Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 4 · Section 3
SECT. 3. Concerning Pillars, Lev. 26.1. and the name Baal, Hos. 2.16.17.
1. IT was said by the Repl. that for preventing of an evasion, or stopping of a muse, the Abrigers added; that even such things are to bee cast away, which had a good originall, and use, (if they be not still necessary and commanded of God) when once they are found to be defiled by Idolatry, as Lev. 26.1. &c. To this the Rej. (abounding as it seemeth with leisure, and words) sayth divers things in generall, not worth much refutation. 1. He objecteth Tinkers-lucke, because then all our Churches must downe. But this Ting-tong shall not have the lucke to stay us: because we hold our Churches commanded, in generall, though not for their particular places and formes; which particularity was neither mentioned, nor meant in the Argument. 2. Hee seeketh more then one knot in that rush (necessary or commanded) as if in either sentence that particle or must needs be disiunctive, and not the same with and; which hee himselfe will not affirme in his second thoughts. 3. He affirmeth some distinction to be betwixt things originally evill, and those that are successively evill: which we deny not; but only say, that distinctiō doth not make such a difference, as that therefore one should be duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page rejected, and the other received. 4. He denieth the 2. sertion plainely: which he might have done with …ewer words, to as good purpose.
2. Concerning Lev. 26. it was alleged by the Rep…. that those (at lest some of those) titular pillars were firs… ▪ onelyonly set up for civill use. To which the Rej. answereth, that this was not the first beginning of their religiou… use: which is nothing to the purpose, except no use be good but religious. 2. that though many statues which afterward onelyonly for worship, were at the first, for civill respects and had still a civill use, (for this antecedent onelyonly is the Repliers) yet it doeth not follow, they were civill at the first ▪ which answer is by it selfe confuted.
3. Calvins collection or conjecture, was objected: that these statues were erected, to represent God: and this was answered, that according to Calvins phrase, there is a representation of God, in all pictures that corrupt Gods spirituall worship. The Rej. opposeth, that Calvin on Deut. 12.3. sheweth his meaning to be onelyonly of such representation as was in the golden Calfe, and Michas Seraphim; not such as Iacob set up for a monument. Which may be Calvins Conjecture of that place in Deut. though not of this in Lev. Yet to such a monument as Iacobs was, being grossely abused unto Idolatry, Hezechias would have showne no more courtesie, then he did to the Brazen Serpent. So Pelicanus, upon the place, collecteth: We must ceremonize according to Gods Word onelyonly. Ceremoniandum est secundū Verbum Dei solum.as upon Lev. 26.1. Even triumphall statues were forbidden. Statuam erigi prohibet, etiam triumphalem.And Lyra, The memory of Idolatry is totally to be wiped out.Memoria Idololatriae totaliter delonda.
4. The Def. objected Iacobs pillar, Gen. 28.18. So (…ayth the Replie… he did offer sacrifices, in other manner, and place, then after the Law, was lawfull. To this the Rejoynder answereth, 1. that that which Iacob did, was not unlawfull by the morall Law. But he is mistaken; not dis…inguishing betwixt the morall Law forbidding religious Ceremenies of meere human appointment, and allowing the same derived from Divine inspiration. So Tertullian (de Idol. cap. 5.) answereth him that defended Images by the brazen Serpent: Idem Deus, qui lege …etuit similitudinem fieri, extraordinario praecepto, serpentis …imilitudinem indixit. Si eundem Deum observas, habes le…em ejus. Imitare tu Mosem, ne facias adversus legem, simu…achrum aliquid, nisi & tibi Deus jusserit. 1. e. The same God which in his Law forbad images, did extraordinarily command the image of a Serpent. If thou wilt obey that God, thou hast his law. Imitate thou Moses, not making any image (contrarie to the Law) except God commande thee. So all our Divines in answer of Papists, objecting this & such like examples for will-worship) referre these doeings to Divine revelation or instinct. Among these (for this cause) … reckon D. Iackson: whoe in his Originall, pag. 332. giveth us this Catholick remedie and rule, seriously to be considered. Such actions as have been menaged by Gods Spirit, suggested by secret instinct, or extracted by extraordinary and speciall occasions, are then onelyonly lawfull in others, when they are begotten by like occasions, or brought forth by like impulsions.
5. To Hos. 2.16.17. (where the very name of Baal seemeth to be forbidden, because it had been given unto Idols) the Defend. answered (sayth the Rej.) implicitly, i. e. so as I have now answered to all that he hath brought about this fourth Argument. But he undertaketh, by a litle change of wordes, to make that answer satisfactorie. For this end, he allegeth first, that the word Baal, in religious use and application, was originaly, o… from the first use of it, evill: because before Moses was borne, the great and common Idoll of the Gentiles was marke… out by it, as by a proper name. But 1. If the civill use of this word was originaly good, that is sufficient to our purpose. For our Argument speaketh onelyonly generaly o… good originals and beginnings. 2. If this word Baal did originaly signifie Lord, Maister, Husband, (as it is generaly taken) then by the Rej. his interpretation, it did originaly signifie a religious relation. For he holdeth every signe of a servants dutie for conscience sake, to be a mystica… signe of a spirituall dutie: pag. 314. And is not every signe of a Lords, Maisters, or Husbands dutie, or state, for conscience sake, of the same nature? 3. Ther is some quaestion among the learned, whether Baal was derived from King Bel, or King Bels name from Baal? The most probable opinion is the later: as Sir Walter Raughly sheweth lib. 1. c. 10. sect. 6. because Bel, Beel, or Baal, was as muche to say as God. And Arias Montanus, in Hos. 2. sayth it signifieth Numen, or the cheif soveraign power, whatsoever it be, without restraint to this or that Idol. Now if this be so, what more evill was ther in the first use of the name Baal, then of God?
6. In the next place, the Rej. undertaketh to prove, that all religious use of this word Baal, in application to God, is not forbidden; but onelyonly as it might further …he practise, or bear the appearance of grosse Idolatrie. In which answer, if he doeth not distinguish grosse Idola…rie from slight; nor hath any mental reservation, about …ppearance, nor yet taketh might further, otherwise then …he wordes sound, he sayth nothing but that which we …ot onelyonly grant, but also make our plea. To this end …e allegeth the use of it in Is. 54.5. Ier. 31.33. Nah. 1.2. …o which I answer 1. The Lord, in this place of Hos. did …ot speak of every time, but of that day. 2. He did not …orbid himself to use this or that terme, at his pleasure, …ut men. 3. The word Baal Is. 54. Ier. 31. seemeth to be …sed in an allusion onelyonly reproving, and upbraiding the …dolatrie of the people, which had followed Baal; as …ewing that what they had sought for in Baal, was to …e found onelyonly in Iehovah. Otherwise it may be answe…d, that the word appellative is used, without any re…exion unto the proper. And Nah. 1. it is no more gi…en to Iehovah, then the name Idol is given to men, whē …n worthy teachers are called Idol-shepheards; or then …he name Iehovah is given to dumbe creatures, when …hey are called Iehovah Iireh Gen. 22. Iehovah Nissi, Ex. 17. …ehovah shammah, Ezech. 48.
7. He bringeth four interpretations of the place: of which, the first onelyonly (as he sayth) may serve our turne …n any part. But the first, third, and fourth, are in di…ers Interpreters conjoined. And ther is scarce any grave Interpreter, which doeth not gather so much from the context, as we require. See Ierom, Arias Montanus, Oecolampadius, Calvin, Zanchie, Tremelius, Iunius. Sir W. Raughly, himself, in the fore-noted place, observeth the summe: Although the name of Baal be justly to be used toward God; yet in respect that the same was given to Idols, God both hated it, and forbad it. And it is not credible, that so many, and such Divines, should make a collection, which hath no foundation in their intrepretation of the text.