Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 3 · Section 1
SECT. 1. and 2. Concerning certayn miscelaneall notions and testimonies against humane relegious significant Ceremonies.
1. THis Argument pleadeth, that no humane Ceremonies, appropriated to Gods service, ordeyned, or instituted, to teache any spirituall dutie, by misticall signification, are lawfull. About this the Rejoynder threateneth blowes. But we have had now suche experience of his forcelesse indevours in other Arguments, that the fear of his blowes is past.
2. The first proof of our proposition was taken from the second Commandement: which the Def. omitted in this place, and the Rejoynder will not have any man to take exception against the sayd, omission: but with what reason, let his reader judge.
3. A second proof was, that Christ is the onelyonly teacher of his Churche, and appointer of all meanes wherby we should be taught and admonished of any holy duty, and all Christs doctrine, with the meanes therof, is perfectly conteyned in the holy Scripture. Here (sayth the Rejoynder) the Def. forgot to tell, how absurd this collection is, Christ is the onelyonly authentique teacher of his Churche etc. therfore they may be no meanes of teaching or admonishing unto duties, but suche as be ordeyned as necessarie. As if it were sufficient for the Def. or Rejoynder to tell us any thing as they please, how litle ever it be to the purpose.
He maketh shew of a distinction, betwixt an authentique teacher, and another, what doe you call him? to which we cannot say muche untill he remember to tell us the name, style, and office of that other by-teacher?
OnelyOnly this, by the way, I would learne: how we can acknowlege and receyve any meanes of religious teaching with faith, except it appear to be appointed by an authentique teacher and lawgiver? And how our Prelates in oppointing meanes of spirituall teaching which Christ appointed not, can be accounted (therin) Ministeriall teachers under him as their and our onelyonly authentique teacher? As also, if Christ be our Authentique Teacher in all good that we learne about religion, who taught our Prelates suche good manners, as to put fescues, of their owne making, into his hand, and so appoint him after what manner, and by what meanes he shall teache us? P. Mart. (in Reg. 8. thus disputeth. For as much as God is most wise he needs not our devise for instrumēts to stirre up faith in us which also no tradesman in his kind would indure, Cum Deus sit sapientissimus, non opus babet ut nostro cogitatu, illi par… mus instrumenta (ad fidem in nobis excitandam) quod etiam quisquam Artifex in sua facultate minime serret, se dipsomat velles su… arbitratu, sibi deligere.but would chuse to himselfe at his owne pl…asure what he should think most fitt. Nay I would be resolved of this doubt: whether this be not a doctrine religious in England: The signe of the crosse doeth signifie unto us that we should not be ashamed of Christ crucified etc. If it be (as no Conformist can denie) then I would know: whether and where Christ, our onelyonly Authentique teacher, doeth teache this doctrine? or if our Prelates may bringe in a new doctrine into the Churche, and cause Ministers to preache it? He leaveth out of our proof, that Christ is the onelyonly appointer of meanes, as also that those meanes are limited to admonition of a holy dutie: and in stead of our conclusion, he bringeth in another, of ordeyning as necessarie.
The support also of our collection he omitteth: to acknowlege any other meanes of teaching and admonishing us of our dutie, then suche as Christ hath appointed, is to receyve another teacher into the Churche, beside him, and to confesse some imperfection in the meanes by him ordeyned. Yet in the middest of this shufling, and cutting, he telleth us, that our collection is absurd. His reason is not by manifesting the fault of our consequence, but onelyonly by objecting some instances, and those also nothing to purpose. Then (sayth he) it should not be lawfull to use any helpe of Art Memorative, nor to set up a gybbett, or a traytors head on a pole, to give men warning against murder, or treason. Had he so soon forgotten, that the question is of Ceremonies, appropriated to Gods service, teaching by ordination, or ínstitution? If he had not, what did he mean, to instance in thinges that were never called Ceremonies (before this Rejoynder made all things in the world, in some respect, Ceremonies, by his wilde definition of a Ceremonie,) thinges that have no use in Gods service, muche lesse appropriated therto, thinges not teaching by vertue of any ordination, or institution, but onelyonly by their naturall relation, nay things not teaching at all any spirituall dutie directly, and immediatly? Characters and suche like helps of memorie, doe no otherwise teache trueh, then error, and haeresies no more spirituall duties, then carnall lusts, as experice doeth teache. One of the ancientes, and learnedest Schoolmē of our Countrie (Alex. Alēsis, p. 4. q. 1. m. 1.) teacheth us,Literae significantes sacras sententias, non significant eas in quantum sacra sunt, sed in quantum su… tres. that Letters that signifie sacred sentences do not signifie them as they are sacred, but as they are things. And if it be lawfull to institute significant Ceremonies, for all things, that we may note in characters, for memorie sake thē certainly our Convocation may instituteCeremonies properly Sacramentall, even suche as doe signifie and seale the Covenant of grace. For ther is no doubt, but that we may note in characters or writing all that belonge to that Covenant. Gibbets, & traytors heads (besides the former exception out of Alex. Hales) are remembrances of death inflicted upon suche malefactors: but neyther to be appointed by any, without that authoritie, by which death is inflicted, nor in their use imposed upon any, nor determined by institution, to the teaching of any thing, which they would not otherwise teache, not yet suche remembrances as may be brought into Gods worship. Nay, from them some good Divines doe reason against images in Churches, and suche like significant Ceremonies. D. Fulke against Sanders of images, hath these words: Images (sayth Sanders are profitable: because they bring us in remembrance of good thinges. I denie this argument: because nothing is profitable in religion, but that wh…ch is instituted by God. For otherwise wee might bringe the gallows into the Churche, which bringeth us in remembrance of Gods justice.
4. To passe by those exceptions of the Repl. against the Def. which the Rej. calleth wranglinges (though they be defensible enough) The first proof of our proposition is taken from Mar. 7. and Matth. 15. where (as we allege) our Saviour by this argumēt (among others) condemneth the Iewish purifijnges, and justifieth himself, and his Disciples, in refusing that Ceremonie: because (being the praecept of men) it was taught, and used, as a doctrine, by way of significatiō to teache what inward puritie should be in them, and how they ought to be clensed from heathen pollutions. To this the Rej. (supplying againe that which the Def. had forgotten) answereth, that this reason (among others) of signification, is our fiction. Now (though these places of Scripture have formerly been handled, in the second chapiter) let any man considerthis observation: wee finde in our Saviours answer, three reasons of reprehending the Pharisies: 1. That their washing was praeferred before the Commandements of God. 2. That it was hypocriticall. 3. That it was a vaine worship, & therefore sinne. If any say, it was not vayne, as significant, wee replie, it could be no outward worship, but as religiously significant. For washing, without signification had been meer civill. And Marc. 7.4. The Pharisies are reproved, for meer undertaking to observe washinges, no mention being made of any other reason, but onelyonly that observance, which must needes be understood of all observance, which was not civill, but (by institution & intention) religious.
5. For this interpretation, and collation, many good Divines were cited as fathering the same. They are all abused, sayth the Rej. Now of Chrysostome, enough hath been sayd, in the former chapter. D. Whitakers his approbation of the same sentence is shifted of, with binding of conscience, and holinesse placed in them. But these shiftes are sufficiently discussed in the former part of this book. To the Confession of Witenberge it is answered. 1 That it doeth not so muche as give anie glance at Marc. 7. Which how true it is, may appear by these their wordes:Non lice…, vel vet…res legis vitus restaurare, vel nov…s comminisci, ad adumbrandam veritatem Euangelicam jam patefactum: quales sunt. Uti vexillis, & crucibus, ad significandam victoriam Christs per crucem: quod genus est universa panopliae vestium missalium, quam aiunt adumbrare totum passionem Christi, & multa id genus alia. Da hoc …enere, Ceremoniarum & sacror…m, Christus ex Isaia concionatur, f…ustra (inquiens) colunt me doc…ntes doctrinas, praecepta hominum. Nor is it lawfull to restore either the old rites of the law, or to devise new in their place to signify the trueth of the gospel now come to light, as for example, to use banners and Crosses to signe Christs victorie on the Crosse: of which kind of i…ly devised repraesentions, is the whole furniture of Masse accontrements, which they say doeth set forth the whole passion of Christ, and many such like things. Of which sacred ceremonies Christ preacheth out of Isajah; In vaine they worship me teaching for doctrines the preceps of men.
Whiche last wordes are (in every syllable of them) founde Marc. 7.7. Is not this so muche as a glance at Marc. 7? Suerly heer the Rej. had more affection to his cause, then attentation to the place in quaestion,
6. Of Calvin, see the former chapiter. Yet heer also let these words of his be remembred:Omnes foreign damnars mini… me obscurun… est. Eos errare▪ Christus pronunciat, qui loco doctrina obtrudu ut hominum mandata, fixum illud maneat fictitios omnes cultus coram Deo vanos esse In these words it is evident, that all will worships are condemned. Christ pronounceth them erroneous, which for Doctrine obtrude mens p…aeceps. Let this stand firme, all devised worships are most vaine before God. VnderUnder whiche censure and sentence, that he includeth suche significant Ceremonies as ours are, it appeareth, as out of his condemning them in the Lutherans, against Westphalus, so out of his owne practise in Geneva and France, where all suche are abolished: for he professeth (de necess. ref. Eccl.) We have touched nothing no not with the least finger to remove it except that which Christ accounts nothing, Nil vel minimo digito attigimus nisi quod pro nihilo Christus ducit, cum frustra coli Deum humanis traeditionibus pronunci…t.seing he pronounceth God is vainely worshipt by humane traditions.
7. Virel (in Catechism. in praecep. 2.) extendeth the second Commandement, unto the forbidding of every humane religious likenesse. The Rej. also confesseth, that the same Virel, there condēneth all superstition: to which he if he had added his definition of superstition, viz: that it is a worshiping of God by rites and Ceremonies devised of man, all would have been plaine. Neyther is it materiall, that Virel pointeth not to Marc. 7. (as the Rej, noteth) seing he groundeth his doctrine upon Matth. 15.9. where the same words are found, which in Marc. 7.7. are repeated. The Rej. therfore had no shew of reason to say, that Virel was abused, in that he was cited as interpreting Marke, because (by his owne confession) he doeth interpret the same wordes which are found in Marke.
8. Zepperus his testimonie (which was not his alone, but the common sentence of diverse Protestant Synodes, as appeareth out of his praeface) is so full, that the Rejoynder in him forbare his common accusation, that he was abused. His words are these, de Pol. Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 10. reg. 3.Cum D…us per humanas traditiones frustra colatur, Mat, 15.9. perque illas in hominum cordibus efficax esse non velit, oneras illas foreign esse, opinionem tantum sapientiae habentes, per quas nullam animorum devo tionem, fidem, invocationem, & poenitentiam veram, in cordibus excitare velit. & reg. 4. Ceremonia ab hominibus administrationi Sacramentorum assutae, tetidem sunt varierum errorum, idololatriae, & superstitionum seminaria & fomenta Tales Ceremoniae sunt abolendae Mat 15 6. Mar. 7.9. Hinc manifestum evadit, abroganda esse circa Baptismum, oleum, sal, aquaem lustralem, cereos, characterem Crucis, etc. Sith God is worshipped in vaine by humane traditious Mat. 15.9. Nor will be of an efficacie by such things in the hearts of men, and being meere will-worships, Carrying but an opinion of wisdome through which God will never stir up devotion, prayer, faith, and repentanc… in us &c. And againe. The ceremonies Cobled or botcht by men to the administration of the Sacraments are so many seminaries and nurseries of errour, idolatrie and superstition such ceremonies are to be abolished Mat. 15. Marc. 7. Whence it is manifest that about Baptisme oyle, salt, holy water, tapers, the signe of the crosse &c. are to be abrogated.
If these words be not to the purpose, in the Rejoynder his owne conscience, then I despaire of satisfying him about any testimonie that maketh against that tenet which he is resolved to mainteyne (as they say) by hooke or crooke.
9. D. Fulke (sayth the Rejoynder did not thinke humane Ceremonies to be condemned for being significant, when no religion, or service of God is placed in them. Which is as muche as if he had sayd: D. F. did not think humane Ceremonies to be condemned for being significant, when they are not significant: For (as hath been shewed in the former part, all religious Ceremonies instituted, by their signification to raise up the heart unto the honoring of God, have some religion and service of God placed in them. And that D. Fulke did mean by placing of religion, or Gods service in them, the using of them unto religious use, it appeareth by a like place in Act. 17. sect. 5. Though it be not simplie unlawfull, to expresse in painting the visible shapes shewed in Visions to the Prophets, yet to make those shapes for any use of religion, is abominable idolatrie.
10. For D. Raynolds, the Rejoynder answereth 1. that he giveth no hint touching the interpretation of this place. 2. that he onelyonly inveigheth against the multitude and burthen of Symbolicall rites, shewing their use in Poperie to be Iewish. 3. that D.R. judged our …ignificant Ceremonies lawfull to be used in case of silencing and deprivation. Now for the first, I answer, that as ther are hints of interpretation for many places of the olde Testament, in the new, which yet are not cited there, so may it be that D. R. gave a hint, without quoting. About the third point, I 1. observe, that by the Rejoynder his owne relation, D. Rain, was not of his and D. Mortons judgemen. For he judged our Ceremonies onelyonly tollerable in case of extremitie: but they allow the very institution of them, as good and profitable for order, decencie, and aedification. 2. D.R. never manifested to the world in publick any reasons for that judgement, but rather for the contrarie, as by and by we shall hear. 3. Ther is a kinde of suspensive judgement (suche as Cyrill, Peter Lombard, as Estius in 2. d. 21. alledgeth and interpreteth them, say Eve had, about the Serpents speaking) to which the iniquitie of times doe draw many godly and learned men, not onelyonly about Ceremonies violently urged by & with greivous poenalties, but also about greater matters, as experience in all ages hath shewed. But that is nothing to others as being destitute or forsaken of certaine groundes or supportes.
Concerning the second and mayne poynt, the best way is, to set downe D.R. his owne wordes, which are these: Were it so, that the Popish Vnction had another, eyther worke, or meaning, with the Papists, then with the Iew, as after a sort, it hath, yet might the Ceremonie be Iewish notwithstanding, as sacrifizing of a lambe, to signifie Christ already come. At the least S. Peter did constrayne the Gentiles to Iudaize (Gal. 2.12.) though he, and those Gentiles had another meaning, then that wherin that choise of meates was praescribed to the Iews. Adv. Hart. chap. 8. sect. 4.
Thus farr I had in my notes, out of the English editiō but ther is this more in the booke, as I now finde in the latine copie, not having the English at hand: your rites in the very kind are Iewish or as the Iewish were. Now out of these last words I argue thus:Vestri ritus ipso genere, Iudaici sunt, quales Iudaici exstiterunt. 1. If all umbraticall rites be Iudaicall, and therfore unlawfull, then all religious significant Ceremonies are Iewish and unlawfull.
But D. R. sayth the first: therfore he teacheth also the later. 2. Out of the former I conclude thus: if a Iewish rite may be without a Iewish opinion, then our Ceremonies may be Iewish, or Popish, without a Iewish, or Popish opinion, or doctrine.
But the first is affirmed by D. R. therfore the later also. Which if it be true, then both the Defend. and Rejoynder have taken a false grounde of their Ceremoniall doctrine, in affirming so confidently upon all occasions, that it is the opinion and docdrine onelyonly which maketh a Ceremonie Iewish, Popish, or any way unlawfull.
All this notwithstanding, the Rejoynder could not forbeare, to accuse the Authors of the Abridgement, his olde reverend friends, of sh…mefull abusing the world, with false allegations of these Divines, nor to triumphe in his discovering of this shame.
But I could wish, from my heart, that he, and his best friends living, had no more cause to be ashamed of his Rejoinder, then they had of these allegations, which none of the Authors, if they were on earth alive would disavow.
11. In the last place, upon occasion of our disliking all the significant Ceremonies, brought in by the Pharisies, it pleased the Def. to taxe us for being too like the Saduces, in refusing suche Ceremonies. Now of this accusation the Replier onelyonly desired the Def. to consider, if it did not touche our blessed Saviour himself, who by his example, and doctrine opposed the same Ceremonies? Heerupon the Rejoynder answereth, that our Saviour walked a midle path, betwixt the excesse of the Pharisies, and the praecisenes of the Saduces, in Ceremonies, observing many humane significant Ceremonies in religion, as the Feast of Dedication, embaulming at burialls, sitting at burialls, sitting at the Passover, and the Synagogues, with their formalities. In which answer, the Rejoynder hath shewed, that upon occasion, he dare goe as farr, and say as muche for humane Ceremonies, as any that went before him, if not more, and that with suche confidence as is not abated with reverence of our Saviour himself, whome this passage doeth concerne. But beside this audaciousnesse, I finde no trueth in these words, For. 1. That which he sayth of the Saduces praecisenesse in flying all human Ceremonies, is not true. The Saduces (sayth Epiphanius lib 1. c. 14.) omnia aequabiliter cum Samaritis observant. i. e. they observe all that the Samaritans observe: and who can doubt but the observations and Ceremonies proper to the Samaritans, were all inventions of men, with the Divels helpe. The Saduces also were sometime high Preistes at Ierusalem, as for example, Annas is noted by Iosephus (l. 20. c. 15.) and by like historians, to have been a Saducen. Now it is not credible, that any high Preist in those times, did absteyne from all humane Ceremonies, used commonly by all the Iews Mar. 7.3. At the least the high Preist did observe the feast of Dedication, sitting at the Passover, and suche like (in the Rejoynder his account) humane Ceremonies. 2. The Saduces were prophane beastes, not hoping for Heaven, nor fearing Hell, and so were allways ready to observe any Ceremonies that made for their temporall advantage, of what kinde soever they were. 3. It appeareth out of the premisses▪ that our blessed Saviour (in favour of our paltrie base Ceremonies) is wronged in his holy name, as if he had been more observant of humane misticall constitutions in religion, then many of the worst Iews, whome yet he reproved for following traditions of men. 4. Because the Rejoynder speaketh of a midle path, betwixt the excesse of the Pharisies, and precisenesse of the Saduces, observed by our Saviour, it would be knowen, whether that midle were medium participationis, or medium abnegationis? i. e. Whether it was only a third way partaking of neyther extreme? or had in it part of the Pharisies excesse, and part of the Saduces precisenesse? The former sense we may (upon the Rejoynder his supposition acknowlege: and that maketh nothing to the purpose.
If the later meaning be the Rejoynders, then he must shew us, how farr our Saviour did agree in practise with the Pharisies? And to clear that, he must prove that the Pharisies had lawfull authoritte, for appointing or instituting mysticall Ceremonies, and whiche of them were allowed by our Saviour? 5. The examples here given, pertaine nothing to the question. The feaste of Dedication commeth after to be handled. Embalming at burials, was no significant religious Ceremonie, but a civill rite common to the Israelites with the Egyptians, and other Heathens. If it were, yet being from the time of the Patriarches, how will the Rejoynder prove that it was instituted without Divine direction? Sitting at the Passover can neyther be proved to be mysticall, nor yet instituted by man. Synagoges were no more significant Ceremonies, then was the schoole of Tyrannus, Act. 19.9. The opening, closing, and delivering of the Booke, Luc. 14.17.20. was no more mysticall a Ceremonie, then the opening of a mans mouth, when he speaketh, and the shutting of it againe, when he hath no more to say. Are not these worthy groundes, for to conclude upon, that our Saviour was an observer of humane religious mysticall Ceremonies?