Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 3 · Section 12 – Section 13
SECT. 17.18.19.20.21. Concerning the Brazen Altar, built by Salomon. 1. King 8.64.
1. THe Defender bringeth for instance, a Braze… Altar, built by Salomon. It was replied, that in the Text, ther is no mention eyther of Altar, or Brasse, or Building, but onelyonly of Sanctifying the inner part of the Court. The Rejoyner answereth, tha… …he word Brazen slipt in by oversight; the Court may well be called an Altar, in respect of praesent use. The Rej. before, upon farr lesse occasion, talked of slipper… trickes, &c. but I leave this slipping in, and out, unto the Readers censure, so that no advantage be made of it, in prosecution of this Instance.
2. Yet because not onelyonly the Defender named a… Altar, but the Rejoynder also mainteyneth it for good let us see, what may be answered unto the Replier hi… collection therfrom; namely, that if man may on hi… owne head appoint an Altar (as they say) then man may appoint not onelyonly accidentall worship, but also suche a… is greater then some essentiall worship; because the Alta… which sanctifieth the Offering is greater, then the Offering Mat. 23.19? The Rejoynder heer accuseth the Replie… for want of Iudgement, in this allegation: because tha… which our Saviour sayth, is proper to that one onelyonly Altar in the Temple, by reason of the speciall command of God to use them, and their superadded mysticall signification: wheras other Altars were onelyonly permitted, and so helpes to the Offerings, but not sanctifiers of them; nay they were sanctified by the Offeringes; as also the Altars of Gods appointment, in the time of Moses, Salomon, Ezra, and Machabeus, were first sanctified by the gift that was offered on them, and so installed in their peculiar privilege, of sanctifying the Gifts which were afterwards offered upon them. For all this, no consent is shewed of any Divine: OnelyOnly we are bidden to see Zanchie, de Redem. lib. 1. cap. 16. thes. 2.3. Now 1. Zanchie hath nothing to the Rejoynder his purpose: he doeth not distinguish betwixt Altars commanded and Altars permitted: but sayth of the commanded Altars, that they were annexed unto the acts of worship. And so he doeth of the Arke it selfe, and all the principall & most essentiall meanes appointed by God. What can the Rejoynder make of this? 2. The speciall command of God was as well for the Offeringes, as for the Altar: so that cannot be the reason, why the Altar did sanctifie the Offering, more then the Offering the Altar.
And the same aequalitie is in the superadded mysticall, and typicall signification. 3. I am sory to hear from D.B. that the Altars built by Abraham, Iacob, &c. before Moses, were onelyonly permitted. He may as well say, that all the Sacrifices before Moses, were onelyonly permitted. Bellarmine himself, de Eff. Sacr. lib. 2. cap. 31. confesseth, that they were by inspiration, and impulsion Divine: and all our Divines, disputing against Papists about will-worship, make that Divine instinct, for substance, a Divine command. 4. How could Altars be sanctified by Offeringes, when the Offerings themselfs were not in state of sanctification actually, and properly, before they came to the Altars? He that left his gift at the Altar, that is ready to lay it theron, and then went to be reconciled with his brother, had not yet actually sanctified the same. 5. The Altars of Moses, and Salomon, were not first Sanctified by Offeringes upon them, but by Moses his Annoynting: the manifestation of Gods glorious praesence in a Cloude, filling the Tabernacle, and Temple: and by that fire which came downe from heaven to consume the Sacrifice. Ex. 40. Lev. 8. & 9, 1. King. 8. 2. Chr. 7.6. If Salomons sanctified Court▪ did not sanctifie the Sacrifices offered theron, then eyther those Sacrifices were lesse holy, then those which were offered on the Altar, and sanctified therby: or else they had more sanctifying vertue in them, then the other, which did not sanctifie their Altar, as those did their Court. The like may be sayd, and more also, of Abrahams Altars, &c. but this is enough.
3. Our first answer is the same that D. Whitakers, D. Sutlife, &c. giveth to Bellarmine (whoe de Pont. lib▪ 4. cap. 19. hath the same objection against Calvin) Quicquid Salomon fecit, id Dei authoritate & Spiritus Sancti nutu fecit (sayth D. Whitakers) that is, Salomon did this by Divine authoritie, and instinct of the H. Ghost. The Rej. excepteth 1. that Bellarmine would prove by this example, proper, essentiall worship, by man ordeyned. But if he had looked upon the chapter quoted, he might have seen, that the onelyonly quaestion there, is, whether it was sinne, for men, by their owne authoritie, to erect a new Altar in the Temple? And this the Def. and Rej. with Bellarmine denie, against Calvin. 2. He addeth, that all our Divines doe not give this answer alone. As if we also did not follow them, in adding other answers to this!
4. Our second answer (for I will not dwell on wordes) is, that Salomon did this from aequitie of the Law. This is Iunius his answer to Bellarmine, Cont. 3. lib. 4. cap. 9. It was done extraordinarily and by singular occasion and ac…ording to the Analogie of the commune ground, wherby they did other things, and it may be by speciall revelation. Hoc factum est extrà ordinem, & occasione singulari, on necessitate prasenti, cui per analogian communis juris, prospectum e… a Salomone, Rege: forté etiam particulars revelatione.To this the Defend. answered, that this interpretation overthroweth the former. Nothing lesse (sayth the Replier) because Salomon might be directed, to see, and authorized to follow that aequitie. The Rej. heer, having litle reason to oppose, putteth down, in stead of it, great wordes: as this is to confound Ordinarie, and Extraordinarie; Speciall, and Common; Scripture-light, and immediat Revelation; and so hath no sence in it. And what shew of wool for this great crie? May not one be extraordinarilie, specially, and immediatly directed, to see that Scripture-light which in it self hath ordinarie, & common shining? Surely, the Apostles had ex…raordinarie, speciall, immediat direction, to see the meaning of divers passages in the ould Testament (as the allegoricall meaning of Sara and Hagar, Sinay and Sion, &c.) which was before conteyned in the Scripture.
Yet (addeth the Rejoynder) Salomon (by this reason) needed no speciall Authoritie. Whiche I grant, if he be considered as a perfect man; but if he be conceived as Peter, who after hee was sent unto all Nations, needed after a Vision from Heauen, to send him vntounto the Gentiles, then this consequence is nothing worth.
4. Passing over the third answer (in pitie) the fourth is, that this sanctification of the Court by Solomon, was no addition of a divers kinde. This is Danaeus his answer to Bellarmine, Cont. lib. 1. cap. 19. To this the Defender answered nothing, which either the Replier thought worthy any answer, or Rejoynder of improving. So that I need not adde any thing to it, but onelyonly a fitting explication which I finde in Tostatus (in 3. Reg. cap. 8.) thus expressed: It was lawfull to do… what Solomon did, because though it were forbid to offer sacrifice elsewhere then at the Altar of whole burnt-offerings; yet now upon necessity it might be, when the Altar was not sufficient to hold all. Nor did Solomon against the Law, because now sacrifices were burnt at the Altar, and on the Altar together, and so the whole Court of the Priests was in a manner but as one Altar, and the intent of the Law was no other, then that they should not offer in divers places, but heere was but one continued place.Licin… fuit quod … Solomon quia, licet prohibitum asset, of…erri sacrificia alibi, quam in Altari Hol…caustorum, tamen nunc ex necessitate, licuit, cum non possint capi sacrificia super Altar…. Etiam non videbaturagi contra legem: quia nunc cremebantur sacrificia apud Altare, & simul in Altari, & …ic videbatur totum Atrium Sacerdo…m esse tanquam unum Altare. Intentio autem Legis erat, ut non offerrerentur sacrificia in diversis locis.
SECT. 22. Concerning Synogogues.
TO this simple instance, the Replier answered, 1. that Synagogues were no significant Ceremonies. 2. That it is most likely, they were first founded by those Prophets, which brought in Schooles of the Prophets. 3. That in them, there was (of olde) no significant humane Ceremonie used. To the first is rejoyned, that the Synagogues bare some representation of the Sanctuary. But I aske, How? Was this representation in matter, or forme, or use? He seemeth to referre it unto use, in resorting to solemne worship. Now let any man consider, whether every place apppointed for solemne worship, be a significant Ceremonie? If so, then no Anabaptists ever denied significant Ceremonies of mansappointing, which yet the Rejoynderaccused them for. But this fonde conceyt is sufficiently confuted in the first part of this writing, Chap. 4. and 5. Yet suppose the Synagogues had been a repraesentation of the Sanctuarie, which was a Ceremonie; is every repraesentation of a Ceremonie, a new Ceremonie? then any man may make more Ceremonies, then ther are men in his Parish. The second (about the founding of Synagogues by Prophets) which the Repl. sayd, is most likely, the Rejoynder maketh a bolde affirmation, without proofe. But what boldnesse is, in conjecturing that to be likely, which no man can give any likely reason against? The third (of no humane significant Ceremonies used in Synagogues) is absolutely pronounced false. But no reason of this sentence is given out of the Scriptures, but onelyonly that they used there reverend gestures: as if all reverend gestures were significant Ceremonies of mans invention! The rest that he quoteth out of Purchas his Pilgrimage, are wandring Pilgrimes, without house or home, and therfore worthy no other answer, but that which our law hath provided for Vagabondes