Part 10 (1/2)
3. He should have proved that obedience to the magistrate in a thing indifferent, is a better duty than abstaining from that which scandaliseth many Christians. He should not have opposed pleasing and scandalising (for perhaps a man is most scandalised when he is most pleased), but edifying and scandalising, according to my first proposition. Now, will anybody except Paybody say, that obedience to the magistrate in a thing indifferent, out of which scandal riseth, is a better duty than forbearing for the edification of many Christian souls, and for shunning to scandalise them. This we must take to be his meaning, or else he saith nothing to the purpose.
_Sect._ 19. His fourth answer is, that all those scriptures condemning scandal, must needs especially condemn that which is greatest. Peter and his companions coming to Antioch, were in danger of a double scandal; either of the Jews by eating with the Gentiles, which was the less, or of the Gentiles in refusing their company, as if they had not been brethren, which was far the greater. Now Paul blamed Peter very much, that for the avoiding the lesser scandal, he and his companions fell into the greater.
_Ans._ 1. He is greatly mistaken whilst he thinks that a man can be so straitened betwixt two scandals, that he cannot choose but give the one of them. For, _nulla datur talis perplexitas, ut necessarium sit pro homini sive hoc sive illud faciat, scandalum alicui dare_.(425)
2. That sentence of choosing the least of two evils, must be understood of evils of punishment, not of evils of sin, as I showed before,(426) so that he is in a foul error whilst he would have us to choose the least of two scandals.
3. As for the example which he allegeth, he deceiveth himself to think that Peter had given scandal to the Jews by his eating with the Gentiles.
_c.u.m Gentibus cib.u.m capiens, recte utebatur libertate Christiana_, say the Magdeburgians;(427) but when certain Jews came from James, he withdrew himself, fearing the Jews, and so _quod ante de libertate Christiana aedificarat, rursus destruebat_, by eating, then, with the Gentiles, he gave no scandal, but by the contrary he did edify. And farther, I say, that his eating with the Gentiles was a thing necessary, and that for shunning of two great scandals; the one of the Gentiles, by compelling them to Judaise; the other of the Jews, by confirming them in Judaism, both which followed upon his withdrawing from the Gentiles; so that by his eating with the Gentiles no scandal could be given, and if any had been taken, it was not to be cared for. Wherefore there was but one scandal which Peter and his companions were in danger of, which also they did give, and for which Paul apprehended them, namely, their withdrawing of themselves from the Gentiles, and keeping company only with the Jews, whereby both the Jews and the Gentiles were scandalised, because both were made to think (at least occasion was given to both for thinking) the observation of the ceremonial law necessary. That which deceiveth Paybody, is the confounding of _scandalising_ and _displeasing_. Peter, by eating with the Gentiles, perhaps had displeased the Jews, but he had thereby edified them, though the scandal which he gave them was by Judaising; _Judaizabat olim Petrus per dissimulationem_, saith Gerson:(428) by this Judaising through such dissimulation and double-dealing, as was his eating with the Gentiles first, and then withdrawing of himself, when certain Jews came; for keeping company with them only, he scandalised the Jews and confirmed them in Judaism, as Pareus noteth.(429) How then can it be said, that he that scandalised them by his eating with the Gentiles? For hereupon it should follow that there was a necessity of doing evil laid upon Peter, so that he behoved to offend the Jews either by his eating with the Gentiles, or by his not eating with the Gentiles; for he could not both eat with them and not eat with them. This is therefore plain, that if he scandalised the Jews by his not eating with the Gentiles, as I have showed, then had he not scandalised them, but edified them by his eating with the Gentiles.
I perceive he would say, that the scandal of non-conformity is a greater scandal than the scandal of conformity; and so he would make us gain little by our argument of scandal. He is bold to object,(430) ”Where one is offended with our practice of kneeling, twenty, I may say ten thousand, are offended with your refusal.” O adventurous arithmetic! O huge hyperbole! O desultorious declamation! O roving rethoric! O prodigal paradox!
Yet, I reply, 1. Though sundry (yet not ten thousand for one) are displeased by our refusal, who can show us that any are thereby scandalised; that is, made worse and induced to ruin? This man is bold to say well to it; but we have solidly proved that scandal riseth out of kneeling and the rest of the ceremonies: let it be measured to us with the same measure wherewith we mete.
2. Put the case, that ten thousand were scandalised by our refusal, will it thereupon follow that our refusal is a greater scandal than their practising? Nay, then, let it be said that the cross of Christ is a greater scandal than a private man's fornication, because both Jews and Greeks were offended at that, 1 Cor. i. 23; whereas, perhaps, a small congregation only is offended at this.
3. Our refusal is necessary, because of the unlawfulness of the ceremonies which we refuse, so that we may not receive them, but must refuse them, notwithstanding of any scandal which can follow upon our refusal. If he had aught to say against this answer, why is he silent? He might have found it at home. ”Our forbearance of conformity (saith Parker(431)) is a necessary duty, there is therein no fault of any scandal in us.”
4. Our opposites should do well to a.s.sail our argument of scandal before they propound any other argument against us; for so long as they make it not evident that the scandal of the ceremonies, which we object, is an active or faulty scandal, so long they cannot object the scandal of non-conformity to us; because if the scandal (which is to be avoided) be in their practising of the ceremonies, it cannot be in our refusing of them.
5. We know many are grieved and displeased with our non-conformity, yet that every one who is grieved is not by and by scandalised, the Bishop of Winchester teacheth as well as we. ”Many times (saith he(432)) men are grieved with that which is for their good, and earnestly set on that which is not expedient for them.” But, in good earnest, what do they mean who say they are scandalised, or made worse by our non-conformity? for neither do we make them condemn our lawful deed as unlawful, nor yet do we animate them by our example to do that which, in their consciences, they judge unlawful. They themselves acknowledge that sitting is as lawful as kneeling; that the not-observing of the five holidays is as lawful as the observing of them; that the not-bishoping of children is as lawful as the bishoping of them. Do they not acknowledge the indifferency of the things themselves? Do they not permit many of their people either to kneel or to sit at the communion? Have not many of themselves taken the communion sitting in some places? Have not our Conformists in Scotland hitherto commonly omitted bishoping of children, and the ministration of the sacraments in private places? As for ourselves we make our meaning plain when we object the scandal of conformity; for many ignorant and superst.i.tious persons are, by the ceremonies, confirmed (_expertus loquor_) in their error and superst.i.tion; so that now they even settle themselves upon the old dregs of popish superst.i.tion and formality, from which they were not well purged. Others are made to practise the ceremonies with a doubting and disallowing conscience, and to say with Naaman, ”In this the Lord be merciful unto us if we err:” with my own ears have I heard some say so. And even those who have not practised the ceremonies, for that they cannot see the lawfulness of them, yet are animated by the example of practising Conformists to do these things which, in their consciences, they condemn as unlawful (which were to sin d.a.m.nably), and if they do them not, then is there no small doubting and disquietness, trouble, and trepidation, harboured in their consciences.
And thus, one way or other, some weakening or deterioration cometh to us by the means of the ceremonies; and if any of our opposites dare think that none of us can be so weak as to stumble or take any harm in this kind, because of the ceremonies, we take G.o.d himself to witness, who shall make manifest the counsels of the heart, that we speak the truth, and lie not.
Finally, Let that be considered which divines observe to be the perpetual condition of the church,(433) namely, that as in any other family there are found some great, some small, some strong, some weak, some wholesome, some sickly, so still is there found such an inequality in the house of G.o.d, which is the church,-and that because some are sooner, some are later called, some endued with more gifts of G.o.d, and some with fewer.(434)
THE THIRD PART.
AGAINST THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES.
CHAPTER I.
THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL, BECAUSE SUPERSt.i.tIOUS, WHICH IS PARTICULARLY INSTANCED IN HOLIDAYS, AND MINISTERING THE SACRAMENTS IN PRIVATE PLACES.
_Sect._ 1. The strongest tower of refuge to which our opposites make their main recourse, is the pretended lawfulness of the ceremonies, which now we are to batter down and demolish, and so make it appear how weak they are even where they think themselves strongest.
My first argument against the lawfulness of the ceremonies I draw from the superst.i.tion of them. I cannot marvel enough how Dr Mortoune and Dr Burges could think to rub the superst.i.tion upon Non-conformists, whom they set forth as fancying their abstinence from the ceremonies to be a singular piece of service done to G.o.d, placing religion in the not using of them, and teaching men to abstain from them for conscience' sake. Dr Ames(435) hath given a sufficient answer, namely, that abstaining from sin is one act of common obedience, belonging as well to things forbidden in the second table, as to those forbidden in the first; and that we do not abstain from those ceremonies but as from other unlawful corruptions, even out of the compa.s.s of wors.h.i.+p. We abstain from the ceremonies even as from lying, cursing, stealing, &c. Shall we be holden superst.i.tious for abstaining from things unlawful? The superst.i.tion therefore is not on our side, but on theirs:-
_Sect._ 2. For, 1st, Superst.i.tion is the opposite vice to religion, in the excess, as our divines describe it; for it exhibits more in the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d than he requires in his wors.h.i.+p. Porro saith,(436) _Zanchius in cultum ipsum excessu ut, peccatur; si quid illi quem Christus inst.i.tuit, jam addas, aut ab aliis additum sequar is; ut si sacramentis a Christo inst.i.tutis, alia addas sacramenta; si sacrificiis, alia sacrificia; si ceremoniis cujusvis sacramenti, alios addas ritus, qui merito omnes superst.i.tionis nomine appellantur._ We see he accounteth superst.i.tion to be in the addition of ceremonies not inst.i.tuted by Christ, as well as in the addition of more substantial matters. _Superst.i.tio_ (as some derive the word) is that which is done _supra statutum_; and thus are the controverted ceremonies superst.i.tious, as being used in G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p upon no other ground than the appointment of men.
_Sect._ 3. 2d. Superst.i.tion is that which exhibits divine wors.h.i.+p, _vel cui non debet, vel eo non modo quo debet_, say the schoolmen.(437) Now our ceremonies, though they exhibit wors.h.i.+p to G.o.d, yet this is done inordinately, and they make the wors.h.i.+p to be otherwise performed than it should be; for example, though G.o.d be wors.h.i.+pped by the administration of the sacraments in private places, yet not so as he should be wors.h.i.+pped.
The Professors of Leyden(438) condemn private baptism as inordinate, because _baptismus publici ministerii, non privatae exhortationis est appendix_. It is marked in the fourth century,(439) both out of councils and fathers, that it was not then permitted to communicate in private places; but this custom was thought inordinate and unbeseeming. If it be said, that the communion was given to the sick privately in the ancient church, I answer: Sometimes this was permitted, but for such special reasons as do not concern us; for, as we may see plainly by the fourteenth canon of the first Council of Nice (as those canons are collected by Ruffinus), the sixty-ninth canon of the Council of Eleberis, and the sixth canon of the Council of Ancyra, the communion was only permitted to be given in private houses to the _paenitentes_, who were _abstenti_ and debarred from the sacrament, some for three years, some for five, some for seven, some for ten, some for thirteen, some longer, and who should happily be overtaken with some dangerous and deadly sickness before the set time of abstention was expired. As for the judgment of our own divines, _Calviniani_, saith Balduine,(440) _morem illum quo eucharastia ad aegrotos tanquam viatic.u.m defertur improbant, eamque non nisi in coetibus publicis usurpendam censent_. For this he allegeth Beza, Aretius, and Musculus. It was a better ordinance than that of Perth, which said, _non oportet in domibus oblationes ab episcopis sive presbyteris fieri_.(441) But to return.
_Sect._ 4. 3d. The ceremonies are proved to be superst.i.tious, by this reason, if there were no more, they have no necessary nor profitable use in the church (as hath been proved), which kind of things cannot be used without superst.i.tion. It was according to this rule that the Waldenses(442) and Albigenses taught that the exorcisms, breathings, crossings, salt, spittle, unction, chrism, &c. used by the church of Rome in baptism, being neither necessary nor requisite in the administration of the same, did occasion error and superst.i.tion, rather than edification to salvation,
4th. They are yet more superst.i.tious, for that they are not only used in G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p unnecessary and unprofitably, but likewise they hinder other necessary duties. They who, though they serve the true G.o.d, ”yet with needless offices, and defraud him of duties necessary,” are superst.i.tious in Hooker's judgment.(443) I wish he had said as well to him as from him.
What offices more unnecessary than those Roman rituals? yet what more necessary duties than to wors.h.i.+p G.o.d in a spiritual and lively manner,-to press the power of G.o.dliness upon the consciences of professors,-to maintain and keep faithful and well qualified ministers in the church,-to bear the bowels of mercy and meekness,-not to offend the weak, nor to confirm Papists in Popery,-to have all things in G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p disposed according to the word, and not according to the will of man,-not to exercise lords.h.i.+p over the consciences of those whom Christ hath made free,-to abolish the monuments of by-past and badges of present idolatry; yet are those and other necessary duties shut quite out of doors by our needless ceremonial service.
_Sect._ 5. 5th. The ceremonies are not free of superst.i.tion, inasmuch as they give to G.o.d an external service, and grace-defacing wors.h.i.+p, which he careth not for, and make fleshly observations to step into the room of G.o.d's most spiritual wors.h.i.+p. Augustine(444) allegeth that which is said,-”The kingdom of G.o.d is within you,” Luke xvii. against superst.i.tious persons, who _exterioribus princ.i.p.alem curam impendunt_. The Christian wors.h.i.+p ought to be ”in spirit, without the carnal ceremonies and rites,”
saith one of our divines;(445) yea, the kingdom of G.o.d cometh not _c.u.m apparatu aut pompa mundana, ita ut observari possit tempus vel locus_, saith a Papist.(446) Carnal wors.h.i.+p, therefore, and ceremonial observations, are (to say the least) superfluous in religion, and by consequence superst.i.tious.
_Sect._ 6. 6th. Wors.h.i.+p is placed in the ceremonies, therefore they are most superst.i.tious. To make good what I say, holiness and necessity are placed in the ceremonies, _ergo_, wors.h.i.+p. And, 1st, Holiness is placed in them. Hooker(447) thinks festival days clothed with outward robes of holiness; nay, he saith plainly,(448)-”No doubt, as G.o.d's extraordinary presence hath hallowed and sanctified certain places, so they are his extraordinary works that have truly and worthily advanced certain times, for which cause they ought to be, with all men that honour G.o.d, more holy than other days.” He calleth also the cross an holy sign.(449) Dr Burges(450) defendeth that the ceremonies are and may be called wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d, not only _ratione modi_, as belonging to the reverend usage of G.o.d's prescribed wors.h.i.+p, but also _ratione medii_, though not _medii per se_, of and by itself, yet _per aliud_, by virtue of somewhat else. Now, do not Papists place wors.h.i.+p in their cross and crucifix? yet do they place no holiness in it _per se_, but only _per aliud_, in respect of Christ crucified thereby represented, and they tell us,(451) that _creaturae insensibili non debetur honor vel reverentia, nisi ratione rationalis naturae_; and that they give no religious respect unto the tree whereon Christ was crucified, the nails, garments, spear, manger, &c., but only _quantum ad rationem contactus membrorum Christi_. Saith Dr Burges any less of the ceremonies? Nay, he placeth every way as much holiness and wors.h.i.+p in them in the forequoted place. And elsewhere he teacheth,(452) that after a sort the ceremonies are wors.h.i.+p in themselves, even such a wors.h.i.+p as was that of the free-will offerings under the law, and such a wors.h.i.+p as was the building and use of altars here and there(453) (before G.o.d had chosen out the standing place for his altar), though to the same end for which the Lord's inst.i.tuted altar served. Thus we see that they offer the ceremonies as wors.h.i.+p to G.o.d: yet put the case they did not, the school saith,(454) that a thing belongeth to the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d, _vel quo ad offerendum, vel quo ad a.s.sumendum_. Whereupon it followeth, that superst.i.tion is not only to be laid to their charge who offer to G.o.d for wors.h.i.+p that which he hath not commanded, but theirs also who a.s.sume in G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p the help of anything as sacred or holy which himself hath not ordained. 2. They place as great a necessity in the ceremonies as Papists place in theirs, whereby it shall also appear now superst.i.tiously they place wors.h.i.+p in them; for _quaecunque observatio quasi necessaria commendatur, continuo censetur ad cultum Dei pertinere_, saith Calvin.(455) The Rhemists think,(456) that meats of themselves, or of their own nature, do not defile, ”but so far as by accident they make a man to sin; as the disobedience of G.o.d's commandment, or of our superiors, who forbid some meats for certain times and causes, is a sin.” And they add, ”that neither flesh nor fish of itself doth defile, but the breach of the church's precept defileth.” Aquinas(457) defendeth that trin-immersion is not _de necessitate baptismi_, only he thinks it a sin to baptise otherwise, because this rite is inst.i.tuted and used by the church. Do not Formalists place the same necessity in the ceremonies, while, as they say, they urge them not as necessary in themselves, but only as necessary in respect of the determination of the church, and the ordinance of those who are set over us? Nay, Papists place not so great necessity in many ordinances of their church as Formalists place in the ceremonies. If the cause be doubtful, Aquinas(458) sends a man to seek a dispensation from the superior. But _si causa sit evidens, per seipsum licite potest h.o.m.o statuti observantiam praeterire_. What Formalist dare yield us such liberty, as by ourselves, and without seeking a dispensation from superiors, to neglect the observation of their statutes, when we see evident cause for so doing? They think that we have no power at our own hand to judge that we have an evident cause of not obeying those who are set over us; yet this much is allowed by this Papist, who also elsewhere acknowledged(459) that there is nothing necessary in baptism but the form, the minister, and the was.h.i.+ng of water, and that all the other ceremonies which the church of Rome useth in baptism are only for solemnity.