Arrow Against the Separationists, Discourse · Chapter 11 – Chapter 12
CHAP. XI. The fift argument, examined:
Hen. Ainſ.VNtoUnto our 5t. reaſon, frō the examples of godly Princes, that aboliſhed falſe worſhip & the monimēts therof, 2 Chr. 17. 2 Kin. 18. & 23. you anſwer, that they being vnderunder Moſes policie, are commended for their obedience and practiſe: but the godly Princes of our times, not being vnderunder the ſame rudiments, are not bound to imitate them herein, further then the equitie before mentioned doth require.
Repl. And how farr equitie requireth, I have before ſhewed in my anſwers to your excepttons. But further I pray you tell vsus, vnderunder what policie, touching Iudicials Princes are at this day. If you ſay, vnderunder Chriſts: that I deny, for Princes have their authoritie from aRom. 13.God, who is the b1. Cor. 11 3.head of Chriſt. If they had it from Christ, there could be no lawfull Magiſtrates but Christians: ſo Pauls doctrine, to be ſubject to Caeſar, ſhould be overthrowen. Chriſt hath neyther given power to Magiſtrats, nor taken ought from them; but left them as they were authorized of his Father. Eyther then they are vnderunder Moſes policie, (I mean, ſo as to execute the Iudgements taught of God by Moſes) or elſe they are under none; but may judge and puniſh as they themſelves think good, killing ſuch as God by Moſes law would not have to dye, and ſparing ſuch as he appointed to death. As for Chriſt, he hath given them no direction whom and how to puniſh, otherweiſe then he gave with God his Father at mount Sinai. And wheras firſt you ſay, vnderunder Moſes policie, & after, ſpeaking of our Princes, that they are not under the ſame Rudiments: you change the word amyſse, to restreine Moſes Policie vntounto his Rudiments. For rudiments, were ſuch legal ordinances as led vntounto Christ, and are by him aboliſhed, as the bColoſ. 2.20.21. Gal. 4.3.Apoſtle ſheweth, & under them, neyther Magiſtrats nor people are: but Moſes policie is more large. And that Gods judgements againſt idolatrie, are not ſuch rudiments, but of perpetual right, is before manifested. For if the Decalogue given to Iſrael, remaineth ſtill to us Chriſtians, then the Iudgements due to the tranſgreſsions of the Decalogue, remayne alſo: they being alike vnchangeable, and common to all nations. As for Iewiſh rudiments, your temples are a ſynful reviving of them, after they were dead by Christ. The things appointed of God for his figuratiue worſhip, might not be imitated by men for any vſe, as the Law in Exod. 30.32.33. teacheth vsus: and the Hebrewes from thence rightly concluded, cMaimony Beth habchirah. c. 7. ſ. 10.It is vnlawful for a man to make an houſe after the patterne of the Temple. But theſe your Temples, are purpoſely made dBellarm. de cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 3.after the forme of the Iewes Temple, as the cope is in imitation of Aarons Ephod, the Surplice like the preiſts linnen coats, &c. Although Chriſt at his death ended all theſe rites. So you in uſing them as they were built by Antichriſt, for places of diuine worſhip, are faultie for reuiuing rudiments which God hath ceaſed: but Magiſtrats in demoliſhing them, ſhould perform a judgement of eternal equitie, which God hath commanded, Deut. 12.
Anſwer.
Io. Pa.HOw far you have gone aſtray from equity in your reaſoning about equity, I have alſo ſhewed before: And am now to proceed vntounto thoſe things which you add further.
Firſt, whereas you deny that Princes at this day are vnderunder Chriſt policie, touching Iudicialles: This your denyall appeares to be an errour; becauſe God hath given vntounto his ſonne Chriſt not onelyonly a ſpecial Kingdome of grace & dominion in his Church; but alſo a generall and large dominion over all perſons & their actions whatſoever, even mMat. 28.18.all power in heaven and in earth; a nEph. 1.21 Phil. 2.9.10.name above every name that is named, whereat every knee ſhould bow: he is made oHeb. 1.2.heire of all, pAct. 10.36.Lord of all, qRev. 19.16King of Kings and Lord of Lords: how is all power given vntounto him, if Princes touching their judicialles be not vnderunder Chriſts policie? vvhat authoritie ſhould Chriſt have to judge and puniſh Princes for their wicked decrees and judiciall proceedings, to rPſ. 2.9 & 110.5.6.break them with a rod of yron like potters veſſels, if they were not vnderunder him touching judicialles? what needed Princes ſPſ. 2.12.to kiſſe the Sonne, to tRev. 21.24.bring their glory and honour vntounto the Church for the ſervice thereof, if touching judicialles they were not ſubiect vntounto him? According to your doctrine Princes (though ſubiect in other things) yet might reſerve one knee of Iudiciall authoritie, which they need not bow vntounto Chriſt.
Secondly, whereas for a reaſon of your former denyall, you alledge that Princes have their authoritie from God, who is the head of Chriſt. This hinders not but that they may have it vnderunder Chriſt, who by his Fathers uMat. 11.27. Ioh. 3.35.graunt hath all things given into his hand; and therfore even by authority receyved from his Father might change and abrogate ſome of the judiciall lawes given by Moſes.
Thirdly: when you ſay further touching the authority of Princes, If they had it from Christ, there could be no lawfull Magiſtrates, but Christians ſo Pauls doctrine to be ſubiect to Caeſar, ſhould be overthrowne: This is alſo vnſound: for though there be no Magiſtrates but Chriſtians, which can lawfully reteyne and vſe their authoritie; yet doth it not follow that ſubiection vntounto all other Magiſtrates is vnlawfull: It is with Magiſtrates and their dominion and authority as it is with other men in all their poſſeſſions and heritages: whoſoever is not in Chriſt is an vſurper and vnlawfull poſſeſſour of whatſoever he hath, notwithſtanding any right or title that they may have therevnto by the providence of God in reſpect of humane lawes: becauſe Chriſt is vvHeb. 1.2 Rom. 8.17 Mat. 5.5. 1. Tim. 4.3 8. 1. cor. 3.21 22.23.heire of all things and in him the meek and faithfull onelyonly are the right heires of the world: yet doth it not follow hence that men may take away their goods and inheritances from ſuch. And even ſo every Magiſtrate that is not in Chriſt, is but an vſurper & an vnlawful poſſeſſour of whatſoever dominiō or authority he exerciſeth, notwithſtanding any right or calling that he hath therevnto in reſpect of men: yet is this no warrant vntounto the ſubiects of ſuch Infidel-Magiſtrates, to with draw thē ſelves from their ſubiection, or to deny obedience and tribute vntounto them.
Fourthly, to that you ſay, Christ hath neither given power to Magiſtrates, nor taken ought from them; but left them as they were authorized of his Father, &c. I anſwer, 1. for the kindes of offices them ſelves, that were authorized of God before Chriſt, it was *Exod. 18 23.24. Numb. 11 16.17. 1. Sam. 8.6.7.22.vnlawfull to inſtitute them heretofore without ſpecial allowance from God: but now by conſent of common wealths it is lawfull to ordaine their forme of civil governement, and to make new offices, being but the x1. Pet. 2.13.creations of men, for the forme of them. 2. For the cauſes of executing iudgement, Chriſt hath changed many of them, he hath taken from Magiſtrates the yMat. 5.31 32. and 19.8.9.power of permitting divorces & polygamie, according to the iudicialles of Moſes: he hath given z1. Cor. 7.12. &c.power vntounto the Magiſtrates to permit the mariage of beleevers and vnbeleevers without divorce contrary vntounto the policy of Moſes: he hath alſo taken from the Magiſtrate the power of executing the Iudiciall duplicate page duplicate page lawes againſt the tranſgreſſers of ceremoniall ordinances, as was ſhewed before. 3, as for the maner of judgements and puniſhments themſelves to be inflicted on evil doers, even by your owne confeſſion before noted, the Magiſtrates now are not tyed vntounto the Iudiciall law of Moſes. 4, even for the time before Chriſt, the Iewes themſelves were not abſolutely bound vntounto the Iudiciall law of Moſes, ſave in their owne land, wherevnto God had apropriated thoſe lawes: for when aEſter 10.3. & 8.2.Mordecai, bDan. 2.48 49. & 6.2.Daniel, and others were civil Magiſtrates in Perſia and Babylon, they could not adminiſter juſtice according to the policie of Moſes, but according to the lawes of thoſe Kingdomes where they lived. If the obſervation of the Iudiciall lawes of Moſes had bene impoſed on the Iewes, as ſtrictly as the morall and ceremoniall lawes were, then could not Mordecai & Daniel have takē thoſe offices and callings vponupon them with good cōſcience: ſo that hereby it may appeare that there is great difference betwixt theſe lawes, eſpecially in theſe times. 5, yea even in the holy land it ſelf, when as the Iudiciall lawes of the cNeh. 10.3.7.Perſians & dLuk. 2.1.4 Ioh. 18.31Romanes, were eſtabliſhed among the Iewes, who were then ſubiect vntounto theſe nations and vntounto their officers, yet did the godly Iewes live vnderunder them and ſubmit vntounto their authority, which they could not have done in ſuffring them ſelves to be guided by their civil lawes, if the Iudicialls of Moſes had bene impoſed vpō them by the Lord, as preciſely and ſtraitly as were the morall and ceremoniall lawes. 6, it is yet a further preſumption, when as you ſay, that Chriſt gave Magistrates no directiō whom and how to puniſh, otherwiſe then he gave with God his Father at Mount Sinai. For Chriſt with God his Father gave further direction how to eNum. 15 32.34.puniſh the Sabath-breaker, after that they had departed from Mount Sinai. And afterwards againe at the repetitiō of the law in the land of Moab, there was further directiō given touching fDeut. 13.12. &c. & 21.1.10.15 & 25.9. &cmany particulars which were not deſcribed in Exodus and Leviticus at mount Sinai. 7, to conclude though ſome of Moſes judicials be abrogate, yet doth it not follow that Magiſtrates may judge and puniſh as they themſelves thinkgood, &c. as you would inferre againſt vsus: The particular determinations of Chriſt in the new Teſtament, abrogating ſome, & confirming other of the Iudiciall lawes, compared with the generall equity of the decalogue and the policy of Moſes togather now coincident with the doctrine of Chriſt, may and ought to be a rule of direction vntounto Princes and Magiſtrates in their judgements.
As for the vſe of the words, policy, & rudiments, which I named one after an other, you make a falſe collection from thence: though I name both, it followes not that I hold both to be of like extent: neither do I reſtreyne the policy of Moſes vntounto his rudiments: but my ſpeech argues that ſome part of his policy conſiſts in ceremonies and rudiments; ſuch as the aboliſhing of places defiled with Idolatry in ſuch maner as I have manifeſted before from Col. 2. againſt your perverting of the ſame.
After this you labour to prove that our Temples are a ſynfull reviving of Iewiſh rudiments, after they were dead by Chriſt: your firſt allegation is, that the things appoynted of God for his figurative worſhip, might not be imitated by men for any vſe, as the law in Exod 30.32.33. teacheth vsus. Herevnto I anſwer, 1. this is a bold preſumption, to make the yoke of the legall ceremonies heavyer without warrant: for though the holy oyntment and perfume might not be imitated by men for any vſe, doth it follow hence that other things appoynted for the figurative worſhip were in like manner forbidden? for example, we reade of ſundry kindes of meat offrings, and among the reſt of ſome gLevit. 2.4.5.7. &c.baked, ſome fryed, and ſome made in the caldron, and all for the figurative worſhip of God: how can you ever prove that theſe kindes of meates thus prepared, which might fitly ſerve for the ordinary vſe of man, were forbidden to be imitated? 2, ſuppoſe that before Chriſt theſe kinde of meates had bene forbidden, yet are you far wide to apply ſuch a prohibition vntounto our time, and to deny vntounto vsus ſuch preparations of meate as were then vſed in the figurative worſhip of God: yourſelf rather are herein guilty of a ſynfull reviviving of Iewiſh rudiments by impoſing vponupon vsus the ceremoniall prohibitions and ordinances, which are hGal. 4.3. Eph. 2.14.15. Rō. 7.1. &cdead by Chriſt. Yea you would make our burden heavyer then the Iewes, by laying ſuch a yoke of ceremonies on our neckes, as you can not ſhew that God ever layd vponupon them. 3, ſuppoſe, that the oyntments, perfumes, meates and temples appoynted for the figurative worſhip of God in old time, might not be imitated by men for any vſe as you ſay, and ſuppoſe that we offended alſo by imitating the forme of the Iewiſh temple, as you would have it: then are you and your people inexcuſably guilty of the ſame ſin with vsus, while you vſe theſe our temples for divers vſes; you for your ſtudy: divers of your people for receyving of almes in thē, &c. Thus are you caught and entangled in the ſnare which you layd for vsus: for you are to remember that the holy oyntment whereof you ſpeak, was iExod. 30.32.33.forbidden vntounto men not onelyonly in the worſhip of God (otherwiſe then is there expreſſed,) but for any vſe whatſoever: as yourſelf alſo confeſſe: And therfore that ceremonial precept if it be ſtill in force, according to your vrging of the ſame, doth as well condemne your vſe of theſe temples, as ours.
Secondly, for the countenancing and confirming of your obiection, you content not yourſelf with holy ſcriptures, but you lead vsus from Moſes ben Amran vntounto Moſes ben Maimon, from faithfull Moſes the ſervant of Chriſt vntounto the Infidel Moſes a profeſſed adverſary of Chriſt, and out of his ſcripture you tell vsus, ſpeaking of holy oyntment, that the Hebrewes from thence rightly concluded, It is vnlawfull for a man to make an houſe after the patterne of the temple. I anſwer, 1. The collections of thoſe degenerate Hebrewes are moſt vaine, and as in other things, ſo touching this holy oyntment and patterne of the temple: R. Solomon kCōment. on Ex. 30.31.vponupon thoſe words, This ſhalbe an holy oynting oyle vntounto me: throughout your generations; by a cabaliſticall rule collects that there were tvvelve logo or meaſures of this oyle: becauſe the numerall letters of Zeh the word there vſed for this do yeeld the number of twelve: And further they note that thisanoynting oyle [then made] ſhould continue vntounto the world to come, according to thoſe words, throughout your generations. Touching Beth-habchirah, the temple or houſe elect for the name of God, their traditions are mR. Moſes mikkotſ. Sepher mitſvoth haggadol precept. affir. 164. Thalmud Ieruſa. cap. haroeh.that it is not lawfull for men to aſſemble vntounto the mountaine of that houſe, ſince the deſolation thereof, having with them either ſtaffe, ſcrip or ſhooes on their feete, or duſt on their feete, &c. That in the city Ieruſalem itſelf for the holynes thereof they might not give any place to ſtrangers or ſoiourners therein: that they might not make any houſe of buriall therein, except the burialls of the houſe of David, and the buriall of Huldah which had bene there from the dayes of the former Prophets; that they might not plant any gardens or orchyards in it; that they might not keep any cockes in it, &c. R. Saadias (as is recorded by ncōmēt. on Exo. 31.1.Aben Ezra) giveth this reaſon why Bezaleel of the tribe of Iudah, & Aholiab of tribe of Dan were choſen to make the tabernacle: namely becauſe Iudah & Dan were compared vntounto Lyons whelpes, the oGen. 49.9.one by Iaakob, the pDeut. 33.22.other by Moſes; & that ſo acccording to the forme of the Lyon broad before and narrow behinde, the tabernacle was alſo made in that forme: But Aben Ezra himſelf contradicts this collection in the ſame place, and ſayth that the breadth of the tabernacle was equal, and that there was no cauſe why Bezaleel and Aholiab were called vntounto this work, but becauſe there were none like vntounto them in Iſrael. And a number of ſuch like collections vaine in themſelves, and contradictory vntounto one an other might further be brought, to ſhew how vnworthy a thing it is to allow any voyce vntounto theſe Rabbines in the controverſies and queſtions of right among Chriſtians. 2, there is yet more colour and excuſe for the Rabbines in this their errour conſidering their eſtate, then there is for you: for they ſuppoſing that the leviticall and ceremoniall ordinances are ſtill in force do more colourably hold that the holy things of God may not be applyed vntounto or imitated in common vſe, but you knowing the ceremonies to be aboliſhed, have leſſe reaſon ſo to vvrite as you have done.
3. The teſtimony of the Rabbines in this matter doth not ſerve to condemne our temples in reſpect of the forme thereof; for as they qR. Solomon & Aben Ezra cōment. on Exo. 30.32write concerning the holy anoynting oyle, the compoſition made like vntounto it was then vnlawfull, when it conſiſted both in number and quantity of the ſame kinde of ſpices, but if there were more or leſſe in the compoſition it was lawfull: ſo in like manner if our temples differ both in many parts, and in the proportion and meaſure of them from Solomons Temple, by the ſame reaſon they are to be held lawful. 4. If our Temples be vnlawfull becauſe they are made after the patterne of the Iewiſh Temple, then doth this concluſion of the Rabbines as wel condemne you in the vſe of theſe Temples as it doth vsus, for that which you ſay the Hebrues have rightly concluded is ſpoken of any private civill houſes whatſoever made for civil vſe, ſuch they hold to be vnlawfull for any vſe being made after the forme of the Temple: And ſo al that you have ſayd both from the Scripture & from Maimony is againſt your ſelf, conſidering the divers vſes which you have of theſe Tēples, as I ſhewed before.
In the third place, whereas you do alledge the teſtimony of Bellarmine to ſhew that theſe our Temples are purpoſely made after the forme of the Iewes Temple, &c. I anſwer, 1. you do vnfaithfully alledge the writings of Bellarmine, which are directly contrary vntounto that which you pretend and give forth in his name: for though he ſhew that ſome Temples in ſome part were like vntounto Solomōs Temples, yet he rBellarm. de cultu ſanct. lib. 3. c. 3. ſec. vltſhewes, that whereas the holieſt place in the Temple of Solomon was built towards the weſt, that ours on the quite contrary were built looking towards the eaſt, and this purpoſely to ſignify and teſtify a difference & oppoſition vntounto the Iewes: Though this was done for a myſtery alſo as ſome other obſerve, and you note before, that hinders not this purpoſe of being oppoſite vntounto the Iewes, but may ſtand with the ſame. 2. As for our temple in ſpeciall about which our queſtion is, it is in no reſpect that you can alledge like vntounto Solomons: & therfore no Iewiſh rudiment to cauſe any ſeparation from vsus in that regard.