Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 4 · Section 2
SECT. 2. Concerning the second Commandement. Lev. 18.3. and 19.19.27.28. Exod. 23.24. Deut. 14 1. and 12.4. and 30.32. 2. Cor. 6.14.18. Rev. 18.4.
1. THe second Commandement was heer alleged, in the Abridgement, as forbidding all provocation unto spirituall fornication, as the seventh duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page doeth unto that which is carnall. This the Def. passed by in silence; and therein is defended by the Rej. because, according to his method, in one particular argument, he taketh knowledge of it, par, 2. c. 2. s. 2. As if Iohn a-Stiles his plea, for 3. akers of ground, were sufficiently answered by Iohn a-Noxe, if he cold with any shew ward it off from 1. aker. His owne answer is, that as the seventh Commandement doeth not forbid the use of all such things, as accidentally doe, or may provoke some men to base uncleannesse; but onelyonly such, as in and of themselves, are working incitements thereto; so neither doeth the second Commandement forbid the use of all such things, as the lust of some Idolaters may turne to spirituall fornication; but onelyonly of such, as have in themselves, or in such use of them, an habitude, or aptnesse, to provoke thereto. But 1. Our Divines generally teach (as Zanchy de Red. lib. 1. cap. 14. briefely expresseth their meaning) The summe of the second Commandement is, that in the worship of God, or Ceremonies thereabout, wee are to devise nothing of our owne braine, or borrow ought of Heathenish idolatrous rites. Summa est secundi pracepti, in externo cultu, qui Deo debetur, seu in Ceremonijs, nihil nobis esse ex nostr… capite comminiscendum, neque ex ritibus gentium Idololatrarum adhibendum, &c.2. Let this be so: the question yet remaineth; whether our Ceremonies, the Crosse (for example) hath not some habitude, and aptnesse, to provoke towards Idolatry? I thinke it will not be denied, but the Crosse is an Idol, at Paris, at Calis, and among the Papists, in England. Now suppose a knowne harlot to be brought out of the Stues at Paris, or Calis, unto Dover, and lodged there in an honest mans bed, or bed-chamber (as the Crosse is in the bed of our Religion, the holy Sacrament) would any man say, that there were no habitude nor aptnesse, in such a harlot, and her lodging, to provoke, even an honest man, and much more, a dissolute companion, unto filthy folly? Difference I know none; but onelyonly that the spirituall folly may be more secretly, and mystically provoked, and exercised, then carnall can. The Rej. should have done well, if hee had given us a certaine rule, whereby wee might have distinguished, betwixt those monuments, or reliques of Idolatry, which have an habitude or aptnesse in them to provoke unto Idolatry, and those which have not. For then more might have beene said therefrom, eyther for, or against our Ceremonies. Now we cannot tell where to take holde, saving onelyonly in this; that habitude and aptnesse of provoking, towards Idolatry, is in every consenting relation that any Ceremony (otherwise unnecessary) hath to any Idol: and all such relation of our Ceremonies to Idols cannot be denied: neither can their necessity to true Religion be with any shew of reason, or honesty, mainteyned. Beside, what jealous or wise husband, if his wife should receive any thing from a knowne adulterer, who hath also gone about to undermyne her honesty, and keepe it alwayes in her bosome, would take this for a sufficient excuse; that such a thing hath not in it selfe any habitude or aptnesse of prouoking unto Adultery? And doeth not God tell us, that hee is in like sort, a Iealous God? From hence it is, that Mr. Perkins, with divers others, in writing on the second Commandement, doctrinally, without speciall medling with controversies, making one head of things therein forbidden, the monuments and reliques of Idolatrie.
2. To Lev. 18.3.4, and 19.19.27. the Def. his answer was (according to the Rejoynder his extraction) that these places doe not proove the abolishing of things indifferent in nature, meerely for the abuse of them to Idolatry, which was (saith he) the point to be prooved: because cutting off the flesh for the d…ad was evill in it selfe; and sowing with divers seeds in one field, was forbidden for a typica…l docum…nt of that syncerity which God required in his people. Where 2. he mistaketh, or perverteth the question: which was not of things indifferent, but not necessary, nor of all things not necessary, but of Ceremonies. 2. Cutting off the flesh for the dead, with a good meaning, nor was, nor is more evill in it selfe, then Circumcission, which both the Def. and Rej. allow as lawfull, under Prester Iohn. pag. 285.3. That typicall doctrine of syncerity, forbiddeth plainely all mixing of Idolaters reliques, with Gods holy ordinances.
3. The Repl. alleged, that the words Lev. 18.3.4. are generall: after their doings ye shall not doe: neither shall ye walke in their ordinances. To this the Rej answereth, that these generall words are to be restrained unto the ma…ter spoken of, that is, incest, and such mad doings of the Egyptians, and Canaanites. But 1. why are these words more to be restrained unto the matter spoken of in the same chapter, then those, 1. Cor. 4.40 Let al things bee done decently and in ord…r, which the Def. and Rej. extend as farre as it pleaseth our Convocation to call things decent, and orderly. 2. That they cannot be so restrained, is manifest out of the context; where the ordinances of Idolaters are opposed to all those Ordinances, Statutes, and Iudgemenes of God, to the doing whereof is promised life. 3. Iunius a judicious Interpreter, in his Analysis of the place, maketh the four first verses of this 18. chap. to perteyne unto divers chapters following, and not, to the 18 onelyonly: ne alienis exemplis, aut legibus vivant. Pelican also upon the place, speaketh home, in this manner: God, by this one law, would have them cast away and abborre, whatsoever had (in worship) pleased the Gentils. Muche more care ought Christians to have of this; whoe being taught to worship God in spirit and truth, ought, first and last, to have abhorred the idle, unreasonable, and deceitfull formes and rites of Idolaters. Whiche if the ancient Bishops had wel considered, the Churche had never been pestered with so many profane rites, and base Ceremonies; by which it came to passe, that some Christians differ litle from Gentils, save in the names of their Idols. Voluit Deus unâ lege, abominari, & abjici voluit quicquid istis populis pla…uisset. Idipsum fuerit longè studiosius cavendum Christianis, quos ut in spiritu & veritate Deum colere edocti, à ceremoniis otiosis, & irrationabilibus, deceptionumque multiplicium formis, & ritibus Idololatrarū, oportuit imprimis, & deinceps maximè abhorruisse, Id si olim Episcopi considerassent, non tot scatuisset Ecclesia profanu ritibus, non prolapsaesset in tam sordidas, & a pietate vera abhorrentes ceremonias, ut fere nihil immutatum cernamus a pristinis Gentium ritibut. praeter idolorū vetustorum nomina, & imagines, quibus successerunt (proh dolor) nova.Lyra also (a Papist) on Lev. 18. sayth plainlie: He intended to exclude from the children of Israel every rite of the Gentils. Intendit excludere a filiis Israel, omnem Gentilem ritum.And on Lev. 19.19. This is commanded, for detestation of Idolatrie: because Idolaters did so, the Israelites may not doe so.Pr…cipitur hoc in detestationem Idololatriae: quia Idololatr… faci…bant, propterea talia prohibentur.
4. Exod 23.24. (sayth the Rej.) Speaketh of superstition, or vitious worship. And this (say we) is the point by us intended: viz: that Ceremonies borrowed from Idolaters, are vitious and superstitious worship.
5. To Deut. 12.4. (Thou shalt not doe so to the Lord thy God) the Rej. after many words, answereth (with the Def.) that not unlawfulnesse, or abuse, but another reason produced this Law. To which it shall suffize to answer, that the other reason was, as Pelecan upon the place noteth; In Ceremonies, we must holde us strictly to the word of God; least we should transgresse eyther in number, or in forme, if mens traditions were to be followed.Ceremoniandū juxta verbum Dei, no quid excederetur, mul…itudine, aut forma, si ad humanas traditiones standum fuisset.
6. Deut. 30.32. was (as it seemeth) misprinted, for Deut. 16.22. and so commeth after to be handled in the next Section.
7 As for 2. Corint. 6.14. (sayth the Rej.) that place condemneth onelyonly mariage or familiar societie with infidels, and v. 17. partnership with men in uncleannesse, by consenting therto. But he should have remembred 1. that the generall condemnation of Fellowship, implieth more then mariage, or familiar societie. 2. That using of Idolaters Ceremonies, is more religious fellowship with them, then falimiar societie civill. 3. That Idolaters Ceremonies cannot be wittingly and willingly used, without implicit consent unto them, hitherto, that their Ceremonies are lawfull.
8. To Rev. 18 4. the Rej. answereth in many words; but to the purpose thus: As concerning Ceremonies onelyonly separating from those of Babylons Ceremonies is injoyned, which cannot be separated from sinne. Which if it be understood of sinne in the religious use of them about Gods solemne worship, is as muche as we desire: we onelyonly adde (which is our defense) that suche an use of them is sinne in it self.
9. Calvins grave collection, on Lev. 19.27. was by the Replier alleged, which thus soundeth, according to the Rej. his owne emendation of the translation: Although rounding, or cutting the hair, was in it self indifferent, yet God would not have it indifferent to his people that they as litle children, might learne by small rudiments, that they could not have his favour, unlesse they should be unlike to the aliens, and uncircumcised, & be altogether and farr different from their examples, especially in those Rites wherin religion was shewed. The Rej. answereth 1. that the cause of this restraint, was the Iews childlike estate, by Calvins owne words. But Calvins meaning is removed from the right center. For that he meant not to exclude our age, he sheweth in the next words: Experientia docet, &c. Experience doeth (not did) teache. And this childlike estate was the cause (according to him and truth) not of the doctrine taught, concerning unlikenesse unto Idolaters, but of the manner, or meanes, wherin it was taught, namely, by absteyning from that fashion of hair, and beards, which Idolaters used. God teacheth us to teache our children, agreablie to their age, not that afterward they should forget, that which was taught them, but that they may remember what they were then taught, and not depart from it, when they are olde. Prov. 22.6. And did he give us a contrarie example? The praecepts given in the Churches minoritie, are her direction (by proportion) in her ripest years. And what direction is in these praecepts, for us, the Rej. doeth not shew. Surely, I should thinke, if the common sort ofGods people might not fashion themselves then to Idolaters, then neyther now our Ministers: if not then in a matter of passion, muche lesse now in actions pertayning to Gods worship: if not then in a tuft of hayr, much lesse now in a Ministring garment, a Ceremonie consecrating us and our children to Christ, and a solemne manner of receyving him in his mysteries. The difference of child-hood, from perfect age, may teache us, that we should not look for suche particular warnings now what thinges of Idolaters we are to shunne, as were given in the Churches infancie, but make use of them; being now also generally warned to flie from all Idolatrie, & that in the same formes of speache which then were used. 2. He answereth, that It pleased God to set up a partition-wall betwixt Iews and Gentiles, in thinges otherwise lawfull. Whiche is very true: but among those thinges, otherwise lawfull (as Calvin clearly insinuateth) Rites of human invention, wherin religion was shewed, had no place. 3. The Rej. addeth, that neyther Calvin, ever affirmed, nor any learned and advised man, dare affirme, that no conformitie with Idolaters in any Rites, abused by them to Idolatrous superstition, is lawfull to be used of Gods people in his service. To which I answer 1. that if he taketh any Rites so largely, that among them he reckoneth Gods ordinances, then he sayth nothing but truth, and yet nothing to the purpose. For the quaestion is, of Rites devized by man, not necessarie in the Churche: as may be seen in the termes of our Argument, expressed in the Abrigement, though in part omitted by the Def. which omission was so approved by the Rej. that he accuseth the Repl. of wrong-doeing for mending it. Pag. 404. We see now for what advantage. 2. If we may have leave to put in that part of the quaestion, as it standeth in our Argument (Rites devized by man, not necessarie) then hear Calvins and some other learned and advized mans judgement.Rectius ac sanius dicitur: quae Deus ipse instituit, nullo abu… aut vitio posse abo…eri: qua autem humanitus tradit… sunt, postquam errore sunt vitiata, si corum usus nec…at, & pariat offendiculum fratribus, esso abstinendum. Magna pars superstitionum, quibuscum hodie bellum gerunt veri Dei cultores, à lacunis nescio quibus manavit: omnes impijs erroribus delibutae sunt, qui nunquam elui possunt, nisi a…rogato illarum usu. Cur ergo non simpliciter quod verum est agnoscimus, n…cessarium hoc esse purganda à sordibus Eccle…a remidium. Cum vellet suas significationes, in vestibus, & suis à magieis nihil evariantibus signis obtrudere: no… contra proponebamus, Christum, purius docuisse Patrem (nempe spiritu & veritate) esse adorandum, sublatis umbris adorandum. Cumque sanctus Rex Hezechias non consuit tantum incumbendum, ut tolleretur superstitio, quod agre sciebat so impetraturum, sed prorsus serpentem ignominiesé iussit comminuendum, quid Christianis Du…ibus & Magistratibus non est faciendum, in ijs quorum superstitio & cultus omnem Idololatriam Iudao…um sup…rat? i… ijs qua homines male seriati erex erunt, quibus significationes e… arbitrio addiderunt? Calv. Resp. ad Versipellem: It is more right and sound, to say, that the institutions of God may not be abolished for any abuse: but humane institutions, being defiled, and so proving hurtfull, and offensive to our brethren, are to be absteyned from. The superstitions against which true worshipers of God doe fight, came (for a great part of them) from unknowne pudles: and all of them are soiled with ungodly errors, which never can be remooved, but by utter abolishing of their use. Why then doe we not simply acknowledge that which is trueth, namely, that this remedy (of abolishing their use) is a necessary remedie, for taking of drosse from the Church? Mr. Farrel Calvins fellow-minister, and in some sort, Father, Epist. Calv. 49. disputing against a popish fellow, whose name was Carolus, saith thus: When Carolus would obtrude his significations, in garments, and other magick-like signes; we opposed, that Christ hath taught us a purer manner of worshipping the Father, in spirit and trueth, without shadows. And Princes may learne by Hezechias his abolishing of the brazen serpent, what they are to do in those Rites which idle men have erected, and added significations unto, according to their owne pleasure. Beza, their sonne, Disp. Genev. 66.Addititias illas innumerabiles nugas quae mox in manif… stam superstitionem abierunt, ut foreign abol… vimus D. 84. Male Ecclesijs suis consulere affirmamus, qui in suis ditionibus, inutilium Ceremoniarum reliquias vol retinuer…, …el aliquat e…us corrigere (prapo…r… qu…dam judicio) quam semel abolere maluerunt. The trifles which had proceeded unto manifest superstition, we have abolished as will-worship. We also affirme, that they which reteyne the reliques of unprofitable Ceremonies, and (out of preposterous judgement) correct them rather then abolish them, deserve ill of the Churches. Yet some there are, Idem de Coena, adv. Harchium, pag. 4. ant… finem. Non desunt qus Pastores vellent, in illis, si non origin…, at certe usu, vere Baaliticis v…stibus apparere. Ieuel. Def. cap. 2. div. 9. His Ceremonijs vo… tam estis abusi, ut nis… maxima nos religione nos obligare malimus, retinore ista amplius nequeamus.who would have Pastors put on garments, which if not by their first bringing in, yet by their abuse, are Baals garments. You Papists have so abused these Ceremonies, that without violating of religion, we cannot retein them.
D. Morton, our Defend. Appeal. lib. 1. cap. 2. Sect. 25. Pope Stephen prescribed in such like cases of humane inventions: If our Ancestors have done any thing which is afterward turned into superstition, it is to be abolished without delay. Which was also the onelyonly remedie which the ancient Councell of Eliberis propounded against Idolatrie. To omit particulars; it hath hitherto beene received for a ruled case among our Divines, as Rivetus (one of our last writers) sheweth, on the fourth Commandement: It is a rule, that things indifferent, not being necessary, if they be polluted with horrible Idolatry, are to be abolished. Regula est illa, Adiaphora non necessaria, horrenda Idolomania polluta, esse abolenda.The Rejoynder his confidence therefore in this point, did exceed all comely measure. The opposite assertion may be better maintained: viz. that no learned and advised Divine, can be named, free from manifest prejudice, arising from the use and urging of such Ceremonies in that Church where he lived that doeth not condemne all conformity with Idolaters, in their religious unnecessary Ceremonies.