Apology for the Reformed Churches, Chapter 15
CHAP. XV. An anſwer to the example of Naaman the Syrian, objected by ſome.
Object. ANd whereas they object the famous example of Naaman the Syrian, who, after he was converted to the knowledge of the LORD, was wont to bow himſelf in the temple of the Idol, and when the King his Maſter went to perform his devotions, he accompanied him; and bowed himſelf, that the King might lean upon him at his devotions.
Anſw. In anſwer, I ſhall not mention the many interpretations of this paſſage, that ſeem to draw the words 2 Kings v. 18. to another ſenſe, then what is now preſented. Suppoſe (which is yet contended for) that Naaman deſired leave of the Lord to enter into Rimmons temple, and bow himſelf there; That the King might uſe him to lean on. Suppoſe that Eliſha did on Gods part grant him thus much; ſo That this his bowing was no way contrary to his piety to God, or charitie to his neighbour: all this granted will conclude nothing againſt what hath hitherto been ſpoken. For Naaman doth not ſimply entreat the Lord to let him proſtrate himſelf in the Temple of Rimmon: in no kind. That had been to entreat a thing clearly and expreſly forbidden, which the Prophet would never have granted. But he requeſts leave, to yeild the King that ſervice, which he had done formerly, viz. to wait upon Him, and let Him lean upon him (as 'tis the cuſtome of Princes and great Perſonages, in ſtate, to lean upon their ſervants or Favourites) and, That if his Maſter ſhould require that ſervice of him in the Idol-temple, he might give it him without offending God. This action (if well conſidered) differs exceſſively from that we now ſpeak of. For we treat of ſuch actions, as have reference abſolutely and ſimply to the ſervice of that object, which men pretend to adore: whereas this is terminated directly and immediately in the ſervice of an earthly King, and Maſter. Thoſe actions of the Romaniſts ſignifie nothing in common uſe, but the adoration and divinitie of the objects, to which they are publickly conſecrated: this on the contrary, ſignifies principally and directly, OnelyOnly that Naaman acknowledged the King to whom he gave his ſervice to be his Leige-Lord and Maſter. And therefore, as much difference as there is between the adoration of a creature, and the ſervice of a Maſter; ſo much there is there between this action of Naaman, and thoſe which the Romaniſts pretend to be permitted them. God no where forbids a ſervant to obey his Maſter, to lend him a hand to move, or a ſhoulder to lean on; or to kneel, that a man may be the more commodious and ſerviceable to him, therein. Nay on the contrary, He commands us in his H. Word to keep all the degrees and offices of civil ſocietie inviolably, and bids ſervants particularly beware of abating ought of what obedience is due to their earthly Maſters, under pretence of giving ſome to their heavenly. But as for adoration of the creature, He very rigorouſly forbids it. Whence it appears, that though one may lawfully uſe words and actions that teſtifie the firſt kind of ſubmiſſion; yet it follows not, that he may exerciſe ſuch as ſignifie the ſecond.
I confeſſe, that Naaman's doing this in the Temple of Rimmon, might (by the circumſtance of place) give ſome occaſion to another interpretation. For this action which he did for the ſervice of his Prince, being the ſame, re and mat…rially (as we ſpeak) with the bowing which Idolaters make in honour to their God, and both hapning to be in the ſame place and time, where and when infidels were adoring their Idol; ſome of the ſtanders-by might think he addreſſed it, not to the King leaning on him, but to the image of Rimmon there preſent. And this was it that raiſed the ſcruple in this great Perſonage. For though in his intention this act was onelyonly a civil honour to the King, and though in the cuſtome of the world 'twas ſo eſteemed; yet, becauſe time and place concurred ſo unhappily for it, that it might have been otherwiſe taken; he doubted, it was not ſo free from fault as he imagined, and conſequently deſired Gods pardon, and leave to perform his ſervice to his King. So it was this, which the Prophet ſeemeth to grant him in thoſe words, Go in peace: and their opinion, who imagine that Naaman here ſerved an idol, is not built upon any rationall or ſtrong foundation. For ſince the Prince leaned on him, why have they not as much reaſon to think, That he was there in relation to His ſervice, as to the ſervice of the Idol. Nay, it was probable that this act terminated in his Maſter and not in the idol, ſince neither reaſon nor the cuſtome of men would permit him to part Religious acts between God and men. And this one conſideration (if nothing elſe could be ſaid) were enough to ſhew that he then minded not the devotion of his ſoul, but the ſervice of his Maſter: It being cleare, that though he were a Pagan in religion, this Rimmon whom the Syrians ſerved (ſuppoſe him endued with underſtanding or ſenſe, as he were an odd Deity elſe) would not have allowed a ſervice done to a Prince, to bear a ſhare in the adoration to him. As ſuppoſe a Noble man rendring homage to his Soveraigne lean on one of his ſervants who is kneeling, can you with any reaſon interpret this act of the ſervant an homage done to the Maſters Prince? 'Twere unreaſonable, and impertinent, to ſay or think ſo. And for the better underſtanding of my meaning, Suppoſe this ſervant were a vaſſal, and held a farm of that Prince for which he were yearly to doe him ſome homage; would you believe he had performed that homage, by this very aſſiſting and ſerving his Maſter upon ſuch an occaſion? No, ſurely. 'Tis evident, that theſe are acts (though alike, yet) plainly diſtinguiſhed; one, whereby he cometh to render an honour that is due; the other, whereby he onelyonly bendeth his knees to aſſiſt his friend. Naaman's caſe was juſt the ſame. The King of Syria gave religious worſhip to the idol; but Naaman in holding him up ſerved onelyonly his Maſter; not the idol, his Maſter's falſe and unbeſeeming deity.
But beſide this Circumſtance, divers others free this act of his from all ſiniſter interpretation. For 1 Naaman entred into the idol-Temple onelyonly when he was obliged to perform ſome duty to his Maſter; he offered no ſacrifices; he performed neither this nor any other homage, or peice of devotion there alone. Whence it is evident, that what he did otherwhiles in the Temple, was to his Maſter and not to the idol. But 2 There is more in it yet: for he did not onelyonly abſtain from all falſe and unlawfull acts of worſhip; but he made moreover an open publick profeſſion, by word and deed, of reverencing and adoring the true God, who was known in Iſrael. He proteſteth as much, expreſly to the Prophet, ſaying, 2 Kings v. 15, 17. I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Iſrael. Thy ſervant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering, nor ſacrifice, unto other Gods but unto the LORD. Who ſeeth not that all the circumſtances of this action were ſo plain, ſo farre from equivocation, that no man of any ingenuity could take them in an ill ſenſe, viz. for adoration to the falſe God Rimmon?
Therefore as in common diſcourſe, an honeſt man may uſe words which ſignifie divers things (as in all languages there are very many ſuch) provided, he uſe them onelyonly ſo, as it may plainly appear by the circumſtances of his diſcourſe in what ſenſe he takes them, without any deſigne to deceive his auditors with the ambiguitie: ſo it was lawfull for Naaman to ſignifie by this act the reſpect he bore to his Maſter, notwithſtanding the ambiguity which the place and time ſeemed to caſt upon it; ſince all the circumſtances of this act, and his life, and words, ſhewed plainly what he intended by it, viz. a plain ſerving his Maſter, no adoring the Idol.
And now who ſeeth not, what a vaſt difference there is between this act of Naaman, and thoſe which we diſpute againſt in this place? For 1 the Romaniſts, who bow their knees before the Hoſt, declare not what opinion they have of the object, to which they addreſſe that worſhip, by any other outward profeſſion unleſſe they ſay, 'Tis God. 2 Naaman ſerved the God of Iſrael openly, and offered him ſacrifices; and highly and plainly proteſted, that he took not Rimmon for his God; at the adoration of whom, the ſervice that he owed his Maſter, cauſed him to be ſometimes preſent. But all who communicate with, or continue in the Church of Rome, make publick profeſſion of her doctrine; they renounce not (in word, or deed) the adoration of that, to which they proſtrate themſelves. Who then, unleſſe he can divine, will interpret their bowing and adoration otherwiſe, then as a teſtimony they give of the DEITY of that object, wherein they terminate it?
Furthermore, when they bend their knees before the Hoſt, or deck up their houſes againſt it come, or paſſe by them in the ſtreet; theſe actions cannot be taken but for a profeſſion of their adoring this, and taking it for a reall deity. For ſuch in the common and ordinary uſe of men have no other interpretation then this: whereas Naaman's act (as we have proved) was properly a duty, which he owed to his Maſter, and a token of that ſervice, which he was to render to him. But as for the men we ſpeak of, we ſee no Maſter they have to lean upon them, nor to enter into their houſes when they thus deck them; We ſee nothing in their Temples, or at their Proceſſions, whereto we can imagine they terminate theſe actions, but onelyonly the Hoſt. And therefore in all reaſon, they cannot be taken for ought but teſtimonies of that honour, which they bear to it, and of the Deity which they acknowledge to be in it.
Thus it appears, that Naamans act doth not a jot excuſe theirs, but rather evidently condemn it. For ſince he was ſo ſcrupulous of the deed (though ſo many waies qualified, and free from the ſuſpicion of idolatry) that he dared not venture on it, without Gods expreſſe leave, what think you would he have done, if he had been in the Romaniſts caſe? with what horrour would he have refuſed and deteſted it, ſince here is nothing but naked and plain demonſtrations of honour and ſervice to a creature. All that may hence be concluded, is in appearance to favour thoſe, who ſerve Kings, to aſſiſt them at the ceremonies of the Religion of their Maſter; if ſo be their ſervice obligeth them to render any ſervice to their perſons; ſo that the action which they exerciſe be one of the functions of their charge, and that elſewhere they make a cleare and open profeſſion of fearing the Lord onelyonly, & that they acknowledge not that for God, which is adored in ſuch devotions. Yet I know not whether the difference that is between the Old and New Teſtament will permit us to extend the conſequence of this example thus farre; God having formerly in the time of the Churches infancy permitted in his children divers things, which he forbids them now under the light of the Goſpel; where our charitie ſhould be ſo exquiſite, that we ſhould rather endure all ſorts of miſchiefs then give the leaſt cauſe of ſcandall to our Neighbours: and I believe, it were more ſafe to renounce thoſe Dignities, which oblige us to any appearances contrary to our Religion, then to cauſe any to ſtumble by our enjoying and exerciſing them.