Part 15 (1/2)

And besides all this, there is nothing which can urge us to say that the two tribes and the half did commendably in the erecting of this altar.(813) Calvin finds two faults in their proceeding. 1. In that they attempted such a notable and important innovation without advising with their brethren of the other tribes, and especially without inquiring the will of G.o.d by the high priest. 2. Whereas the law of G.o.d commanded only to make one altar, forasmuch as G.o.d would be wors.h.i.+pped only in one place, they did inordinately, scandalously, and with appearance of evil, erect another altar; for every one who should look upon it could not but presently think that they had forsaken the law, and were setting up a strange and degenerate rite. Whether also that altar which they set up for a pattern of the Lord's altar, was one of the images forbidden in the second commandment, I leave it to the judicious reader to ruminate upon.

But if one would gather from ver. 33, that the priest, and the princes, and the children of Israel, did allow of that which the two tribes and the half had done, because it is said, ”The thing pleased the children of Israel, and the children of Israel blessed G.o.d, and did not intend to go up against them in battle:”

I answer, the Hebrew text hath it thus: ”And the word was good in the eyes of the children of Israel,” &c.; that is, the children of Israel blessed G.o.d for the word which Phinehas and the ten princes brought to them, because thereby they understood that the two tribes and the half had not turned away from following the Lord, nor made them an altar for burnt-offerings or sacrifice; which was enough to make them (the nine tribes and a half) desist from their purpose of going up to war against their brethren, to shed their blood. Again, when Phinehas and the ten princes say to the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Mana.s.seh, This day we perceive that the Lord is among us, ”because ye have not committed this trespa.s.s against the Lord,” they do not exempt them from all prevarication; only they say _signanter_, ”this trespa.s.s,” to wit, of turning away from the Lord, and building an altar for sacrifice, whereof they were accused. Thus we see that no approbation of that which the two tribes and the half did, in erecting the altar, can be drawn from the text.

_Sect._ 10. But to proceed, our opposites allege for another example against us, a new altar built by Solomon, 1 Kings viii. 64. In which place there is no such thing to be found as a new altar built by Solomon; but only that he sanctified the pavement of the inner court, that the whole court might be as an altar, necessity so requiring, because the brazen altar of the Lord was not able to contain so many sacrifices as then were offered. The building of synagogues can make as little against us.

For, 1. After the tribes were settled in the land of promise, synagogues were built, in the case of an urgent necessity, because all Israel could not come every Sabbath day to the reading and expounding of the law in the place which G.o.d had chosen that his name might dwell there. What hath that case to do with the addition of our unnecessary ceremonies?

2. If Formalists will make any advantage of the building of synagogues, they must prove that they were founded, not upon the extraordinary warrant of prophets, but upon that ordinary power which the church retaineth still. As for the love-feasts used in the primitive church, 1. They had no religious state in divine wors.h.i.+p, but were used only as moral signs of mutual charity. The Rhemists(814) will have them to be called _caenas dominicas_. But what saith Cartwright against them? ”We grant that there were such feasts used in times past, but they were called by the name of ???pa? or love-feasts, not by the name of the Lord's supper; neither could one without sacrilege give so holy a name to a common feast, which never had ground out of the word, and which after, for just cause, was thrust out by the word of G.o.d.” 2. If it be thought that they were used as sacred signs of Christian charity because they were eaten in the church, I answer, the eating of them in the church is forbidden by the Apostle.

”What! (saith he) have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of G.o.d?” _Aperte vetat_ (saith Pareus),(815) _commessationes in ecclesia, quocunque fuco pingantur. Vocabant ???pa? charitates; sod nihil winus erant. Erant schismatum fomenta. Singulae enim sectae suas inst.i.tuebant._ And a little after: _Aliquae ecclesiae obtempera.s.se videntur. Nam Justini temporibus Romana ecclesia ???pa? non habuit._ Concerning the kiss of charity used in those times, 2 Cor. xiii. 22, we say in like manner that it was but a moral sign of that reconciliation, friends.h.i.+p and amity, which showed itself as well at holy a.s.semblies as other meetings in that kind and courtesy, but with all chaste salutation, which was then in use.

_Sect._ 11. As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public and common prayer), or prophesying (that is, singing, 1 Sam. x. 10; 1 Chron. xxv. 1), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human inst.i.tution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comeliness in their common behaviour and conversation, the Apostle will have them, for the same decency and comeliness, still to retain in their holy a.s.semblies. And further, the Apostle showeth that it is also a natural sign, and that nature itself teacheth it; therefore he urgeth it both by the inferiority or subjection of the woman, ver. 3, 8, 9 (for covering was then a sign of subjection), and by the long hair which nature gives to a woman, ver. 25; where he would have the artificial covering to be fas.h.i.+oned in imitation of the natural. What need we any more? Let us see nature's inst.i.tution, or the Apostle's recommendation, for the controverted ceremonies (as we have seen them for women's veils), and we yield the argument.

Last of all, the sign of imposition of hands helpeth not the cause of our opposites, because it has the example of Christ and the apostles, and their disciples, which our ceremonies have not; yet we think not imposition of hands to be any sacred or mystical sign, but only a moral, for designation of a person: let them who think more highly or honourably of it look to their warrants.

Thus have I thought it enough to take a pa.s.sing view of these objected instances, without marking narrowly all the impertinencies and falsehoods which here we find in the reasoning of our opposites. One word more, and so an end. Dr Burges would comprehend the significancy of sacred ecclesiastical ceremonies, for stirring men up to the remembrance of some mystery of piety or duty to G.o.d, under that edification which is required in things that concern order and decency by all divines.

Alas! what a sorry conceit is this? Divines, indeed, do rightly require that those alterable circ.u.mstances of divine wors.h.i.+p which are left to the determination of the church be so ordered and disposed as they may be profitable to this edification. But this edification they speak of is no other than that which is common to all our actions and speeches. Are we not required to do all things unto edifying, yea, to speak as that our speech may be profitable unto edifying? Now, such significations as we have showed to be given to the ceremonies in question, as, namely, to certify a child of G.o.d's favour and goodwill towards him,-to betoken that at no time Christians should be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ,-to signify the pureness that ought to be in the minister of G.o.d,-to express the humble and grateful acknowledgments of the benefits of Christ, &c.,-belong not to that edification which divines require in things prescribed by the church concerning order and decency, except of every private and ordinary action, in the whole course of our conversation, we either deny that it should be done unto edifying, or else affirm that it is a sacred significant ceremony.

CHAPTER VI.

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 G.o.d,(817) making the observation of the sabbaths of rest appointed by the church, such as the feasts of Christ's nativity, pa.s.sion, &c., to be a duty commanded in the law of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d hath commanded to sanctify it, yet neither is the whole public wors.h.i.+p, 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, _Ecclesiae Christi liberum esse quos velit praeter 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 G.o.d, part 3, cap. 3, sect. 11.

Well, I see our opposites sometimes warrant the lawfulness of the ceremonies from the law of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d. 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 _praeceptum_ and _probatum_, and will have the controverted ceremonies to be allowed of G.o.d, though not commanded. And if we would learn how these ceremonies are allowed of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 inst.i.tuted and used to stir up men, in respect of their signification, unto the devout remembrance of their duties to G.o.d, are in such an inst.i.tution 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d allowed, and not commanded? What new light is this which maketh all our divines to have been in the mist, who have acknowledged no wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d, but that which G.o.d hath commanded? Who ever heard of commanded and allowed wors.h.i.+p?

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 circ.u.mstances, as our divines are wont to answer the Papists about their vows, councils, supererogations _not by a general law, but by concurrence of circ.u.mstances._ So Deut. xvi. 10, Moses showeth that the freest offerings were to be according as G.o.d had blessed them, from whence it followeth, it had been sin for any Israelite whom G.o.d 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 wors.h.i.+p.”

_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 G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p be decently and orderly performed, but gives us no leave to excogitate or devise new ceremonies, which have not been inst.i.tuted before. He hath spoken in that chapter of a.s.sembling in the church, prophesying and preaching, praying and praising there.

Now let all these things, and every other action of G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p, 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 wors.h.i.+p, is exercised only in order and decency, it followeth that they do impudently scorn both G.o.d 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 G.o.d. 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 inst.i.tution or use of new things, but only in the right placing of things which have been inst.i.tuted 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 circ.u.mstance; 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 n.a.z.ianzen, 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.