The Works of Mr. George Gillespie Part 16

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 succ.u.mbing 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 G.o.d."

_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 G.o.dly 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 fas.h.i.+on.

2. This manner of holding that feast, whensoever it began, had no warrant from the first inst.i.tution, 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 G.o.dwin 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 pa.s.s over in outrageous revelling. And here I take leave of the Bishop.

_Sect._ 10. Thirdly, We say, whether the days of Purim were inst.i.tuted 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 forta.s.se aberraverimus_, saith Hospinian,(848) _si dicamus hoc a Mordochcaeo 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 circ.u.mstances belonging to G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p, and all his reason is, because if the Jews had received any other particular warrant, the sacred story should not have pa.s.sed 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 G.o.d.

_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 inst.i.tuted 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 compa.s.sed 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, inst.i.tuted 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 ecclesiae regimene et scriptura interpretatione, haec secta primatum tenebat_? Saith not Camero,(854) _c.u.m Pharisaeorum praecipua 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 Pharisaeos vero administratio_? And in another place,(856) _Erat enim quaedam Judaeorum secta exactiorem patriae legis cognitionem sibi vendicans_?

&c. _Hi Pharisaei 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 circ.u.mstances 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 pa.s.s that Christ had occasion to preach to such a great mult.i.tude; 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 suns.h.i.+ne 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 pa.s.s, 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 caetum piorum convenientem festo; nam omnes ejusmodi occasiones seminandi evangelii sui observabat et capiebat Christus_.

_Quasi vero_ (saith Hospinian(862)) _Christus Encaenoirum casua Hierosloymam abierit_. Nay, but he saw he had a convenient occasion, _ad inst.i.tuendam hominum mult.i.tudenem, 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 mult.i.tudes' 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 G.o.d. I am therefore to digress with them. And I perceive, ere we know well where they are, they are pa.s.sed 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 circ.u.mstance, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d. What! shall a wrangling wit elude the reasons given by the Spirit of G.o.d, in such sort, that he must give some other more sufficient proof for that which he teacheth? Then the whole Scriptures of G.o.d 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 vinc.u.n.tur_ (saith Augustine),(867) _consuetudinem n.o.bis 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 admitt.i.tur, 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 fas.h.i.+ons, 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 G.o.d."

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 G.o.d 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 superst.i.tious 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 G.o.d, confirmed and ratified by general a.s.semblies 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.

CHAPTER VII.

THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES CANNOT BE WARRANTED BY ANY ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, NOR BY ANY POWER WHICH THE CHURCH HATH TO PUT ORDER TO THINGS BELONGING TO DIVINE WORs.h.i.+P.