Against Human Ceremonies in Gods Worship, Part 2 · Chapter 4 · Section 9 – Section 10
SECT. 22. Concerning the Crosse Popish and English.
IN this Section, ther is nothing material, save onelyonly, that the Rejoynder undertaketh to prove, that the Church of England hath utterly and cleane taken away the Ceremonie of the Crosse, which was amonge the Papists abused: or, that wheresoever, and howsoever the signe of the Crosse was a Ceremonie abused in Poperie, it is taken away in the Church of England.
But because in common understanding, this is to prove day, night, and night, day, he requireth two positions to be granted him (which before have been confuted) 1. that nothing is a Ceremonie properly so called, but in respect of, and in the use of it, as a Ceremonie. 2. That the signe of the Crosse, though it be but one kinde of thinge, yet is made so many several Ceremonies, as ther be several uses therof. And these things being taken for granted, he gathereth a Catalogue of many Popish abuses, which (thorough Gods mercy) we are freed from. Yet in his very first instance, he betrayeth his cause. For he maketh it a Popish Ceremonie, to signe the breast with the forhead (and so the forehead) in signification, that the mysterie of the Crosse is to be beleeved in the heart, and confessed with the mouth. This Ceremonie (sayth he) we have not. Yes surely we have the very same formal opinion and intention, so farre as signification commeth to. For not to be ashamed of confessing faith in Christ crucified, &c. is nothing else but to believe with the heart, and confesse with the mouth, hand, and feet, the mysterie of the Crosse.
But it is not worth the while, for to consider the severals of this Catalogue. This onelyonly I would know; if we have not taken the Ceremonie of the Crosse from Papists, from whom we took it? The beginning of it was (so farre as appeareth by bookes) from the Valentinian haeretickes. The first honorable mention of using it among Christians, is in Tertullian, when (by the Rejoynder his sentence) he was infected with haeresie: & his use our Defender and Rejoynder (I dare say) will not allow: at bordes, and beds, putting on apparel, and shoes, &c. Tell us (I pray you) from what Author, or Age, this Ceremonie of the Crosse was taken, which now is urged upon us? I have more then a doubt, that such exception may be taken against that propagation, and such proofes for the taking away utterly of the Crosse, as you have brought for the abolishing of the Papists Crosse. If it be a new Ceremonie, invented in England, just at the time of Reformation, the Author of that invention should be made knowen: and if he can approve his Ceremonie, to be grounded rightly, his name may be added in Polidor Virgil, de Inventoribus rerum.
SECT. 23. Concerning Scripture-proofes, for human Ceremonies Idolatrously abused, and yet lawful to be used in Gods worship.
1. THe Replier his wordes are these: No example can the Defender finde in all the booke of God, for lawful reserving of Idolatrous Ceremonies, but onelyonly two; one of Gideon, Iud. 6.26. and another of Ioshua, Iosh. 6.19. These wordes the Rejoynder accuseth of dishonestie, not to be used against a Pagan. And why so? 1. Because the Defender undertook onelyonly to prove, that some Ceremonies, which have been formerly abused, are not therfor necessarilie to be abolished, if they may be reduced to their indifferent use. Now by abused he meant Idolatrously abused, or else he touched not this fourth Argument, whose assumtion himself repeated thus: Our Ceremonies have been Idolatrously abused. The Replier in stead of Idolatrously abused, put Idolatrous: because (as such) they are Idolatrous. And that, which is not necessarily to be abolished, may be retayned: therfore the Replier (seeking brevitie of speach) used the word retayned. So doeth Beza adv. Harchium, de Coena, speake: Non desunt, qui Pastores vellent in illis, si non origine, at c…rte usu Baaliticis v…stibus apparere. So that in this, ther was no unchristian dealing.
The Rejoynder his second reason for so deepe a censure, is, that the Defendant grounded not his proposition upon these two examples, but from the …quity of the prec…pt of God, unto these two men. The Defendant indeed sayd, that his proofe was by the generall equity of Gods Law; and then bringeth these two examples. Wherein he was spared, that nothing was opposed to his gathering of generally equity of the Law, from two examples, which (according to his interpretation) are manifestly beside, and in some sort, against the Law. But if his proofe was from the equity of two speciall precepts, those specials are examples: and the Defendant his words are of one of Gideons acts: Which example we have propounded, to proove, &c. And the Rejoynder himselfe, in this same page, calleth the other act of Gideon, an Instan…e, in the same sense: I beleeve the Iewes gathered their rule from this instance: and pag. 591. he calleth that which is alledged of Gideon, and the other of I…shua, two instances. In all this charge therefore of un…hristian dealing, there is not found any fault at all. But it is too commō with the Rej. when he cannot reasonably rejoyne, to breake out into angry words.
2. Of Gideons example, the Defendant himselfe (sayd the Replier) confesseth, that it was by speciall command from God: and that it is not every way imitable. The Rejoynder 1. affirmeth this to have beene the Def. his objection, rather then his confession. Be it so: His objection therefore answereth it selfe; and toucheth not our Argument, which did not conclude any thing unlawfull that is by God specially commanded, but onelyonly sheweth what is ordinary unlawfull by the generall rule of his Word. He 2. telleth us, that the Iewes hold it lawfull to make use of the wood of a tree, under which an Idol hath beene placed. And so doe we hold it lawfull to make use (for a fire in colde weather) of the wood of an Idoll; which is more, I beleeve (addeth the Rej.) they gathered the rule from this instance. If they did gather any speciall rule of ordinary use from hence, it was when the Vaile was over their eyes. For there is a generall rule, in the light of nature, to the contrary: Qu…d ex concessione speciali factum est, non debet trahi in consequentiam. The Def. therefore did not well to imitate them in his blinde gathering. 3. He citeth out of P. Martyr, that God herein shewes, that the usurpation of an Idol, doeth not disposesse him of his Lordship over all things, but that they may be turned to his service. But P. Martyr doeth manifest his meaning to be, that such things may not so be turned to Gods service, without Gods speciall appointment.
For (answering the generall Law which maketh to the contrary) he sayth:Leges hu… modi nobis, no… sibi ipsi Deus posuit Qan… obr…m, rebus dedir…tis Idolis ad sua iosius holocausta uti po…est. Minime li… isset, nisi D… minus pr…copisse…. God made such Lawes as these for us, and not for himselfe. Wherefore he could use things dedicate to Idols, unto his owne burnt offerings. So Pelicanus: It was in no wise lawf…ll, unlesse God had enjoyned it. 4. For that which was mentioned of a not imitable example, that spake the Defendant (sayth the Rejoynder) onelyonly of Gideons sacrificing under an Oake. Which is true: but the reason of this imitablenesse, is the same in both of Gideons acts: justly therefore, both were taken as confessed not imitable.
3. Of Ioshua 6.19. it was added by the Replier, that there is no mention made of things, (much lesse Ceremonies) appropriated unto Idolatry; and that in probability, the vessels there spoken of, were melted, and onelyonly the metall brought into the Lords treasury. The Rej. opposeth 1. That some of this treasu…y (in all likelyhood) was appropriated to Idols. Be it so: for that some there was a double answer given, God speciall command; and that it was melted, or passed thorow the fire. But heere the Rej. answereth 1. That it doeth not appeare, they were to be melted. As if the Defendant his Argument did proove well his p…oposition (as he sayth it doeth) if confutation of it doeth not appeare in the text he allegeth! surely proofes should be fetched from that which at least appeareth, and not from that whose contrary doeth not appeare. But it doeth appeare, that this was the order appointed for such things, Numb. 31.22.23. and from thence Interpreters gather so much of these things, Ioshua, 6. So Tostatus, They did melt all mettals that could be melted, Omnia mesalla liquifactibilia liquifiebant, conflabantur igne, & converteban. … in massam.they were melted by fire, and turned into the masse. 2. If this be granted (sayth the Rejoynder) melting did not make them other things. Yes surely by the Defend. his Learning brought to illuminate our judgements (as he speaketh pag. 562. in this Rej.) be sound, namely, onelyonly forme giveth the being to every thing, as naturall; to naturall; artificiall, unto artificiall; ceremoniall, unto Ceremoniall. For by this reason, melting of the vessels, made them cease to be the same things either artificiall, or ceremoniall. And hereby the Def. his instance falleth to the ground: as not prooving any Ceremonies abused unto Idolatry, to have beene by Ioshua retained.
4. Out of the former premises, the Replier concluded that the Defendant had wreched penury of Scripture proof…s, for retaining of human unnec…ssary Ceremonies, notoriously knowne to have beene, and be abused unto Idolatry. This was his meaning, according to the state of the question. Heere the Rejoynder first opposeth, that two instances from the holy Scripture, rightly taken, are proofe enough. Which is very true: but that same rightly tak…n, was heere wanting, as hath beene sufficiently declared.
In the second place, to supply the Defendant his penury, the Rejoynder bringeth abundance of instances, out of his olde store. 1. Kneeling, bowing, prostrating, lifting up of the eyes, and of the hands, shouting, and dancing for joy. But these we absolutely deny to be human inventions. The Rej. knew this: and therefore by prevention, replieth: to say these are not human inventions, because they partly spring out of naturall light, is as much as to say, they are not, because th…y are human inventions: for what are human inventions, but such as spring out of naturall light? What? the Crosse, and Surplice; the Cornerd-Cap, and tippet; the B…shops Rochet, and Coap; with a thousand such like; which whoesoever will aequal, or (in regard of naturalnesse and willfull invention) liken unto l…fting up of eyes and hands, &c. in prayer, must for that time, lay aside right natural invention, and judgement. I think it would trouble all the Graduates in England to finde out that natural light, from whence Bachelors of Art, Maisters of Art, Bachelors and Doctors of Divinitie receyved their several kindes of Hoodes; even as much as to finde out light of nature, for all the several habits of Monkes. But (sayth the Rejoynder) all came from naturall light, better or worse, more or lesse agitated. Iust as mens long haire, and womens short, which nature it selfe teacheth to be uncomely (according to the Apostles light) came from the light of nature. It is naturall to a childe, for to sucke the dugge; and after to put the hand to the mouth; and after to creepe or goe: Is it like naturall to sound a certaine distinct sound upon a Trumpet? to dance a certaine Round, or Galliard, after every Fidle? It is naturall for a childe to signifie his discerning of those that it is used to, by some such sound as Dad and Mam: but not to make Verses in a certaine number.
After these, the Rej. instanceth in sitting, or lying along, leaning on the left side; covering of the head and face, in worship; dividing of a beast in covenant-making; erecting of Altars upon hils; erecting of religious monuments; Trophees of victory, in Temples; set dayes for solemne worship; wine and victuals for mourners; Marriage feasts, &c. But in all these, he was so set upon number, that he cleane forgot weight, and pertinency to the question in hand. For the question is of Scripture-proofes, for such Ceremonies, as man hath devised, without necessary use, in the worshop of God, notoriously knowne to have beene, and be abused unto Idolatry. For there is not one of these instances, which doeth agree to this question. 1. It cannot be prooved out of Scripture, that sitting, or lying, was a lawfull religious Ceremony, appropriated unto Gods worship. The Rej. his proofes are onelyonly from superstitious Rabbines; who are no more witnesses of true lawfull Ceremonies, for the olde Testament, then Papists are for the new. 2. As for vayling and covering the head and face, in worship, I know not out of what place of Scripture it can be prooved a religious Ceremony, except (perhaps) from 1. Corinth. 11.4. Every man praying or prophecying, having his head covered dishonoureth his head. He quoteth Ierome on Eze. 44. Where these words are found:Non rasis capitibus, ficut sacerdotes cultoresqus Ifidis atqu… Serapis debemus esse. Iuxta Septuaginta Interpretes, discimus in tantum capillos demittendos, ut operta sit cutis. Vel certe sacerdotes semper operire capita sua debent, juxta illud Virgilianum: Purpureo velare comas adopertus amictu. Sed hac violenta interpretatio est. We must not have our heads shaved as the Priests and worshippers of Isis and Serapis had. According to the seven…y Interpreters, we learne that our haire is to be suffered to grow out so long, that the skin be covered, and appeare not naked. Or verily that the Priests must alwayes cover their heads, according to that of Virgil, Purpureo velare comas, &c.
But this is a violent interpretation. Will this helpe the Rejoynder? He quoteth also P. Martyr, on 1. King. 19.13. where he sayth, that Moses and Elias, not being able to endure the glory of Extraordinary apparitions, covered their faces; adding, that some thinke they did it of modesty; which he doeth not reject, will this helpe?
3. For dividing of beasts, in covenant-making, he bringeth Gen. 15. and Ier. 34. But in the first place, it is manifest, that God did immediately, and extraordinarily appoint it; and that in such a manner, as can never be shewed in any idolatrous use among Heathens, much lesse before Abrahams time. In the second, there seemeth onelyonly to be an allusion of phraze: because in all the solemne Covenants which we read of in the History of the Iewes, made, or renewed, we never finde any mention of this manner; though circumstances of farre lesse moment are recorded distinctly. But if it was a reall act, it is most likely, that the question then in hand, being about the freedome of Abrahams Children, which belonged to that Covenant confirmed unto Abraham, Gen. 15. they were by the Prophet directed, to use the same kinde of sacrifice. Howsoever, it cannot be prooved a meere human Ceremony: nor yet a meere Ceremony: because it was a sacrifice, as all grant. Beside, to ground so large a conclusion upon one darke phraze, is fitter for the Patrons of Purgatory (who allege therefore, triall by fire, and baptizing for the dead) then for the Rejoynder.
6. Erecting of Altars, was not in use after the Law, by the Rej. his owne confession. Before, it was no more a human Ceremony, then sacrifizing was.
7. Of Monuments and s…t dayes of solemnity, enough hath beene sayd in the third Argument. For Trophees, brought into Gods house, Colias sword is produced: which was no Ceremony of worship. For then David would not have taken it away, for civill use; as he did, 1. Sam. 21.
8. Mourning and Marriage feasts, have no shew of religious Ceremonies. Iunius in deed (in his notes on Deut. 26.14.) calleth some cost about the dead, religious but in his Analysis of the same place, he expoundeth himselfe, to meane religiosum, humanum, aut superstitiosum. And religious is often used for all offices of strict obligation.
Notwithstanding all this weaknesse, and wrinesse of these instances, the Rej. doth so triumph in them, that he doubteth not to pronounce them enough to confut… foure Arguments of the Abridgement. But such confutations are like his, who sayd he would confute a great part of Bellarmine, with one word: Bellarmine thou liest.