The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 27
Sect. 27. It remains now to find out those certain notes and marks of distinction in this matter, as may give satisfaction to the consciences of men, in the difference between innocent Ceremonies, and superstitious parts of Divine Worship. For the difference here doth not lie in supposing some things of Divine Institution which are not, but in making those to be parts of Divine Worship which are not. And that may be done these ways.
1. By supposing them to be so necessary, that the doing them would be a thing pleasing to God, and the omitting of them would be a thing displeasing to God, although there were no humane Law which required the doing of them. For, where there is no obligation by vertue of any humane Law and yet men suppose they should please God by doing, or displease God by not observing some particular Ceremonies; it is a sign they esteem those to be parts of Divine Worship. And this was the case of the Scribes and Pharisees whom our Saviour reproved, not so much for their frequent washings, as for supposing that a mans Conscience was defiled, Matt. 15. 11. 19, 20.if he did not observe them. For they had taken up an opinion among them, (as H. Grotius observes) that any thing that was touched by a Person unclean by the Law, did communicate an uncleanness first to their Bodies, and then to their Souls; but that this ceremonial washing did purifie both Body and Soul: upon which supposition, they concluded this washing so necessary a part of God's Worship, that the doing of it was a thing very pleasing to God, and the omission of it must be displeasing to him, because it left an inward defilement upon their Consciences, which might have been removed by the use of it. But it is lately pleaded by Mr. A. that this washing of hands among the Iews condemned by our Saviour, Exercit. on Matt. 15. 1, 9.was just of the nature of our Ceremonies, being onelyonly observed as a command of their Superiours not repugnant to the Law of God, p. 23, 25.but rather more agreeable to it than our Ceremonies are: from whence he infers, that all Traditions, p. 28.Canons, Injunctions, concerning unnecessary things are contrary to the Law of God, and consequently invalid and not obligatory. But I say, the Reason of our Saviour's opposing the Pharisees about this matter, was not because a thing in it self unnecessary, was determined by their Superiours, but because of the superstitious opinion which the Pharisees had concerning this washing with respect to the Consciences of men. And that I shall prove 1. From the force of our Saviour's reasoning. 2. From the general sense of the Iews concerning it.
1. From the force of our Saviour's reasoning: which will appear, by observing what He proves, viz. that they set up their Tradition above the Law. v. 3. Why do you also transgress the Commandment of God by your Tradition? and v. 6. Thus ye have made the Commandment of God of none effect by your Tradition. v. 9. Full well ye reject the Commandment of God, that ye may keep your own Tradition. Our Saviour here proves by a plain and undeniable Instance about the Vow Corban, that they did believe their Traditions to have a force superiour to the Law; else it were impossible they should suppose such an arbitrary Vow should supersede the obligation of the Law, as to the duty which Children owe to their Parents; but from hence it appeared that they believed the keeping of this Vow to be a thing more pleasing to God, than relieving their Parents, and so they esteemed it a more necessary and substantial part of Divine Worship. The force of his Argument then extends to all things which they looked on as things pleasing to God, on the account of the Tradition of their Elders; for he argued against the main supposition, the truth of which he proves by a clear instance, where the Tradition did contradict the Law. And since by this, it appeared, that they thought their Tradition to over-rule the Law, it was no wonder they set up others equal to it; and thought mens consciences strictly obliged to observe them. But how doth the argument reach to the present case, viz. Because that when their Traditions contradicted the Law, they were not to be observed; therefore, not, when agreeable; unless he rejected all kind of Traditions? I answer, the Pharisees did think a man's Conscience defiled if he did not observe that Tradition, as appears by what follows, when he taught the People upon this occasion, v. 11. That which entreth into the mouth defileth not a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth defileth a man. This was the Doctrine Christ taught the People with respect to this dispute with the Pharisees: which signified nothing, unless the opinion among them was, that eating of bread with unwashen hands, did really defile a man's Conscience towards God. At which the Pharisees were much offended, as the Disciples told him, v. 12. and they were not so very well satisfied, but they desire a further explication of this matter from himself; which he gives them, v. 17, 18, 19. where he shews that no defilement could come to mens Consciences meerly by what they did eat; but that mens inward lusts were the things which defiled them, for these were the source of those wicked actions, which were most displeasing to God. And so he concludes his Discourse, v. 20. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. From whence it follows, that the main thing in dispute was, whether this Ceremony of washing hands could be omitted, without defiling the conscience? or else our Saviour's conclusion doth not reach the Question. But if the conclusion was contrary to the Pharisees Doctrine, then they must look upon this Ceremony of washing of hands, as a part of Worship equal to the Law of God, and which men pleased God by doing, and displeased him by omitting it; not meerly with respect to the command of Superiours, but as they supposed some lesser guilt upon the Conscience might be expiated by it, which would remain, if they did not use it.
2. From the general sense of the Iews. Even Mr. A. himself, in the very same discourse, where he would make this washing of hands like our Ceremonies, quotes several passages of the Talmudists, p. 17.to prove that they equalled their Traditions with the Laws of God; and sometimes set them above them; and particularly of this Tradition he saith, It is a saying of the Talmud, that he that eats bread with unwashen hands, sins as grievously as if he lay with a Whore. Which is a saying of R. Ase in Sota; E…ce. pta G…mar. c. 1. … 6.and abundantly proves, that this was not looked on as an indifferent Ceremony, but as a thing, whose omission brought a guilt on the Conscience. And I wonder Mr. A. did not discern, that by this one saying, he overthrew all the rest of his discourse: but this opinion is not built on the saying of any Rabbi, but on a constant Tradition among them, which they derive from the days of Solomon; who, they say, appointed it first, when they did eat of Sacrifices; afterwards, the wise men applied it to the Terumah, and at last Hillel and Schammai decreed it ought to be observed for their greater purification, before the eating their common Meals. And the Pharisees placing the greatest part of their Religion in the nice observance of such Traditions, thought themselves so much more holy than others, as they did more carefully avoid the defilements of common Conversation; and for that reason they observed this washing especially when they had been in promiscuous company.Ma…k 7. 4. For they thought themselves defiled by any touch from the ordinary sort of People; and this, Maimonides saith, They looked on, as a peculiar part of Sanctity; and the more strict and punctual they were in this, the more holy they were accounted. Therefore in the Talmud one Iohn the Son of Gudged is particularly admired for his Sanctity, Chagiga c. 2. § ult.because he exceeded others in the niceness of washing his hands. And they have a saying in the Misna to this purpose, The Garments of the common People, are a pollution to the Pharisees, the Garments of the Pharisees to those that eat the Terumah, and theirs to those that eat of the Sacrifices, and theirs to those that touched the water of cleansing. So that they had different degrees of Sanctity about this matter of washing, none of which was imposed for the sake of cleanliness, but from the supposition of some inward purification they obtained by it, from the common filthiness of the world. And upon this principle, even the vessels of the Temple were to be washed all over, if they were but touched by the common People. In the washing their hands, they put a difference between that before, and that after meat; the latter they accounted a matter of liberty, or at least onelyonly for health to wash off the dangerous saline particles which they supposed to remain; but the former was required for inward purification; which they require so strictly, that if water may be had within four miles, a Iew is bound not to eat till he hath washed, no not with a fork; and in case none can be had, then he is to cover his hands and so eat; nor can he take meat from another in his mouth, untill his mouth be first washed. If there be no more water than will serve for his drink, he must part with enough of it to wash his hands; Erub i… f. 21.and therefore R. Akiba in prison said, He would rather perish with thirst than want water to wash his hands. And they say, Whosoever disesteems this Custom, deserves not onelyonly excommunication but death too. Since all this is evident from the most authentick Writers among the Iews, I cannot but admire at Mr. A.'s design, who would make the world believe, that this was no more than an indifferent Ceremony among the Iews, that was onelyonly required for Order and Decency, as our Ceremonies are, when those very citations he brings from Buxtorf and Dr. Lightfoot do manifestly prove the contrary. This I thought necessary to be cleared, because this is the chief place in the New Testament which they bring to prove the unlawfulness of our Ceremonies.
From hence it now appears that the reason of Christ's condemning that Ceremony of washing of hands, was not upon the account of Decency, but a superstitious Opinion they had concerning it, that it did expiate a lesser kind of guilt and spiritual filthiness which they contracted by the impure touches of men less holy than themselves. And this the Pharisees more wondred at in Christ's Disciples, because it was a Rule among them, that the Disciples of the Wise ought to be more strict in these cases than others, because these things tended to advance the reputation of their holiness, among the People. And where such an opinion prevails, there such Ceremonies are made parts of Divine Worship.