The Works of Mr. George Gillespie Part 11

The Works of Mr. George Gillespie Part 11

CHAPTER II.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEY ARE MONUMENTS OF BY-PAST IDOLATRY, WHICH NOT BEING NECESSARY TO BE RETAINED, SHOULD BE UTTERLY ABOLISHED, BECAUSE OF THEIR IDOLATROUS ABUSES: ALL WHICH IS PARTICULARLY MADE GOOD OF KNEELING.

_Sect._ 1. I have here proved the ceremonies to be superst.i.tious; now I will prove them to be idolatrous. These are different arguments; for every idolatry is superst.i.tion, but every superst.i.tion is not idolatry, as is rightly by some distinguished.(507) As for the idolatry of the controverted ceremonies, I will prove that they are thrice idolatrous: 1.

_Reductive_, because they are monuments of by-past idolatry; 2._Partic.i.p.ative_, because they are badges of present idolatry; 3._Formaliter_, because they are idols themselves.

First, then, they are idolatrous, because having been notoriously abused to idolatry heretofore, they are the detestable and accursed monuments, which give no small honour to the memory of that by-past idolatry which should lie buried in h.e.l.l. Dr Burges(508) reckons for idolatrous all ceremonies devised and used in and to the honouring of an idol, whether properly or by interpretation such. "Of which sort (saith he) were all the ceremonies of the pagans, and not a few of the Papists." If an opposite, writing against us, be forced to acknowledge this much, one may easily conjecture what enforcing reason we have to double out our point. The argument in hand I frame thus:-

All things and rites which have been notoriously abused to idolatry, if they be not such as either G.o.d or nature hath made to be of a necessary use, should be utterly abolished and purged away from divine worship, in such sort that they may not be accounted nor used by us as sacred things or rites pertaining to the same.

But the cross, surplice, kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, &c., are things and rites, &c., and are not such as either G.o.d or nature, &c.

Therefore they should be utterly abolished, &c.

_Sect._ 2. As for the proposition I shall first explain it and then prove it. I say, "all things and rites," for they are alike forbidden, as I shall show. I say, "which have been notoriously abused to idolatry,"

because if the abuse be not known, we are blameless for retaining the things and rites which have been abused. I say, "if they be not such as either G.o.d or nature hath made to be of a necessary use," because if they be of a necessary use, either through G.o.d's inst.i.tution, as the sacraments, or through nature's law, as the opening of our mouths to speak (for when I am to preach or pray publicly, nature makes it necessary that I open my mouth to speak audibly and articularly), then the abuse cannot take away the use. I say, "they may not be used by us as sacred things, rites pertaining to divine worship," because without the compa.s.s of worship they may be used to a natural or civil purpose. If I could get no other meat to eat than the consecrated host, which Papists idolatrise in the circ.u.mgestation of it, I might lawfully eat it; and if I could get no other clothes to put on than the holy garments wherein a priest hath said ma.s.s, I might lawfully wear them. Things abused to idolatry are only then unlawful when they are used no otherwise than religiously, and as things sacred.

_Sect._ 3. The proposition thus explained is confirmed by these five proofs: 1. G.o.d's own precept,-"Ye shall defile also the covering of thy graven images of silver, and the ornaments of thy molten images of gold: thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth, thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence," Isa. x.x.x. 22. The covering of the idol here spoken of, Gaspar Sanctus(509) rightly understandeth to be that, _quo aut induebantur simulacra Gentilico ritu, aut bracteas quibus ligneae imagines integantur, aut quo homines idolis sacrificaturi amiciebantur_; so that the least appurtenances of idols are to be avoided. When the apostle Jude(510) would have us to hate garments spotted with the flesh, his meaning is, _detestandam essevel superficiem ipsam mali sive peccati, quam tunicae appellatione subinnuere videtur_, as our own. Rolloke hath observed,(511) If the very covering of an idol be forbidden, what shall be thought of other things which are not only spotted, but irrecoverably polluted with idols? Many such precepts were given to Israel, as "Ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves," Exod. x.x.xiv. 13.

"The graven images of their G.o.ds shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver nor gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein; for it is an abomination to the Lord thy G.o.d,"

Deut. vii. 25, 26. Read to the same purpose, Num. x.x.xiii. 52; Deut. vii.

5; xii. 2, 3.

Secondly, G.o.d hath not only by his precepts commanded us to abolish all the relics of idolatry, but by his promises also manifested unto us how acceptable service this should be to him. There is a command "That the Israelites should destroy the Canaanites," Num. x.x.xiii. 52, _evertantque res omnes idololatricas ipsorum cui mandato_, saith Junius,(512) _subjicitur sua promissio_, namely, that the Lord would give them the promised land, and they should dispossess the inhabitants thereof, ver.

53; yea, there is a promise of remission and reconciliation to this work: "By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged, and this is all the fruit to take away his sin; when he maketh all the stones of the altar as chalk-stones that are beaten asunder, the groves and images shall not stand up." Isa. xxvii. 9.

_Sect._ 4. Thirdly, The churches of Pergamos and Thyatira are reproved for suffering the use of idolothites, Rev. ii. 14-20, where the eating of things sacrificed to idols is condemned as idolatry and spiritual adultery, as Perkins(513) noteth. Paybody, therefore, is greatly mistaken when he thinks that meats sacrificed to idols, being the good creatures of G.o.d, were allowed by the Lord, out of the case of scandal, notwithstanding of idolatrous pollution; for the eating of things sacrificed to idols is reproved as idolatry, Rev. ii.; and the eating of such things is condemned as a fellowship with devils, 1 Cor. x. 20. Now idolatry and fellowship with devils, I suppose, are unlawful, though no scandal should follow upon them. And whereas he thinks meats sacrificed to idols to be lawful enough out of the case of scandal, for this reason, because they are the good creatures of G.o.d, he should have considered better the Apostle's mind concerning such idolothites; which Zanchius(514) setteth down thus: _Verum est, per se haec nihil __ sunt, sed respectu eorum quibut immolantur aliquid sunt; quia per hoec illis quibus immolantur, nos consociamur. Qui isti? Daemones._ For our better understanding of this matter, we must distinguish two sorts of idolothites, both which we find, 1 Cor. x. Of the one, the Apostle speaks from the 14th verse of that chapter to the 23d; of the other, from the 23d verse to the end. This is Beza's distinction in his Annotations on that chapter. Of the first sort, he delivers the Apostle's mind thus: That as Christians have their holy banquets, which are badges of their communion both with Christ and among themselves; and as the Israelites, by their sacrifices, did seal their copulation in the same religion, so also idolaters, _c.u.m suis idolis aut potius daemonibus, solemnibusillis epulis copulantur_. So that this sort of idolothites were eaten in temples, and public solemn banquets, which were dedicated to the honour of idols, 1 Cor. viii. 10. Cartwright showeth(515) that the Apostle is comparing the table of the Lord with the table of idolaters; whereupon it followeth, that as we use the Lord's table religiously, so that table of idolaters of which the Apostle speaketh, had state in the idolatrous worship like that feast, Num. xxv. 3; _quod in honorem falsorum Deorum celebrabatur_, saith Calvin.(516) This first sort of idolothites Pareus(517) calls the sacrifices of idols; and from such, he saith, the Apostle dissuadeth by this argument, _Partic.i.p.are epulis idolorum, est idololatria_. Of the second sort of idolothites, the Apostle begins to speak in ver. 23. The Corinthians moved a question, Whether they might lawfully eat things sacrificed to idols? _In privatis conviviis_, saith Pareus.(518) The Apostle resolves them that _domi in privato convictu_, they might eat them, except it were in the case of scandal; thus Beza.(519) The first sort of idolothites are meant of Rev. ii., as Beza there noteth; and of this sort must we understand Augustine(520) to mean whilst he saith, that it were better _mori fame, quam idolothites vesci_.

These sorts are simply and in themselves unlawful. And if meats sacrificed to idols be so unlawful, then much more such things and rites as have not only been sacrificed and destinated to the honour of idols (for this is but one kind of idolatrous abuse), but also of a long time publicly and solemnly employed in the worshipping of idols, and deeply defiled with idolatry, much more, I say, are they unlawful to be applied to G.o.d's most pure and holy worship, and therein used by us publicly and solemnly, so that the world may see us conforming and joining ourselves unto idolaters.

_Sect._ 5. Fourthly, I fortify my proposition by approved examples; and, first, we find that Jacob, Gen. x.x.xv. 4, did not only abolish out of his house the idols, but their ear-rings also, because they were _superst.i.tionis insignia_, as Calvin; _res ad idololatriam pertinentes_, as Junius; _monilia idolis consecrata_, as Pareus calleth them; all writing upon that place. We have also the example of Elijah, 1 Kings xviii. 30: he would by no means offer upon Baal's altar, but would needs repair the Lord's altar, though this should hold the people the longer in expectation. This he did, in P. Martyr's judgment, because he thought it a great indignity to offer sacrifice to the Lord upon the altar of Baal; whereupon Martyr(521) reprehendeth those who, in administering the true supper of the Lord, _uti velint Papisticis vestibus et instrumentis_.

Further, we have the example of Jehu, who is commended for the destroying of Baal out of Israel, with his image, his house, and his very vestments, 2 Kings x. 22-28. And what example more considerable than that of Hezekiah, who not only abolished such monuments of idolatry as at their first inst.i.tution were but men's invention, but brake down also the brazen serpent (though originally set up at G.o.d's own command), when once he saw it abused to idolatry? 2 Kings xviii. 4. This deed of Hezekiah Pope Steven(522) doth greatly praise, and professeth that it is set before us for our imitation, that when our predecessors have wrought some things which might have been without fault in their time, and afterward they are converted into error and superst.i.tion, they may be quickly destroyed by us who come after them. Farellus saith,(523) that princes and magistrates should learn by this example of Hezekiah what they should do with those significant rites of men's devising which have turned to superst.i.tion.

Yea, the Bishop of Winchester acknowledgeth,(524) that whatsoever is taken up at the injunction of men, when it is drawn to superst.i.tion, cometh under the compa.s.s of the brazen serpent, and is to be abolished; and he excepteth nothing from this example but only things of G.o.d's own prescribing. Moreover, we have the example of good Josiah, 2 Kings xxiii., for he did not only destroy the houses, and the high places of Baal, but his vessels also, and his grove, and his altars; yea, the horses and chariots which had been given to the sun. The example also of penitent Mana.s.seh, who not only overthrew the strange G.o.ds, but their altars too, 2 Chron. x.x.xiii. 15. And of Moses, the man of G.o.d, who was not content to execute vengeance on the idolatrous Israelites, except he should also utterly destroy the monument of their idolatry, Exod. x.x.xii. 17-20.

Lastly, we have the example of Daniel, who would not defile himself with a portion of the king's meat, Dan. i. 8; because, saith Junius,(525) it was converted in _usum idololatric.u.m_; for at the banquets of the Babylonians and other Gentiles, _erant praemessa sive praemissa, quoe diis proemittebantur_, they used to consecrate their meat and drink to idols, and to invocate the names of their idols upon the same, so that their meat and drink fell under the prohibition of idolothites. This is the reason which is given by the most part of the interpreters for Daniel's fearing to pollute himself with the king's meat and wine; and it hath also the approbation of a Papist.(526)

_Sect._ 6. Fifthly, Our proposition is backed with a twofold reason, for things which have been notoriously abused to idolatry should be abolished: 1. Quia _monent. Quia movent._ First, then, they are monitory, and preserve the memory of idols; _monumentum_ in good things is both _monimentum_ and _munimentum_; but _monumentum_ in evil things (such as idolatry) is only _monimentum_, which _monet mentem_, to remember upon such things as ought not to be once named among saints, but should lie buried in the eternal darkness of silent oblivion. Those relics therefore of idolatry, _quibus quasi monumentis posteritas admoneatur_ (as Wolphius rightly saith(527)), are to be quite defaced and destroyed, because they serve to honour the memory of cursed idols. G.o.d would not have so much as the name of an idol to be remembered among his people, but commanded to destroy their names as well as themselves, Exod. xxiii. 13; Deut. xii. 3; Josh. xxiii. 7; whereby we are admonished, as Calvin saith,(528) how detestable idolatry is before G.o.d, _cujus memoriam vult penitus deleri, ne posthac ullum ejus vestigium appareat_: yea, he requireth,(529) _eorum omnium memoriam deleri, quoe semeldicata sunt idolis_. If Mordecai would not give his countenance, Esth. iii. 2, nor do any reverence to a living monument of that nation whose name G.o.d had ordained to be blotted out from under heaven, much less should we give connivance, and far less countenance, but least of all reverence, Deut. xxv. 19, to the dead and dumb monuments of those idols which G.o.d hath devoted to utter destruction, with all their naughty appurtenances, so that he will not have their names to be once mentioned or remembered again. But, secondly, _movent_ too; such idolothous remainders move us to turn back to idolatry. For _usu compertum habemus, superst.i.tiones etiam postquam explosoe essent, si qua relicta fuissent earum monumenta, c.u.m memoriam sui ipsarum apud homines, tum id tandem ut revocerantur obtinuisse_, saith Wolphius,(530) who hereupon thinks it behoveful to destroy _funditus_ such vestiges of superst.i.tion, for this cause, if there were no more: _ut et aspirantibus ad revocandam idololatriam spes frangatur, et res novas molientibus ansa pariter ac materia proeripiatur_. G.o.d would have Israel to overthrow all idolatrous monuments, lest thereby they should be snared, Deut. vii. 25; xii. 30. And if the law command to cover a pit, lest an ox or an a.s.s should fall therein, Exod. xxi. 23, shall we suffer a pit to be open wherein the precious souls of men and women, which all the world cannot ransom, are likely to fall? Did G.o.d command to make a battlement for the roof of a house, and that for the safety of men's bodies, Deut. xxii. 8, and shall we not only not put up a battlement, or object some bar for the safety of men's souls, but also leave the way slippery and full of snares?

Read we not that the Lord, who knew what was in man, and saw how propense he was to idolatry, did not only remove out of his people's way all such things as might any way allure or induce them to idolatry (even to the cutting off the names of the idols out of the land, Zech. xiii. 2), but also hedge up their way with thorns that they might not find their paths, nor overtake their idol G.o.ds, when they should seek after them? Hos. ii.

6, 7. And shall we by the very contrary course not only not hedge up the way of idolatry with thorns, which may stop and stay such as have an inclination aiming forward, but also lay before them the inciting and enticing occasions which add to their own propension, such delectation as spurreth forward with a swift facility?

_Sect._ 7. Thus, having both explained and confirmed the proposition of our present argument, I will make my next for the confutation of the answers which our opposites devise to elude it. And, First, They tell us, that it is needless to abolish utterly things and rites which the Papists have abused to idolatry and superst.i.tion, and that it is enough to purge them from the abuse, and to restore them again to their right use. Hence Saravia(531) will not have _pium crucis usum_ to be abolished _c.u.m abusu_, but holds it enough that the abuse and superst.i.tion be taken away. Dr Forbesse's answer is,(532) that not only things inst.i.tuted by G.o.d are not to be taken away for the abuse of them, but farther, _neque res medioe ab hominibus prudenter introductoe, propter sequentem abusum semper tollendoe sunt. Abusi sunt Papistoe templis, et oratoriis, et cathedris, et sacris vasis, et campanis, et benedictione matrimoniali; nec tamen res istas censuerunt prudentes reformatores abjiciendas. Ans._ 1. Calvin,(533) answering that which Ca.s.sander allegeth out of an Italian writer, _abusu non tolli bonum usum_, he admits it only to be true in things which are inst.i.tuted by G.o.d himself, not so in things ordained by men, for the very use of such things or rites as have no necessary use in G.o.d's worship, and which men have devised only at their own pleasure, is taken away by idolatrous abuse. _Pars tutior_ here, is to put them wholly away, and there is by a great deal more danger in retaining than in removing them.

2. The proofs which I have produced (or the proposition about which now we debate,) do not only infer that things and rites which have been notoriously abused to idolatry should be abolished, in case they be not restored to a right use, but simply and absolutely that in any wise they are to be abolished. G.o.d commanded to say to the covering, and the ornaments of idols, "Get you hence," Isa. x.x.x. 22. It is not enough they be purged from the abuse, but _simpliciter_ they themselves must pack them and be gone. How did Jacob with the ear-rings of the idols; Elijah with Baal's altar; Jehu with his vestments; Josiah with his houses; Mana.s.seh with his altars; Moses with the golden calf; Joshua with the temples of Canaan; Hezekiah with the brazen serpent? Did they retain the things themselves, and only purge them from the abuse? Belike, if these our opposites had been their councillors, they had advised them to be contented with such a moderation; yet we see they were better counselled when they destroyed utterly the things themselves, whereby we know that they were of the same mind with us, and thought that things abused to idolatry, if they have no necessary use, are far better away than a-place.

Did Daniel refuse Bel's meat because it was not restored to the right use?

Nay, if that had been all, it might have been quickly helped, and the meat sanctified by the word of G.o.d and prayer. Finally, Were the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira reproved because they did not restore things sacrificed to idols to their right use? Or, were they not rather reproved for having anything at all to do with the things themselves?

_Sect._ 8. As for that which Dr Forbesse objecteth to us, we answer, that temples, places of prayer, chairs, vessels, and bells, are of a necessary use, by the light and guidance of nature itself; and matrimonial benediction is necessary by G.o.d's inst.i.tution, Gen. i. 28; so that all those examples do except themselves from the argument in hand. But the Doctor(534) intendeth to bring those things within the category of things indifferent; and to this purpose he allegeth, that it is indifferent to use this or that place for a temple, or a place of prayer; also to use these vessels, and bells, or others. And of matrimonial benediction to be performed by a pastor, he saith there is nothing commanded in Scripture.

_Ans._ Though it be indifferent to choose this place, &c., also to use these vessels or other vessels, &c.; yet the Doctor, I trust, will not deny that temples, houses of prayer, vessels and bells, are of a necessary use (which exempteth them from the touch of our present argument); whereas, beside that it is not necessary to kneel in the communion in this place more than in that place, neither to keep the feast of Christ's nativity, pa.s.sion, &c. upon these days more than upon other days, &c., the things themselves are not necessary in their kind; and it is not necessary to keep any festival day, nor to kneel at all in the act of receiving the communion. There is also another respect which hindereth temples, vessels, &c. from coming within the compa.s.s of this our argument, but neither doth it agree to the controverted ceremonies. Temples, houses of prayer, vessels for the ministration of the sacraments, and bells, are not used by us in divine worship as things sacred, or as holier than other houses, vessels, and bells; but we use them only for natural necessity,-partly for that common decency which hath no less place in the actions of civil than of sacred a.s.semblies; yea, in some cases they may be applied to civil uses, as hath been said;(535) whereas the controverted ceremonies are respected and used as sacred rites, and as holier than any circ.u.mstance which is alike common to civil and sacred actions, neither are they used at all out of the case of worship. We see now a double respect wherefore our argument inferreth not the necessity of abolishing and destroying such temples, vessels, and bells, as have been abused to idolatry, viz. because it can neither be said that they are not things necessary, nor yet that they are things sacred.

_Sect._ 9. Nevertheless (to add this by the way), howbeit for those reasons the retaining and using of temples which have been polluted with idols be not in itself unlawful, yet the retaining of every such temple is not ever necessary, but sometimes it is expedient, for farther extirpation of superst.i.tion, to demolish and destroy some such temples as have been horribly abused to idolatry, Calvin also(536) and Zanchius(537) do plainly insinuate. Whereby I mean to defend (though not as in itself necessary, yet as expedient _pro tunc_,) that which the reformers of the church of Scotland did in casting down some of those churches which had been consecrate to popish idols, and of a long time polluted with idolatrous worship. As on the one part the reformers (not without great probability) feared, that so long as these churches were not made even with the ground, the memory of that superst.i.tion, whereunto they had been employed and accustomed, should have been in them preserved, and, with some sort of respect, recognised; so, on the other part, they saw it expedient to demolish them, for strengthening the hands of such as adhered to the reformation, for putting Papists out of all hope of the re-entry of Popery, and for hedging up the way with thorns, that the idolatrously-minded might not find their paths. And since the pulling down of those churches wanted neither this happy intent not happy event, I must say that the bitter invectives given forth against it, by some who carry a favourable eye to the pompous bravery of the Romish wh.o.r.e, and have deformed too much of that which was by them reformed, are to be detested by all such as wish the eternal exile of idolatrous monuments out of the Lord's land, yet let these Momus-like spirits understand that their censorious verdicts do also reflect upon those ancient Christians of whom we read,(538) that with their own hands they destroyed the temples of idols, and upon Chrysostom, who stirred up some monks, and sent them into Phnicia, together with workmen, and sustained them on the expences and charges of certain G.o.dly women, that they might destroy the temples of idols, as the Magdeburgians(539) have marked out of Theodoret, likewise upon them of the religion in France, of whom Thua.n.u.s recordeth, that _templa confractis ac disjectis statuis et altaribus, expilaverant_, lastly, upon foreign divines,(540) who teach, that not only _idola_, but _idolia_ also, and _omnia idololatria instrumenta_ should be abolished.

Moreover, what was it else but reason's light which made Cambyses to fear that the superst.i.tion of Egypt could not be well rooted out if the temples wherein it was seated were not taken away; so that _offensus superst.i.tionibus AEgyptiorum, Apis cterorumque Deorum des dirui jubet: ad Ammonis quoque n.o.bilissimum templum expugnandum, exercitum mitt.i.t_, saith Justinus.(541) And is not the danger of retaining idolatrous churches thus pointed at by P. Martyr: _Curavit_, &c. "Jehu (saith he(542)) took care to have the temples of Baal overthrown, lest they should return any more to their wonted use. Wherefore, it appears, that many do not rightly, who, having embraced the gospel of the Son of G.o.d, yet, notwithstanding, keep still the instruments of Popery. And they have far better looked to piety who have taken care to have popish images, statues and ornaments, utterly cut off; for, as we read in the ecclesiastical histories, Constantine the Great, after he had given his name to Christ, by an edict provided and took order that the temples of the idols might be closed and shut up; but, because they did still remain, Julian the Apostate did easily open and unlock them, and thereafter did prost.i.tute the idols of old superst.i.tion to be worshipped in them,-which Theodosius, the best and commended prince, animadverting, commanded to pull them down, lest they should again any more be restored." But because I suppose no sober spirit will deny that sometimes, and in some cases, it may be expedient to rase and pull down some temples polluted with idols, where other temples may be had to serve sufficiently the a.s.semblies of Christian congregations (which is all I plead for), therefore I leave this purpose and return to Dr Forbesse.

_Sect._ 10. As touching matrimonial benediction, it is also exempted out of the compa.s.s of our present argument, because through divine inst.i.tution it hath a necessary use, as we have said. And though the Doctor, to make it appear that a pastor's performing of the same is a thing indifferent, allegeth, that in Scripture there is nothing commanded thereanent; yet plain it is from Scripture itself, that matrimonial benediction ought to be given by a pastor; for G.o.d hath commanded his ministers to bless his people, Num. vi., which by just a.n.a.logy belongeth to the ministers of the gospel; neither is there any ground for making herein a difference betwixt them and the minister of the law, but we must conceive the commandment to tie both alike to the blessing of G.o.d's people. Unto which ministerial duty of blessing, because no such limits can be set as may exclude matrimonial blessing, therefore they are bound to the performance of it also. And if farther we consider, that the duty of blessing was performed by the minister of the Lord, Heb. vi. 7, even before the law of Moses, we are yet more confirmed to think, that the blessing of the people was not commanded in the law as a thing peculiar and proper to the Levitical priesthood, but as a moral and perpetual duty belonging to the Lord's ministers for ever. Wherefore, notwithstanding of any abuse of matrimonial benediction among Papists, yet, forasmuch as it hath a necessary use in the church, and may not (as the controverted ceremonies may) be well spared, it is manifest that it cometh not under the respect and account of those things whereof our argument speaketh.

_Sect._ 11. Lastly, Whereas the Doctor would bear his reader in hand, that in the judgment of wise reformators, even such things as have been brought in use by men only, without G.o.d's inst.i.tution, are not to be ever taken away, for the abuse which followeth upon them; let reformators speak for themselves: _Nos quoque priscos ritus, quibus indifferenter uti licet, quia verbo Dei consentanei sunt, non rejicimus; modo ne superst.i.tio et pravus abusus eos abolere cogat_.(543) This was the judgment of the wisest reformators,-that rights which were both ancient and lawful, and agreeable to G.o.d's word, were notwithstanding of necessity to be abolished, because of their superst.i.tion and wicked abuse.

_Sect._ 12. Secondly, Our opposites answer us, that beside the purging of things and rites abused by idolaters from the idolatrous pollution, and the restoring of them to a right use, preaching and teaching against the superst.i.tion and abuse which hath followed upon them, is another means to avoid that harm which we fear to ensue upon the retaining of them. _Ans._ 1. This is upon as good ground pretended for the keeping of images in churches: _At inquiunt statim, docemus has imagines non esse adorandas.

Quasi vero_, saith Zanchius,(544) _non idem olim fecerit diligentius Deus, per Mosen et prophetas, quam nos faciamus. Cur igitur etiam volebat tolli imagines omnes? quia non satis est verbo docere non esse faciendum malum; sed tollenda etiam sunt malorum offendicula, irritamenta, caus, occasiones._ It is not enough, with the scribes and Pharisees, to teach out of Moses' chair what the people should do, but all occasions, yea, appearances of evil, are to be taken out of their sight. _Efficacious enim et plus movent, quae in oculos quam quae in aures incidunt. Potuerat et Hezekias populum monere, ne serpentem adorarent, sed muluit confringere et penitus e conspectu auferre; et rectius fecit,_ saith one well to this purpose.(545) 2. Experience hath taught to how little purpose such admonitions do serve. Calvin,(546) writing to the Lord Protector of England of some popish ceremonies which did still remain in that church after the reformation of the same, desireth that they may be abolished, because of their former abuse, in time of Popery. _Quid enim_, saith he, _illae ceremoniae aliud fuerunt, quam totidem lenocinia quae miseras animas ad malum perducerent?_ &c. But because he saw that some might answer that which our Formalists answer now to us, and say, it were enough to warn and teach men that they abuse not these ceremonies, and that the abolishing of these ceremonies themselves were not necessary; therefore immediately he subjoineth these words: _Jam si de cautione agitur, monebuntur homines scilicet, ne ad illas nunc impingant, &c. Quis tamen non videt obdurari ipsos nihilominus, nihil ut infelici illa cautione obtineri possit._ Whereupon he concludes, that if such ceremonies were suffered to remain, this should be a means to nourish a greater hardness and confirmation in evil, and a veil drawn, so that the sincere doctrine which is propounded should not be admitted as it ought to be. In another epistle to Cranmer,(547) archbishop of Canterbury, he complaineth that external superst.i.tions were so corrected in the church of England, _ut residui maneant innumeri surculi, qui a.s.sidue pullulent_. And what good, then, was done by their admonitions, whereby they did, in some sort, send the reviving twigs of old superst.i.tion, since forasmuch as they were not wholly eradicate, they did still shoot forth again? If a man should dig a pit by the way-side, for some commodity of his own, and thou admonish the travellers to take heed to themselves, if they go that way in the darkness of the night, who would hold him excusable? How then shall they be excused who dig a most dangerous pit, which is like to ruin many souls, and yet will have us to think that they are blameless, for that they warn men to beware of it?

_Sect._ 13. Thirdly, we are told that if these answers which our opposites give get no place, then shall we use nothing at all which hath been used by idolaters, and by consequence, neither baptism nor the Lord's supper.

But let Zanchius answer for us,(548) that these things are by themselves necessary, so that it is enough they be purged from the abuse. And elsewhere(549) he resolveth, that things which are by themselves both good and necessary, may not for any abuse be put away. _Si vero res sint adiaphorae sua natura et per legem Dei, eoque tales quae citra jacturam salutis omitti possunt, etiam si ad bonos usus initio fuerunt inst.i.tutae; si tamen postea videamus illas in abusus pernitiosos esse conversas; pietas in Deum, et charitas erga proximum, postulant ut tollantur, &c._ He adds, for proof of that which he saith, the example of Hezekiah in breaking down that brazen serpent; which example doth indeed most pregnantly enforce the abolishing of all things or rites notoriously abused to idolatry when they are not of any necessary use, but it warranteth not the abolishing of anything which has a necessary use, because the brazen serpent is not contained in the number of those things, _quibus carere non possumus_, saith Wolphius,(550) answering to the same objection which presently I have in hand. Now, that the ceremonies have not in themselves, nor by the law of G.o.d, any necessary use, and that without hazard of salvation they may be omitted, is acknowledged by Formalists themselves; wherefore I need not stay to prove it.

_Sect._ 14. Besides these answers which are common in our adversaries'

mouths, some of them have other particular subterfuges, which now I am to search. "We must consider (saith Bishop Lindsey(551)) the ceremony itself (dedicated to, and polluted with idolatry,) whether it be of human or divine inst.i.tution. If it be of human inst.i.tution it may be removed, &c.; but if the ceremony be of divine inst.i.tution, such as kneeling is,-for the same is commended by G.o.d unto us in his word,-then we ought to consider whether the abuse of that ceremony hath proceeded from the nature of the action wherein it was used; for if it be so, it ought to be abolished, &c.; but if the abuse proceed not from the nature of the action, but from the opinion of the agent, then, the opinion being removed, the religious ceremony may be used without any profanation of idolatry. For example, the abuse of kneeling in elevation, &c., proceedeth not only from the opinion of the agent, but from the nature of the action, which is idolatrous and superst.i.tious, &c., and, therefore, both the action and gesture ought to be abolished. But the sacrament of the supper, being an action inst.i.tuted by G.o.d, and kneeling being of its own nature an holy and religious ceremony, it can never receive contagion of idolatry from it, but only from the opinion of the agent: then remove the opinion, both the action itself may be rightly used, and kneeling therein," &c. _Ans._ 1. Since he granteth that a ceremony dedicated to and polluted with idolatry, may (he answereth not the argument which there he propounded, except he say must) be abolished, if it be of human inst.i.tution, he must grant from this ground, if there were no more, that the cross, surplice, kneeling at the communion, &c., having been so notoriously abused to idolatry, must be abolished, because they have no inst.i.tution except from men only. But, 2, Why saith he that kneeling is a ceremony of divine inst.i.tution? which he p.r.o.nounceth not of kneeling, as it is actuated by some individual case, or clothed with certain particular circ.u.mstances, (for he maketh this kneeling whereof he speaketh to be found in two most different actions, the one idolatrous, the other holy,) but kneeling in the general, _per se_, and _praecise ab omnibus circ.u.mstantiis_. Let him now tell where kneeling thus considered is commended unto us in G.o.d's word. He would possibly allege that place, Psal. xcv. 6, "O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the Lord our Maker," which is cited in the Canon of Perth about kneeling; but I answer, whether one expounded that place with Calvin,(552) in this sense, _ut scilicet ante arcam faederis populus se prosternat, quia sermo de legali cultu habetur_: whereupon it should follow that it commendeth only kneeling to the Jews in that particular case, or whether it be taken more generally, to commend kneeling (though not as necessary, yet as laudable and beseeming) in the solemn acts of G.o.d's immediate worship, such as that praise and thanksgiving whereof the beginning of the psalm speaketh,-whether, I say, it be taken in this or that sense, yet it condemneth not kneeling, except in a certain kind of worship only. And as for kneeling in the general nature of it, it is not of divine inst.i.tution, but in itself indifferent, even as sitting, standing, &c., all which gestures are then only made good or evil when in _actu exercito_, they are actuated and individualised by particular circ.u.mstances. 3. If so be the ceremony be abused to idolatry, it skills not how, for, as I have showed before, the reasons and proofs which I have produced for the proposition of our present argument, hold good against the retaining of anything which hath been known to be abused to idolatry, and only such things as have a necessary use are to be excepted. 4. The nature of an action, wherein a ceremony is used, cannot be the cause of the abuse of that ceremony; neither can the abuse of a ceremony proceed from the nature of the action wherein it is used, as one effect from the cause, for _nihil potest esse homini causa sufficiens peccati_, except only _propria voluntas_(_553_). 5. The abuse of kneeling in the idolatrous action of elevation, proceedeth not from the nature of the action, but from the opinion of the agent, or rather from his will, for (_principium actionum humanarum_, is not opinion, but will, choosing that which opinion conceiteth to be chosen, or _voluntas praeunte luce intellectus_,) it is the will of the agent only which both maketh the action of elevation to be idolatrous, and likewise kneeling in this action to receive the contagion of idolatry. For the elevation of the bread _materialiter_ is not idolatrous (more than the lifting up of the bread among us by elders or deacons, when in taking it off the table, or setting it on, they lift it above the heads of the communicants), but _formaliter_ only, as it is elevated with a will and intention to place it in state of worship. So likewise kneeling to the bread _materialiter_ is not idolatry (else a man were an idolater who should be against his will thrust down and holden by violence kneeling on his knees when the bread is elevated), but _formaliter_, as it proceedeth from a will and intention in men to give to the bread elevated a state in that worship, and out of that respect to kneel before it. 6. What can he gain by this device, that the abuse of kneeling in the Lord's supper proceeded not from the nature of the action, but from the will of the agent? Can he hereupon infer, that kneeling in that action is to be retained notwithstanding of any contagion of idolatry which it hath received? Nay, then, let him say that Hezekiah did not rightly in breaking down the brazen serpent, which was set up at G.o.d's command, and the abuse whereof proceeded not from the thing itself, which had a most lawful, profitable, and holy use, but only from the perverse opinion and will of them who abused it to idolatry.

_Sect._ 15. But the comparing of kneeling to the brazen serpent is very unsavoury to the Bishop; and wherefore? "The brazen serpent (saith he), in the time it was abolished, had no use: that ceased with the virtue of the cure that the Israelites received by looking upon it; the act of kneeling continueth always in a necessary use, for the better expressing of our thankfulness to G.o.d." _Ans._ 1. Both kneeling, and all the rest of the popish ceremonies, may well be compared to the brazen serpent. And divines do commonly allege this example, as most pregnant to prove that things or rites polluted with idols, and abused to idolatry, may not be retained, if they have no necessary use; and I have cited before the Bishop of Winchester, acknowledging that this argument holdeth good against all things which are taken up, not at G.o.d's prescription, but at men's injunction. J. Rainold(554) argumenteth from Hezekiah's breaking down of the brazen serpent, to the plucking down of the sign of the cross. 2. Why saith he that the brazen serpent, in the time it was abolished, had no use? The use of it ceased not with the cure, but it was still kept for a most pious and profitable use, even to be a monument of that mercy which the Israelites received in the wilderness, and it served for the better expressing of their thankfulness to G.o.d, which the Bishop here calleth a necessary use. 3. When he saith that kneeling continueth always in a necessary use, we must understand him to speak of kneeling in the act of receiving the communion; else he runs at random; for it is not kneeling in the general, but kneeling in this particular case, which is compared to the brazen serpent. Now, to say that this gesture in this action is necessary for our better expressing of our thankfulness to G.o.d, importeth that the church of Scotland, and many famous churches in Europe, for so many years have omitted that which was necessary for the better expressing of their thankfulness to G.o.d, and that they have not well enough expressed it. And, moreover, if kneeling be necessary in the Lord's supper for our better expressing of our thankfulness to G.o.d, then it is also necessary at our own common tables. Though we be bound to be more thankful at the Lord's table, and that because we receive a benefit of infinite more worth, yet we are bound to be _tam grati_, as well thankful at our own tables, albeit not _tanta grat.i.tudine_. If, then, the same kind of thankfulness be required of us at our own tables (for _intentio et remissio graduum secundum magis et minus, non variant speciem rei_,) that which is necessary for expressing of our thankfulness at the Lord's table must be necessary also for the expressing of it at our own. When I see the Bishop sitting at his table, I shall tell him that he omitteth the gesture which is necessary for the expressing of his thankfulness to G.o.d. 4. Did not the apostles' receiving this sacrament from Christ himself well enough express their thankfulness to G.o.d? yet they kneeled not, but sat, as is evident, and shall be afterwards proved against them who contradict everything which crosseth them. 5. G.o.d will never take a ceremony of men's devising for a better expressing of our thankfulness than a gesture which is commended to us by the example of his own Son, and his apostles, together with the celebration of this sacrament in all points according to his inst.i.tution. 6. How shall we know where we have the Bishop and his fellows? It seems they know not where they have themselves; for sometimes they tell us that it is indifferent to take the communion sitting, or standing, or pa.s.sing, or kneeling, yet here the Bishop tells us that kneeling is necessary. 7. I see the Bishop perceiveth that no answer can take kneeling at the communion out of the compa.s.s of the brazen serpent, except to say it hath a necessary use; this is the dead lift, which yet helpeth not, as I have showed. All things, then, which are not necessary (whereof kneeling is one), being notoriously abused to idolatry, fall under the brazen serpent.

_Sect._ 16. Paybody also will here talk with us, therefore we will talk with him too. He saith,(555) that G.o.d did not absolutely condemn things abused to idolatry, and tells us of three conditions on which it was lawful to spare idolatrous appurtenances. 1. If there were a needful use of them in G.o.d's worship. 2. In case they were so altered and disposed, as that they tended not to the honour of the idol, and his d.a.m.nable worship.

3. If they were without certain danger of ensnaring people into idolatry.

_Ans._ 1. Either he requires all these conditions in every idolothite and idolatrous appurtenance which may be retained, or else he thinks that any one of them sufficeth. If he require all these, the last two are superfluous; for that which hath a needful use in G.o.d's worship, can neither tend to the honour of the idol, nor yet can have in it any danger of ensnaring people into idolatry. If he think any one of those conditions enough, then let us go through them: The first I admit, but it will not help his cause, for while the world standeth they shall never prove that kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, and the other controverted ceremonies, have either a needful, or a profitable, or a lawful use in G.o.d's worship. As for his second condition, it is all one with that which I have already confuted,(556) namely, that things abused to idolatry may be kept, if they be purged from their abuse, and restored to the right use. But he allegeth for it a pa.s.sage of Parker, _of the Cross_, cap. 1, sect. 7, p. 10, where he showeth out of Augustine, that an idolothite may not be kept for private use, except, 1. _Omnis honor idoli, c.u.m appertessima destructione subvertatur_. 2. That not only his honour be not despoiled, but also all show thereof. How doth this place (now would I know) make anything for Paybody? Do they keep kneeling for private use? Do they destroy most openly all honour of the idol to which kneeling was dedicated? Hath their kneeling not so much as any show of the breaden G.o.d's honour? Who will say so? And if any will say it, who will believe it? Who knoweth not that kneeling is kept for a public, and not for a private use, and that the breaden idol receiveth very great show of honour from it? He was scarce of warrants when he had no better than Parker could afford him. His third condition rests, and touching it I ask, what if those idolatrous appurtenances be not without apparent danger of ensnaring people into idolatry? Are we not commanded to abstain from all appearance of evil? Will he correct the Apostle, and teach us, that we need not care for apparent, but for certain dangers? What more apparent danger of ensnaring people into idolatry than unnecessary ceremonies, which have been dedicated to and polluted with idols, and which, being retained, do both admonish us to remember upon old idolatry, and move us to return to the same, as I have before made evident?(557)

_Sect._ 17. Now, as for the a.s.sumption of our present argument, it cannot be but evident to any who will not harden their minds against the light of the truth, that the ceremonies in question have been most notoriously abused to idolatry and superst.i.tion, and withal, that they have no necessary use to make us retain them. I say, they have been notoriously abused to idolatry. 1. Because they have been dedicated and consecrated to the service of idols. 2. Because they have been deeply polluted, and commonly employed in idolatrous worship. For both these reasons does Zanchius condemn the surplice,(558) and such like popish ceremonies left in England, because the wh.o.r.e of Rome has abused, and does yet abuse them, _ad alliciendos homines ad scortandum. Sunt enim pompae istae omnes, et ceremoniae Papistisae, nihil aliud quam fuci meretricii, ad hoc excogitati, ut homines ad spiritualem scortationem alliciantur._ O golden sentence, and worthy to be engraven with a pen of iron, and the point of a diamond! for most needful it is to consider, that those ceremonies are the very meretricious bravery and veigling trinkets wherewith the Romish wh.o.r.e doth faird and paint herself, whilst she propineth to the world the cup of her fornications. This makes Zanchius(559) to call those ceremonies the relics and symbols of popish idolatry and superst.i.tion. When Queen Mary set up Popery in England, and restored all of it which King Henry had overthrown, she considered that Popery could not stand well-favoredly without the ceremonies; whereupon she ordained,(560) _ut dies omnes festicelebrentur, superioris aetatis ceremoniae rest.i.tuantur, pueri adultiores __ ante baptisati, ab episcopis confirmentur._ So that not in remote regions, but in his Majesty's dominions,-not in a time past memory, but about fourscore years ago,-not by people's practice only, but by the laws and edicts of the supreme magistrate, the ceremonies have been abused to the reinducing and upholding of Popery and idolatry. Both far and near, then, both long since and lately, it is more than notorious how grossly and grievously the ceremonies have been polluted with idolatry and superst.i.tion.

I cannot choose but marvel much how Paybody was not ashamed to deny that kneeling has been abused by the Papists.(561) Blush, O paper, which art blotted with such a notable lie! What will not desperate impudency dare to aver? But Bishop Lindsey seemeth also to hold that kneeling hath been abused by the Papists(562) only in the elevation and circ.u.mgestation of the host, but not in the partic.i.p.ation, and that Honorius did not command kneeling in the partic.i.p.ation, but only in the elevation and circ.u.mgestation. _Ans._ 1. _Saltem mendacem oportet essememorem._ Saith not the Bishop himself elsewhere of the Papists,(563) "In the sacrament they kneel to the sign," whereby he would prove a disconformity between their kneeling and ours; for we kneel, saith he, "by the sacrament to the thing signified." Now if the Papists in the sacrament kneel to the sign, then they have idolatrously abused kneeling, even in the partic.i.p.ation; for the Bishop dare not say that, in the elevation or circ.u.mgestation, there is either sacrament or sign. 2. Why do our divines controvert with the Papists, _de adoratione euchuristiae_, if Papists adore it not in the partic.i.p.ation? for the host, carried about in a box, is not the sacrament of the eucharist. 3. In the partic.i.p.ation, Papists think that the bread is already transubstantiate into the body of Christ, by virtue of the words of consecration. Now, if in the partic.i.p.ation they kneel to that which they falsely conceive to be the body of Christ (but is indeed corruptible bread), with an intention to give it _latria_ or divine worship, then in the partic.i.p.ation they abuse it to idolatry. But that is true; therefore, &c. 4. Durand showeth,(564) that though in the holidays of Easter and Pentecost, and the festivities of the blessed Virgin, and in the Lord's day, they kneel not in the church, but only stand (because of the joy of the festivity), and at the most do but bow or incline their heads at prayer, yet _in praesentia corporis et sanguinis Christi_, in presence of the bread and wine, which they think to be the body and blood of Christ, they cease not to kneel. And how will the Bishop make their partic.i.p.ation free of this idolatrous kneeling? The Rhemists show us,(565) that when they are eating and drinking the body and blood of our Lord, they adore the sacrament, and, humbling themselves, they say to it, _Domine non sum dignus, Deus propitius esto mihi peccatori_. 5. As for that which Honorius III. decreed, Dr White calleth it the adoration of the sacrament,(566) which, if it is so, then we must say, that he decreed adoration in the partic.i.p.ation itself, because _extra usum sacramenti_, the bread cannot be called a sacrament. Honorius commanded that the priest should frequently teach his people to bow down devoutly when the host is elevated in the celebration of the ma.s.s, and that they should do the same when it is carried to the sick. All this was ordained in reference to the partic.i.p.ation. _Ad usum illa inst.i.tuta sunt_, says Chemnitius,(567) speaking of this decree, _quando scilicet panis consecratur, et quando ad infirmos defertur, ut exhibeatur et sumatur_. So that that which was specially respected in the decree, was adoring in the partic.i.p.ation.

Lastly, Here we have to do with Dr Burges, who will have us to think, that adoration in receiving the sacrament(568) hath not been idolatrously intended to the sacrament in the church of Rome, neither by decree nor custom. Not by decree, because albeit Honorius appointed adoration to be used in the elevation and circ.u.mgestation, yet not in the act of receiving. And albeit the Roman ritual do appoint, that clergymen coming to receive the sacrament do it kneeling, yet this was done in veneration of the altar,(569) or of that which standeth thereupon, and not for adoration of the host put into their mouths. Not by custom; for he will not have it said that kneeling in the time of receiving was ever in the church of Rome any rite of or for adoration of the sacrament, because albeit the people kneel in the act of receiving, yet I "deny (saith he) that they ever intended adoration of the species, at that moment of time when they took it in their mouths, but then turned themselves to G.o.d," &c.

_Ans._ 1. As for the decree of Honorius, I have already answered with Chemnitius, that it had reference specially to the receiving. 2. When clergymen are appointed in the Roman ritual to receive the sacrament at the altar kneeling, this was not for veneration of the altar, to which they did reverence at all times when they approached to it, but this was required particularly in their receiving of the sacrament, for adoration of it. Neither is there mention made of the altar as conferring anything to their kneeling in receiving the sacrament; for the sacrament was not used the more reverently because it stood upon the altar, but by the contrary, for the sacrament's sake reverence was done to the altar, which was esteemed the seat of the body of Christ. It appeareth, therefore, that the altar is mentioned, not as concerning the kneeling of the clergymen in their communicating, but simply as concerning their communicating, because none but they were wont to communicate at the altar, according to that received canon, _Solis autem ministris altaris liceat ingredi ad altare et ibidem communicare_.(570) The one of the Doctor's own conjectures is, that they kneeled for reverence of that which stood upon the altar; but I would know what that was which, standing upon the altar, made them to kneel in the partic.i.p.ation, if it was not the host itself? Now, whereas he denies, as touching custom, that people did ever intend the adoration of the species, I answer: 1. How knows he what people in the Roman church did intend in their minds? 2. What warrant hath he for this, that they did not in the partic.i.p.ation adore the host, which was then put into their mouth?

3. Though this which he saith were true, he gaineth nothing by it; for put the case, they did not intend the adoration of the species, dare he say, that they intended not the adoration of that which was under the species?

I trow not. Now, that which was under the species, though in their conceit it was Christ's body, yet it was indeed bread; so that, in the very partic.i.p.ation, they were worshipping the bread. But, 4, What needeth any more? He maketh himself a liar, and saith plainly,(571) that after transubstantiation was embraced, and when all the substance of the visible creature was held to be gone, they did intend the adoration of the invisible things, as if there had been now no substance of any creature left therein, whereby he destroyeth all which he hath said of their not intending the adoration of the species.

_Sect._ 20. Last of all, for the other part of my a.s.sumption, that the ceremonies have no necessary use in G.o.d's worship, I need no other proof than the common by-word of Formalists, which saith they are things indifferent. Yet the Bishop of Edinburgh(572) and Paybody(573) have turned their tongues bravely, and chosen rather to say anything against us than nothing. They spare not to answer, that kneeling hath a necessary use.

They are most certainly speaking of kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, for they and their opposites, in those places, are disputing of no other kneeling but this only. Now we may easily perceive they are in an evil taking, when they are driven to such an unadvised and desperate answer. For, 1. If kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord's supper be necessary, why have themselves too written so much for the indifferency of it? O desultorious levity that knows not where to hold itself! 2. If it be necessary, what makes it to be so? What law? What example? What reason? 3.

If it be necessary, not only many reformed churches, and many ancient too, but Christ himself and his apostles have, in this sacrament, omitted something that was necessary. 4. If it be necessary, why do many of their own disciples take the communion sitting, in places where sitting is used?

What need I to say more? In the first part of this dispute I have proved that the ceremonies are not necessary, in respect of the church's ordinance, howbeit if it were answered in this place, that they are in this respect necessary, it helpeth not, since the argument proceedeth against all things notoriously abused to idolatry, which neither G.o.d nor nature hath made necessary. And for any necessity of the ceremonies in themselves, either our opposites must repudiate what hath unadvisedly fallen from their pens hereanent, or else forsake their beaten ground of indifferency, and say plainly, that the ceremonies are urged by them, to be observed with an opinion of necessity, as worship of G.o.d, and as things in themselves necessary. Look to yourselves, O Formalists, for you stand here upon such slippery places, that you cannot hold both your feet.

CHAPTER III.

THAT THE CEREMONIES ARE UNLAWFUL, BECAUSE THEY SORT US WITH IDOLATERS, BEING THE BADGES OF PRESENT IDOLATRY AMONG THE PAPISTS.

_Sect._ 1. It followeth according to the order which I have proposed, to show next, that the ceremonies are idolatrous, _partic.i.p.ative_. By communicating with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies, we ourselves become guilty of idolatry; even as Ahaz, 2 Kings xvi. 10, was an idolater, _eo ipso_, that he took the pattern of an altar from idolators. Forasmuch, then, as kneeling before the consecrated bread, the sign of the cross, surplice, festival days, bishopping, bowing down to the altar, administration of the sacraments in private places, &c., are the wares of Rome, the baggage of Babylon, the trinkets of the wh.o.r.e, the badges of Popery, the ensigns of Christ's enemies, and the very trophies of antichrist,-we cannot conform, communicate and symbolise with the idolatrous Papists in the use of the same, without making ourselves idolaters by partic.i.p.ation. Shall the chaste spouse of Christ take upon her the ornaments of the wh.o.r.e? Shall the Israel of G.o.d symbolise with her who is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt? Shall the Lord's redeemed people wear the ensigns of their captivity? Shall the saints be seen with the mark of the beast? Shall the Christian church be like the antichristian, the holy like the profane, religion like superst.i.tion, the temple of G.o.d like the synagogue of Satan? Our opposites are so far from being moved with these things, that both in pulpits and private places they used to plead for the ceremonies by this very argument, that we should not run so far away from Papists, but come as near them as we can.

But for proof of that which we say, namely, that it is not lawful to symbolise with idolaters (and by consequence with Papists), or to be like them in their rites or ceremonies, we have more to allege than they can answer.

_Sect._ 2. For, 1st, We have Scripture for us. "After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, shall ye not do and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring ye, shall ye not do, neither shall ye walk in their ordinances," Lev. xviii. 3. "Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, &c., saying, How did these nations serve their G.o.ds? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy G.o.d," Deut. xii. 30. "Thou shalt not do after their works," Exod.

xxiii. 24. Yea, they were straitly forbidden to round the corners of their heads, or to make any cuttings in the flesh for the dead, or to print any mark upon them, or to make baldness upon their heads, or between their eyes, forasmuch as G.o.d had chosen them to be a holy and a peculiar people, and it behoved them not to be framed nor fashioned like the nations, Lev.

xix. 27, 28, and xxi. 5, and Deut. xiv. 1. And what else was meant by those laws which forbade them to suffer their cattle to gender with a diverse kind, to sow their field with diverse seed, to wear a garment of diverse sorts, as of woollen and linen, to plough with an ox and an a.s.s together? Levit. xix. 19, Deut. xxii. 6-11. This was the hold that people in simplicity and purity, _ne hinc inde accersat ritus alienos_, saith Calvin, upon these places. Besides, find we not that they were sharply reproved when they made themselves like other nations? "Ye have made you priests after the manner of the nations of other lands," 2 Chron. xxii. 9.

"They followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that they should not do like them," 2 Kings xvii. 15. The gospel commendeth the same to us which the law did to them: "Be not ye unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?