The Works of Mr. George Gillespie Part 10
3. He should have proved that obedience to the magistrate in a thing indifferent, is a better duty than abstaining from that which scandaliseth many Christians. He should not have opposed pleasing and scandalising (for perhaps a man is most scandalised when he is most pleased), but edifying and scandalising, according to my first proposition. Now, will anybody except Paybody say, that obedience to the magistrate in a thing indifferent, out of which scandal riseth, is a better duty than forbearing for the edification of many Christian souls, and for shunning to scandalise them. This we must take to be his meaning, or else he saith nothing to the purpose.
_Sect._ 19. His fourth answer is, that all those scriptures condemning scandal, must needs especially condemn that which is greatest. Peter and his companions coming to Antioch, were in danger of a double scandal; either of the Jews by eating with the Gentiles, which was the less, or of the Gentiles in refusing their company, as if they had not been brethren, which was far the greater. Now Paul blamed Peter very much, that for the avoiding the lesser scandal, he and his companions fell into the greater.
_Ans._ 1. He is greatly mistaken whilst he thinks that a man can be so straitened betwixt two scandals, that he cannot choose but give the one of them. For, _nulla datur talis perplexitas, ut necessarium sit pro homini sive hoc sive illud faciat, scandalum alicui dare_.(425)
2. That sentence of choosing the least of two evils, must be understood of evils of punishment, not of evils of sin, as I showed before,(426) so that he is in a foul error whilst he would have us to choose the least of two scandals.
3. As for the example which he allegeth, he deceiveth himself to think that Peter had given scandal to the Jews by his eating with the Gentiles.
_c.u.m Gentibus cib.u.m capiens, recte utebatur libertate Christiana_, say the Magdeburgians;(427) but when certain Jews came from James, he withdrew himself, fearing the Jews, and so _quod ante de libertate Christiana aedificarat, rursus destruebat_, by eating, then, with the Gentiles, he gave no scandal, but by the contrary he did edify. And farther, I say, that his eating with the Gentiles was a thing necessary, and that for shunning of two great scandals; the one of the Gentiles, by compelling them to Judaise; the other of the Jews, by confirming them in Judaism, both which followed upon his withdrawing from the Gentiles; so that by his eating with the Gentiles no scandal could be given, and if any had been taken, it was not to be cared for. Wherefore there was but one scandal which Peter and his companions were in danger of, which also they did give, and for which Paul apprehended them, namely, their withdrawing of themselves from the Gentiles, and keeping company only with the Jews, whereby both the Jews and the Gentiles were scandalised, because both were made to think (at least occasion was given to both for thinking) the observation of the ceremonial law necessary. That which deceiveth Paybody, is the confounding of _scandalising_ and _displeasing_. Peter, by eating with the Gentiles, perhaps had displeased the Jews, but he had thereby edified them, though the scandal which he gave them was by Judaising; _Judaizabat olim Petrus per dissimulationem_, saith Gerson:(428) by this Judaising through such dissimulation and double-dealing, as was his eating with the Gentiles first, and then withdrawing of himself, when certain Jews came; for keeping company with them only, he scandalised the Jews and confirmed them in Judaism, as Pareus noteth.(429) How then can it be said, that he that scandalised them by his eating with the Gentiles? For hereupon it should follow that there was a necessity of doing evil laid upon Peter, so that he behoved to offend the Jews either by his eating with the Gentiles, or by his not eating with the Gentiles; for he could not both eat with them and not eat with them. This is therefore plain, that if he scandalised the Jews by his not eating with the Gentiles, as I have showed, then had he not scandalised them, but edified them by his eating with the Gentiles.
I perceive he would say, that the scandal of non-conformity is a greater scandal than the scandal of conformity; and so he would make us gain little by our argument of scandal. He is bold to object,(430) "Where one is offended with our practice of kneeling, twenty, I may say ten thousand, are offended with your refusal." O adventurous arithmetic! O huge hyperbole! O desultorious declamation! O roving rethoric! O prodigal paradox!
Yet, I reply, 1. Though sundry (yet not ten thousand for one) are displeased by our refusal, who can show us that any are thereby scandalised; that is, made worse and induced to ruin? This man is bold to say well to it; but we have solidly proved that scandal riseth out of kneeling and the rest of the ceremonies: let it be measured to us with the same measure wherewith we mete.
2. Put the case, that ten thousand were scandalised by our refusal, will it thereupon follow that our refusal is a greater scandal than their practising? Nay, then, let it be said that the cross of Christ is a greater scandal than a private man's fornication, because both Jews and Greeks were offended at that, 1 Cor. i. 23; whereas, perhaps, a small congregation only is offended at this.
3. Our refusal is necessary, because of the unlawfulness of the ceremonies which we refuse, so that we may not receive them, but must refuse them, notwithstanding of any scandal which can follow upon our refusal. If he had aught to say against this answer, why is he silent? He might have found it at home. "Our forbearance of conformity (saith Parker(431)) is a necessary duty, there is therein no fault of any scandal in us."
4. Our opposites should do well to a.s.sail our argument of scandal before they propound any other argument against us; for so long as they make it not evident that the scandal of the ceremonies, which we object, is an active or faulty scandal, so long they cannot object the scandal of non-conformity to us; because if the scandal (which is to be avoided) be in their practising of the ceremonies, it cannot be in our refusing of them.
5. We know many are grieved and displeased with our non-conformity, yet that every one who is grieved is not by and by scandalised, the Bishop of Winchester teacheth as well as we. "Many times (saith he(432)) men are grieved with that which is for their good, and earnestly set on that which is not expedient for them." But, in good earnest, what do they mean who say they are scandalised, or made worse by our non-conformity? for neither do we make them condemn our lawful deed as unlawful, nor yet do we animate them by our example to do that which, in their consciences, they judge unlawful. They themselves acknowledge that sitting is as lawful as kneeling; that the not-observing of the five holidays is as lawful as the observing of them; that the not-bishoping of children is as lawful as the bishoping of them. Do they not acknowledge the indifferency of the things themselves? Do they not permit many of their people either to kneel or to sit at the communion? Have not many of themselves taken the communion sitting in some places? Have not our Conformists in Scotland hitherto commonly omitted bishoping of children, and the ministration of the sacraments in private places? As for ourselves we make our meaning plain when we object the scandal of conformity; for many ignorant and superst.i.tious persons are, by the ceremonies, confirmed (_expertus loquor_) in their error and superst.i.tion; so that now they even settle themselves upon the old dregs of popish superst.i.tion and formality, from which they were not well purged. Others are made to practise the ceremonies with a doubting and disallowing conscience, and to say with Naaman, "In this the Lord be merciful unto us if we err:" with my own ears have I heard some say so. And even those who have not practised the ceremonies, for that they cannot see the lawfulness of them, yet are animated by the example of practising Conformists to do these things which, in their consciences, they condemn as unlawful (which were to sin d.a.m.nably), and if they do them not, then is there no small doubting and disquietness, trouble, and trepidation, harboured in their consciences.
And thus, one way or other, some weakening or deterioration cometh to us by the means of the ceremonies; and if any of our opposites dare think that none of us can be so weak as to stumble or take any harm in this kind, because of the ceremonies, we take G.o.d himself to witness, who shall make manifest the counsels of the heart, that we speak the truth, and lie not.
Finally, Let that be considered which divines observe to be the perpetual condition of the church,(433) namely, that as in any other family there are found some great, some small, some strong, some weak, some wholesome, some sickly, so still is there found such an inequality in the house of G.o.d, which is the church,-and that because some are sooner, some are later called, some endued with more gifts of G.o.d, and some with fewer.(434)
THE THIRD PART.
AGAINST THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES.
CHAPTER I.
THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL, BECAUSE SUPERSt.i.tIOUS, WHICH IS PARTICULARLY INSTANCED IN HOLIDAYS, AND MINISTERING THE SACRAMENTS IN PRIVATE PLACES.
_Sect._ 1. The strongest tower of refuge to which our opposites make their main recourse, is the pretended lawfulness of the ceremonies, which now we are to batter down and demolish, and so make it appear how weak they are even where they think themselves strongest.
My first argument against the lawfulness of the ceremonies I draw from the superst.i.tion of them. I cannot marvel enough how Dr Mortoune and Dr Burges could think to rub the superst.i.tion upon Non-conformists, whom they set forth as fancying their abstinence from the ceremonies to be a singular piece of service done to G.o.d, placing religion in the not using of them, and teaching men to abstain from them for conscience' sake. Dr Ames(435) hath given a sufficient answer, namely, that abstaining from sin is one act of common obedience, belonging as well to things forbidden in the second table, as to those forbidden in the first; and that we do not abstain from those ceremonies but as from other unlawful corruptions, even out of the compa.s.s of worship. We abstain from the ceremonies even as from lying, cursing, stealing, &c. Shall we be holden superst.i.tious for abstaining from things unlawful? The superst.i.tion therefore is not on our side, but on theirs:-
_Sect._ 2. For, 1st, Superst.i.tion is the opposite vice to religion, in the excess, as our divines describe it; for it exhibits more in the worship of G.o.d than he requires in his worship. Porro saith,(436) _Zanchius in cultum ipsum excessu ut, peccatur; si quid illi quem Christus inst.i.tuit, jam addas, aut ab aliis additum sequar is; ut si sacramentis a Christo inst.i.tutis, alia addas sacramenta; si sacrificiis, alia sacrificia; si ceremoniis cujusvis sacramenti, alios addas ritus, qui merito omnes superst.i.tionis nomine appellantur._ We see he accounteth superst.i.tion to be in the addition of ceremonies not inst.i.tuted by Christ, as well as in the addition of more substantial matters. _Superst.i.tio_ (as some derive the word) is that which is done _supra statutum_; and thus are the controverted ceremonies superst.i.tious, as being used in G.o.d's worship upon no other ground than the appointment of men.
_Sect._ 3. 2d. Superst.i.tion is that which exhibits divine worship, _vel cui non debet, vel eo non modo quo debet_, say the schoolmen.(437) Now our ceremonies, though they exhibit worship to G.o.d, yet this is done inordinately, and they make the worship to be otherwise performed than it should be; for example, though G.o.d be worshipped by the administration of the sacraments in private places, yet not so as he should be worshipped.
The Professors of Leyden(438) condemn private baptism as inordinate, because _baptismus publici ministerii, non privatae exhortationis est appendix_. It is marked in the fourth century,(439) both out of councils and fathers, that it was not then permitted to communicate in private places; but this custom was thought inordinate and unbeseeming. If it be said, that the communion was given to the sick privately in the ancient church, I answer: Sometimes this was permitted, but for such special reasons as do not concern us; for, as we may see plainly by the fourteenth canon of the first Council of Nice (as those canons are collected by Ruffinus), the sixty-ninth canon of the Council of Eleberis, and the sixth canon of the Council of Ancyra, the communion was only permitted to be given in private houses to the _paenitentes_, who were _abstenti_ and debarred from the sacrament, some for three years, some for five, some for seven, some for ten, some for thirteen, some longer, and who should happily be overtaken with some dangerous and deadly sickness before the set time of abstention was expired. As for the judgment of our own divines, _Calviniani_, saith Balduine,(440) _morem illum quo eucharastia ad aegrotos tanquam viatic.u.m defertur improbant, eamque non nisi in coetibus publicis usurpendam censent_. For this he allegeth Beza, Aretius, and Musculus. It was a better ordinance than that of Perth, which said, _non oportet in domibus oblationes ab episcopis sive presbyteris fieri_.(441) But to return.
_Sect._ 4. 3d. The ceremonies are proved to be superst.i.tious, by this reason, if there were no more, they have no necessary nor profitable use in the church (as hath been proved), which kind of things cannot be used without superst.i.tion. It was according to this rule that the Waldenses(442) and Albigenses taught that the exorcisms, breathings, crossings, salt, spittle, unction, chrism, &c. used by the church of Rome in baptism, being neither necessary nor requisite in the administration of the same, did occasion error and superst.i.tion, rather than edification to salvation,
4th. They are yet more superst.i.tious, for that they are not only used in G.o.d's worship unnecessary and unprofitably, but likewise they hinder other necessary duties. They who, though they serve the true G.o.d, "yet with needless offices, and defraud him of duties necessary," are superst.i.tious in Hooker's judgment.(443) I wish he had said as well to him as from him.
What offices more unnecessary than those Roman rituals? yet what more necessary duties than to worship G.o.d in a spiritual and lively manner,-to press the power of G.o.dliness upon the consciences of professors,-to maintain and keep faithful and well qualified ministers in the church,-to bear the bowels of mercy and meekness,-not to offend the weak, nor to confirm Papists in Popery,-to have all things in G.o.d's worship disposed according to the word, and not according to the will of man,-not to exercise lordship over the consciences of those whom Christ hath made free,-to abolish the monuments of by-past and badges of present idolatry; yet are those and other necessary duties shut quite out of doors by our needless ceremonial service.
_Sect._ 5. 5th. The ceremonies are not free of superst.i.tion, inasmuch as they give to G.o.d an external service, and grace-defacing worship, which he careth not for, and make fleshly observations to step into the room of G.o.d's most spiritual worship. Augustine(444) allegeth that which is said,-"The kingdom of G.o.d is within you," Luke xvii. against superst.i.tious persons, who _exterioribus princ.i.p.alem curam impendunt_. The Christian worship ought to be "in spirit, without the carnal ceremonies and rites,"
saith one of our divines;(445) yea, the kingdom of G.o.d cometh not _c.u.m apparatu aut pompa mundana, ita ut observari possit tempus vel locus_, saith a Papist.(446) Carnal worship, therefore, and ceremonial observations, are (to say the least) superfluous in religion, and by consequence superst.i.tious.
_Sect._ 6. 6th. Worship is placed in the ceremonies, therefore they are most superst.i.tious. To make good what I say, holiness and necessity are placed in the ceremonies, _ergo_, worship. And, 1st, Holiness is placed in them. Hooker(447) thinks festival days clothed with outward robes of holiness; nay, he saith plainly,(448)-"No doubt, as G.o.d's extraordinary presence hath hallowed and sanctified certain places, so they are his extraordinary works that have truly and worthily advanced certain times, for which cause they ought to be, with all men that honour G.o.d, more holy than other days." He calleth also the cross an holy sign.(449) Dr Burges(450) defendeth that the ceremonies are and may be called worship of G.o.d, not only _ratione modi_, as belonging to the reverend usage of G.o.d's prescribed worship, but also _ratione medii_, though not _medii per se_, of and by itself, yet _per aliud_, by virtue of somewhat else. Now, do not Papists place worship in their cross and crucifix? yet do they place no holiness in it _per se_, but only _per aliud_, in respect of Christ crucified thereby represented, and they tell us,(451) that _creaturae insensibili non debetur honor vel reverentia, nisi ratione rationalis naturae_; and that they give no religious respect unto the tree whereon Christ was crucified, the nails, garments, spear, manger, &c., but only _quantum ad rationem contactus membrorum Christi_. Saith Dr Burges any less of the ceremonies? Nay, he placeth every way as much holiness and worship in them in the forequoted place. And elsewhere he teacheth,(452) that after a sort the ceremonies are worship in themselves, even such a worship as was that of the free-will offerings under the law, and such a worship as was the building and use of altars here and there(453) (before G.o.d had chosen out the standing place for his altar), though to the same end for which the Lord's inst.i.tuted altar served. Thus we see that they offer the ceremonies as worship to G.o.d: yet put the case they did not, the school saith,(454) that a thing belongeth to the worship of G.o.d, _vel quo ad offerendum, vel quo ad a.s.sumendum_. Whereupon it followeth, that superst.i.tion is not only to be laid to their charge who offer to G.o.d for worship that which he hath not commanded, but theirs also who a.s.sume in G.o.d's worship the help of anything as sacred or holy which himself hath not ordained. 2. They place as great a necessity in the ceremonies as Papists place in theirs, whereby it shall also appear now superst.i.tiously they place worship in them; for _quaecunque observatio quasi necessaria commendatur, continuo censetur ad cultum Dei pertinere_, saith Calvin.(455) The Rhemists think,(456) that meats of themselves, or of their own nature, do not defile, "but so far as by accident they make a man to sin; as the disobedience of G.o.d's commandment, or of our superiors, who forbid some meats for certain times and causes, is a sin." And they add, "that neither flesh nor fish of itself doth defile, but the breach of the church's precept defileth." Aquinas(457) defendeth that trin-immersion is not _de necessitate baptismi_, only he thinks it a sin to baptise otherwise, because this rite is inst.i.tuted and used by the church. Do not Formalists place the same necessity in the ceremonies, while, as they say, they urge them not as necessary in themselves, but only as necessary in respect of the determination of the church, and the ordinance of those who are set over us? Nay, Papists place not so great necessity in many ordinances of their church as Formalists place in the ceremonies. If the cause be doubtful, Aquinas(458) sends a man to seek a dispensation from the superior. But _si causa sit evidens, per seipsum licite potest h.o.m.o statuti observantiam praeterire_. What Formalist dare yield us such liberty, as by ourselves, and without seeking a dispensation from superiors, to neglect the observation of their statutes, when we see evident cause for so doing? They think that we have no power at our own hand to judge that we have an evident cause of not obeying those who are set over us; yet this much is allowed by this Papist, who also elsewhere acknowledged(459) that there is nothing necessary in baptism but the form, the minister, and the washing of water, and that all the other ceremonies which the church of Rome useth in baptism are only for solemnity.
Bellarmine saith,(460) that the neglecting and not observing the ceremonies of the church, with them is not a mortal sin, except it proceed _ex contemptu_. And that he who, entering into a church, doth not asperge himself with holy water, sinneth not,(461) if so be he do it _circa contemptum_. Now, to be free of contempt will not satisfy our Formalists, except we obey and do that very same thing which we are commanded to do.
Cornelius Jansenius,(462) commenting upon these words, "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," saith, that the commandments of men there forbidden and condemned, are those which command nothing divine, but things merely human; and therefore he pleadeth for the const.i.tutions of the church about feasts, choice of meats, festivities, &c., and for obedience to the same upon no other ground than this, because _pius quisque facile videt quam habeant ex scripturis originem et quomodo eis consonant, eo quod faciant ad __ carnis castigationem et temperantiam, aut ad fidelium unionem et edificationem_.
I know it to be false which this Papist affirmeth; yet in that he thus pleadeth for those const.i.tutions of the church from Scripture and reason, forsaking the ground of human authority, he is a great deal more modest and less superst.i.tious than those our opposites, who avouch the ceremonies as necessary, and will have us bound to the practice of them upon no other ground than the bare will and authority of superiors, who have enjoined them, as hath been shown in the first part of this dispute. Yea, some of them place a certain and constant necessity in the ceremonies themselves, even beside and without the church's const.i.tution (which is more than Papists have said of their ceremonies). Dr Forbesse(463) calleth the Articles of Perth, _pauca necessaria_, &c., a few things necessary for G.o.d's glory, and the promoting of piety in our church, for order, peace, unity, and charity; and particularly he teacheth, that a minister may not lawfully omit to administer the sacraments in private places, and without the presence of the congregation, to such as through sickness cannot come to the public a.s.semblies; which he calleth, _eis necessaria ministrare_.
To say the truth, the ministration of the sacraments in private places importeth a necessity in the matter itself, for which cause the divines of Geneva resolved(464) that in _Ecclesiis publice inst.i.tutis_, baptism might not be administered in private places, but only publicly in the congregation of the faithful, _partim ne sacramenta, &c._, "partly (say they) lest the sacraments, being separate from the preaching of the word, should be again transformed in certain magical ceremonies, as in Popery it was; partly that the gross superst.i.tion of the absolute necessity of external baptism may be rooted out of the minds of men." Sure, the defenders of private baptism place too great necessity in that sacrament.
Hooker plainly insinuates(465) the absolute necessity of outward baptism, at least in wish or desire, which is the distinction of the schoolmen, and followed by the modern Papists to cloak their superst.i.tion. But whatsoever show it hath, it was rightly impugned in the Council of Trent(466) by Marianarus, who alleged against it that the angel said to Cornelius his prayers were acceptable to G.o.d, before ever he knew of the sacrament of baptism; so that, having no knowledge of it, he could not be said to have received it, no not in vow or wish; and that many holy martyrs were converted in the heat of persecution, by seeing the constancy of others, and presently taken and put to death, of whom one cannot say, but by divination, that they knew the sacraments, and made a vow.
_Sect._ 7. 7th. I will now apply this argument, taken from superst.i.tion, particularly to holidays. _Superst.i.tiosum esse docemus_, saith Beza,(467) _arbitrari unum aliquem diem altero sanctiorem_. Now I will show that Formalists observe holidays, as mystical and holier than other days, howbeit Bishop Lindsey thinks good to dissemble and deny it.(468) "Times (saith he) are appointed by our church for morning and evening prayers in great towns; hours for preaching on Tuesday, Thursday, &c.; hours for weekly exercises of prophecying, which are holy in respect of the use whereunto they are appointed; and such are the five days which we esteem not to be holy, for any mystic signification which they have, either by divine or ecclesiastical inst.i.tution, or for any worship which is appropriated unto them, that may not be performed at another time, but for the sacred use whereunto they are appointed to be employed as circ.u.mstances only, and not as mysteries." _Ans._ This is but falsely pretended, for as Didoclavius observeth,(469) _aliud est deputare, aliud dedicare, aliud sanctificare_. Designation or deputation is when a man appoints a thing for such an use, still reserving power and right to put it to another use if he please; so the church appointeth times and hours for preaching upon the week-days, yet reserving power to employ those times otherwise, when she shall think fit. Dedication is when a man so devotes a thing to some pious or civil use, that he denudes himself to all right and t.i.tle which thereafter he might claim unto it, as when a man dedicates a sum of money for the building of an exchange, a judgment-hall, &c., or a parcel of ground for a church, a churchyard, a glebe, a school, an hospital, he can claim no longer right to the dedicated thing.
Sanctification is the setting apart of a thing for a holy and religious use, in such sort that hereafter it may be put to no other use, Prov. xx.
25. Now whereas times set apart for ordinary and weekly preaching, are only designed by the church for this end and purpose, so that they are not holy, but only for the present they are applied to an holy use; neither is the worship appointed as convenient or beseeming for those times, but the times are appointed as convenient for the worship. Festival days are holy both by dedication and consecration of them; and thus much the Bishop himself forbeareth not to say,(470) only he laboureth to plaster over his superst.i.tion with the untempered mortar of this quidditative distinction, that some things are holy by consecration of them to holy and mystical uses,(471) as water in baptism, &c., but other things are made holy by consecration of them to holy political uses. This way, saith he, the church hath power to make a thing holy, as to build and consecrate places to be temples, houses to be hospitals; to give rent, lands, money and goods, to the ministry and to the poor; to appoint vessels, and vestures, and instruments for the public worship, as table, table-cloths, &c. _Ans._ 1. The Bishop, I see, taketh upon him to coin new distinctions at his own pleasure; yet they will not, I trust, pa.s.s current among the judicious. To make things holy by consecration of them to holy uses for policy, is an uncouth speculation, and, I dare say, the Bishop himself comprehendeth it not. G.o.d's designation of a thing to any use, which serves for his own glory, is called the sanctification of that thing, or the making of it holy, and so the word is taken, Isa. xiii. 3; Jer. i. 5, as G. Sanctius noteth in his commentaries upon these places; and Calvin, commenting upon the same places, expoundeth them so likewise; but the church's appointing or designing of a thing to an holy use, cannot be called the making of it holy. It must be consecrated at the command of G.o.d, and by virtue of the word and prayer: thus are bread and wine consecrated in the holy supper, _Res sacrae_, saith Fennerus,(472) _sunt quae Dei verbo in praedictum usum sanctificatae et dedicatae sunt_. Pola.n.u.s, speaking of the sacramental elements, saith,(473) _Sanctificatio rei terrenae est actio ministri, qua destinat __ rem terrenam ad sanctum usum, ex mandato Dei, &c._ The Professors of Leyden(474) call only such things, persons, times and places holy, as are consecrated and dedicated to G.o.d and his worship, and that _divina praescriptione_. If our ordinary meat and drink cannot be sanctified to us, so that we may lawfully, and with a good conscience, use those common things, but by the word of G.o.d and prayer, how then shall anything be made holy for G.o.d's worship but by the same means? 1 Tim. iv.
5. And, I pray, which is the word, and which be the prayers, that make holy those things which the Bishop avoucheth for things consecrated and made holy by the church, namely, the ground whereupon the church is built, the stones and timber of an hospital; the rents, lands, money, or goods given to the ministry and the poor; the vessels, vestures, tables, napkins, basons, &c., appointed for the public worship.
_Sect._ 8. 2d. Times, places and things, which the church designeth for the worship of G.o.d, if they be made holy by consecration of them to holy political uses, then either they may be made holy by the holy uses to which they are to be applied, or else by the church's dedicating of them to those uses. They cannot be called holy by virtue of their application to holy uses; for then (as Ames argueth(475)) the air is sacred, because it is applied to the minister's speech whilst he is preaching, then is the light sacred which is applied to his eye in reading, then are his spectacles sacred which are used by him reading his text, &c. But neither yet are they holy, by virtue of the church's dedicating of them to those uses for which she appointed them; for the church hath no such power as by her dedication to make them holy. P. Martyr(476) condemneth the dedication or consecration (for those words he useth promiscuously) whereby the Papists hallow churches, and he declareth against it the judgment of our divines to be this, _Licere, imo jure pietatis requiri, ut in prima cujusque rei usurpatione gratias Deo agamus, ejusque bonitatem celebremus, &c. Collati boni religiosum ac sanctum usum poscamus._ This he opposeth to the popish dedication of temples and bells, as appeareth by these words: _Quanto sanius rectusque decernimus._ He implieth, therefore, that these things are only consecrated as every other thing is consecrated to us. Of this kind of consecration he hath given examples. _In libro Nehemiae dedicatio maeniam civitatis commemoratur, quae nil aliud fuit nisi quod muris urbis instauratis, populus una c.u.m Levitis et sacerdotibus, nec non principibus, eo se contulit, ibique gratias Deo egerunt de maenibus reaedificatis, et justam civitatis usuram postularunt, qua item ratione prius quam sumamus cib.u.m, nos etiam illum consecramus._ As the walls of Jerusalem then, and as our ordinary meat are consecrated, so are churches consecrated, and no otherwise can they be said to be dedicated, except one would use the word _dedication_, in that sense wherein it is taken, Deut.
xx. 5; where Calvin turns the word _dedicavit_; Arias Monta.n.u.s, _initiavit_; Tremelius, _caepit uti_. Of this sort of dedication, Gaspar Sanctius writeth thus: _Alia dedicatio est, non solum inter prophanos, sed etiam inter Haebreos usitata, quae nihil habet sacrum sed tantum est auspicatio aut initium operis, ad quod destinatur locus aut res cujus tunc primum libatur usus. Sic Nero Claudius dedica.s.se dicitur domum suam c.u.m primum illam habitare caepit. Ita Suetonius in Nerone. Sic Pompeius dedicavit theatrum suum, c.u.m primum illud publicis ludis et communibus usibus aperuit; de quo Cicero,_ lib. 2, epist. 1. Any other sort of dedicating churches we hold to be superst.i.tious. Peter Waldus, of whom the Waldenses were named, is reported to have taught that the dedication of temples was but an invention of the devil.(477) And though churches be dedicated by preaching and praying, and by no superst.i.tion of sprinkling them with holy water, or using such magical rites, yet even these dedications, saith the Magdeburgians,(478) _ex Judaismo natae videntur sine nullo Dei praecepto_. There is, indeed, no warrant for such dedication of churches as is thought to make them holy. Bellarmine would warrant it by Moses' consecrating of the tabernacle, the altar, and the vessels of the same; but Hospinian answereth him:(479) _Mosis factum expressum habuit Dei mandatum: de consecrandis autem templis Christianorum, nullum uspiam in verbo Dei praeceptum extat, ipso quoque Bellarmino teste._ Whereupon he concludeth that this ceremony of consecrating or dedicating the churches of Christians, is not to be used after the example of Moses, who, in building and dedicating of the tabernacle, did follow nothing without G.o.d's express commandment. What I have said against the dedication of churches, holds good also against the dedication of altars; the table whereupon the elements of the body and blood of Christ are set, is not to be called holy; neither can they be commended who devised altars in the church, to be the seat of the Lord's body and blood, as if any table, though not so consecrated, could not as well serve the turn. And what though altars were used in the ancient church? Yet this custom _a Judaica, in ecclesiam Christi permanavit ac postea superst.i.tioni materiam praebuit_, say the Magdeburgians.(480) Altars savour of nothing but Judaism, and the borrowing of altars from the Jews, hath made Christians both to follow their priesthood and their sacrifices.
_Haec enim trio, scilicet sacerdos, altare, et sacrificium, sunt correlativa, ut ubi unum est, coetera duo adesse necesse sit_, saith Cornelius a Lapide.(481)
_Sect._ 9. 3d. If some times, places and things, be made holy by the church's dedication or consecration of them to holy uses, then it followeth that other times, places and things, which are not so dedicated and consecrated by the church, howbeit they be applied to the same holy uses, yet are more profane, and less apt to divine worship, than those which are dedicated by the church. I need not insist to strengthen the inference of this conclusion from the principles of our opposites; for the most learned among them will not refuse to subscribe to it. Hooker teacheth us,(482) that the service of G.o.d, in places not sanctified as churches are, hath not in itself (mark _in itself_) such perfection of grace and comeliness, as when the dignity of the place which it wisheth for, doth concur; and that the very majesty and holiness of the place where G.o.d is worshipped, bettereth even our holiest and best actions. How much more soundly do we hold with J. Rainolds,(483) that unto us Christians, "no land is strange, no ground unholy,-every coast is Jewry, every town Jerusalem, and every house Sion,-and every faithful company, yea, every faithful body, a temple to serve G.o.d in." The contrary opinion Hospinian rejecteth as favouring Judaism,(484) _alligat enim religionem ad certa loca_. Whereas the presence of Christ among two or three gathered together in his name, maketh any place a church, even as the presence of a king with his attendants maketh any place a court. As of places, so of times, our opposites think most superst.i.tiously. For of holidays Hooker saith thus,(485) "No doubt as G.o.d's extraordinary presence hath hallowed and sanctified certain places, so they are his extraordinary works that have truly and worthily advanced certain times, for which cause they ought to be with all men that honour G.o.d more holy than other days." What is this but popish superst.i.tion? For just so the Rhemists think that the times and places of Christ's nativity,(486) pa.s.sion, burial, resurrection, and ascension, were made holy; and just so Bellarmine holdeth,(487) that Christ did consecrate the days of his nativity, pa.s.sion, and resurrection, _eo quod nascens consecrarit praesepe, moriens crucem, resurgens sepulchrum_. Hooker hath been of opinion, that the holidays were so advanced above other days, by G.o.d's great and extraordinary works done upon them, that they should have been holier than other days, even albeit the church had not appointed them to be kept holy. Yet Bishop Lindsey would have us believe that they think them holy, only because of the church's consecration of them to holy political uses. But that now, at last, I may make it appear to all that have common sense, how falsely (though frequently) it is given forth by the Bishop, that holidays are kept by them only for order and policy, and that they are not so superst.i.tious as to appropriate the worship to those days, or to observe them for mystery and as holier than other days:-
_Sect._ 10. First, I require the Bishop to show us a difference betwixt the keeping of holidays by Formalists, and their keeping of the Lord's day; for upon holidays they enjoin a cessation from work, and a dedicating of the day to divine worship, even as upon the Lord's day. The Bishop allegeth five respects of difference,(488) but they are not true. _First_, he saith, that the Lord's day is commanded to be observed of necessity, for conscience of the divine ordinance as a day sanctified and blessed by G.o.d himself. _Ans._ 1. So have we heard from Hooker, that holidays are sanctified by G.o.d's extraordinary works; but because the Bishop dare not say so much, therefore I say, 2. This difference cannot show us that they observe holidays only for order and policy, and that they place no worship in the observing of them, as in the observing of the Lord's day (which is the point that we require), for worship is placed in the observing of human as well as of divine ordinances, otherwise worship hath never been placed in the keeping of Pharisaical and popish traditions. This way is worship placed in the keeping of holidays, when for conscience of an human ordinance, they are both kept as holy and thought necessary to be so kept.
3. The Bishop contradicteth himself; for elsewhere he defendeth,(489) that the church hath power to change the Lord's day. _Secondly_, He giveth us this difference, that the Lord's day is observed as the Sabbath of Jehovah, and as a day whereon G.o.d himself did rest after the creation.
_Ans._ 1. This is false of the Lord's day; for after the creation, G.o.d rested upon the seventh day, not upon the first. 2. Dr Downame saith,(490) that festival days also are to be consecrated as Sabbaths to the Lord.
_Thirdly_, The Bishop tells us, that the Lord's day is observed in memory of the Lord's resurrection. _Ans._ He shall never make this good; for, we observe the Lord's day in memory of the whole work of redemption. 2. If it were so, this could make no difference; for just so Christmas is observed in memory of the Lord's nativity, Good Friday in memory of his pa.s.sion, &c. His _fourth_ and _fifth_ respects of differences are certain mysteries in the Lord's day. But we shall see by and by how his fellow Formalists who are more ingenuous than himself, show us mysteries in the festival days also. Lastly, Albeit the Bishop hath told us that there is no worship appropriated unto the festival days, which may not be performed at any other time, yet this cannot with him make a difference betwixt them and the Lord's day; for in his epistle, which I have quoted, he declareth his judgment to be the same of the Lord's day, and teacheth us, that the worship performed on it is not, so appropriated to that time, but lawfully the same may be performed at any other convenient time, as the church shall think fit. Now, as the worship performed on the Lord's day is appropriated (in his judgment) to that time, so long as the church altereth it not, and no longer, just as much thinks he of the appropriating to festival days the worship performed on the same.
_Sect._ 11. 2d. If the holidays be observed by Formalists only for order and policy, then they must say the church hath power to change them. But this power they take from the church, by saying that they are dedicated and consecrated to those holy uses to which they are applied. _Simul Deo dicatum non est ad usus humanos ulterius transferendum_, saith one of the popes.(491) And, by the dedication of churches, the founders surrender that right which otherwise they might have in them, saith one of the Formalists themselves.(492) If, then, the church hath dedicated holidays to the worship of G.o.d, then hath she denuded herself of all power to change them, or put them to another use: which were otherwise if holidays were appointed to be kept only for order and policy. Yea, farther, times and places which are applied to the worship of G.o.d, as circ.u.mstances only for outward order and policy, may be by a private Christian applied to civil use, for in so doing he breaketh not the ordinance of the church.
For example, material churches are appointed to be the receptacles of Christian a.s.semblies, and that only for such common commodity and decency which hath place as well in civil as in holy meetings, and not for any holiness conceived to be in them more than in other houses. Now, if I be standing in a churchyard when it raineth, may I not go into the church that I may be defended from the injury of the weather? If I must meet with certain men for putting order to some of my worldly affairs, and it fall out that we cannot conveniently meet in any part but in the church, may we not there keep our trust? A material church, then, may serve for a civil use the same way that it serveth to an holy use. And so, for times appointed for ordinary preaching upon week-days in great towns, may not I apply those times to a civil use when I cannot conveniently apply them to the use for which the church appointeth them? I trust our prelates shall say, I may, because they use to be otherwise employed than in divine worship during the times of weekly preaching. Now if holidays were commanded to be kept only for order and policy, they might be applied to another use as well as those ordinary times of weekly meetings in great towns, whereas we are required of necessity to keep them holy.
_Sect._ 12. 3d. If the holidays be kept only for order and policy, why do they esteem some of them above others? Doth not Bishop Andrews call the feast of Easter the highest and greatest of our religion?(493) and doth not Bishop Lindsey himself, with Chrysostom, call the festival of Christ's nativity, _metropolim omnium festorum_?(494) By this reason doth Bellarmine prove(495) that the feasts of Christians are celebrated _non solum ratione ordinis et politiae, sed etiam mysterii_, because otherwise they should be all equal in celebrity, whereas Leo calls Easter _festum festorum_, and n.a.z.ianzen, _celebritatem celebritatum_.
_Sect._ 13. 4. If the holidays be kept only for order and policy, then the sanctification of them should be placed _in ipso actuali externi cultus exercitio_.(496) But Hooker hath told us before, that they are made holy and worthily advanced above other days by G.o.d's extraordinary works wrought upon them. Whereupon it followeth, that as _Deus septimum sanctificavit vacatione sancta, et ordinatione ad usum sanctum_(497) so hath he made festival days no less holy in themselves, and that as the Sabbath was holy from the beginning, because of G.o.d's resting upon it, and his ordaining of it for an holy use, howbeit it had never been applied by men to the exercises of G.o.d's worship, even so festival days are holy, being advanced truly and worthily by the extraordinary works of G.o.d, and for this cause commended to all men that honour G.o.d to be holier with them than other days, albeit it should happen that by us they were never applied to an holy use. If Bishop Lindsey thinketh that all this toucheth not him, he may be pleased to remember that he himself hath confessed,(498) that the very presence of the festivity puts a man in mind of the mystery, howbeit he have not occasion to be present in the holy a.s.sembly. What order or policy is here, when a man being quiet in his parlour or cabinet, is made to remember of such a mystery on such a day?
What hath external order and policy to do with the internal thoughts of a man's heart, to put in order the same?
_Sect._ 14. 5th. By their fruits shall we know them. Look whether they give so much liberty to others, and take so much to themselves upon their holidays, for staying from the public worship and attending worldly business, as they do at the diets of weekly and ordinary preaching, yet they would make the simple believe that their holidays are only appointed to be kept as those ordinary times set apart for divine service on the week-days, nay, moreover, let it be observed whether or not they keep the festival days more carefully, and urge the keeping of them more earnestly than the Lord's own day. Those prelates that will not abase themselves to preach upon ordinary Sabbaths, think the high holidays worthy of their sermons. They have been also often seen to travel upon the Lord's day, whereas they hold it irreligion to travel upon an holiday. And whereas they can digest the common profanation of the Lord's day, and not challenge it, they cannot away with the not observing of their festivities.
_Sect._ 15. 6th. By their words shall we judge them. Saith not Bishop Lindsey(499) that the five anniversary days are consecrate to the commemoration of our Saviour, his benefits being separate from all other ordinary works, and so made sacred and holidays? Will he say this much of ordinary times appointed for weekly preaching? I trow not. Dr Downame(500) holdeth that we are commanded, in the fourth commandment, to keep the feasts of Christ's nativity, pa.s.sion, resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost, and that these feasts are to be consecrated as sabbaths to the Lord. Bishop Andrews, a man of the greatest note amongst our opposites, affordeth us here plenty of testimonies of the proof of the point in hand, namely, that the anniversary festival days are kept for mystery, and as holier than other days. Simon on Psal. lx.x.xv. 10, 11, he saith of Christmas, That mercy and truth, righteousness and peace, "of all the days of the year meet most kindly on this day." Sermon on Psal. ii. 7, he saith of the same day, That of all other "_hodies_, we should not let slip the _hodie_ of this day, whereon the law is most kindly preached, so it will be most kindly practised of all others." Sermon on Heb. xii. 2, he saith of Good Friday, "Let us now turn to him, and beseech him by the sight of this day." Sermon on 1 Cor. v. 7, 8, he saith of the keeping of the Christian pa.s.sover upon Easter, That then "it is best for us to do it, it is most kindly to do it, most like to please Christ, and to prosper with us. And, indeed, if at any time we will do it, _quando pascha nisi in pascha, &c._, so that without any more ado, the season pleadeth for this effectually," &c. Sermon on Col. iii. 1, he saith, That "there is no day in the year so fit for a Christian to rise with Christ, and seek the things above, as Easter day." Sermon on Job. ii. 19, he saith, That "the act of receiving Christ's body is at no time so proper, so in season, as this very day." Sermon on 1 Cor. xi. 16, he tells us out of Leo, "This is a peculiar that Easter day hath, that on it all the whole church obtaineth remission of their sins." Sermon on Acts ii. 1-3, he saith of the feast of Pentecost, That "of all days we shall not go away from the Holy Ghost empty on this day, it is _dies donorum_ his giving day." Sermon on Eph.
iv. 30, he saith, "This is the Holy Ghost's day, and not for that originally so it was, but for that it is to be intended, ever he will do his own chief work upon his own chief feast, and _opus diei_, the day's work upon the day itself." Sermon on Psal. lxviii. 18, he saith, That "love will be best and soonest wrought by the sacrament of love upon Pentecost, the feast of love." Sermon on Acts x. 34, 35, he saith, That the receiving of the Holy Ghost in a more ample measure is _opus diei_, "the proper work of this day." Sermon on James i. 16, 17, he calls the gift of the Holy Ghost the gift of the day of Pentecost, and tells us that "the Holy Ghost, the most perfect gift of all, this day was, and any day may be, but chiefly this day, will be given to any that will desire."
Sermon on Luke iv. 18, he saith of the same feast, That "because of the benefit that fell on this time, the time itself it fell on, is, and cannot be but acceptable, even _eo nomine_, that at such a time such a benefit happened to us." Much more of this stuff I might produce out of this prelate's holiday sermons,(501) which I supersede as more tedious than necessary; neither yet will I stay here to confute the errors of those and such like sentences of his; for my purpose is only to prove against Bishop Lindsey, that the festival days, whereabout we dispute, are not observed as circ.u.mstances of worship, for order and policy, but that, as the chief parts of G.o.d's worship are placed in the celebration and keeping of the same, so are they kept and celebrated most superst.i.tiously, as having certain sacred and mystical significations, and as holier in themselves than other days, because they were sanctified above other days by the extraordinary works and great benefits of G.o.d which happened upon them; so that the worship performed on them is even appropriated to them; all which is more than evident from those testimonies which I have in this place collected.
And, finally, the author of _The Nullity of Perth a.s.sembly_(502) proveth this point forcibly: Doth not Hooker say "That the days of public memorials should be clothed with the outward robes of holiness? They allege for the warrant of anniversary festivities, the ancients, who call them sacred and mystical days. If they were inst.i.tuted only for order and policy, that the people might a.s.semble to religious exercises, wherefore is there but one day appointed betwixt the pa.s.sion and the resurrection; forty days betwixt the resurrection and ascension; ten betwixt the ascension and Pentecost? Wherefore follow we the course of the moon, as the Jews did, in our moveable feasts? &c. Wherefore is there not a certain day of the month kept for Easter as well as for the nativity?" &c. That which is here alleged out of Hooker and the ancients, Bishop Lindsey pa.s.seth quite over it, and neither inserts nor answers it. As touching those demands which tie him as so many Gordian knots, because he cannot unloose them, he goeth about to break them, telling us,(503) that they order these things so for unity with the catholic church. This is even as some natural philosophers, who take upon them to give a reason and cause for all things in nature, when they can find no other, they flee to _sympathia physica_. When it is asked, wherefore the loadstone doth attract iron rather than other metal? they answer, that the cause thereof is _sympathia physica inter magnetem et ferrum_. With such kind of etymology doth the Bishop here serve us; yet peradventure he might have given us another cause. If so, my retractation is, that if he be excused one way, he must be accused another way; and if he be blameless of ignorance, he is blameworthy for dissimulation. The true causes why those things are so ordered, we may find in Bishop Andrew's sermons, which I have made use of in handling this argument. For example,(504) the reason why there is but one day betwixt the pa.s.sion and the resurrection, is, because that Jonas was but one day in the whale's belly, and Christ but one day in the bosom of the earth; for in their going thither he sets out Good Friday; in their being there, Easter eve; in their coming thence, Easter day. As for the fifty days betwixt Easter and Pentecost, he saith,(505) "Fifty is the number of the jubilee; which number agreeth well with this feast, the feast of Pentecost;-what the one in years, the other in days;-so that this is the jubilee as it were of the year, or the yearly memory of the year of jubilee: that, the pentecost of years; this, the jubilee of days." In the end of the same sermon, he tells us the reason why there are ten days appointed betwixt the ascension and Pentecost. "The feast of jubilee (saith he) began ever after the high priest had offered his sacrifice, and had been in the _sancta sanctorum_, as this jubilee of Christ also took place from his entering into the holy places, made without hands, after his propitiatory sacrifice, offered up for the quick and the dead, and for all yet unborn, at Easter. And it was the tenth day; and this now is the tenth day since." He hath told us also why there is not a certain day of the month appointed for Easter,(506) as there is for the nativity, namely, because the fast of Lent must end with that high feast, according to the prophecy of Zechariah. Wherefore I conclude, _aliquid mysterii alunt_, and so _aliquid monstri_ too.