in his Gloss published from Strasburgh 1570. upon those words of the Apostle If any man seem to be contentious we have no such Custom nor the Churches of God write thus The Apostle saith he rejecteth morose and contentious answerers shewing that profitable rites received by grave authority ought by no means to be contemned or plucked in pieces though they be not built on solid demonstrations But if any man will be stiff in his opinion the Apostle will not contend any longer with him but will acquiesce in the Custom of Godly and worthy men and of the Churches of God themselves idemque saith he alios omnes pios facere debere and that all pious men ought to do the same is acknowledged there to be an Apostolical direction by Illyricus when he was out of the heat of contention in a cool and calm temper 4. If we view the pulick writings of the Reformed Churches Conf. Bohem Ars. 15. the Bohemian Confession declareth them to teach that humane Traditions Rites and Customs which do not hinder Piety are to be preserved in the publick Christian Assemblies And in their account of the Discipline and Order of their Churches they divide the matters of Religion into three heads the Essentialia which contain the matters of Faith Love and Hope the Minisierialia which enclude the means of Grace as the word of God Rat. Difc Ord. c. 1. the Sacraments and power of the Keys and the Accidentalia by which they say they mean what others call Adiaphora or external Ceremonies and Rites of Religion In these matters Adiaphorous they say they may have some things in use among them which are different from other Churches and yet are they not willing upon any small occasions to allow any alteration therein neque ob leves causus quicquam mutare aequum putamus nemini apud nos licet insuetas ceremonias inahoare Ibid. c. 2. And in their Ordination both of their Bishop and their Consenior who is designed to represent the Chorepiseopus in some ancient Churches whose Office is like that of our Arch Deacon and their Minister and their Deacon those of the same Order give to the person then ordained their right hand of fellowship and those of the inferiour Order when one is ordained to any of the higher degrees give him their right hand in token of subjection testified and assured by that external Rite 5. The Augustane Confession in several expressions asserteth it lawful for the Bishops or Pastors Conf. August de Eccâ—◠〈◊〉 Artâ—â—â— 21 de descrimine cibor to appoint things for Order in the Church and declareth that they do retain many ancient Rites or Ceremonies though they complain also of the abuse of others in the Romish Church as the Church of England doth and it asserteth also ritus illos servandos esse qui sine peccato servari possunt ad tranquillitatem bonum ordinem Ecclesiae conducunt Conf Saxon de Tradition The Saxon Confession treating of Rites appointed in the Church by humane Authority declareth that nothing ought to be appointed against Gods word or in the way of superstition but that some blameless Rites for good order both ought to be and by them are observed ritus aliquos honestos boni ordinis causa factos servamus servandos esse docemus And the Ceremonies most opposed in the Church of England with more besides them are retained both in that and in other Lutherane Churches Conf. Helv. c. 27. The Helvetick Confession asserteth that the Church hath always used a liberty about Rites as being things of a middle or indifferent nature The French Church alloweth that there be singulis locis peculiaria instituta Conf. Gallic c. 32. prout commodum visum fuerit peculiar Constitutions for several places as it shall appear profitable And the Strasburgh Confession discoursing about humane Traditions or external Rites and Observations which conduce to profit though they be not expressed in the Scriptures Conf. Argent c. 14. saith that many such the Church of God at this day doth rightly observe and as there is occasion doth make new ones adding these sharp words quas qui rejecerit is non hominum sed Dei cujus traditio est quaecunque utilis est authoritatem contemnit that whosoever rejecteth these things doth not contemn the authority of men but of God of whom is every profitable Constituion Wherefore he who will yet disclaim all Ceremonial Rites under Christianity and will esteem them to be a pestilential and dangerous Contagion in the Church must undertake to affix both to the ancient and latter most famous Churches a Miserere nostri SECT V. The ill consequences of denying the lawfulness of all Ecclesiastical Rites and Constitutions in things indifferent observed 1. Though the condemning the practice and rule of the Church in all Ages and even in the time of the holy Apostles and Prophets be inconvenience sufficient for any opinion to stand charged with yet besides this which hath been evidenced in the two former Sections the denying the lawfulness of any external Rites 1. Debarreth the Church of what is really advantagious unto it for some fit external Rites of order and decency provided they be not over-numerous do promise solemnity in the service of God and tend to excite a greater degree of seriousness reverence and attentiveness It was S. Austins observation De Curia pro mortuis c. 5. that in Religion the outward actions of bowing the knee stretching forth the hands and falling on the ground though they be not performed without the preceding actions of the Soul do much encrease the inward affections of the heart In the common affairs of the World the boaring his Ear with an Awle who was willing to undertake a perpetual service the giving possession among the Jews by the pulling of the shoe and amongst us by divers other ways of livery and seisin the delivering some ensign of authority at the enstallment of a Magistrate and the giving the hand as a pledge of fidelity have by the common prudence of men been judged useful Rites to render those undertakings and actions the more solemn and observable Nor can there be any reason why some external actions may not obtain the like effect in matters of Religion especially considering that both Prophets and Apostles in delivering their extraordinary Messages from God thought fit frequently to make use of visible representations that their words might thereby take the deeper impression Thus Ezekiel carried out his stuff in their sight and Isaiah walked naked without his ordinary Garments when they denounced Captivity and Agabus foretelling the imprisonment of S. Paul bound himself with his girdle Act. 13.51 Mar. 6.11 and the Apostles according to the commandment of Christ shook of the dust of their feet as a testimony against those Cities who received them not V. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 10.14 which was a rite
the Jews made use to towards the Cities of the Gentiles to express their defilement and uncleanness 2. 2. The denying the lawful use of external Rites and humane observations in the worship of God is ordinarily attended with partiality of judgment For it is almost generally acknowledged that in taking a Religious Oath some external Ceremony addeth a solemnity and reverence to that sacred action whence when other Ceremonies in publick worship were laid aside there was an Act of Parliament as it was entituled that in taking an Oath it might be lawful for any man either to lay his hand upon the Book or to hold up his right hand which was the way made use of in taking the Covenant And Bishop Saunderson to this purpose judiciously declareth DeJuram Obl. Pral 5. Sec. 12. that he could never receive any satisfaction though he had oft considered with himself and enquired of others why a prescribed form of words and the use of the solemnity of external Rites either ought not as things superstitious to be removed from the Religious use of an Oath or else may not as useful helps of piety be retained in the other parts of Gods worship I know that some have told us that an Oath is not a part of the natural worship of God belonging to the first commandment nor of the instituted worship in the second Commandment but of the revrend use of Gods name in the third Commandment and that the principal use of an Oath is to confirm truth and end strife and therefore it is not primarily an act of worship but secondarily and consequentially But indeed all this is but a plausible mistake For an Oath as it is distinguished from a bare assertion encludeth a direct profession and particular acknowledgment of the Omniscience of God and his searching the heart of man and of the justice of God in the punishing evil and that he is a God of truth and invocateth him as such and this is part of the natural worship of God or of the honour which is due to God as being founded in the nature of God and the natural estate of man And since God hath instituted this way of Religious appeal to himself an Oath must be acknowledged to enclude also part of the instituted worship of God And the Rite of laying the hand upon the Book and kissing it or holding up the hand being designed as a testimony to others of a mans appeal to Gods Omniscience and Justice the end of that Ceremony is primarily to manifest this religious application to God and therefore it is attendant upon an Oath as it is properly an act of worship 3. 3. If no external observations not commanded by God might lawfully be admitted in the worship of God then must the publick exercise thereof cease For God who did expresly determine the time and place for the Jewish Tabernacle and Temple worship hath not prescribed the same circumstances for the Christian service Nor hath he prescribed in all things the method and gesture for our Religious addresses nor the kind of Bread and Wine at the Lords Supper yet these things must necessarily be determined where these Ordinances are celebrated Disp of Humane Cerem c. 2. Wherefore Mr. Baxter acknowledgeth that such things as these and the decent habit for the service of God be left to humane prudence to order and may be determined for order decency and edification But Mr. Rutherford undertaking to fix the right bounds for the Churches authority distinguisheth things moral Introd to Div. Right of Gh. Govern Sec. 1. and Physical circumstances and these latter only he granteth may be determined and ordered by the Church but not the former These Physical circumstances he saith are only eight and there can be no more enumerated viz. time place person name family condition habit gesture Now to omit the examining the terms of that distinction and the considering that most of our Ceremonies as they are called are encluded under habit and gesture it is manifest that he hath pitifully shackled himself in endeavouring the undue confinement of the Churches Power For as there can be no possible account why those eight things and no more can be determined by the Church so it is very obvious to discern how monstrous this enumeration is having needless redundancy in adding as distinct circumstances from the person the name family and condition to which he might with as much reason have added the age stature and complexion of the person and they have likewise a great deficiency since according to his position it is unlawful to determine what version of the Bible shall be read in the Church what Vessels shall be used in administring the Sacraments and in what method Prayers Praises Psalms Sermons and other Offices shall succeed to each other the appointing of which was a chief design of the Directory And some men who undertook to decry every think referring to the worship of God as unlawful unless it was particularly injoined in the Scripture did advance this false position so far In Edw. Gangrena Par. 2. Er. 172. as to assert that the Directory was a breach of the second Commandment and that there was no word of God to warrant the making that Book more than Jeroboam had when he set up two high places the one at Daâ— and the other at Bethel Nor can such a charge be avoided nor Religion be secured from confusion unless it be admitted which is certainly true that some things â—â—ternal may lawfully be appointed about the exercise thereof though may be not particularly enjoined of God 4. The reason why I have in this Section conjoined the inconveniency attending the disallowing Ecclesiastical Constitutions and Observations together with those consequent upon the disclaiming external Rites and Ceremonies is because both these are equally impugned by almost all the arguments produced with special respect to the latter of them SECT VI. Some Objections from Reason and from the Old Testaâ—â—â—â— examined 1. Against the 〈◊〉 use of some Ceremonies in the Christian Church there are mustred up a 〈◊〉 Army of Objections if a weak 〈…〉 be so called a particular answer 〈◊〉 every of which would be tedious and needless For the affirming that such establishments oppose the Soveraignty of Christ or accuse him of negligence or unfaithfulness and that they make men the Masters of our Religion and such like manifestly appear to be false accusations by considering that these external Rites are such things of an indifferent nature that their appointment by humane authority hath been allowed of God both under the Old and New Testament as hath been above evidenced To assert that the allowance of any Ceremonies ordered by Ecclesiastical Prudence V. Hooker Eccles Pol. l. 3. chargeth the Scripture with insufficiency and leaveth us at a loss as some tell us it doth for a Rule of Faith Proceedeth from a gross misunderstanding as if these indifferent things particularly considered were
matters of Faith and that the Scripture could not be a sufficient Rule For Faith and Holy Life unless it enclude a determination of all prudential circumstances that none should be ordered in the Church which are not there appointed To decry all such things as Vnlawful because in our Church there hath been much strife and contention about them to the breach of the Churches Peace may appear to be a very weak argument from observing that both the Jewish and the Apostolical and Primitive Christian Churches and several Lutheran Churches of late have enjoyed a very peaceable state together with such Ecclesiastical Constitutions but the more manifest cause of strife and contention is from misunderstanding in some and from want of humility and obedience in others and these persons have found matter sufficient for them to make a breach of the Churches Peace in other points besides Ceremonies 2. As to that Objection that the allowing any Authority for the appointing such things in the Church will leave its power in a boundless and unlimited state if this was of any force it would equally oppose all other commanding Authority in every superior relation in the World And as secular Rules have Authority to make Laws for the Peace and Order of Kingdoms but not to exercise oppression nor to change the nature of Good and Evil nor to make any divine Precepts so Rulers in the Church are allowed to direct and appoint what tendeth to good order and decency but may not deliver any thing as Gods command which is not nor alter any of his Precepts and Institutions nor to enjoin things needlesly burdensom How the allowing some Ceremonies in the Christian Church is a quite different thing from the reducing the Ceremonial law of the Jews hath been shewed in the first Section of this Chapter Wherefore I now come to examine the Scripture evidence which some plead against Ecclesiastical Rites and Constitutions 3. Obj. 1. The sin of Nadab and Abihu for which fire came out from the Lord and devoured them was their offering strange fire before the Lord which he commanded them not Lev. 10.1 2. And this is supposed by them who urge this Objection to be only an outward rite or circumstance of worship in making use of that fire in the service of God which was not enjoined and about which he had made no determination Ans 1. Cypr. Ep. 73. de Vnit Eccl. It was much more truly acknowledged of old that the sin of Nadab and Abihu was that what they did was Dei traditione contempta Iren. adv Haer. l. 5. c. 44. in despite of what God had declared to the contrary and therefore their sin hath been frequently parallel'd with the sin of Corah Dathan and Abiram And whereas the Scripture declareth their sin to be a doing that which God commandeth them not that Phrase in the holy Scriptures which I commanded them not doth not denote gods having enjoined nothing about that particular action but ordinarily by a Meiosis intimateth Gods having severely prohibited it Thus God declared their building high places of Tophet and of Baal to burn their Sons and their Daughters to be things he commanded them not Jer. 7.31 Jer. 19.5 and the same expression is used concerning committing Adultery with their Neighbours Wives and speaking lying words in the name of the Lord Jer. 29.23 and concerning the serving other Gods and worshipping the Sun Moon and the Host of Heaven Dent. 17.3 all which things were vehemently forbidden in the Law of God Wherefore some have thought that the sin of Nadab and Abihu consisted in Offring strange Incense Fag in loc which God had expresly forbidden Ex. 30.9 Which opinion is declared by Fagius and doubtless this was the judgment of Josephus though the ordinary Copies of Josephus express it to be their Offring other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacrifices than Moses had commanded Joseph Ant. l. 3. c. 10. but that it should be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Incense is manifest by comparing Josephus with the Hebrew and the Septuagint Others have observed that before that time God had appointed Aaron only and not his Sons to offer any incense unto him and therefore it might be an act of great presumption in them and when Corah presumed to invade the Priests Office to offer incense botht he Samaritan Version and the Septuagint reading the Hebrew with a little variation of the points in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Num. 16.37 called that which he offered strange fire And some others have thought them so boldly irreverent as against the command of God to thrust themselves into the holy of holies This is collected by some of the Jewish Doctors from Lev. 16.1 2 3. and is admitted by Junius Jun. in Lev. 10.1 4. Ans 2. But admitting that their sin consisted in making use of that fire which God did not allow we must further assert with Munster that God having caused fire miraculously to consume the Sacrifice uon the Altar Lev. 9.24 and commanded that the fire upon the Altar should be continually burning to wit for the use of Gods service and should never go out Lev. 6.12 13. their offering other fire was an opposing of Gods command For if any should imagine that when God had commanded incense to be offered which must be offered with fire he did leave it undetermined what fire they should make use of and that in this case the choice of any sort of fire because it was not commanded was a grievous sin this would represent the holy and righteous will of God as contradictory to it self and as inevitably forcing the Priests to be guilty of sin because upon this unreasonable supposition their offring incense with fire which was their duty and commanded of God must necessarily be accounted a sin and displeasing to God And if such positions were admitted they will bring after them a numerous train of manifest absurdities and contradictions as that the Priest ought as God had commanded to burn wood upon his Altar but might in no wise make use of any sort or kind of wood to that purpose because God had not particularly enjoined it and the like may be said of the kind of Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper and of divers other things under the time of Christianity 5. Obj. 2. God commanded Deut. 12.32 Whatsoever I command you observe and do thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it Ans 1. That these words do properly condemn on the one hand superstition of the making any thing a part of Religion and the Law of God which indeed is not and on the other hand want of Religious reverence in neglecting obedience to what God had enjoined and commanded But that divers things referring to the worship of God were allowably under the Jâ—â—â—sh despensation ordered as matters 〈…〉 expediency by humane prudeâ—â—◠〈◊〉 â—â—ve in a former Section given suâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—mony and if such appointment 〈…〉 been
because it could not consist with their owning the Law of Moses and is not mentioned either in the Scriptures or in Josephus But considering how little Josephus wrote that hath any kind of relation to the Samaritan worship and that our Saviour chargeth them with a miscarriage about the object of their worship Joh. 4.22 Ye worship saith he ye know not what considering also that the worshippers at Bethel by whom the Samaritans were instructed did before their Captivity worship God there by an Image and that the Assyrians Syrians and others Neighbouring upon the Samaritans as Bochartus sheweth Bochart ibidem did chuse the form of a Dove to be the Image and resemblance of God there is no just reason to question the evidence of the Jewish Writers concerning the Samaritans 4. It hath been also objected against all Ecclesiastical Constitutions that the Apostle blamed the Colossians Col. 2.20 21. Why as though living in the World are ye subject unto Ordinances such as he mentioneth in the next verse Touch not or eat not tast not handle not Ans This place concerneth not prudential Rules of order Davenant Zanch. In Loc. but it blameth the Colossians that they should suffer their minds to be deluded Whitak Cont. 4. Qu. 7. c. 3. and their practices to be enshared and perverted by false positions delivered as Doctrines and this is observed to be the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 20. and these things were called the Commandments and Doctrines of men v. 22. and will-worship v. 23 because they were delivered as proper divine Commandments And that this was the cause of the Apostles reproving the Colossians may be further manifest because the Apostles themselves upon a prudential and Christian account enjoined the Gentiles to forbear some sorts of meal the observing of which Apostolical Constitution which did not doctrinally declare those things themselves to be unclean was in no wise condemned by S. Paul writing to his Colossians 5. That place of S. James Jam. 4.12 There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy doth appropriate to God the Authority of establishing and executing such Laws the obeying or disobeying which is the sure way to eternal life or destruction because they are his Laws but this Scripture having no peculiar respect to the worship of God in publick Assemblies doth no more condemn Ecclesiastical Constitutions of Creder in the Church than either the civil sanctions of secular Governours or the Domestick commands of Parents or Masters Inst l. 4. c. 10. Sect. 7 30. And even Calvin with some respect to this place of St. James aserteth in his Institutions that in the great matters of Christianity there is unicus vitae magister one only who is to rule and command our life but in externa Disciplina Ceremoniis in matters external concerning Discipline and Ceremonies he hath not thought sit to prescribe every particular thing but hath left us to be guided by general rules 6. I know that some who urge this place of S. James would thence conclude that none besides God have any power or Authority by their commands to himâ—â—â—â— Consciences of men Now though this TExe speaketh nothing expresly of Conscience or its obligation I shall concerning that matter add that Ecclesiastical Constitutions do no otherwise bind the Consciences of men so far as concerneth the nature of the obligation than the commands of Magistrates Parents and Masters do though they have ordinarily the stronger motives with direct respect to the Peace and Order of the Church and the edification of its Members And it must be acknowledged that no humane Authority can bind the â—â—â—ing power of Conscience so that it is 〈…〉 that a duty which is whereby â—â—â—â—â—â—ded without having liberty 〈…〉 of its lawfulness and this is â—â—â—ifâ—â—tly the sense of several 〈…〉 Writers when they say that Goâ—â—â—â—ly hath power to bind the Conscience But that humane Laws and commands do secondarily and consequentially bind the Conscience to take care of practising what is lawfully commanded is that which can 〈◊〉 be denyed It would certainly sound harshto a Christian Ear if any shall assert that a Child is not bound in Conscience to do any particular lawful thing which his Father commandeth him it being all one to assert that it is not his duty and that he is not bound in Conscience to do it But if he be bound in Conscience to do that upon his Fathers command which he was not bound to undertake without that command it must needs be his command which layeth that obligation upon Conscience secondarily and consequentially or with a respect unto Gods general command of obedience 7. In this sense it is not unusual with Protestant Writers beyond the Seas as well as with divers of our own Nation as particularly Bishop Saunderson de Obligatione Conscientiae Duct Dubit l. 3. c. 1. rule 1.5 Ch. 4. rule 5. and Bishop Taylor very largely in his Ductor Dubitantium to assert that the injunctions of our Superiours bind the Conscience Vrsin in his Explicatio Catechetica asserteth the Constitution of the Magistrate to bind the Conscience that is saith he by reason of the command of the Magistrate Ex. Cat. qu. 96. it becometh necessary to be performed and cannot be neglected without the offence of God though it be no case of scandal In praec 2. de Cultu Dei And in his Loci Theologici he to the same purpose declareth edicta Magistratûs obligant conscientias and absque scandalo obligatur conscientia ad harum legum observationem To the same purpose may Paraeus be produced Alsted Theol. Cas c. 2. Reg. 2. And Alsted very well noteth that humane laws mediately or under God do bind the Conscience even as an Oath Vow or promise made by a mans sely doth 8. I shall not insist upon that objection from Heb. 3.5 6. which expresseth the faithfulness of Christ to be more glorious than the faithfulness of Moses from whence it hath been with more manifest violence than strength of argument concluded that under the Gospel which is perfectly and compleatly delivered by Christ there is no place left for any prudential Constitutions which were say they wholly excluded under the Mosaical law But I suppose I have beyond all contradiction evinced that under the Mosaical Law there were divers things appointed by Ecclesiastical Authority And that Moses's faithfulness consisted in delivering the Law as he received it and not in the compleatness of enjoining every particular circumstance in the Church will appear evident because otherwise he could not be accounted as faithful with respect to their Synagogue worship as to their Temple worship And it may be further noted that the numerous divine commands about matters external referring to the Temple worship V. Sanders de Obl. Cons prael 6. Sect. 30. which was the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinances was no part of the