Part 14 (2/2)

Lastly, We will consider the purpose of Christ whilst he said to the Pharisees,(801) ”The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the kingdom of G.o.d is preached.” He had in the parable of the unjust steward, and in the application of the same, spoken somewhat contemptibly of riches, which, when the Pharisees heard, they derided him, and that for this pretended reason (as is evident from the answer which is returned unto them), because the law promises the world's goods as rewards and blessings to the people of G.o.d, that by the temporal things which are set forth for types and shadows of eternal things, they might be instructed, helped, and led, as it were by the hand, to the contemplation, desire and expectation, of those heavenly and eternal things which are not seen. Now Christ did not only rip up the hypocrisy of their hearts, ver. 15, but also gave a formal answer to their pretended reason, by showing how the law is by him perfected, ver. 16, yet not destroyed, ver. 17. Then will we observe how he teacheth that the law and the prophets are perfected, and so our point shall be plain. ”The law and the prophets were until John,”

_i.e._, they did typify and prophesy concerning the things of the kingdom until John; for before that time the faithful only saw those things afar off, and by types, shadows, and figures, and the rudiments of the world, were taught to know them. ”But from that time the kingdom of G.o.d is preached,” _i.e._, the people of G.o.d are no longer to be instructed concerning the things of the kingdom of G.o.d by outward signs, or visible shadows and figures, but only by the plain word of the gospel; for now the kingdom of G.o.d ??a??e???eta? is not typified as before, but plainly preached, as a thing exhibited to us, and present with us. Thus we see that to us, in the days of the gospel, the word only is appointed to teach the things belonging to the kingdom of G.o.d.

_Sect._ 5. If any man reply, that though after the coming of Christ we are liberate from the Jewish and typical significant ceremonies, yet ought we to embrace those ceremonies wherein the church of the New Testament placeth some spiritual signification:

I answer, 1. That which hath been said in this argument holdeth good against significant ceremonies in general. Otherwise, when we read of the abrogation of the ceremonial law, we should only understand the abrogation of those particular ordinances which Moses delivered to the Jews concerning the ceremonies that were to endure to the coming of Christ, and so, notwithstanding all this, the church should still have power to set up new ceremonial laws instead of the old, even which and how many she listeth.

2. What can be answered to that which the _Abridgement_ propoundeth(802) touching this matter? ”It is much less lawful (say those ministers) for man to bring significant ceremonies into G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p now than it was under the law. For G.o.d hath abrogated his own (not only such as prefigured Christ, but such also as served by their signification to teach moral duties), so as now (without great sin) none of them can be continued in the church, no, not for signification.” Whereupon they infer: ”If those ceremonies which G.o.d himself ordained to teach his church by their signification may not now be used, much less may those which man hath devised.”

_Sect._ 6. Fourthly, Sacred significant ceremonies devised by man are to be reckoned among those images forbidden in the second commandment.

Pola.n.u.s saith,(803) that _omnis figura illicita_ is forbidden in the second commandment. The Professors(804) of Leyden call it _imaginem quamlibet, sive mente conceptam, sive manu effictam_.

I have showed elsewhere,(805) that both in the writings of the fathers, and of Formalists themselves, sacraments get the name of images; and why, then, are not all significant and holy ceremonies to be accounted images?

Now, the second commandment forbiddeth images made by the l.u.s.t of man (that I may use Dr Burges's phrase(806)), therefore it forbiddeth also all religious similitudes, which are h.o.m.ogeneal unto them. This is the inference of the _Abridgement_, whereat Paybody starteth,(807) and replieth, that the gestures which the people of G.o.d used in circ.u.mcision and baptism, the rending of the garment used in humiliation and prayer, Ezra ix. 5; 2 Kings xxii. 19, Jer. x.x.xvi. 24, lifting up the hands, kneeling with the knees, uncovering the head in the sacrament, standing and sitting at the sacrament, were, and are, significant in wors.h.i.+pping, yet are not forbidden by the second commandment.

_Ans._ There are three sorts of signs here to be distinguished. 1. Natural signs: so smoke is a sign of fire, and the dawning of the day a sign of the rising of the sun. 2. Customable signs; and so the uncovering of the head, which of old was a sign of preeminence, hath, through custom, become a sign of subjection. 3. Voluntary signs, which are called _signa inst.i.tuta_; these are either sacred or civil. To appoint sacred signs of heavenly mysteries or spiritual graces is G.o.d's own peculiar, and of this kind are the holy sacraments. Civil signs for civil and moral uses may be, and are, commendably appointed by men, both in church and commonwealth; and thus the tolling of a bell is a sign given for a.s.sembling, and hath the same signification both in ecclesiastical and secular a.s.semblings.

Now, besides the sacred signs of G.o.d's own inst.i.tution, we know that natural signs have also place in divine wors.h.i.+p; thus kneeling in time of prayer signifieth the submission of our hearts and minds, the lifting up of our eyes and hands signifieth the elevation of our affections; the rending of the garments signified the rending of the heart by sorrow; standing with a religious suspect to that which is before us signifieth veneration or reverence; sitting at table signifieth familiarity and fellows.h.i.+p. ”For which of you (saith our Master), Luke xvii. 7, having a servant ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?” All these signs have their significations from nature. And if it be said that howbeit sitting at our common tables be a sign natural to signify familiarity amongst us, yet nature hath not given such a signification to sitting at the Lord's table,-I answer, that sitting is a natural sign of familiarity, at what table soever it be used. At the heavenly table in the kingdom of glory, familiarity is expressed and signified by sitting: ”Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham,” &c., Matt. xviii. 11.

Much more, then, at the spiritual table in the kingdom of grace.

The difference betwixt other common tables and the Lord's table can infer no more, but that with great humility we ought to address ourselves unto it; yet still we are to make use of our familiarity with Christ _ut tanquam in eodem toro acc.u.mbentes_, as saith Chrysostom.(808) Wherefore we do not there so look to Christ in his princely throne and glorious majesty, exalted far above all princ.i.p.alities and powers, as to forget that he is our loving and kind banqueter, who hath admitted us to that familiar fellows.h.i.+p with him which is signified by our sitting at his table.

Secondly, Customable signs have likewise place in divine service; for so a man coming into one of our churches in time of public wors.h.i.+p, if he see the hearers covered, he knows by this customable sign that sermon is begun.

Thirdly, Civil or moral signs inst.i.tuted by men for that common order and decency which is respect both in civil and sacred actions, have also place in the acts of G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p. Thus a bason and a laver set before a pulpit are signs of baptism to be ministered; but common decency teacheth us to make the same use of a bason and a laver in civility which a minister maketh of them in the action of baptising. All our question is about sacred mystical signs. Every sign of this kind which is not ordained of G.o.d we refer to the imagery forbidden in the second commandment; so that in the tossing of this argument Paybody is twice naught, neither hath he said aught for evincing the lawfulness of sacred significant ceremonies ordained of men, which we impugn.

_Sect._ 7. Fifthly, The significancy and teaching office of mystical ceremonies invented by men, must be drawn under those doctrines of men condemned in the gospel. Wherefore was it that the divers was.h.i.+ngs of the Pharisees were rejected by Christ as a vain wors.h.i.+p? Was it not because they were appointed for doctrines? ”In vain (saith he) do they wors.h.i.+p me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” Mark vii. 7.

The divers was.h.i.+ngs commanded in the law were fore-signifying to the people, and for teaching them what true and inward holiness G.o.d required of them. Now, the Pharisees, when they multiplied their was.h.i.+ngs of hands, of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables, had the same respect of significancy before their eyes. _Neque enim alio spectabant_ (that I may use the words of a Formalist(809)) _quam ut se sanct.i.tatis __ studiosos hoc externu ritu probarent_. Neither have we any warrant to think that they had another respect than this. But the error was in their addition to the law, and in that they made their own ceremonial was.h.i.+ngs, which were only the commandments of men, to serve for doctrines, instructions and significations. For those was.h.i.+ngs, as they were significant, and taught what holiness or cleanness should be among the people of G.o.d, they are called by the name of wors.h.i.+p; and as they were such significant ceremonies as were only commanded by men, they are reckoned for vain wors.h.i.+p.

And further, I demand why are the Colossians, Col. ii. 20-22, rebuked for subjecting themselves to those ordinances,-”Touch not, taste not, handle not?” We see that those ordinances were not bare commandments, but commandments under the colour of doctrines, to wit, as law commanded a difference of meats, for signifying that holiness which G.o.d would have his people formed unto; so these false teachers would have the same to be signified and taught by that difference of meats and abstinence which they of themselves, and without the commandment of G.o.d, had ordained.

Moreover, if we consider how that the word of G.o.d is given unto us ”for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of G.o.d may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works,” 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17, it cannot but be evident how superfluously, how superst.i.tiously, the office of sacred teaching and mystical signification is given to dumb and lifeless ceremonies ordained of men, and, consequently, how justly they are taxed as vain wors.h.i.+p. We hold, therefore, with the worthiest of our divines,(810) _nullam doctrinam, nullum sacram signum debere inter pios admitti, nisi a Deo profecta esse constet_.

_Sect._ 8. To these reasons which I have put in order against men's significant ceremonies, I will add a pretty history before I go further.

When the Superior of the Abbey of St. Andrews(811) was disputing with John Knox about the lawfulness of the ceremonies devised by the church, to decore the sacraments and other service of G.o.d, Knox answered: ”The church ought to do nothing but in faith, and ought not to go before, but is bound to follow the voice of the true Pastor.” The Superior replied, that ”every one of the ceremonies hath a G.o.dly signification, and therefore they both proceed from faith, and are done in faith.” Knox replieth: ”It is not enough that man invent a ceremony, and then give it a signification according to his pleasure; for so might the ceremonies of the Gentiles, and this day the ceremonies of Mahomet be maintained. But if that anything proceed from faith it must have the word of G.o.d for the a.s.surance,” &c.

The Superior answereth: ”Will ye bind us so strait that we may do nothing without the express word of G.o.d? What, and I ask drink? think ye that I sin? and yet I have not G.o.d's word for me.”

Knox here telleth him, first, that if he should either eat or drink without the a.s.surance of G.o.d's word, he sinned; ”for saith not the Apostle, speaking even of meat and drink, that the creatures are sanctified unto men by the word and prayer? The word is this: all things are clean to the clean: Now let me hear thus much of your ceremonies, and I shall give you the argument?”

But secondly, He tells him that he compared indiscreetly together profane things with holy; and that the question was not of meat and drink, wherein the kingdom of G.o.d consisteth not, but of matters of religion, and that we may not take the same freedom in the using of Christ's sacraments that we may do in eating and drinking, because Moses commanded, ”All that the Lord thy G.o.d commanded thee to do, that do thou to the Lord thy G.o.d; add nothing to it, diminish nothing from it.” The Superior now saith that he was dry, and thereupon desireth the grey friar Arbugkill to follow the argument; but he was so pressed with the same that he was confounded in himself, and the Superior ashamed of him:-

Dicite Io Paean, et Io bis dicite Paean.

_Sect._ 9. As for the examples alleged by our opposites out of Scripture for justifying their significant ceremonies, they have been our propugners of evangelical simplicity so often and so fully answered, that here I need do no more but point at them. Of the days of Purim and feast of dedication I am to speak afterward. In the meanwhile, our opposites cannot, by these examples, strengthen themselves in this present argument, except they could prove that the feast of dedication was lawfully inst.i.tuted, and that the days of Purim were appointed for a religious festivity, and that upon no such extraordinary warrant as the church hath not ever and always. The rite which Abraham commanded his servant to use when he sware to him, namely, the putting of his hand under his thigh, Gen. xxiv. 2, maketh them as little help; for it was but a moral sign of that civil subjection, reverence and fidelity which inferiors owe unto superiors, according to the judgment of Calvin, Junius, Pareus, and Tremellius, all upon that place. That altar which was built by the Reubenites, Gadites, and half tribe of Mana.s.seh, Josh. xxii., had (as some think) not a religious, but a moral use, and was not a sacred, but a civil sign, to witness that those two tribes and the half were of the stock and lineage of Israel; which, if it were once called in question, then their fear (deducing the connection of causes and consequents) led them in the end to forecast this issue: ”In time to come your children might speak unto our children, saying, What have you to do with the Lord G.o.d of Israel? for the Lord hath made Jordan a border betwixt us and you,” &c. Therefore, to prevent all apparent occasions of such doleful events, they erected the pattern of the Lord's altar, _ut vinculum sit fraternae conjunctionis._(812)

<script>