Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 3 · Section 11
SECT. 15. and 16. Concerning the Altar of Iordan. Iosh. 22.
1. IT is the Def. and Rej. their fashion, to produce Instances, without proof of their fitnesse, and so exspect from us that they should be disproved: whiche is all one, as if Iohn a Stiles should in a great traverse, bringe forth against Iohn a Nokes, some instrumens, for evidence of his cause, which few, or none, beside himself, can read, (at least so as to discerne any thing in it making for him) and plead that in them was evidence enough, except Iohn a Nokes could prove the contrarie. So it is heer, about the Altar of Iordan: no demonstration is first made, how it agreeth to the purpose: but we are chalenged to shew how it disagreeth. Yet yeelding them this libertie, we have enough to oppose.
2. And first of all, we answer, that this Altar of the two Tribes, was not in the state, or use, religious, as the Crosse is, by the confession of an English Bishop, Babington on the 2. Commandement.
The Rejoynder 1. opposeth out of Mr. Parker, par. 1. sect. 34. and 36. that religious in use is that which hath a religious ende: and religious in state, which is Ecclesiasticall, belonging to Gods service. Ergo. But Mr. Parker in those sect. tould him, that religious in a sense common, or mix…ly, all thinges are, that are doen to an holy ende: and religious in sense speciall, or in state, all those thinges are, that have Order, Obligation, and a kinde of Immobilitie, in Gods service. Now the quaestion is not of the former common mixt sense: but of the later speciall state: according to which, no man can say the Altar of Iordan to have been religious, upon ground of Scripture or reason. Let any man judge then, whether partialitie did put out Mr. Parkers eyes (as the Rej. speaketh) or blear theirs, that see not the vanitie of this allegation?
3. B. Babingtons words on the 2. Commandement are these: They erected that Altar, not for religion, but in deed for a civil use, as you may see, Iosh. 22. The Rejoynd. answereth, that he calleth the Altar civill Analogically, because it was ordeyned by consent of fellow-Citizens, which is as meer a shift, as any yet invented by the Rejoynder. For 1. he calleth not the Altar, but the use, civill. 2. He opposeth this civilitie not unto Divine Institution, as the Rejoynder would have him, but unto the same fellow-Citizens erecting of an Altar for Religion. 3. What he meaneth, appeareth plainly, by his third Proposition, there set downe in these termes: It is lawfull to make pictures of thinges which we have seen, to a civill use, but not to use them in the Churche, and for Religion.
4. To passe over circumstantiall passages, the Def. (proving this Altar to be appointed unto Gods service, because it was a patterne of the Lords Altar, as our Crosse is a resemblance of Christs Crosse) was 1. reproved by the Replier: because the Crosse, wheron Christ did suffer, was no more holy then Iudas: and so not to be compared unto the Lords Altar. To this the Rejoynder in many wordes, maketh shew of saying something, but I leave it to the Reader, if he sayth any thinge. I (for my part) can not discerne what it is.
5. The Replier also in the second place alleged▪ that every resemblance of a holy thing, is not therfor holy: because then every Ale-house picture taken from holy thinges mentioned in Scripture, should be holy; and a modell of the Temple, caried by a Tyrian workman, into his countrie for newes, should have been holy.
To this the Rejoynder (after a few wordes of course) answereth, that this is to separat the resemblance of a thing, from the use of it. As if the Def. had not argued simply, & meerly, from the resemblance, making, as yet, no mention of the use! If ther be any Sophistrie in this argument (as the Rejoynder sayth ther is) it is first found in the Defender his uncouth reason.
6. The Defender went about to prove, first, that this Altar did mystically signifie a spirituall dutie, in respect of the Gileadites then living; viz: to teache that the Lord was God.
To this it was replied, that it doeth not appear out of the text, that ther was intended any use for the praesent age, that then lived: nay the contrarie may be gathered out of the 24. and 25. verses: We have doen it for f…ar of this thing, saying: In time to come, your children might speak unto our children, &c. So shall your children make our children cease from fearing the Lord. The Rejoynder opposeth, that ther is afterward mention made of us, and you. But that is nothing: because it noteth onelyonly, that the generations to come, may denie us, on this side Iordan, not to have been joint Tribes with you on the other side of that River. VponUpon this, the Repl. concluded, that this Altar was no direct helpe unto devotion. To which is rejoyned, that it was not a direct (that is immediat) help unto devotion; but immediatly significative, & collaterally for devotion it was. Suche distinctions I never heard, nor read. Any man may see, that a Ceremonie directly and immediatly signifying a spirituall dutie, is a direct & immediat help to devotion. To what other help, this help was collaterall, I would fain know.
A further reason of this conclusion was added: viz: then most of the other Tribes should have had use of it, and also reason, to have set up Altars of devotion at every three-way-leet, as Crosses stand. The Rejoynder is 1. that the other Tribes (no doubt) had use of it, as of a witnesse that the Lord is God. Now let any man consider, whether they which ordinarily resorted to the Tabernacle, and Altar of God, had need of a humane Altar, farre remooved from their sight, to put them in minde, that the LORD was God? And whether the two Tribes and a halfe, without the consent, or knowledge of the chiefe Priests, the chiefe Magistrates, the farre greater part of people, and power to appoint vntounto all Israel a solemne significant Ceremonie, for their common use? The Rej. addeth in the 2. place, that all are not bound to the same helpes to devotion, and the other tribes needed no such monument, or patterne, having the Altar it selfe in possession. Where 1. except he holdeth the two Tribes, and a halfe bound to set up this Altar, hee maketh in that no difference: if hee so holdeth, then it is no instance of a meere Arbitrarie Ceremonie. 2. The two tribes had the Lords Altar in present possession, as well as divers of the other: so that by this reason, they also for the present need no such monument and patterne: which is the very point in this place questioned.
7. The Replier affirmed, that (in regard of posterity) the immediate ende of this Altar was, to testifie, that those Tribes beyond Iordan, belonged to the same people, and so had right to the same worship, with those of this side Iordan: which is nothing to a Ceremony of state and immediate use, in the speciall solemne worship of God. The Rejoynder asketh if this were not a holy religious ende? I answere, It was so holy and religious, as every Land-marke of a Parsons Glebe-land, or every signe of a Parish-bound is holy and religious: but not so as mysticall Ceremonies. B. Andrewes (against Perone, p. 18.) giveth some light to this, by the ancient use of Lights, and incense: There were lights (saith he) there was incense, used by the Primitive Church, in their service; not for any mysticall meaning, but (as it is thought) for this cause, that where the Christians in time of persecution, had their meetings most commonly in places darke, and so needing lights, and dampish, and so needing good savours, they provided lights against one, and incense against the other. After the Churches retained these things, to shew themselues the successours of those ancient Christians, &c. the After-ages devized meanings and significations of their owne, which from the beginning were not so. If this be so (as it is thought) then there may be signes of succession unto religious fore-fathers, without any mysticall meaning: which is all that by us is pleaded about this Altar of Iordan.
And for further manifesting,foreign. that it was so in this Altar, let it be well considered: what Iosephus, one of the learnedest, and most ancient Iewes now exstant, saith, Antiq. lib. 5. cap. 4. They placed an Altar on the banke of the river as a memorable signe of the neerenesse and affinity of them that dwelt beyond Iordan, viz. with them within Canaan: Againe, it was not placed for worship, but symbolically and as a memorandum of their relation to you.
8. The Rejoynder as having sufficiently confuted all other answers, bringeth in one made to himselfe in conference, (though he hath not found it in print) as a grand absurdity: namely, that the Gileadites did ill, in erecting this Altar; and the rest also in allowing of it. Now as for allowance by the High Priest, Princes, and all the Congregation of Israel, which he speaketh of, I finde it not evident in the Text. About the other, I finde this: 1. that D. Fulke, no absurd Divine, (against Sanders, of Images, pag. 649.) writeth thus in print: The two Tribes and a half, Iosh. 22. made not an Image, but an Altar for a memoriall: and yet their fact was not commendable, though it was, in some sort excusable. 2. I finde also that Calvin, before him, upon Iosh. 22. sayth thus: Duae tribus, …um dimidia, non leviter peccarunt, &c. The two tribes and a half did very ill: Which is the great absurditie that the Rejoynder had heard in conference, but not seen in print, before now.