Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 3 · Section 10
SECT. 12. Concerning the Feast of Dedication. Iohn. 10.22.23.
1. A Feast of Dedication is brought-in as an instance of a humane Ceremonie appropriated unto Gods service, out of Iohn 10. Now what Feast of Dedication this was, & whether it were meerly of humane institution; this hath allways been, and is still in great quaestion. Nonnius taketh it for that which Salomon appointed: Chrysostome, Theophilact, Euthymius, Cajetan, Calvin, &c. interpret it of that which beganne in the time of Ezra: Others of that instituted by the Macchabees 1. Mac. 4. This last the Defender tooke for granted, and therupon buildeth his Argument: and yet neyther the former, nor this can easily be so evidently proved meerly humane, as it may be made a foundation for humane Ceremonies now. Iunius de cultu Sanct. lib. 3. cap. 5. thus answereth Bellarmine, affirming that God did not appoint this Ceremonie: It is false: Solomon, Ezras, the Machabees, followed the Analogie of that place Ex. 4. Lev. 8. the right of which law if it had not been, yet we must needs say that as Prophets they were led by extraordinarie & singular revelation, not to be Exemplarie therein to us.Falsum est: Salomon, Ezras, Macchabat sequnti sunt praceptum, Exod. 4. Lev. 8 …n juris legalis analogia. Quod jus si non extitisset, tamen dicendum f…ret, seciss… cot ut Prophetas, revelatione extraordinaria, & singulari, quae in exemplum non potest tral….
2. The Replier first observed, that this example is much alleged by Papists, against Protestants for their Ceremonies: and so indeed it hath beene alwayes, from the time of Waldenses, as was noted, in the 2. Chapter. of our first part. Bellarmine hath it twice: once, de Rom, Pont. l. 4. c. 17. and againe, de Cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. …. To this the Rej. answereth, that this example served … Bellarmines turne, for imposition of Ceremonies upon the conscience as of necessity to be observed, as Gods lawes; but it serveth the Defender his turne: because as Iunius saith, Co…r. 3. l. 4. c. 17. an. 5.) it was not injoyned by way of authority, but taken vp by consent. He would make us (as it seemeth) beleeve, that our Ceremonies are not injoyned by way of authority: and if he can doe this, he may also perswade us, that we are for refusing them, excluded, suspended, deprived, excommunicated, fined, & imprisoned, without any way (lawfull or vnlawfull) of authority. Concerning necessity in conscience, see the first part, chap. 6.
Another answere of the Rejoynders is notorious: Bellarmine (saith he) allegeth this feast of Dedication, to proove the Dedication, or Consecration of Churches: which is nothing to our question of significant Rites. Now surely if Dedication and Consecration of Churches bee nothing to our question of significant Rites; the Def. and Rej. say nothing to the purpose, when they prove this question of signifying Rites, by the Maccabees Feast of Dedication. And if that Feast of Dedication, doeth not proove humane Dedications lawfull; much lesse doeth it prove the lawfulnesse of other significant Ceremonies, such as ours are.
3. The Defendant for backing of this instance, added, that our Saviour seemeth to approve that humane Feast, by his presence, Ioh. 10. To which it was replied, that he seemeth onelyonly: because we onelyonly read, that he walked in Solomons Perch, at that Feast: which he might doe, without observing or approoving of it. This is Iunius his answer to Bellarmine, alleging that Christ by his presence honoured that Feast:Non sestum proprie honorawit Christus, sed coetum piorum convenientium festo: nam omnes ejusmodi occasiones seminandi Evangelij sut, observabat, & capieba… Christus Con. 3. l. 4.6.17 an. 6. So Peli…anus in Mac. 1. cap. 4. Nec aliud in his Encoenijs) Christus egisse legitur, quam praedicasse in Templo. Christ did not properly honour the Feast, but the Congregation of the faithfull at the Feast: For Christ tooke all such occasions then, to wit, before those solemnities were abolished, of sowing the seed of his Gospel: Nor did Christ ought that wee read at those times, but preach in the Temple. And sure I am, that neither walking in the Porch, nor declaring that he was that Christ, belonged properly vntounto the solemnity of that Feast. If hee had preached of Dedications and Consecrations, with allowance, that had beene something.
The Rej. objecteth 1. That we plead Christs approbation of marriage, by his presence. This indeed added vntounto evident grounds, addeth some honour unto that state: especially, in that a miracle was wrought to the furtherance of a marriage feast: if wee had no other plea for lawfulnesse of marriage, but that meere presence; I, for my part, would as soone separate from my wife, as the rejoynder saith he would from the Church of England, if he were of our minde, about Ceremonies; that is, to day, before to morrow. His 2. objection is, that Christ whipped the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, Ioh. 2. Ergo. Which maketh directly to the clearing of this cause: For there were two whippings of these Merchants out of the Temple; the first whereof was this Ioh. 2. in the begining of his preaching; the other toward the end of it a little before his passion; so that it appeareth plainely, they were not so driven out, but they came in againe, and continued their merchandise there: and yet in the meane space, our Saviour was often present in the Temple, without allowance of that their practise. So had he often condemned the traditions of men, in Gods worship; and yet was present some time, where they were observed. Beside, because the Def. and Rej. are wonte to accuse the Iewes for placing holinesse, necessity, efficacy, and proper essentiall worship in humane traditions, whereby they would avoid the dint of that generall censure which our Saviour giveth of them, Mat. 15. Mar. 7. &c. I would faine learne of them, how it appeareth, or may be conjectured, that they placed not as much holinesse, necessity, efficacy, &c. in this and such like humane Feasts, as in washing of hands before meat. If they did (as any man will thinke) then how can they say, that our Saviour condemned the one, and allowed the other?
The following 13. and 14. Sections are spent about some objections taken out of Mr. Cartwrite. But because the slitenesse of this Instance is already sufficiently discovered, I will not cloy, nor deteyne the Reader about them, at this time; but passe on to the next Instance.