The Works of Mr. George Gillespie Part 14

_Ans._ The Doctor by this puts a weapon in our hands against himself; for if, when they had taken the bread of the minister's hand, their standing was to be left and dissolved, and Tertullian, by commending to them another gesture in the eating of the bread, not standing, then whether urgeth he that other gesture to be used in the public eating of the bread or the private? Not in the private; for his advice of reserving and eating it in private, cometh after, and is only put for a remedy or next best, in case they would not condescend to this course in public, _quod statio solvenda sit accepto corpore domini_. Needs, then, it must be understood of the public. Now, if in the public eating of the bread standing was to be left, which gesture was to come in place of it? Not kneeling.

For, 1. Tertullian saith(767) elsewhere: _Diebus dominicis jejunare nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare; cadem immunitate a die Paschae ad Pentcostem usque gaudemus._

2. The doctor himself saith, that upon these station days kneeling was restrained, not only in prayer, but in all divine service.

Wherefore, if, according to the Doctor's gloss, the gesture of standing was left or dissolved, that gesture which had come in place of it to be used in the partaking of the sacrament, can hardly be imagined to have been any other nor sitting.

Well, the doctor hath unhappily raised this spirit to disquiet himself: let him bethink how to lay him again. If he cannot, I will a.s.say to make some help, and to lay him in this fas.h.i.+on. The station days were not the Lord's days, together with those fifty betwixt Easter and Pentecost (on which both fasting and kneeling were forbidden), as the Doctor thinketh, but they were certain set days of fasting; for they appointed the fourth and sixth day of the week (that is, Wednesday and Friday) for their stations, as Tertullian saith;(768) whose words we may understand by another place of Epipha.n.u.s,(769) who writeth that the fast of the fourth and the sixth day was kept throughout all churches, and held to be an apostolical const.i.tution. Howbeit herein they did err; for to appoint a certain time of fasting to be kept by the whole church agreeth not with Christian liberty, and wanteth the example of Christ and his apostles, as Osiander noteth.(770) Always we see what was meant by station days, to wit, their set days of fifty, fasting, which were called station days, by a speech borrowed from a military custom, as Tertullian teacheth. For as soldiers kept those times and places which were appointed for their watches, and fasted all the while they continued in them, so did Christians upon their station days resort and meet in the place appointed, and there remained fasting till their station dissolved. The Doctor taketh upon him to confute those who understand by the station days set days of fasting; but all which he allegeth to the contrary is, that he findeth somewhere in Tertullian _statio_ and _jejunia_ put for different things.

Now this helpeth him not, except he could find that _statio_ and _stata jejunia_ are put for different things; for no man taketh the stations to have been occasional, but only set fasts. Touching the meaning, then, of the words alleged by the Doctor (to give him his own reading of them, howbeit some read otherwise), thus we take it. There were many who came not to the sacrament upon the station days, because (in their opinion) the receiving thereof should break the station, _i.e._, the service of the day, and that because it should break their fast, a princ.i.p.al duty of the same. Tertullian showeth they were in error, because their partaking of the sacrament should not break their station, but make it the more solemn and remarkable. But if they could not be drawn from that false persuasion of theirs, that the sacrament should break their fast, yet he wisheth them at least to come and stand at the table, and receive the sacrament into their hands, and take it away to eat after (for permitting whereof he had no warrant), so should they both partake the sacrament and also (according to their mind, and to their full contentment) keep their stations, which were often prorogated till even,(771) but ever and at least till the ninth hour.(772) Finally, from this place, which the Doctor perverteth for kneeling, it appeareth that the gesture or posture in receiving the sacrament used in that place where Tertullian lived, was standing; because, speaking of the receiving of the sacrament, he saith, _Si et ad aram Dei steteris_.

_Sect._ 27. As for the rest of the testimonies Dr Burges produceth out of the fathers for kneeling,(773) I need not insist upon them, for either they speak of the inward adoration of the heart, which we ought to direct unto Christ when we receive the sacrament (and this none of us denieth), or else they speak of adoring the sacrament, where, by the word _adoration_, we may not understand any divine wors.h.i.+p, inward or outward, but a reverence of another nature called _veneration_. That this (which we deny not neither), and no more, is meant by the fathers when they speak of the adoration of the sacrament, Antonius de Dominis showeth more copiously.(774) And thus we have suffered the impetuous current of the Doctor's audacious promises, backed with a verbal discourse to go softly by us. _Quid dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu?_

_Sect._ 28. Finally, If any be curious to know what gesture the ancient church did use in the receiving of the eucharist, to such I say, first of all, that Didoclavius maintaineth that which none of our opposites are able to infringe, namely, that no testimony can be produced which may evince that ever kneeling was used before the time of Honorius III., neither is it less truly observed by the author of the _History of the Waldenses_,(775) that bowing of the knees before the host was then only enjoined when the opinion of transubstantiation got place.

Next I say, the ancient gesture, whereof we read most frequently, was standing. Chrysostom, complaining of few communicants, saith,(776) _Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, frustra stamus ad altare, nemo est qui simul participet_. The century writers(777) make out of Dionysius Alexandrinus's epistle to Xistus, bishop of Rome, that the custom of the church of Alexandria in receiving the sacrament, was, _ut mensae a.s.sisterent_. It is also noted by Hospiman,(778) that in the days of Tertullian the Christians _stantes sacramenta percipiebant_.

Thirdly, I say, since we all know that the primitive Christians did take the holy communion mixedly, and together with their love-feasts, in imitation of Christ,(779) who, whilst he did eat his other supper, did also inst.i.tute the eucharist; and since (as it is observed from 1 Cor. xi.

21, 33(780)) there was a twofold abuse in the church of Corinth "one in their love-feasts, whilst that which should have served for the knitting of the knot of love was used to cut the cords thereof, in that every one (as he best liked) made choice of such as he would have to sit at table with him (the other either not tarried for, or shut out when they came, especially the poor). The other abuse (pulled in by the former) was, for that those which were companions at one table in the common feast communicated also in the sacred with the same separation, and severally from the rest of the church (and the poor especially) which was in their former banquets."

Since also we read that the same custom of joining the Lord's supper together with common feasts continued long after; for Socrates reporteth,(781) that the Egyptians adjoining unto Alexandria, together with the inhabitants of Thebes, used to celebrate the communion upon the Sunday,(782) after this manner, "when they have banqueted, filled themselves with sundry delicate dishes, in the evening, after service, they use to communicate." How, then, can any man think that the gesture then used in the Lord's supper was any other, than the same which was used in the love-feast or common supper? And what was that but the ordinary fas.h.i.+on of sitting at table? Since the Laodicean canon,(783) which did discharge the love-feasts about the year 368, importeth no less than that the gesture used in them was sitting _Non oportet in Basilicis seu ecclesiis. Agapen facere et intus manducare, vel accubitus sternere._ Now, if not only divines of our side, but Papists also, put it out of doubt that Christ gave the eucharist to his apostles sitting, because being set down to the preceding supper, it is said, "_while as they did eat, he took bread_," &c. (of which things I am to speak afterward), what doth hinder us to gather, in like manner, that forasmuch as those primitive Christians did take the Lord's supper whilst they did eat their own love-feasts, therefore they sat at the one as well as the other? And so I close with this collection. Whatsoever gesture in process of time crept into the Lord's supper otherwise than sitting, of it we may truly say, "from the beginning it was not so."

CHAPTER V.

THE FIFTH ARGUMENT AGAINST THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES TAKEN FROM THE MYSTICAL AND SIGNIFICANT NATURE OF THEM.

_Sect._ 1. That mystical significations are placed in the controverted ceremonies, and that they are ordained to be sacred signs of spiritual mysteries, to teach Christians their duties, and to express such holy and heavenly affections, dispositions, motions and desires, as are and should be in them,-it is confessed and avouched by our opposites. Saravia holdeth,(784) that by the sign of the cross we profess ourselves to be Christians; Bishop Mortoune calleth(785) the cross a sign of constant profession of Christianity; Hooker calleth(786) it "Christ's mark applied unto that part where bashfulness appeareth, in token that they which are Christians should be at no time ashamed of his ignominy;" Dr Burges(787) maintaineth the using of the surplice to signify the pureness that ought to be in the minister of G.o.d; Paybody(788) will have kneeling at the Lord's supper to be a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ. The prayer which the English service book appointeth bishops to use after the confirming of children by the imposition of hands, avoucheth that ceremony of confirmation for a sign whereby those children are certified of G.o.d's favour and good-will towards them. In the general, our opposites defend(789) that the church hath power to ordain such ceremonies, as by admonis.h.i.+ng men of their duty, and by expressing such spiritual and heavenly affections, dispositions, motions, or desires, as should be in men, do thereby stir them up to greater fervour and devotion.

_Sect._ 2. But against the lawfulness of such mystical and significant ceremonies, thus we dispute: First, A chief part of the nature of sacraments is given unto those ceremonies when they are in this manner appointed to teach by their signification. This reason being alleged by the _Abridgement of the Lincoln ministers_, Paybody answereth,(790) that it is not a bare signification that makes a thing partic.i.p.ate of the sacrament's nature, but such a signification as is sacramental, both in what is signified and how. _Ans._ 1. This is but to beg the question; for what other thing is alleged by us, but that a sacramental signification is placed in those ceremonies we speak of? 2. What calls he a sacramental signification, if a mystical resemblance and representation of some spiritual grace which G.o.d hath promised in his word be not it? and that such a signification as this is placed in the ceremonies, I have already made it plain, from the testimonies of our opposites. This, sure, makes those ceremonies so to encroach upon the confines and precincts of the nature and quality of sacraments, that they usurp something more than any rites which are not appointed by G.o.d himself can rightly do. And if they be not sacraments, yet, saith Hooker,(791) they are as sacraments. But in Augustine's dialect, they are not only as sacraments, but they themselves are sacraments. _Signa_ (saith the father) _c.u.m ad res divinas pertinent, sacramenta appellantur_; which testimony doth so master Dr Burges, that he breaketh out into this witless answer,(792) That the meaning of Augustine was to show that the name of sacraments belongeth properly to divine things, and not to all signs of holy things. I take he would have said, "belongeth properly to the signs of divine things."

And here, beside that which Ames hath said against him, I add these two things: 1. That this distinction cannot be conceived which the Doctor maketh betwixt the signs of divine things and the signs of holy things. 2.

That his other distinction can as little be conceived, which importeth that the name of sacraments belongeth to divine things properly, and to all signs of holy things improperly.

Lastly, If we call to mind that which hath been evinced before, namely, that the ceremonies are not only thought to be mystically significant for setting forth and expressing certain spiritual graces, but also operative and available to the begetting of those graces in us, if not by the work wrought, at least by the work of the worker; for example, that the sign of the cross is not only thought by our opposites to signify that at no time we should be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ, but is also esteemed(793) to be a means to work our preservation from shame, and a most effectual teacher to avoid that which may deservedly procure shame; and that bishopping is not only thought to be a sign for certifying young children of G.o.d's favour and good-will towards them, but also an exhibitive sign,(794) whereby they receive strength against sin and tentation, and are a.s.sisted in all virtue.

If these things, I say, we call to mind, it will be more manifest that the ceremonies are given out for sacred signs of the very same nature that sacraments are of. For the sacraments are called by divines commemorative, representative and exhibitive signs; and such signs are also the ceremonies we have spoken of, in the opinion of Formalists.

_Sect._ 3. Mystical and significant ceremonies (to proceed to a second reason), ordained by men, can be no other than mere delusions, and serve only to feed men's minds with vain conceits. For to what other purpose do _signa inst.i.tuta_ serve, if it be not in the power of him who gives them inst.i.tution to give or to work that which is signified by them?

Now, it is not in the power of prelates, nor of any man living, to give us these graces, or to work them in us, which they will have to be signified by their mystical and symbolical ceremonies. Wherefore Beza saith(795) well of such human rites as are thought to be significant: _Quum nulla res signis illis subsit, propterea quod unius Dei est promittere, et suis promissionibus sigillum suum opponere; consequitur omnia illa commenta, inanes esse larvas, __ et vana opinione miseros homines illis propositis signis deludi._ Dr Fulk thinks(796) he hath alleged enough against the significative and commemorative use of the sign of the cross, when he hath said that it is not ordained of Christ, nor taught by his apostles; from which sort of reasoning it followeth, that all significant signs which are not ordained of Christ, nor taught by his apostles, must be vain, false, and superst.i.tious.

_Sect._ 4. Thirdly, To introduce significant sacred ceremonies into the New Testament other than the holy sacraments of G.o.d's own inst.i.tution, were to reduce Judaism, and to impose upon us again the yoke of a ceremonial law, which Christ hath taken off.

Upon this ground doth Amandus Pola.n.u.s reprehend the popish clergy,(797) for that they would be distinguished from laics by their priestly apparel in their holy actions, especially in the ma.s.s: _Illa vestium sacerdotalium distinctio et varietas, erat in veteri Testamento typica; veritate autem exhibita, quid amplius typos requirunt?_

Upon this ground also doth Perkins(798) condemn all human significant ceremonies. "Ceremonies (saith he) are either of figure and signification, or of order. The first are abrogated at the coming of Christ," &c.

Upon the same ground doth Chemnitius condemn them,(799) _Quod vero praetenditur_, &c. "But, whereas (saith he) it is pretended that by those rites of men's addition, many things are probably signified, admonished and taught,-hereto it may be answered, that figures do properly belong to the Old Testament, but those things which Christ would have to be taught in the New Testament, he would have them delivered and propounded, not by shadows, but by the light of the word; and we have a promise of the efficacy of the word, but not of figures invented by men."

Upon the same ground Junius(800) findeth fault with ceremonies used for signification: _Istis elementis mundi (ut vocantur Col. ii.) Dominus et servator noluit nec docuit, ecclesiam suam informari_.

Lastly, We will consider the purpose of Christ whilst he said to the Pharisees,(801) "The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the kingdom of G.o.d is preached." He had in the parable of the unjust steward, and in the application of the same, spoken somewhat contemptibly of riches, which, when the Pharisees heard, they derided him, and that for this pretended reason (as is evident from the answer which is returned unto them), because the law promises the world's goods as rewards and blessings to the people of G.o.d, that by the temporal things which are set forth for types and shadows of eternal things, they might be instructed, helped, and led, as it were by the hand, to the contemplation, desire and expectation, of those heavenly and eternal things which are not seen. Now Christ did not only rip up the hypocrisy of their hearts, ver. 15, but also gave a formal answer to their pretended reason, by showing how the law is by him perfected, ver. 16, yet not destroyed, ver. 17. Then will we observe how he teacheth that the law and the prophets are perfected, and so our point shall be plain. "The law and the prophets were until John,"

_i.e._, they did typify and prophesy concerning the things of the kingdom until John; for before that time the faithful only saw those things afar off, and by types, shadows, and figures, and the rudiments of the world, were taught to know them. "But from that time the kingdom of G.o.d is preached," _i.e._, the people of G.o.d are no longer to be instructed concerning the things of the kingdom of G.o.d by outward signs, or visible shadows and figures, but only by the plain word of the gospel; for now the kingdom of G.o.d ??a??e???eta? is not typified as before, but plainly preached, as a thing exhibited to us, and present with us. Thus we see that to us, in the days of the gospel, the word only is appointed to teach the things belonging to the kingdom of G.o.d.

_Sect._ 5. If any man reply, that though after the coming of Christ we are liberate from the Jewish and typical significant ceremonies, yet ought we to embrace those ceremonies wherein the church of the New Testament placeth some spiritual signification:

I answer, 1. That which hath been said in this argument holdeth good against significant ceremonies in general. Otherwise, when we read of the abrogation of the ceremonial law, we should only understand the abrogation of those particular ordinances which Moses delivered to the Jews concerning the ceremonies that were to endure to the coming of Christ, and so, notwithstanding all this, the church should still have power to set up new ceremonial laws instead of the old, even which and how many she listeth.

2. What can be answered to that which the _Abridgement_ propoundeth(802) touching this matter? "It is much less lawful (say those ministers) for man to bring significant ceremonies into G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p now than it was under the law. For G.o.d hath abrogated his own (not only such as prefigured Christ, but such also as served by their signification to teach moral duties), so as now (without great sin) none of them can be continued in the church, no, not for signification." Whereupon they infer: "If those ceremonies which G.o.d himself ordained to teach his church by their signification may not now be used, much less may those which man hath devised."

_Sect._ 6. Fourthly, Sacred significant ceremonies devised by man are to be reckoned among those images forbidden in the second commandment.

Pola.n.u.s saith,(803) that _omnis figura illicita_ is forbidden in the second commandment. The Professors(804) of Leyden call it _imaginem quamlibet, sive mente conceptam, sive manu effictam_.

I have showed elsewhere,(805) that both in the writings of the fathers, and of Formalists themselves, sacraments get the name of images; and why, then, are not all significant and holy ceremonies to be accounted images?

Now, the second commandment forbiddeth images made by the l.u.s.t of man (that I may use Dr Burges's phrase(806)), therefore it forbiddeth also all religious similitudes, which are h.o.m.ogeneal unto them. This is the inference of the _Abridgement_, whereat Paybody starteth,(807) and replieth, that the gestures which the people of G.o.d used in circ.u.mcision and baptism, the rending of the garment used in humiliation and prayer, Ezra ix. 5; 2 Kings xxii. 19, Jer. x.x.xvi. 24, lifting up the hands, kneeling with the knees, uncovering the head in the sacrament, standing and sitting at the sacrament, were, and are, significant in wors.h.i.+pping, yet are not forbidden by the second commandment.

_Ans._ There are three sorts of signs here to be distinguished. 1. Natural signs: so smoke is a sign of fire, and the dawning of the day a sign of the rising of the sun. 2. Customable signs; and so the uncovering of the head, which of old was a sign of preeminence, hath, through custom, become a sign of subjection. 3. Voluntary signs, which are called _signa inst.i.tuta_; these are either sacred or civil. To appoint sacred signs of heavenly mysteries or spiritual graces is G.o.d's own peculiar, and of this kind are the holy sacraments. Civil signs for civil and moral uses may be, and are, commendably appointed by men, both in church and commonwealth; and thus the tolling of a bell is a sign given for a.s.sembling, and hath the same signification both in ecclesiastical and secular a.s.semblings.

Now, besides the sacred signs of G.o.d's own inst.i.tution, we know that natural signs have also place in divine wors.h.i.+p; thus kneeling in time of prayer signifieth the submission of our hearts and minds, the lifting up of our eyes and hands signifieth the elevation of our affections; the rending of the garments signified the rending of the heart by sorrow; standing with a religious suspect to that which is before us signifieth veneration or reverence; sitting at table signifieth familiarity and fellows.h.i.+p. "For which of you (saith our Master), Luke xvii. 7, having a servant ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?" All these signs have their significations from nature. And if it be said that howbeit sitting at our common tables be a sign natural to signify familiarity amongst us, yet nature hath not given such a signification to sitting at the Lord's table,-I answer, that sitting is a natural sign of familiarity, at what table soever it be used. At the heavenly table in the kingdom of glory, familiarity is expressed and signified by sitting: "Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham," &c., Matt. xviii. 11.

Much more, then, at the spiritual table in the kingdom of grace.

The difference betwixt other common tables and the Lord's table can infer no more, but that with great humility we ought to address ourselves unto it; yet still we are to make use of our familiarity with Christ _ut tanquam in eodem toro acc.u.mbentes_, as saith Chrysostom.(808) Wherefore we do not there so look to Christ in his princely throne and glorious majesty, exalted far above all princ.i.p.alities and powers, as to forget that he is our loving and kind banqueter, who hath admitted us to that familiar fellows.h.i.+p with him which is signified by our sitting at his table.

Secondly, Customable signs have likewise place in divine service; for so a man coming into one of our churches in time of public wors.h.i.+p, if he see the hearers covered, he knows by this customable sign that sermon is begun.

Thirdly, Civil or moral signs inst.i.tuted by men for that common order and decency which is respect both in civil and sacred actions, have also place in the acts of G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p. Thus a bason and a laver set before a pulpit are signs of baptism to be ministered; but common decency teacheth us to make the same use of a bason and a laver in civility which a minister maketh of them in the action of baptising. All our question is about sacred mystical signs. Every sign of this kind which is not ordained of G.o.d we refer to the imagery forbidden in the second commandment; so that in the tossing of this argument Paybody is twice naught, neither hath he said aught for evincing the lawfulness of sacred significant ceremonies ordained of men, which we impugn.

_Sect._ 7. Fifthly, The significancy and teaching office of mystical ceremonies invented by men, must be drawn under those doctrines of men condemned in the gospel. Wherefore was it that the divers was.h.i.+ngs of the Pharisees were rejected by Christ as a vain wors.h.i.+p? Was it not because they were appointed for doctrines? "In vain (saith he) do they wors.h.i.+p me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," Mark vii. 7.

The divers was.h.i.+ngs commanded in the law were fore-signifying to the people, and for teaching them what true and inward holiness G.o.d required of them. Now, the Pharisees, when they multiplied their was.h.i.+ngs of hands, of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables, had the same respect of significancy before their eyes. _Neque enim alio spectabant_ (that I may use the words of a Formalist(809)) _quam ut se sanct.i.tatis __ studiosos hoc externu ritu probarent_. Neither have we any warrant to think that they had another respect than this. But the error was in their addition to the law, and in that they made their own ceremonial was.h.i.+ngs, which were only the commandments of men, to serve for doctrines, instructions and significations. For those was.h.i.+ngs, as they were significant, and taught what holiness or cleanness should be among the people of G.o.d, they are called by the name of wors.h.i.+p; and as they were such significant ceremonies as were only commanded by men, they are reckoned for vain wors.h.i.+p.

And further, I demand why are the Colossians, Col. ii. 20-22, rebuked for subjecting themselves to those ordinances,-"Touch not, taste not, handle not?" We see that those ordinances were not bare commandments, but commandments under the colour of doctrines, to wit, as law commanded a difference of meats, for signifying that holiness which G.o.d would have his people formed unto; so these false teachers would have the same to be signified and taught by that difference of meats and abstinence which they of themselves, and without the commandment of G.o.d, had ordained.

Moreover, if we consider how that the word of G.o.d is given unto us "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of G.o.d may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works," 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17, it cannot but be evident how superfluously, how superst.i.tiously, the office of sacred teaching and mystical signification is given to dumb and lifeless ceremonies ordained of men, and, consequently, how justly they are taxed as vain wors.h.i.+p. We hold, therefore, with the worthiest of our divines,(810) _nullam doctrinam, nullum sacram signum debere inter pios admitti, nisi a Deo profecta esse constet_.

_Sect._ 8. To these reasons which I have put in order against men's significant ceremonies, I will add a pretty history before I go further.

When the Superior of the Abbey of St. Andrews(811) was disputing with John Knox about the lawfulness of the ceremonies devised by the church, to decore the sacraments and other service of G.o.d, Knox answered: "The church ought to do nothing but in faith, and ought not to go before, but is bound to follow the voice of the true Pastor." The Superior replied, that "every one of the ceremonies hath a G.o.dly signification, and therefore they both proceed from faith, and are done in faith." Knox replieth: "It is not enough that man invent a ceremony, and then give it a signification according to his pleasure; for so might the ceremonies of the Gentiles, and this day the ceremonies of Mahomet be maintained. But if that anything proceed from faith it must have the word of G.o.d for the a.s.surance," &c.

The Superior answereth: "Will ye bind us so strait that we may do nothing without the express word of G.o.d? What, and I ask drink? think ye that I sin? and yet I have not G.o.d's word for me."

Knox here telleth him, first, that if he should either eat or drink without the a.s.surance of G.o.d's word, he sinned; "for saith not the Apostle, speaking even of meat and drink, that the creatures are sanctified unto men by the word and prayer? The word is this: all things are clean to the clean: Now let me hear thus much of your ceremonies, and I shall give you the argument?"

But secondly, He tells him that he compared indiscreetly together profane things with holy; and that the question was not of meat and drink, wherein the kingdom of G.o.d consisteth not, but of matters of religion, and that we may not take the same freedom in the using of Christ's sacraments that we may do in eating and drinking, because Moses commanded, "All that the Lord thy G.o.d commanded thee to do, that do thou to the Lord thy G.o.d; add nothing to it, diminish nothing from it." The Superior now saith that he was dry, and thereupon desireth the grey friar Arbugkill to follow the argument; but he was so pressed with the same that he was confounded in himself, and the Superior ashamed of him:-

Dicite Io Paean, et Io bis dicite Paean.

_Sect._ 9. As for the examples alleged by our opposites out of Scripture for justifying their significant ceremonies, they have been our propugners of evangelical simplicity so often and so fully answered, that here I need do no more but point at them. Of the days of Purim and feast of dedication I am to speak afterward. In the meanwhile, our opposites cannot, by these examples, strengthen themselves in this present argument, except they could prove that the feast of dedication was lawfully inst.i.tuted, and that the days of Purim were appointed for a religious festivity, and that upon no such extraordinary warrant as the church hath not ever and always. The rite which Abraham commanded his servant to use when he sware to him, namely, the putting of his hand under his thigh, Gen. xxiv. 2, maketh them as little help; for it was but a moral sign of that civil subjection, reverence and fidelity which inferiors owe unto superiors, according to the judgment of Calvin, Junius, Pareus, and Tremellius, all upon that place. That altar which was built by the Reubenites, Gadites, and half tribe of Mana.s.seh, Josh. xxii., had (as some think) not a religious, but a moral use, and was not a sacred, but a civil sign, to witness that those two tribes and the half were of the stock and lineage of Israel; which, if it were once called in question, then their fear (deducing the connection of causes and consequents) led them in the end to forecast this issue: "In time to come your children might speak unto our children, saying, What have you to do with the Lord G.o.d of Israel? for the Lord hath made Jordan a border betwixt us and you," &c. Therefore, to prevent all apparent occasions of such doleful events, they erected the pattern of the Lord's altar, _ut vinculum sit fraternae conjunctionis._(812)