Why the Church should decline Jewish Rites. 381 Ch. xi. 3. simplicity of the gospel, did almost out of all religions take BOOK IV. whatsoever had any fair and gorgeous show*, borrowing in that respect from the Jews sundry of their abolished ceremonies. Thus by foolish and ridiculous imitation, all their massing furniture almost they took from the Law, lest having an altar and a priest, they should want vestments for their stage; so that whatsoever we have in common with the church of Rome, if the same be of this kind we ought to remove it. "Constantine the emperor speaking of the keep"ing of the feast of Easter, saith, That it is an unworthy "thing to have any thing common with that most spiteful company of the Jews ‡.' And a little after he saith, That "it is most absurd and against reason, that the Jews should "vaunt and glory that the Christians could not keep those "things without their doctrine.' And in another place it is "said after this sort; It is convenient so to order the matter, "that we have nothing common with that nation §.' The "council of Laodicea, which was afterwards confirmed by the "sixth general council, decreed that the Christians should "not take unleavened bread of the Jews, or communicate with "their impiety ||."" [3] For the easier manifestation of truth in this point, two things there are which must be considered: namely, the causes wherefore the Church should decline from Jewish ceremonies; and how far it ought so to do. One cause is that the Jews were the deadliest and spitefullest enemies of Christianity that were in the world, and in this respect their orders so far forth to be shunned, as we have already set down in handling the matter of heathenish ceremonies. For no enemies being so venomous against Christ as Jews, they were of all other most odious, and by that mean least to be used as fit church patterns for imitation. Another cause is the solemn abrogation of the Jews' ordinances; which ordinances for us to resume, were to check our Lord himself which hath disannulled them. But how far this second cause doth extend, Cho xi. 4. 382 Occasion of the Council of Jerusalem. BOOK IV. it is not on all sides fully agreed upon. And touching those things whereunto it reacheth not, although there be small cause wherefore the Church should frame itself to the Jews' example in respect of their persons which are most hateful; yet God himself having been the author of their laws, herein they are (notwithstanding the former consideration) still worthy to be honoured, and to be followed above others, as much as the state of things will bear. [4] Jewish ordinances had some things natural, and of the perpetuity of those things no man doubteth. That which was positive we likewise know to have been by the coming of Christ partly necessary not to be kept, and partly indifferent to be kept or not. Of the former kind circumcision and sacrifice were. For this point Stephen was accused, and the evidence which his accusers brought against him in judgment was, "This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words "against this holy place and the Law, for we have heard him "( say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and "shall change the ordinances that Moses gave us *." True it is that this doctrine was then taught, which unbelievers condemning for blasphemy did therein commit that which they did condemn. The Apostles notwithstanding from whom Stephen had received it, did not so teach the abrogation, no not of those things which were necessarily to cease, but that even the Jews being Christian, might for a time continue in them. And therefore in Jerusalem the first Christian bishop not circumcised was Mark; and he not bishop till the days of Adrian the emperor, after the overthrow of Jerusalem: there having been fifteen bishops before him which were all of the circumcision t. The Christian Jews did think at the first not only themselves but the Christian Gentiles also bound, and that necessarily, to observe the whole Law. There went forth certain of the sect of Pharisees which did believe, and they coming unto Antioch, taught that it was necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised, and to keep the Law of Moses. Whereupon there grew dissension, Paul and Barnabas disputing against them. The determination of the council held at Jerusalem † Acts vi. 13, 14. * Vide Niceph. lib. iii. cap. 25. et Sulpit. Sever. p. 149. in edit. Plant. + Acts xv. Drift of the Council of Jerusalem's Decree. 383 Ch. xi. 5. concerning this matter was finally this; "Touching the Gen- BOOK IV. "tiles which believe, we have written and determined that "they observe no such thing*." Their protestation by letters is, "Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which "departed from us have troubled you with words, and cum"bered your minds, saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep "the Law; know that we gave them no such commandment †.” Paul therefore continued still teaching the Gentiles, not only that they were not bound to observe the laws of Moses, but that the observation of those laws which were necessarily to be abrogated, was in them altogether unlawful. In which point his doctrine was misreported, as though he had every where preached this, not only concerning the Gentiles, but also touching the Jews. Wherefore coming unto James and the rest of the clergy at Jerusalem, they told him plainly of it, saying, "Thou seest, brother, how many thousand Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the Law. Now they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews "which are amongst the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and sayest "that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to "live after the customs t." And hereupon they give him counsel to make it apparent in the eyes of all men, that those flying reports were untrue, and that himself being a Jew kept the Law even as they did. In some things therefore we see the Apostles did teach, that there ought not to be conformity between the Christian Jews and Gentiles. How many things this law of inconformity did comprehend, there is no need we should stand to examine. This general is true, that the Gentiles were not made conformable unto the Jews, in that which was necessarily to cease at the coming of Christ. - [5] Touching things positive, which might either cease or continue as occasion should require, the Apostles tendering the zeal of the Jews, thought it necessary to bind even the Gentiles for a time to abstain as the Jews did, "from things "offered unto idols, from blood, from strangled §." These decrees were every where delivered unto the Gentiles to be straitly observed and kept ||. In the other matters, where Acts xxi. 25. † Acts xv. 24. + Acts xxi. 20. || Acts xvi. 4. § Acts xv. 28, 29. Cli. xi. 6. 384 Drift of the Council of Jerusalem's Decree: BOOK IV. the Gentiles were free, and the Jews in their own opinion still tied, the Apostles' doctrine unto the Jew was, "condemn not "the Gentile;" unto the Gentile, "despise not the Jew*. The one sort they warned to take heed, that scrupulosity did not make them rigorous, in giving unadvised sentence against their brethren which were free; the other, that they did not become scandalous, by abusing their liberty and freedom to the offence of their weak brethren which were scrupulous. From hence therefore two conclusions there are which may evidently be drawn; the first, that whatsoever conformity of positive laws the Apostles did bring in between the churches of Jews and Gentiles, it was in those things only which might either cease or continue a shorter or longer time, as occasion did most require; the second, that they did not impose upon the churches of the Gentiles any part of the Jews' ordinances with bond of necessary and perpetual observation, (as we all both by doctrine and practice acknowledge,) but only in respect of the conveniency and fitness for the present state of the Church as then it stood. The words of the council's decree concerning the Gentiles are, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no more burden "saving only those things of necessity, abstinence from idolofferings, from strangled and blood, and from fornication †." So that in other things positive which the coming of Christ did not necessarily extinguish the Gentiles were left altogether free. [6.] Neither ought it to seem unreasonable that the Gentiles should necessarily be bound and tied to Jewish ordinances, so far forth as that decree importeth. For to the Jew, who knew that their difference from other nations which were aliens and strangers from God, did especially consist in this, that God's people had positive ordinances given to them of God himself, it seemed marvellous hard, that the Christian Gentiles should be incorporated into the same commonwealth with God's own chosen people, and be subject to no part of his statutes, more than only the law of nature, which heathens count themselves bound unto. It was an opinion constantly received amongst the Jews, that God did deliver unto the sons of Noah seven precepts namely, first, to live in some form of regiment un† [Acts xv. 28.] *Rom. xiv. 10. Meaning of the fifth Precept of Noah. 385 Ch. xi. 7. der public laws; secondly, to serve and call upon the name of BOOK IV. God; thirdly, to shun idolatry; fourthly, not to suffer effusion of blood; fifthly, to abhor all unclean knowledge in the flesh; sixthly, to commit no rapine; seventhly, and finally, not to eat of any living creature whereof the blood was not first let out *. If therefore the Gentiles would be exempt from the law of Moses, yet it might seem hard they should also cast off even those things positive which were observed before Moses, and which were not of the same kind with laws that were necessarily to cease. And peradventure hereupon the council saw it expedient to determine, that the Gentiles should, according unto the third, the seventh, and the fifth, of those precepts, abstain from things sacrificed unto idols, from strangled and blood, and from fornication. The rest the Gentiles did of their own accord observe, nature leading them thereto. [7.] And did not nature also teach them to abstain from fornication? No doubt it did. Neither can we with reason think, that as the former two are positive, so likewise this, being meant as the Apostle doth otherwise usually understand itt. But very marriage within a number of degrees being not only by the law of Moses, but also by the law of the sons of Noah (for so they took it) an unlawful discovery of nakedness; this discovery of nakedness by unlawful marriages such as Moses in the law reckoneth up‡, I think it for mine own part more probable to have been meant in the words of that canon, than fornication according unto the sense of the law of nature. Words must be taken according to the matter whereof they are uttered. The Apostles command to abstain from blood. Construe this meaning according to the law of nature, and it will seem that homicide only is forbidden. But construe it in reference to the law of the Jews about which the question was, and it shall easily appear to have a clean other sense, and in any man's judgment a truer, when we expound it of eating and not of shedding blood. So if we speak of fornication, he that knoweth no law but only the law of nature must needs make thereof a narrower construction, than he which measureth the same by a law, wherein sundry kinds even of conjugal copulation are prohibited as impure, unclean, * Lib. qui Seder Olam inscribitur. + Heb. xiii. 4; 1 Cor. v. 11; Gal. v. 19. Lev. xviii. |