CHAPTER VI.

THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES IS FALSELY GROUNDED UPON THE HOLY SCRIPTURE; WHERE SUCH PLACES AS ARE ALLEGED BY OUR OPPOSITES, EITHER FOR ALL THE CEREMONIES IN GENERAL, OR FOR ANY ONE OF THEM IN PARTICULAR, ARE VINDICATED FROM THEM.

Sect. 1. It remaineth now to examine the warrants which our opposites pretend for the lawfulness of the ceremonies. But I perceive they know not well what ground to take hold on. For instance whereof, Hooker defendeth the lawfulness of festival days by the law of nature.(816) Dr Downame groundeth the lawfulness of them on the law of God,(817) making the observation of the sabbaths of rest appointed by the church, such as the feasts of Christ’s nativity, passion, &c., to be a duty commanded in the law of God, and the not observing of them to be a thing forbidden by the same law. But Bishop Lindsey proveth the lawfulness of those holidays(818) from the power of the church to make laws in such matters. “As for the Lord’s day (saith he) which has succeeded to the Jewish Sabbath, albeit God hath commanded to sanctify it, yet neither is the whole public worship, nor any part of it appropriated to that time; but lawfully the same may be performed upon any other convenient day of the week, of the month, or of the year, as the church shall think expedient. Upon this ground Zanchius affirmed, Ecclesiæ Christi liberum esse quos velit præter dominicos dies sibi sanctificandos deligere. And by this warrant did the primitive church sanctify those five anniversary days of Christ’s nativity,” &c.

Nay, let us observe how one of them wavereth from himself in seeking here some ground to rest upon. Paybody groundeth the lawfulness of kneeling at the sacrament on nature, part 2, cap. 4, sect. 1, on the act of Parliament, part 3, cap. 1, sect. 31; on an ecclesiastical canon, part 3, cap. 1, sect. 33, on the king’s sovereign authority, part 3, cap. 1, sect. 36. Yet again he saith, that this kneeling is grounded upon the commandment of God, part 3, cap. 3, sect. 11.

Well, I see our opposites sometimes warrant the lawfulness of the ceremonies from the law of God, sometimes from the law of man, and sometimes from the law of nature, but I will prove that the lawfulness of those ceremonies we speak of can neither be grounded upon the law of God, nor the law of man, nor the law of nature, and by consequence that they are not lawful at all, so that, besides the answering of what our opposites allege for the lawfulness of them, we shall have a new argument to prove them unlawful.

Sect. 2. I begin with the law of God. And, first, let us see what is alleged from Scripture for the ceremonies in general; then, after, let us look over particulars. There is one place which they will have in mythology to stand for the head of Medusa, and if they still object to us for all their ceremonies even that of the Apostle, “Let all things be done decently and in order,” 1 Cor. xiv. 40. What they have drawn out of this place, Dr Burges(819) hath refined in this manner. He distinguished betwixt præceptum and probatum, and will have the controverted ceremonies to be allowed of God, though not commanded. And if we would learn how these ceremonies are allowed of God, he gives us to understand,(820) that it is by commanding the general kind to which these particulars do belong. If we ask what is this general kind commanded of God, to which these ceremonies do belong? he resolves us,(821) that it is order and decency: And if further we demand, how such ceremonies as are instituted and used to stir up men, in respect of their signification, unto the devout remembrance of their duties to God, are in such an institution and use, matters of mere order? as a magisterial dictator of quodlibets, he tells us(822) that they are matters of mere order, sensu largo, in a large sense. But lastly, if we doubt where he readeth of any worship commanded in the general, and not commanded, but only allowed in the particular, he informeth us,(823) that in the free-will offerings, when a man was left at liberty to offer a bullock, goat, or sheep at his pleasure, if he chose a bullock to offer, that sacrifice, in that particular, was not commanded, but only allowed. What should I do, but be surdus contra absurdum? Nevertheless, least this jolly fellow think himself more jolly than he this, I answer, 1st, How absurd a tenet is this, which holdeth that there is some particular worship of God allowed, and not commanded? What new light is this which maketh all our divines to have been in the mist, who have acknowledged no worship of God, but that which God hath commanded? Who ever heard of commanded and allowed worship? As for the instances of the free-will offerings, Ames hath answered sufficiently,(824) “that though the particulars were not, nor could not be, determined by a distinct rule in general, yet they were determined by the circumstances, as our divines are wont to answer the Papists about their vows, councils, supererogations not by a general law, but by concurrence of circumstances. So Deut. xvi. 10, Moses showeth that the freest offerings were to be according as God had blessed them, from whence it followeth, it had been sin for any Israelite whom God had plentifully blessed, to offer a pair of pigeons, instead of a bullock or two, upon his own mere pleasure. Where that proportion was observed, the choice of a goat before a sheep, or a sheep before a goat, was no formal worship.”

Sect. 3. How will Dr Burges make it appear that the English ceremonies do belong to that order and decency which is commanded? Bellarmine(825) would have all the ceremonies of the church of Rome comprehended under order and decency, and therefore warranteth them by that precept of the Apostle, “let all things be done decently and in order.” The one shall as soon prove his point as the other, and that shall be never.

For, 1. The Apostle only commanded that each action and ceremony of God’s worship be decently and orderly performed, but gives us no leave to excogitate or devise new ceremonies, which have not been instituted before. He hath spoken in that chapter of assembling in the church, prophesying and preaching, praying and praising there.

Now let all these things, and every other action of God’s worship, ceremonies and all, be done decently and in order. Licit ergo Paulus, &c. “Albeit, therefore (saith John Bastwick),(826) Paul hath committed to the church the judging both of decency and order, yet hath he not granted any liberty of such mystical ceremonies as by their more inward signification do teach the duty of piety; for since the whole liberty of the church, in the matter of divine worship, is exercised only in order and decency, it followeth that they do impudently scorn both God and the Scriptures, who do extend this liberty to greater things, and such as are placed above us. Most certain it is, that Christ, the doctor of the church, hath, by his own written and sealed word, abundantly expounded unto us the will of God. Neither is there further need of any ceremonies, which by a secret virtue may instruct us: neither is it less evident that order consisteth not in the institution or use of new things, but only in the right placing of things which have been instituted before.” “Decency (saith Balduine)(827) is opposed to levity, and order to confusion.” Spectat autem hic ordo potissimum ad ritus ecclesiae in officiis sacris in quibus nullum debet esse scandalum, nulla confusio.

Then, in his judgment, order is not to the rites of the church a general kind, but only a concomitant circumstance; neither are the rites of the church comprehended under order as particulars under the general kind to which they belong; but order belongeth to the rites of the church as an adjunct to the subject. And, I pray, must not the rights of the church be managed with decency and order? If so, then must our opposites either say that order is managed with order, which is to speak nonsense, or else, that the rights of the church are not comprehended under order. But if not, then it followeth that the rites of the church are to be managed with levity, confusion, and scandal; for every action that is not done in decency and in order must needs be done scandalously and confusedly. 2. Order and decency, whether taken largo or stricto sensu, always signify such a thing as ought to be in all human actions, as well civil as sacred; for will any man say, that the civil actions of men are not to be done decently and in order? The directions of order and decency(828) are not (we see) propria religionis, but as Balduine showeth(829) out of Gregory Nazianzen, order is in all other things as well as in the church. Wherefore sacred significant ceremonies shall never be warranted by the precept of order and decency, which have no less in civility than in religion.

Sect. 4. Now to the particulars. And first, that which Christ did, Matt. xix. 13, 15, cannot commend unto us the bishopping or confirmation of children by prayer and imposition of hands; for as Maldonat saith rightly,(830) Hebreorum consuetudinem fuisse, ut qui majores erant et aliqua polle bant divina gratia, manuum impositione inferioribus benedicerent, constat ex Gen. xlviii. 14, 15, hac ergo ratione adducti parentes, infantes ad Christum afferebant, ut impositis manibus illis benediceret. And as touching this blessing of children and imposition of hands upon them (saith Cartwright),(831) it is peculiar unto our Saviour Christ, used neither by his disciples nor his apostles, either before or after his ascension, whereunto maketh that the children being brought, that he should pray over them, he did not pray for them, but blessed them, that is to say, commended them to be blessed, thereby to show his divine power. These being also yet infants, and in their swaddling clouts, as by the word which the evangelist useth, and as by our Saviour Christ’s taking them into his arms, doth appear, being also, in all likelihood, unbaptised. Last of all, their confirmation is a notable derogation unto the holy sacrament of baptism, not alone in that it presumeth the sealing of that which was sealed sufficiently by it; but also in that, both by asseveration of words, and by speciality of the minister that giveth it, it is even preferred unto it.

Sect. 5. The act of Perth about kneeling would draw some commendation to this ceremony from those words of the psalm, “O come let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker,” Psal. xcv. 6. Which is as if one should argue thus: We may worship before the Lord, therefore before a creature; we may kneel in an immediate worship of God, therefore in a mediate; for who seeth not that the kneeling there spoken of is a kneeling in the action of solemn praise and joyful noise of singing unto the Lord? I wish you, my masters, more sober spirits, that ye may fear to take God’s name in vain, even his word which he hath magnified above all his name. Dr Forbesse goeth about to warrant private baptism,(832) by Philip’s baptising the eunuch, there being no greater company present, so far as we can gather from the narration of Luke, Acts viii.; as likewise by Paul and Silas’s baptising the jailer and all his in his own private house, Acts xvi. Touching the first of those places, we answer, 1. How thinks he that a man of so great authority and charge was alone in his journey? We suppose a great man travelling in a chariot must have some number of attendants, especially having come to a solemn worship at Jerusalem. 2. What Philip then did, the extraordinary direction of the Spirit guided him unto it, ver. 29, 39. As to the other place, there was, in that time of persecution, no liberty for Christians to meet together in temples and public places, as now there is. Wherefore the example of Paul and Silas doth prove the lawfulness of the like deed in the like case.

Sect. 6. Hooker muttereth some such matter as a commendation of the sign of the cross from these two places, Ezek. ix. 4; Rev. vii. 3; alleging, that because in the forehead nothing is more plain to be seen than the fear of contumely and disgrace, therefore the Scripture describeth them marked of God in the forehead, whom his mercy hath undertaken to keep from final confusion and shame.(833) Bellarmine allegeth for the cross the same two places.(834) But for answer to the first, we say, that neither the sign whereof we read in that place, nor yet the use of it can make aught for them. As for the sign itself; albeit the ancients did interpret the sign of the letter Tau, to have been the sign of the cross, yet saith Junius, Bona illorum venia; Tquidem Graecorum, Latinorumque majusculum, crucis quodam modo signum videtur effingere, verum hoc ad literam Haebreorum Tau non potest pertinere. Deinde ne ipsum quidem Grcaecorum Latinorumque T, formam crucis quae apud veteres in usu erat quum sumebantur supplicia, representat.(835)

Whereupon dissenting from the ancients, he delivers his own judgment, that tau in this place is taken technicos, for that sign or mark of the letter wherewith the Lord commanded to mark the elect for their safety and preservation. And so there was no mystery to be sought in that letter more than in any other. As for the use of that mark wherewith the elect in Jerusalem were at that time sealed, it was only for distinction and separation. It had the same use which that sprinkling of the posts of the doors had, Exod. xii. 7, only the foreheads of men and women, and not the posts of doors were here marked, because only the remnant according to election, and not whole families promiscuously, were at this time to be spared, as Junius noteth.

But the use of the sign of the cross pretended by Formalists, is not to separate us in the time of judgment, but to teach that at no time we ought to be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ.

Shortly, the sign wherewith they in Jerusalem were marked, was for preservation from judgment; but the sign of the cross is used for preservation from sin. Thus we see, that neither the sign nor the use of it, had any affinity with the cross. Now, the surest interpretation of that place, Ezek. ix. 4, is to take Tau for an appellative noun, signifying generally and indefinitely a mark or sign, so that there is no mark determined by this word; only there was a commandment given to set a certain mark, some sign or other, upon the foreheads of the elect. So have our English translators taken the place.

This exposition is confessed by Gasper Sanctius,(836) to be followed almost by all the Hebrew masters, and by the most ancient interpreters, to wit, the Septuagint, Aquilla and Symmachus. The word beareth this gloss, even according to the confession of those who expound it otherwise in this place, to wit, for an image or representation of the cross. Tau (saith Sanctius) commune nomen est, quod signum indefinite significat.(837) Tau is expounded by Bellarmine(838) to signify signum or terminus. Well then: our adversaries themselves can say nothing against our interpretation of the word tau. We have also Buxtorff for us, who in his Hebrew Lexicon turneth tau to signum, and for this signification he citeth both this place, Ezek. ix. 4, and Job. xxxi. 35. Taui signum meum.

Lastly, If tau be not put for a common appellative noun, signifying a mark or sign, but for the figure or character of the letter tau as an image of the cross, by all likelihood this character only should have been put in the Hebrew text, and not the noun fully written; vehithvith a tau, and mark a mark. As to the other place,(839) Rev. vii. 3, Pareus observeth, that there is no figure or form of any sign there expressed, and he thinks that seal was not outward and visible, but the same whereof we read, 2 Tim. ii. 19, and Rev. xiv. 1, which cannot be interpreted de signo transeunte; nam Christianum semper nomen filii, et patris in fronte oportet gerere, saith Junius.(840)

Dr Fulk, on Rev. vii. 3, saith, that the sign here spoken of is proper to God’s elect, therefore not the sign of the cross, which many reprobates have received.

Sect. 7. Bishop Andrews will have the feast of Easter drawn from that place,(841) 1 Cor. v. 8, where he saith, there is not only a warrant, but an order for the keeping of it; and he will have it out of doubt that this feast is of apostolical institution, because after the times of the apostles, when there was a contention about the manner of keeping Easter, it was agreed upon by all, that it should be kept; and when the one side alleged for them St. John, and the other St. Peter, it was acknowledged by both that the feast was apostolical.

I answer, The testimony of Socrates deserveth more credit than the Bishop’s naked conclusion.

“I am of opinion (saith Socrates(842)), that as many other things crept in of custom in sundry places, so the feast of Easter to have prevailed among all people, of a certain private custom and observation.”

But whereas Bishop Lindsey, in defence of Bishop Andrews, replieth, that Socrates propoundeth this for his own opinion only:

I answer, that Socrates, in that chapter, proveth his opinion from the very same ground which Bishop Andrews wresteth to prove that this feast is apostolical. For while as in that hot controversy about the keeping of Easter, they of the East alleged John the apostle for their author, and they of the West alleged Peter and Paul for themselves, “Yet (saith Socrates), there is none that can shew in writing any testimony of theirs for confirmation and proof of their custom. And hereby I do gather, that the celebration of the feast of Easter came up more of custom than by any law or canon.”

Sect. 7. Downame (as I touched before) allegeth the fourth commandment for holidays of the church’s institution. But Dr Bastwick allegeth more truly the fourth commandment against them:(843) “Six days shalt thou labour.” This argument I have made good elsewhere; so that now I need not insist upon it. There are further two examples alleged against us for holidays, out of Esth. ix. 17, 18, 27, 28, and John x. 22.

Whereunto we answer, 1. That both those feasts were appointed to be kept with the consent of the whole congregation of Israel and body of the people, as is plain from Esth. ix. 32, and 1 Maccab. iv. 59. Therefore, they have no show of making aught of such feasts as ours, which are tyrannically urged upon such as in their consciences do condemn them.

2. It appears, that the days of Purim were only appointed to be days of civil mirth and gladness, such as are in use with us, when we set out bonfires, and other tokens of civil joy, for some memorable benefit which the kingdom or commonwealth hath received. For they are not called the holidays of Purim, but simply the days of Purim,—“A day of feasting and of sending portions one to another,” Esth. ix. 19, 22. No word of any worship of God in those days. And whereas it seemeth to Bishop Lindsey,(844) that those days were holy, because of that rest which was observed upon them; he must know that the text interpreteth itself, and it is evident from ver. 16 and 22, that this rest was not a rest from labour, for waiting upon the worshipping of God, but only a rest from their enemies.

Sect. 9. But Bishop Andrews goeth about to prove by six reasons, that the days of Purim were holidays, and not days of civil joy and solemnity only.(845)

First, saith he, it is plain by verse 31, they took it in animas, upon their souls,—a soul matter they made of it: there needs no soul for feria or festum, play or feasting. They bound themselves super animas suas, which is more than upon themselves, and would not have been put in the margin, but stood in the text: thus he reprehendeth the English translators, as you may perceive.

Ans. The Bishop could not be ignorant that nephesch signifieth corpus animatum, as well as anima, and that the Hebrews do not always put this word for our souls, but very often for ourselves. So Psal. vii. 2. and Psal. lix. 3, we read naphschi,—my soul for me; and Psal. xliv. 25,—naphschenu, our soul for we; and Gen. xlvi. 26, col-nephesch—omnis animae, for omnes homines.

What have we any further need of testimonies? Six hundred such are in the holy text. And in this place, Esth. ix. 31, what can be more plain, than that nighal-naphscham, upon their soul, is put for nghalehem, upon themselves, especially since nghalehem is found to the same purpose, both in ver. 27 and 31.

If we will make the text agree well with itself, how can we but take both these for one? But proceed we with the Bishop. Secondly, saith he, the bond of it reacheth to all that religioni eorum voluerunt copulari, ver. 27, then, a matter of religion it was, had reference to that: what need any joining in religion for a matter of good fellowship?

Ans. There is no word in the text of religion. Our English translation reads it, “all such as joined themselves unto them.” Montanus, omnes adjunctos; Tremellius, omnes qui essent se adjuncturi eis. The old Latin version reads it indeed as the Bishop doth.

But no such thing can be drawn out of the word hannilvim, which is taken from the radix lava, signifying simply, and without any adjection, adhaesit, or adjunxit se. But let it be so, that the text meaneth only such as were to adjoin themselves to the religion of the Jews, yet why might not the Jews have taken upon them a matter of civility, not only for themselves, but for such also as were to be joined with them in religion. Could there be nothing promised for proselytes, but only a matter of religion?

Alas! Is this our antagonist’s great Achilles, who is thus falling down and succumbing to me, a silly stripling? Yet let us see if there be any more force in the remnant of his reasons.

For a third, he tells us that it is expressly termed a rite and a ceremony, at verses 23 and 28, as the fathers read them.

In the 23rd verse we have no more but susceperunt, as Pagnini, or receperunt, as Tremellius reads it: but to read, susceperunt in solemnem ritum, is to make an addition to the text.

The 28th verse calls not this feast a rite, but only dies memorati, or celebres. And what if we grant that this feast was a rite? might it not, for all that, be merely civil? No, saith the Bishop, “rites, I trust, and ceremonies, pertain to the church, and to the service of God.”

Ans. The version which the Bishop followed, hath a rite, not a ceremony. Now, of rites, it is certain that they belong to the commonwealth as well as to the church. For in jure politico, sui sunt imperati et solemnes ritus, saith Junius.(846)

Fourthly, saith the Bishop, they fast and pray here in this verse (meaning the 31st), fast the eve, the fourteenth, and so then the day following to be holiday of course.

Ans. The Latin version, which the Bishop followeth, and whereupon he buildeth this reason, readeth the 31st verse very corruptly, and no ways according to the original, as will easily appear to any who can compare them together. Wherefore the best interpreters take the fasting and prayer spoken of verse 31, to be meant of the time before their delivery. Now, after they were delivered, they decreed that the matters of their fasting and crying should be remembered upon the days of Purim, which were to solemnise that preservation, quam jejunio et precibus fuerant a Deo consequenti, as saith Tremellius.

But Fifthly, saith he, with fasting and prayer (here), alms also is enjoined (at ver. 22), these three will make it past a day of revels or mirth.

I have answered already, that their fasting and praying are not to be referred to the days of Purim, which were memorials of their delivery, but to the time past, when, by the means of fasting and prayer, they did impetrate their delivery, before ever the days of Purim were heard of, and as touching alms, it can make no holiday, because much alms may be, and hath been given upon days of civil joy and solemnity.

If the Bishop help not himself with his sixth reason, he is like to come off with no great credit. May we then know what that is?

Lastly, saith he, as a holiday the Jews ever kept it,—have a peculiar set service for it in their Seders, set psalms to sing, set lessons to read, set prayers to say, good and godly all,—none but as they have used from all antiquity.

Ans. 1. The Bishop could not have made this word good, that the Jews did ever and from all antiquity keep the days of Purim in this fashion.

2. This manner of holding that feast, whensoever it began, had no warrant from the first institution, but was (as many other things) taken up by the Jews in after ages, and so the Bishop proveth not the point which he taketh in hand, namely, that the days spoken of in this text were enacted or appointed to be kept as holidays.

3. The service which the Jews in latter times use upon the days of Purim is not much to be regarded. For as Godwin noteth out of Hospinian,(847) they read the history of Esther in their synagogues, and so often as they hear mention of Haman, they do with their fists and hammers beat upon the benches and boards, as if they did knock upon Haman’s head. When thus they have behaved themselves, in the very time of their liturgy, like furious and drunken people, the rest of the day they pass over in outrageous revelling. And here I take leave of the Bishop.

Sect. 10. Thirdly, We say, whether the days of Purim were instituted to be holidays or not, yet there was some more than ordinary warrant for them, because Mordecai, by whose advice and direction they were appointed to be kept, was a prophet by the instinct and revelation of the Spirit, Esth. iv. 13. Non multum fortasse aberraverimus, saith Hospinian,(848) si dicamus hoc à Mordochcæo et Hesthera, ex peculiari Spiritus Sancti instinctu factum.

Bishop Lindsey believeth(849) that they had only a general warrant, such as the church hath still, to put order to the circumstances belonging to God’s worship, and all his reason is, because if the Jews had received any other particular warrant, the sacred story should not have passed it over in silence.

Ans. Thus much we understand from the sacred story, that the Jews had the direction of a prophet for the days of Purim; and that was a warrant more than ordinary, because prophets were the extraordinary ministers of God.

Sect. 11. Fourthly, As touching the feast of the dedication of the altar by Judas Maccabeus, 1. Let us hear what Cartwright very gravely and judiciously propoundeth:(850) “That this feast was unduly instituted and ungroundly, it may appear by conference of the dedication of the first temple under Solomon, and of the second after the captivity returned from Babylon. In which dedication, seeing there was no yearly remembrance by solemnity of feasts, not so much as one day, it is evident that the yearly celebration of this feast for eight days, was not compassed by that Spirit that Solomon and the captivity were directed by; which Spirit, when it dwelt more plentifully in Solomon, and in the prophets that stood at the stern of the captivity’s dedication, than it did in Judas, it was in him so much the more presumptuous, as having a shorter leg than they, he durst in that matter overstride them, and his rashness is so much the more aggravated, as each of them, for the building of the whole temple, with all the implements and furniture thereof, made no feast to renew the annual memory, where Judas only for renewment of the altar, and of certain other decayed places of the temple, instituted this great solemnity.”

2. The feast of the dedication was not free of Pharisaical invention. For as Tremellius observeth out of the Talmud,(851) statuerunt sapientes illius seculi, ut recurrentibus annis, octo illi dies, &c. Yet albeit the Pharisees were called sapientes Israelis, Bishop Lindsey will not grant that they were the wise men of whom the Talmud speaketh; for, saith he, it behoved those who appointed festivities, not only to be wise men, but men of authority also.(852)

But what do we hear? Were not the Pharisees men of authority? Why, saith not Christ they sat in Moses’ chair? Matt. xxiii. 2. Saith not Calvin,(853) In ecclesiæ regimene et scriptura interpretatione, hæc secta primatum tenebat? Saith not Camero,(854) cum Pharisæorum præcipua esset authoritas (ut ubique docet Josephus)? &c.

Doth not Josephus speak so much of their authority, that in one place he saith,(855) Nomen igitur regni, erat penes reginam (Alexandram) penes Pharisæos vero administratio? And in another place,(856) Erat enim quædam Judæorum secta exactiorem patriæ legis cognitionem sibi vendicans? &c. Hi Pharisæi vocantur, genus hominuum astutum, arrogans, et interdum regibus quoque infestum, ut eos etiam aperte impugnare non vereatur?

There is nothing alleged which can prove the lawfulness of this feast of the dedication.

It is but barely and boldly affirmed by Bishop Lindsey,(857) that the Pharisees were not rebuked by Christ for this feast, because we read not so much in Scripture; for there were many things which Jesus did and said that are not written in Scripture, John xxi. 25; and whereas it seemeth to some, that Christ did countenance and approve this feast, because he gave his presence unto the same, John x. 22, 23, we must remember, that the circumstances only of time and place are noted by the evangelist, for evidence to the story, and not for any mystery, Christ had come up to the feast of tabernacles, John vii., and tarried still all that while, because then there was a great confluence of people in Jerusalem. Whereupon he took occasion to spread the net of the gospel for catching of many souls. And whilst John saith, “It was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication,” he gives a reason only of the confluence of many people at Jerusalem, and showeth how it came to pass that Christ had occasion to preach to such a great multitude; and whilst he addeth “And it was winter,” he giveth a reason of Christ’s walking in Solomon’s porch, whither the Jews’ resort was. It was not thought beseeming to walk in the temple itself, but in the porch men used to convene either for talking or walking, because in the summer the porch shadowed them from the heat of the sun, and in winter it lay open to the sunshine and to heat. Others think, that whilst he saith, it was winter, importeth that therefore Christ was the more frequently in the temple, knowing that his time was short which he had then for his preaching; for in the entry of the next spring he was to suffer. Howsoever, it is not certain of what feast of dedication John speaketh. Bullinger leaves it doubtful;(858) and Maldonat saith(859) that this opinion which taketh the dedication of the altar by Judas Maccabeus to be meant by John, hath fewest authors. But to let this pass, whereas the Rhemists allege,(860) that Christ approved this feast, because he was present at it. Cartwright and Fulk answer them, that Christ’s being present at it proveth not his approving of it. Non festum proprie honoravit Christus, saith Junius,(861) sed cætum piorum convenientem festo; nam omnes ejusmodi occasiones seminandi evangelii sui observabat et capiebat Christus.

Quasi vero (saith Hospinian(862)) Christus Encænoirum casua Hierosloymam abierit. Nay, but he saw he had a convenient occasion, ad instituendam hominum multitudenem, ad illud festum confluentiam.

Even as Paul chose to be present at certain Jewish feasts,(863) not for any respect to the feasts themselves, nor for any honour which he meant to give them, but for the multitudes’ cause who resorted to the same, among whom he had a more plentiful occasion to spread the gospel at those festivities than at other times in the year.

I had thought here to close this chapter; but finding that, as the parrot, which other while useth the form of a man’s voice, yet being beaten and chaffed, returneth to his own natural voice, so some of our opposites, who have been but erst prating somewhat of the language of Canaan against us, finding themselves pressed and perplexed in such a way of reasoning, have quickly changed their tune, and begin to talk to us of warrants of another nature nor of the word of God. I am therefore to digress with them. And I perceive, ere we know well where they are, they are passed from Scripture to custom. For if we will listen, thus saith one of the greatest note among them, Bishop Andrews(864) I trow they call him: “We do but make ourselves to be pitied other while (well said) when we stand wringing the Scriptures (well said) to strain that out of them which is not in them (well said), and so can never come liquid from them (well said), when yet we have for the same point the church’s custom clear enough. And that is enough by virtue of this text” (meaning 1 Cor. xi. 16). And after he saith, that we are taught by the Apostle’s example in “points of this nature, of ceremony or circumstance, ever to pitch upon habemus, or non habemus talem consuetudinem.”

Ans. 1. The text gives him no ground for this doctrine, that in matters of ceremony we are to pitch upon habemus or non habemus talem consuetudinem, so that he is wide away, whilst he spendeth the greatest part of his sermon in the pressing of this point, that the custom of the church should be enough to us in matters of ceremony, and particularly in the keeping of Easter; for the custom of the church there spoken of, is not concerning a point of circumstance, but concerning a very substantial and necessary point, namely, not to be contentious: neither doth the Apostle urge those orders of the men’s praying uncovered, and the women’s praying veiled, from this ground, because so was the church’s custom (as the Bishop would have it), but only he is warning the Corinthians not to be contentious about those matters, because the churches have no such custom as to be contentious. So is the place expounded by Chrysostom, Ambrose, Calvin, Martyr, Bullinger, Marlorat, Beza, Fulk, Cartwright, Pareus, and our own Archbishop of St. Andrews, in his sermon upon that text. And for this exposition, it maketh that the Apostle, in the preceding part of the chapter, hath given sufficient reasons for that order of covering or veiling the women; wherefore, if any would contend about the matter, he tells them they must contend with themselves; for they nor the churches of God would not contend with them,—they had no such custom. But if we admit Bishop Andrews’ gloss, then why doth the Apostle, after he hath given good “reason for the veiling of women, subjoin, if any man seem to be contentious,” &c. The Bishop resolveth us, that the apostles saw that a wrangling wit would elude these reasons which he had given, and he had no other reasons to give, therefore he resolves all into the church’s practice,—enough of itself to suffice any that will be wise to sobriety. Ans. If any seem to be blasphemous, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. What! shall a wrangling wit elude the reasons given by the Spirit of God, in such sort, that he must give some other more sufficient proof for that which he teacheth? Then the whole Scriptures of God must yet be better proved, because the unstable do wrest them, as Peter speaks, 2 Pet. iii. 16.

(Transcriber’s Note: There is no section 12 in the original book.)

Sect. 13. 2. The custom of the church is not enough to pitch on, and it is found oftentimes expedient to change a custom of the church.

Basilius Magnus(865) doth flatly refuse to admit the authority of custom: Consuetudo sine veritate (saith Cyprian),(866) vetustas erroris est. Frustra enim qui ratione vincuntur (saith Augustine),(867) consuetudinem nobis objiciunt, quasi consuetudo major sit veritate, &c. Nullus pudor est ad meliora transire, saith Ambrose(868) to the Emperor Valentinian. Quaelibet consuetudo (saith Gratian),(869) veritati est postponenda.

And again,(870) Corrigendum est quod illicite admittitur, aut a praedecessoribus admissum invenitur. A politic writer admonisheth(871) retinere antiqua, only with this caution, Si proba.

Calvin(872) (speaking against human ceremonies) saith, Si objiciatur, &c. “If (saith he) antiquity be objected (albeit they who are too much addicted to custom and to received fashions, do boldly use this buckler to defend all their corruptions), the refutation is easy; for the ancients also themselves, with heavy complaints, have abundantly testified that they did not approve of anything which was devised by the will of men.” In the end of the epistle he allegeth this testimony of Cyprian: “If Christ alone be to be heard, then we ought not to give heed what any man before us hath thought fit to be done, but what Christ (who is before all) hath done; for we must not follow the customs of man, but the truth of God.”

What can be more plain than that antiquity cannot be a confirmation to error, nor custom a prejudice to truth?

Wherefore Dr Forbesse(873) also despiseth such arguments as are taken from the custom of the church.

Sect. 14. 3. There was a custom in the churches of God to give the holy communion to infants; and another custom to minister baptism only about Easter and Pentecost. Sundry such abuses got place in the church.

If, then, it be enough to pitch upon custom, why ought not those customs to have been commended and continued? But if they were commendably changed, then ought we not to follow blindly the bare custom of the church, but examine the equity of the same, and demand grounds of reason for it.

St. Paul (saith Dr Fulk(874)) doth give reason for that order of covering women’s heads: “By whose example the preachers are likewise to endeavour to satisfy, by reason, both men and women, that humbly desire their resolution for quiet of their conscience, and not to beat them down with the club of custom only.”

4. Whereas the custom of some churches is alleged for the ceremonies, we have objected the custom of other churches against them; neither shall ever our opposites prove them to be the customs of the church universal.

5. A great part of that ecclesiastical custom which is alleged for the ceremonies, resolveth into that idolatrous and superstitious use of them which hath long continued in the kingdom of antichrist; but that such a custom maketh against them, it hath been proved before.(875)

6. If it were so that we ought to pitch upon the church’s custom, yet (that I may speak with Mr Hooker) the law of common indulgence permitteth us to think of our own customs as half a thought better than the customs of others.

But why was there such a change made in the discipline, policy, and orders of the church of Scotland, which were agreeable to the word of God, confirmed and ratified by general assemblies and parliaments, used and enjoyed with so great peace and purity? Our custom should have holden the ceremonies out of Scotland, hold them in elsewhere as it may.