VI. The rites and orders wherein we follow the church of Rome are of no other kind than such as the church of Geneva itself doth follow them in. We follow the church of Rome in moe things; yet they in some things of the same nature about which our present controversy is: so that the difference is not in the kind, but in the number of rites only, wherein they and we do follow the church of Rome. The use of wafer-cakes, the custom of godfathers and godmothers in baptism, are things not commanded nor forbidden in Scripture, things which have been of old and are retained in the church of Rome even at this very hour. Is conformity with Rome in such things a blemish unto the church of England, and unto churches abroad an ornament? Let them, if not for the reverence they owe unto this church, in the bowels whereof they have received I trust that precious and blessed vigour, which shall quicken them to eternal life, yet at the leastwise for the singular affection which they do bear towards others, take heed how they strike, lest they wound whom they would not. For undoubtedly it cutteth deeper than they are aware of, when they plead that even such ceremonies of the church of Rome, as contain in them nothing which is not of itself agreeable to the word of God, ought nevertheless to be abolished; and that neither the word of God, nor reason, nor the examples of the eldest churches do permit the church of Rome to be therein followed.
Heretics they are, and they are our neighbours. By us and amongst us they lead their lives. But what then? therefore no ceremony of theirs lawful for us to use? We must yield and will that none are lawful, if God himself be a precedent against the use of any. But how appeareth it that God is so? Hereby they say it doth appear, in that1 “God severed his people from the heathens, but especially from the Egyptians, and such nations as were nearest neighbours unto them2, by forbidding them to do those things which were in themselves very lawful to be done, yea, very profitable some, and incommodious to be forborne; such things it pleased God to forbid them, only because those heathens did them, with whom conformity in the same things might have bred infection. Thus in shaving, cutting3, apparel-wearing4, yea in sundry kinds of meats also, swine’s flesh, conies, and such like5, they were forbidden to do so and so, because the Gentiles did so. And the end why God forbade them such things was to sever them for fear of infection by a great and an high wall from other nations, as St. Paul teacheth6.” The cause of more careful separation from the nearest nations was the greatness of danger to be especially by them infected. Now papists are to us as those nations were unto Israel. Therefore if the wisdom of God be our guide, we cannot allow conformity with them, no not in any such indifferent ceremony.
Our direct answer hereunto is, that for any thing here alleged we may still doubt, whether the Lord in such indifferent ceremonies, as those whereof we dispute, did frame his people of set purpose unto any utter dissimilitude, either with Egyptians or with any other nation else. And if God did not forbid them all such indifferent ceremonies, then our conformity with the church of Rome in some such is not hitherto as yet disproved, although papists were unto us as those heathens were unto Israel. “After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, ye shall not do, saith the Lord; and after the manner of the land of Canaan, whither I will bring you, shall ye not do, neither walk in their ordinances: do after my judgments, and keep my ordinances to walk therein: I am the Lord your God7.” The speech is indefinite, “ye shall not be like them:” it is not general, “ye shall not be like them in any thing, or like to them in any thing indifferent, or like unto them in any indifferent ceremony of theirs.” Seeing therefore it is not set down how far the bounds of his speech concerning dissimilitude should reach, how can any man assure us, that it extendeth farther than to those things only, wherein the nations there mentioned were idolatrous, or did against that which the law of God commandeth? Nay, doth it not seem a thing very probable, that God doth purposely add, “Do after my judgments,” as giving thereby to understand that his meaning in the former sentence was but to bar similitude in such things, as were repugnant unto the ordinances, laws, and statutes which he had given? Egyptians and Canaanites are for example’s sake named unto them, because the customs of the one they had been, and of the other they should be best acquainted with. But that wherein they might not be like unto either of them, was such peradventure as had been no whit less unlawful, although those nations had never been. So that there is no necessity to think, that God for fear of infection by reason of nearness forbade them to be like unto the Canaanites or the Egyptians, in those things which otherwise had been lawful enough.
For I would know what one thing was in those nations, and is here forbidden, being indifferent in itself, yet forbidden only because they used it. In the laws of Israel we find it written, “Ye shall not cut round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou tear the tufts of thy beard8.” These things were usual amongst those nations, and in themselves they are indifferent. But are they indifferent being used as signs of immoderate and hopeless lamentation for the dead? In this sense it is that the law forbiddeth them. For which cause the very next words following are, “Ye shall not cut your flesh for the dead, nor make any print of a mark upon you: I am the Lord9.” The like in Leviticus, where speech is of mourning for the dead; “They shall not make bald parts upon their head, nor shave off the locks of their beard, nor make any cutting in their flesh10.” Again in Deuteronomy, “Ye are the children of the Lord your God; ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make you baldness between your eyes for the dead11.” What is this but in effect the same which the Apostle doth more plainly express, saying, “Sorrow not as they do who have no hope12?” The very light of nature itself was able to see herein a fault; that which those nations did use, having been also in use with others, the ancient Roman laws do forbid13. That shaving therefore and cutting which the law doth mention was not a matter in itself indifferent, and forbidden only because it was in use amongst such idolaters as were neighbours to the people of God; but to use it had been a crime, though no other people or nation under heaven should have done it saving only themselves.
As for those laws concerning attire: “There shall no garment of linen and woollen come upon thee14;” as also those touching food and diet, wherein swine’s flesh together with sundry other meats are forbidden15; the use of these things had been indeed of itself harmless and indifferent: so that hereby it doth appear, how the law of God forbade in some special consideration such things as were lawful enough in themselves. But yet even here they likewise fail of that they intend. For it doth not appear that the consideration in regard whereof the law forbiddeth these things was because those nations did use them. Likely enough it is that the Canaanites used to feed as well on sheep’s as on swine’s flesh; and therefore if the forbidding of the later had no other reason than dissimilitude with that people, they which of their own heads allege this for reason can shew I think some reason more than we are able to find why the former was not also forbidden. Might there not be some other mystery in this prohibition than they think of? Yes, some other mystery there was in it by all likelihood. For what reason is there which should but induce, and therefore much less enforce us to think, that care of dissimilitude between the people of God and the heathen nations about them, was any more the cause of forbidding them to put on garments of sundry stuff, than of charging them withal not to sow their fields with meslin16; or that this was any more the cause of forbidding them to eat swine’s flesh, than of charging them withal not to eat the flesh of eagles, hawks, and the like17?
Wherefore, although the church of Rome were to us, as to Israel the Egyptians and Canaanites were of old; yet doth it not follow, that the wisdom of God without respect doth teach us to erect between us and them a partition-wall of difference18, in such things indifferent as have been hitherto disputed of.
← That our allowing the customs of our fathers · Contents · That the example of the eldest churches is n →
Footnotes
-
T. C. lib. i. p. 89, 131. [See also p. 67.] ↩
-
Lev. xviii. 3. ↩
-
Lev. xix. 27. ↩
-
Levit. xix. 19; Deut. xxii. 11. ↩
-
Deut. xiv. 7; Lev. xi. ↩
-
Ephes. ii. 14. ↩
-
Levit. xviii. 3. ↩
-
Levit. xix. 27. ↩
-
Levit. xix. 28. ↩
-
Levit. xxi. 5. ↩
-
Deut. xiv. 1. ↩
-
1 Thess. iv. 13. ↩
-
[Cic. Tusc. Quæst. ii. 23. “Ingemiscere nonnunquam viro concessum est, idque raro: ejulatus ne mulieri quidem: et hic nimirum est lessus, quem duodecim tabulæ in funeribus adhiberi vetuerunt.”] ↩
-
Levit. xix. 19; Deut. xxii. 11. ↩
-
Deut. xiv. 7; Levit. xi. ↩
-
Levit. xix. 19. [“Meslin: mixt corn, as wheat and rye.” Johnson, quoting Tusser:“If work for the Thresher ye mind for to have,“Of wheat and of meslin unthreshed go save.”] ↩
-
Deut. xiv; Levit. xi. ↩
-
Ephes. ii. 14. ↩