sit veritate, &c. Nullus pudor est
ad meliora transire_, saith Ambrose(868) to the Emperor Valentinian.
_Quaelibet consuetudo_ (saith Gratian),(869) _veritati est postponenda._
And again,(870) _Corrigendum est quod illicite admittitur, aut a
praedecessoribus admissum invenitur_. A politic writer admonisheth(871)
_retinere antiqua_, only with this caution, _Si proba._
Calvin(872) (speaking against human ceremonies) saith, _Si objiciatur,
&c._ “If (saith he) antiquity be objected (albeit they who are too much
addicted to custom and to received fashions, do boldly use this buckler to
defend all their corruptions), the refutation is easy; for the ancients
also themselves, with heavy complaints, have abundantly testified that
they did not approve of anything which was devised by the will of men.” In
the end of the epistle he allegeth this testimony of Cyprian: “If Christ
alone be to be heard, then we ought not to give heed what any man before
us hath thought fit to be done, but what Christ (who is before all) hath
done; for we must not follow the customs of man, but the truth of God.”
What can be more plain than that antiquity cannot be a confirmation to
error, nor custom a prejudice to truth?
Wherefore Dr Forbesse(873) also despiseth such arguments as are taken from
the custom of the church.
_Sect._ 14. 3. There was a custom in the churches of God to give the holy
communion to infants; and another custom to minister baptism only about
Easter and Pentecost. Sundry such abuses got place in the church.
If, then, it be enough to pitch upon custom, why ought not those customs
to have been commended and continued? But if they were commendably
changed, then ought we not to follow blindly the bare custom of the
church, but examine the equity of the same, and demand grounds of reason
for it.
St. Paul (saith Dr Fulk(874)) doth give reason for that order of covering
women’s heads: “By whose example the preachers are likewise to endeavour
to satisfy, by reason, both men and women, that humbly desire their
resolution for quiet of their conscience, and not to beat them down with
the club of custom only.”
4. Whereas the custom of some churches is alleged for the ceremonies, we
have objected the custom of other churches against them; neither shall
ever our opposites prove them to be the customs of the church universal.
5. A great part of that ecclesiastical custom which is alleged for the
ceremonies, resolveth into that idolatrous and superstitious use of them
which hath long continued in the kingdom of antichrist; but that such a
custom maketh against them, it hath been proved before.(875)
6. If it were so that we ought to pitch upon the church’s custom, yet
(that I may speak with Mr Hooker) the law of common indulgence permitteth
us to think of our own customs as half a thought better than the customs
of others.
But why was there such a change made in the discipline, policy, and orders
of the church of Scotland, which were agreeable to the word of God,
confirmed and ratified by general assemblies and parliaments, used and
enjoyed with so great peace and purity? Our custom should have holden the
ceremonies out of Scotland, hold them in elsewhere as it may.