“I hate vain inventions: but thy Law do I love.”
Ps. 119:113 Geneva Bible
“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
Mt. 15:9
.
.
Subsections
Occasional & Partial Conformity without Sin
Vestments
Surplice
Bowing to the Table
Exorcism at Baptism
Confirmation
Kneeling for the Supper
Elevation of Bread
Wedding Rings
Days of Religious Commemoration
. Lent
Critiques of Book of Common Prayer
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 12+
Books 6+
Quotes 6+
Westminster
Rutherford’s Propositions
Alasco’s Plea
Definition of ‘Ceremony’ 5
Natural Ceremonies 4
OT Rites Repurposed
On 1 Cor. 14:40 2
Rules for 6+
Original Reasons for Anglican Ceremonies
Unprofitableness: Warrant for Removal 1
Religious Signs
Mystical Signs
Altars 15+
Cross 6+
Bowing at Name of Jesus 2
High Places?
.
Articles
1500’s
Melanchthon, Philip – 34. ‘Of Human Precepts in the Church’ in Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, Loci Communes, 1555 tr. Clyde L. Manschreck (1555; NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), pp. 306-16
Melanchthon was a leading Lutheran theologian.
Cartwright, Thomas – 1. ‘The Ministry & Ceremonies’ (c. 1577) in eds. Peel & Carlson, Cartwrightiana (London: Halley Stewart, 1951), VIII. Works of Doubtful Authorship, pp. 192-94
The editors say this work was either Cartwright’s or “one of the more conservative of his followers,” but they alo say “it is doubtful, too, whether he,” Cartwright, “ever leaned quite so far to the side of conformity,” as this work does. Yet Cartwright did advise ministers to conform to the Anglican ceremonies upon the pain of deposition, as this work does, as John Sprint so references Cartwright’s Rest of the Second Reply in his book.
.
1600’s
Rainolds, John et al. – The Sum & Substance of the Conference which it pleased his excellent Majesty [King James I] to have with the Lords, Bishops and other of his clergy… at Hampton Court, Jan. 14, 1604 ed. William Barlow (London: Windet, 1604) 107 pp.
English Partially Conforming Puritans – pp. 251-53 of A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), pt. 2; see also pp. 45-46 of the “Editor’s Extended Introduction”, “The General Rules of the Word”
Bradshaw, William
A Treatise of Divine Worship, tending to Prove that the Ceremonies Imposed upon the Ministers of the Gospel in England, in Present Controversy, are in their Use Unlawful (Middelburg, 1604) 47 pp. ToC
Randall, John – pp. 145-49 of Lecture 25 in Twenty-Nine Lectures of the Church… (d. 1622; London, 1631)
Randall (1570–1622) was an English puritan who did not believe Scripture holds forth a particular form of Church government.
Byfield, Nicholas – pp. 586-98 on 1 Pet. 2:13 in A Commentary: or Sermons upon the Second Chapter of the First Epistle of Saint Peter... (London, 1623)
“Things inconvenient even in matters of religion may be commanded in some cases (Circumcision was a burden, Acts 15:10, and these burdens called ‘necessary things,’ v. 28, and they were said to do well if they observe them, v. 29.): as when it is to redeem a far worse inconvenience.
For of two evils of punishments, the magistrate may take the less, as well as any other private man. And if that subjects, to prevent worse inconveniences, may use inconvenient ceremonies, then may the magistrate, to preuent worse inconveniences, command inconvenient ceremonies.
If the apostles may use the inconvenient Jewish ceremonies, then the apostles may enjoin for a time the use of inconvenient ceremonies: as they did make ordinances about things which yet they called burdens, Acts 15.” – pp. 590-91
Calderwood, David – ‘Propositions on Indifferent Things & Ceremonies in Worship’ trans. T. Fentiman (1623; RBO, 2021)
Calderwood (1575–1650) was a Scottish minister and arch-presbyterian. This section of Calderwood is taken from his large Latin work refuting the polity of the Church of England being sought to be imposed on Scotland.
Specifically, these propositions were set against the Articles of Perth (1618) which had instituted in the Church of Scotland (1) kneeling in receiving Communion, (2) observing religious festival days (such as Christmas, Easter, etc.), (3) episcopal confirmation of youth, and (4 & 5) administering baptism and the Lord’s Supper in private places.
Calderwood’s propositions are solid, timeless and are pardigmatic of classical presbyterianism.
Cameron, John – An Examination of those Plausible Appearances which seem Most to Commend the Romish Church, & to Prejudice the Reformed… (Oxford, 1626)
ch. 10, ‘That the Ceremonies of the Romish Church do not Commend, but disparage her’, pp. 33-40
ch. 28, ‘That the Ceremonies of the Romish Church are not of Apostolical Institution’, pp. 113-17
Lunan, Alexander – ‘Problems put Forward by the Rev. Alexander Lunan, Presbyter’ in The First Book [of Two] of the Irenicum of John Forbes of Corse… tr. & ed. Edward G. Selwyn (1629; Cambridge Univ. Press, 1923), pp. 66-69
These problems were theological objections to the imposed ceremonies deriving from the Five Articles of Perth (1618) in the Church of Scotland. Lunan was a minister of the Church of Scotland (see p. 31). Forbe’s Irenicum was a response to Lunan’s Problems.
David Calderwood responded to Forbes in his Re-Examination of the Perth Articles (1636), as did George Gillespie in his Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies (1637).
Rutherford, Samuel
‘Samuel Rutherford & Thomas Sydserff, Bishop of Galloway, ‘An Discussing of Some Arguments Against Canons & Ceremonies in God’s Worship’ 1636′ in Religious Controversy in Scotland, 1625-1639 ed. David G. Mullan in Scottish History Society, Fifth Series, vol 11 (Edinburgh: Scottish Historical Society, 1998), pp. 82-99 A debate between the two men.
The debate first centers around whether ceremonies in worship, claimed to be indifferent, are legitimately scandals to the weak or not. Then is more specifically discussed the episcopal practice of kneeling in order to partake of the Lord’s Supper. At the end Rutherford gives a definition of worship.
‘The Introduction’ & Ch. 1 of The Divine Right of Church Government 1646, pp. 1-192
Owen, John – Question 14, ‘May not the Church find out and appoint to be observed such religious rites as being adjoined unto the celebration of God’s instituted worship, may farther the devotion of the worshippers, and render the worship itself in its performance more decent, beautiful and orderly, as the appointing of Images, and the like?’ in A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God… (London: 1667), pp. 54-65
Mather, Samuel – A Testimony from the Scripture Against Idolatry & Superstition in Two Sermons: the first witnessing in generall against all the idols and inventions of men in the worship of God: the second, more particularly against the ceremonies and some other corruptions of the Church of England: preached the one Sept. 27, the other Sept. 30, 1660 (Cambridge, Mass.: 1670)
Long, Thomas – ‘The Preface concerning the Ceremonies of the Church’ in Misericordiam Volo: or the Pharisees’ Lesson, showing the Impiety & Unreasonableness of contending for Outward Forms & Ceremonies to the Violation of Obedience, Charity & the Public Peace in The Character of a Separatist, or Sensuality the Ground of Separation... (London: Kettilby, 1677)
Long was a Conformist.
“It is granted by all sober Protestants that the Church has power of making canons and constitutions for decency and order in the public worship of God; and not only to prescribe the necessary circumstances of time and place, but also to continue and establish those ancient rites of the Christian Church which were practiced in the primitive times and are in themselves of an indifferent nature; which authority of the Church was asserted in the Augustan [Augsburg] Confession [art. 7, 15, 21, 24, Conclusion], and particularly by Mr. Calvin (Institutes, bk. 4, ch. 10, sect. 27. See Thomas Cartwright, [A Reply to an Answer,] bk. 1, [Answer to pp. 20-22,] p. 27), and other worthy persons in the Reformation. Which our [Anglican] reformers also did assume to themselves, as is declared in the 20th Article [of the 39 Articles]; and has been practised and defended against all Dissenters, as well by Scripture (Acts 15:28; 1 Cor. 11:16), as by antiquity and right reason…
And the Royal Martyr [King Charles I] was so tender of their reputation that in his answer to the Parliament’s remonstrance, he promises to reform the ceremonies with these cautions:
1. That the reformation were pursued with such modesty and submission that the quiet of the kingdom were not disturbed;
2. Nor the decency and comeliness of God’s service discountenanced;
3. Nor the pious, sober and devout actions of those reverend persons who were the first laborers in the blessed Reformation be scandalized and defamed.”
Chauncy, Isaac – ch. 22, ‘Of the Imposition of Ceremonies’ in The Catholic Hierarchy: or, The Divine Right of a Sacred Dominion in Church & Conscience Truly Stated, Asserted & Pleaded (London: Crouch, 1681), pp. 138-43
Rule, Gilbert – sect. 12, ‘Of Ceremonies, and the rest of the Enquirers Quarrels with the Presbyterians…’ in The Good Old Way Defended… (Edinburgh: 1697), pp. 275-316
Rule was a Scottish divine-right presbyterian.
Calamy, Benjamin – A Discourse Concerning the Rise & Antiquity of Cathedral Worship in a Letter to a Friend (London, 1699) 35 pp.
Calamy (bap.1646-c.1685) was reformed.
Calamy argues against the Anglican cathedral worship, which, unlike the more simple English, parish worship, included instruments, musicians, conductors, choirs, interludes, complex music and singing, and other ceremonious displays as worship unto God.
.
2000’s
Fentiman, Travis – “Editor’s Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025)
pp. 23-24
“Acts: Burdensome Ceremonies”, pp. 30-33
“Romans 14 & 1 Corinthians 8: Foods & Days”, pp. 34-38
“Joshua 22: The Altar of Ed”, p. 39
“Applications: Unison Prayers & Responsive Readings”, pp. 78-92
.
Books
1500’s
Calvin, John – The Sinfulness of Outward Conformity to Romish Rites in Tracts Relating to the Reformation tr. Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844-1851), vol. 2, pp. 358-413 Also known as On Shunning the Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly…
.
1600’s
Bradshaw, William – Twelve General Arguments Proving that the Ceremonies Imposed upon the Ministers of the Gospel in England by our Prelates are Unlawful, & therefore that the Ministers of the Gospel, for the bare & sole omission of them in Church Service, for conscience sake, are most unjustly charged of disloyalty to his Majesty (Middelburg, 1605) 80 pp.
Ames, William
A Reply to Dr. Morton’s General Defence of Three Nocent [Noxious] Ceremonies. viz. the Surplice, Cross in Baptism & Kneeling at the Receiving of the Sacramental Elements of Bread & Wine ([Amsterdam] 1622) 114 pp.
This work mainly gives arguments against instituted ceremonies in general.
A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship, or a Triplication unto Dr. [John] Burges’s rejoinder for Dr. Morton ([Rotterdam?], 1633) Index ToC, Pt. 1, Pt. 2 GB
Burges, John – An Answer Rejoined to that much Applauded Pamphlet of a Nameless Author, bearing this Title: viz. A Reply to Dr. Morton’s General Defence of Three Nocent Ceremonies, etc. The Innocency and Lawfulness whereof is again in this Rejoinder Vindicated (London: Matthewes, 1631)
Burges (1563–1635) was a pious, partial conformist who here defends conforming to the Anglican ceremonies upon ministerial deprivation (as his own case showed). He held the ceremonies, as in the tradition of Thomas Cartwright, were inconvenient, yet not inherently unlawful.
Burges here writes against an anoymous Reply, which turned out to be written by his son-in-law, William Ames.
Gillespie, George – A Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the Church of Scotland… (1637)
This launched the 2nd Reformation in Scotland, in 1638. Gillespie here argues, with the authority of God’s Word, against much of contemporary presbyterian and reformed worship.
Baxter, Richard
5th Disputation, ‘Of Human Ceremonies: whether they are Necessary or Profitable to the Church and how far they may be Imposed or Observed?’ (London, 1658) in Five Disputations of Church-Government & Worship… (London, 1659), pp. 393-492
Table of Contents
ch.1, ‘Distinctions & propositions in order to the decision’ 395
ch. 2, Proposition 1, ‘Such ceremonies as God has forbidden, or given man no power to institute, are not to be imposed on the Church, as profitable or lawful’ 399
ch. 3, Proposition 2, ‘In such unlawful impositions… it is an aggravation of the sin if Governors pretend that their ceremonies are divine’ 425
ch. 4, Propositions 3 & 4, ‘If things unlawful are commanded as indifferent, or things indifferent as necessary, they are sinfully imposed, and the more because of such pretenses’ 427
ch. 5, Proposition 5, ‘A lawful and convenient thing is sinfully commanded, when it is commanded on a greater penalty than the nature and use of it does require, or than the common good will bear’ 429
ch. 6, Proposition 6, ‘It is not lawful to make any thing the subject’s duty by a command that is merely indifferent antecedently, both in itself, and as clothes with its accidents’ 433
ch. 7, Proposition 7, ‘Some things may be lawfully and profitably commanded at one time and place, and to one sort of people, that may not at, or to, another; no nor obeyed, if commanded’ 439
ch. 8, Proposition 8, ‘Those orders may be profitable for the peace of the Churches in one nation, that are not necessary to the peace of the Churches in many nations’ 445
ch. 9, Proposition 9, ‘There is no mere human, universal sovereign, civil or ecclesiastical, over the whole Church, and therefore none to make laws obligatory to the whole’ 448
ch. 10, Proposition 10, ‘If it be not our lawful governors that command us, but usurpers, we are not formally bound to obey them, though the thing be lawful which they command’ 452
ch. 11, Proposition 11, ‘The commands of lawful governors about lawful ceremonies must be understood and obeyed with such exceptions as do secure the end, and not to the subverting of it’ 458
ch. 12, Proposition 12, ‘It may be very sinful to command some ceremonies, when yet it may be the subject’s duty to use them when they are commanded’ 460
ch. 13, ‘The constant use of things indifferent should not be (ordinarily) commanded; but they should be sometimes used , and sometimes disused’ 464
14. ‘Reasons against the imposing of our late controverted mystical ceremonies, as crossing, surplice, etc. 467
15. ‘Reasons for obedience in lawful things’ 483
Satisfaction to certain calumniators 491-92
Cotton, John – Some Treasure Fetched out of Rubbish… concerning the Imposition & Use of Significant Ceremonies in the Worship of God: I. A discourse upon 1 Cor. 14:40… Whether it be lawful for church-governors to command indifferent decent things in the administration of God’s worship? II. …Whether the church may not, in the celebration of the Sacrament, use other rites significative than those expressed in the Scripture, or add to them of her own authority? III. Three arguments… against the Surplice: the Cross in Baptism: & Kneeling in the Act of Receiving the Lord’s Supper (London: 1660) 75 pp. ToC
Nye, Philip – Beams of Former Light: Discovering how Evil it is to Impose Doubtful & Disputable Forms or Practises upon Ministers: especially under the Penalty of Ejection for Non-Conformity unto the Same. As also Something about Catechizing (London: Byfield, 1660) 241 pp. ToC
Nye was an Independent puritan and Westminster divine.
.
Quotes
Order of
Chemnitz
Beza
English Puritans
Andrewes
Ames
Gillespie
Abbot
Baxter
Presbyterians & Independents
Hopkins
.
1500’s
On Chemnitz
J.V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards (Crossway, 2014), pp. 343-44 citing Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, trans. Fred Kramer, vol. 2, pt. 2, of Chemnitz’s Works (1971; St. Louis: Concordia, 2007), 10.7 (pp. 113-16) Chemnitz was a Lutheran.
“Chemnitz enumerated eight reasons why human-instituted ceremonies have no place in worship:
1. The ceremonies have no institution from God.
2. The Son of God instituted the sacraments in such a way that the church is not permitted to add any other ceremonies in addition to them.
3. Ceremonies of human origin are said to add beauty to the ceremonies prescribed by God, hence the simplicity of God’s instituted ceremonies is deemed insufficient, which is an unacceptable conclusion.
4. The pomp and splendor of the human ceremonies obscures the ceremonies that have been prescribed by God.
5. The ceremonies of Rome supposedly impart blessings apart from any specific word or promise from God.
6. In the eyes of common people, the humanly devised ceremonies are deemed as important as those instituted by God, which is an unacceptable conclusion.
7. Numerous rites that were practiced in the ancient church were no required but were optional.
8. People in the church often confuse divinely commanded ceremonies with those of human origin, thus undermining the auhority of the Word of God.”
.
On Beza
George Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies (1637), pt. 2, ch. 4, p. 21
“…he [Saravia] says he could have wished that Beza had not generally condemned all ceremonies without making any difference.
Answer: Neither Beza, nor any other who mislike the English ceremonies, condemns such rites and circumstances in the external worship of God and serve only for decency; but those sacred and significant ceremonies which admonish men of their duty are not of this sort.”
.
1600’s
English Partially Conforming Puritans
A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), pt. 2, Objection 3, p. 265
“And yet as the apostle, being free, was content for the Church’s sake not only to become bound in serving it with the labor of his hands [Acts 18:3–4; 1 Cor. 9:12; 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:7–9], but also by subjecting himself to those ceremonies which in Christ were abolished [Acts 16:3; 18:21; 20:16; 21:20–26], so may and ought we for the Church’s sake to bear this burden [1 Cor. 9:20–22; Gal. 6:2] rather than to forsake or refuse the ministry when the Lord has called and fitted us unto it.”
.
Lancelot Andrewes
The Moral Law Expounded: Largely, Learnedly, Orthodoxly… upon the Ten Commandments… (d. 1626; London: Sparke, 1642), On the Ten Commandments, 2nd Commandment, ch. 1, pp. 194-95 See p. 196 for more.
“This invented or will-worship [Col. 2:23], Cultus arbitrarius, has two specious things in it, as the apostle says:
1. The first is a kind of wisdom, and carries with it a trim show thereof: when a man shall be thought so wise as that he is able to devise and invent a worship for God, especially when men consider not what God has already prescribed, whereby their rites prove contrary to what He has appointed, and so they will be wiser than God.
2. The second is a show of humility: when a man will be so humble, as not only to prostrate himself before God, but to bow down to an image, saint, angel or the like. But these, howsoever they carry a show of wisdom and humility, yet are they no ways for us to use: if we intend to be exempt from the penalty of this [Second] Commandment.
Although, all will-worship, [Greek], be taken in an evil sense by many, upon the vulgar exposition of that place in Col. 2:23, yet that there may be some voluntary or free worship acceptable to God, though not specially commanded, provided it be not corruptive of or contrary to any right or worship commanded by Him, but subservient or agreeable thereto, is the judgement of learned divines;
For under the law they had their voluntary and free-will offerings, besides those commanded by God, and though things were more particularly prescribed in the Levitical worship than now under the Gospel, the Church being then in its childhood, and confined to one nation, and the Spirit not then so plentifully given as now since the ascension of Christ, yet even then the Church prescribed diverse things in God’s worship not specially commanded, as in fasts and festival days, as that of the dedication of the Temple, approved by Christ’s own observance, Jn. 10, and sundry other things, all which were never taxed as unlawful, unless the worship appointed by God Himself were thereby corrupted or neglected, and so the continual practice of the Christian Church has been to prescribe and order several things in God’s worship, which no peaceable and holy men ever found fault with, provided, that they were agreeable to those general rules of moral worship required by God and no ways repugnant to those rites by Him appointed, but rather subservient to them, and contained nothing either impious and forbidden, or vain and ridiculous; nor the observance of them preferred before the commandments of God, or made equal to them; but a difference observed between things of immediate divine institution and those of ecclesiastical institution:
To add to God’s institution anything as from God is forbidden, Dt. 12:32, but to add something for the more decent and orderly performance of what God has appointed, and to observe the same as an ecclesiastical institution, is nowhere forbidden, but rather commanded in all those texts that require us to hear the Church [Mt. 18] and to give obedience to her; and to observe this is also to obey God, who has given his Church power to ordain such things:
And that that place in Col. 2:23, condemns not all voluntary or free worship no more than it does humility and chastening, or keeping under the body which are joined therewith, but rather that it makes for it has been lately proved by judicious and learned divines; and by one in a full tract upon this subject of will-worship; for the apostle there condemning certain Jewish and Pythagorean observances about touching, tasting, etc. says, verse 23, that they had a show of wisdom, if due cautions were observed, viz. if they were freely and voluntarily undertaken, not as necessary to salvation, and without rejecting what God had made, and if they were used in humility or modesty not condemning others which used them not, and if they sought thereby only to keep under the flesh. The contrary to all which those Pythagoreans and Jews practiced.
By which exposition, which I take to be the most true, it is plain that the apostle is so far from condemning all voluntary or will-worship, that he rather approves and commends it, and condemns their forbearance of meats and other things because it was not freely or voluntarily undertaken, but as a thing necessary to salvation, etc. See [Hugo] Grotius in Col. 2:23, Et votum pro pace, pp. 100-103, and [Andrew] Rivet, Apologeticus, pp. 109-10, etc. Dr. [Henry] Hammond, Of Will-Worship. See also our reverend author in his sermon on Mt. 6:16, p. 124, etc. and on 1 Cor. 11:16.”
.
William Ames
A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633)
Manuduction, ch. 12, section 2, pp. 155-56
“Out of all these rules, testimonies, [and Scriptural] examples [put forth by an opponent] nothing follows in favor of our [imposed] ceremonies because no sound rule, just testimony or allowed example is brought for any ceremony of mystical signification, by man instituted, and brought into the solemn ordinary worship of God, for the use of teaching…”
.
ch. 1, on sections 13-14, p. 29
“We never said, or thought, that all particular rites pertaining to order and decency are punctually determined in the Scripture. We never dreamed that all such rites being beside the particular determination of the Scripture, are against it; we speak of double or treble rites as the Rejoinder styles them, which no mere order and decency does necessarily require, but only the mere will of man enjoin.”
.
ch. 1, section 17, pp. 84-85
“Now those first ceremonial observations [of the Early Church with evangelical feasts] are guilty of opening that gate for all the human presumptions to enter into God’s house which pressed in after them: which gate could never be shut from that day to this.
2. Those very feasts made a composition or mixture of human institutions with divine, and therefore did not preserve simplicity. They also were from their first rise not only equalled unto, but also extolled above the Lord’s Day. Easter brought in a superstitious Lent to attend upon it, made baptism wait for her moon: and conformed our Lord’s Supper unto the Jewish Passover in unleavened bread, etc.
[3.] It was the first apple of contention among Christians, the first weapon wherewith the Bishop of Rome played his prises [prices?] against other Churches, and after slew so many Britons with by Austin the monk. Holy-days in honor of Christ invited unto them saints’ holy days, etc.
4. It is presumtion to make men’s inventions as guiltless of evil consequences as God’s holy ordinances. They are active efficacious occasions given of evil: these [ordinances of God] are only passive occasions taken.”
.
George Gillespie
English-Popish Ceremonies (1637), pt. 3, ch. 5, p. 83
“Thirdly, to introduce significant sacred ceremonies into the New testament, other than the holy sacraments of God’s own institution, were to reduce Judaism and to impose upon us again the yoke of a ceremonial Law, which Christ has taken off.
…
Upon this ground also does Perkins condemn all human significant ceremonies. ‘Ceremonies,’ says he, ‘are either of figure and signification, or of order.’ (Com. On Gal. 3:24) The first are abrogated at the coming of Christ, etc.
Upon the same ground does Chemnitius condemn them, Quod vero praetenditur, etc. ‘But whereas,’ says he, ‘it is pretended that by those rites of men’s addition, many things are profitably 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. (Exam., part 2, de rit. in admin. sacram., p. 32)”
.
Robert Abbot
A Trial of our Church-Forsakers... (London: Payne, 1639), sect. 15 Abbot (c. 1588 – c. 1662) was a partially conforming English, puritan divine.
pp. 204-7
“‘Yea, but’ (say they) ‘our ceremonies are typical and Jewish ceremonies, which hurt our worship.’ They mean (as I conceive) they are teaching ceremonies, not ceremonies of mere order, but significant, to put us in mind of duty. I am sorry that this should be accounted a fault.
If they did not signify, how could they edify? (1 Cor. 14:26) Were they types and shadows of the mysteries of the Gospel invented by men, indeed Christ were ill-advised not to ordain them. But being only moral documents and monitors of some duties, I wonder where their guilt lies. If I had an hundred boxes in my house for my uses, and some few of them had a mark upon them to direct me where my money lay, that I might be careful of that, does this savor of want of natural wisdom? So neither does it taste of want of spiritual wisdom to set a mark upon some few ceremonies, to put me in mind of my duty to Christ.
‘What are these’ (say they) ‘but images set up to ourselves for religious use?’ What? to worship? to adore God in or by? No, but to remind us of what we ought to do. And this was the practice of the Church in all ages:
Abraham put his servant’s hand under his thigh in swearing, surely to signify his subjection to him in that business about the promised seed (Gen. 24:2).
Moses set up an altar when Amalek was overthrown and called it Jehovah-Nissi, to signify that the Lord was their banner (Ex. 17:15).
The two tribes and a half built an altar, not to distinguish their borders, but to signify that they were God’s people and that they had all one God, to whom they and their posterity must sacrifice upon his own altar (Josh. 22:24–35).
Samuel set up a stone when the Philistines were discomfited and called it Eben-Ezer, to signify that the Lord helped them (1 Sam. 7:12).
When Christ the truth was come, he used human significant ceremonies, as the feast of dedication (John 10:22), sitting at the Passover—a sign of rest (Matt. 26:20)—the water pots of the Jewish purifications (John 2:6), the custom of embalming (John 19:39–40), besides other formalities of the synagogue. (Lk. 4:17-20)
The Corinthians had the women’s veil in the congregation, to signify subjection (1 Cor. 11:5–6), and the kiss of peace to signify love (Rom. 16:20; 2 Pet. 2:11).
Other Christians had agapae [love-feasts] at the sacrament (Jude), in the room whereof the Christians’ offertory was brought in for pious uses, to signify that love they should have one to another.
So we have standing at the Belief [Apostles’ Creed], to signify that it is not a prayer and that we are ready to confess our faith; kneeling at the commandments, to signify the honor we have to that God that gave it, and that we must be ready to dart up prayer for our obedience; and kneeling at the sacrament, to signify an humble acknowledgment of God’s love for so great a benefit. And do we and all these saints before us set up images to ourselves in these ceremonies for religious use? God forbid.
The practice of these saints, when the laws of God were purely taught and kept, teaches us that though we may not set up an image to worship God by or in, yet may we set up some edifying signs to put us in mind of those duties we owe to God (1 Cor. 14):
The patriarchs may build altars, give their children proper names to be admonishing signs of their duties to God; and we may set all our senses on work that way.
We may set up a post in a dark and dangerous passage, that when I go that way and touch it, it may signify my danger, and I may avoid it. I may set a watchman in a tower to give a sound when the enemy comes, that he may signify my enemy’s approach, and I may avoid him. I may set up a sea mark to signify a rock near, that I split not upon it. And may not we be as wise for our souls as for our bodies? God forbid. I am sure He has nowhere forbidden it. Therefore it is not against Christ. If it be not against Him, it is for Him, says our Savior (Mk. 9:40).”
.
pp. 207-9
“‘Yea but’ (say they) ‘our significant ceremonies were taken from idolaters and limbs of [the Roman] Antichrist who have abused them.’ Were this true, yet take the dross from the silver and make a vessel for the finer (Prov. 25:4); but it is false. Though they have had such as ours and have still, yet ours are our own and were never theirs in special. Fire and water are contrary, yet they agree in their kind: they are both elements. So ours are ceremonies and so are theirs, but otherwise they differ as fire and water; they scorn therefore ours and we deride theirs.
We read of sacrifices offered to devils, yet some of this was sold in shambles and some the heathens made feasts of [such]. It was all the same flesh in kind, but not in use. The Christians did damnably if they went to it when it was sacrificed, yea and if they went to their idol feasts when they blessed an idol, it was idolatry; but if they bought part of that flesh in the shambles and ate it, or went to their private feasts when they ate of it (for aught they knew) without reference to the idol, then, says Paul, ‘Eat, making no question for conscience sake.’
So say we of our cross, surplice, kneeling: they were ordinances before idolaters abused them. If they take them and bless an idol with them, be it upon their own pates; but if we be invited to them in a better use (and not know, nor have just cause to suspect any lurking idolatry), why should we make so many needless questions about the use of them?
Put [the] case, such as they are pertained to idolaters. So did Goliath’s sword, yet David laid it up in a holy place for better use. So did bowing belong to Baal, prostrating the whole body to idols, kissing to the calves, kissing the hand to the host of heaven, lifting up the eyes, stretching forth both hands, shouting for joy, sitting or lying along upon the ground or on a carpet to idols; yet all these we may use in the worship of the true God. So for our ceremonies, such as they are pertained to idolaters, but were not idolatrous of themselves.
The cross was used as a sign of profession before idolatry prevailed. The white garment was ordained as a cover-sloven in the poverty of the Church; kneeling was used as an act of reverence before the breaden god was hatched. And may not we lawfully use them now, to show that we are in communion and fellowship with that blessed and persecuted Church, without such noises and schisms?”
.
Richard Baxter
Christian Concord, or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors & Churches of Worcestershire, with Richard Baxter’s Explication & Defence of it, & his Exhortation to Unity (London: A.M., 1653), ‘An Explication of some Passages in the foregoing Propositions’, pp. 1-2
“…our brethren of the episcopal way… Very many of the people that stick most resolutely to that party and those ways (of my acquaintance) are such as we cannot admit to communion with us, till they shall openly profess their repentance of their drunkenness, swearing, scorning at godliness, etc. which they are notoriously guilty of: These I will not stand to dispute with about ceremonies, they having greater matters first to dispatch.”
.
Leading English Presbyterian & Independent Ministers
The Grand Debate between the most reverend Bishops & the Presbyterian Divines appointed by His Sacred Majesty as Commissioners for the Review & Alteration of the Book of Common Prayer... (London, 1661), ‘Exceptions’, p. 10
“The rather because these ceremonies have for above an hundred years been the fountain of manifold evils in this Church and nation, occasioning sad divisions between ministers and ministers, and also between ministers and people, exposing many orthodox, pious and peaceable ministers to the displeasure of their rulers, casting them upon the edge of the penal statutes to the loss not only of their livings and liberties, but also of their opportunities for the service of Christ and his Church and forcing people either to worship God in such a manner as their own consciences condemn or doubt of, or else to forsake our assemblies, as thousands have done; and no better fruits than these can be looked for from the retaining and imposing these ceremonies, unless we could presume that all his Majesty’s subjects should have the same subtilty of judgement to discern even to a ceremony how far the power extends in the things of God, which is not to be expected, or should yield obedience to all the impositions of men concerning them without enquiring into the will of God, which is not to be desired.”
.
Ezekiel Hopkins
An Exposition on the Ten Commandments… (London: Ranew, 1691), Second Commandment, pp. 126-34
“…We ought not to worship God with any other external worship than what Himself has commanded and appointed us in his holy Word. The Scripture has set us our bounds for worship, to which we must not add, and from which we ought not to diminish; for whosoever does either the one or the other, must needs accuse the Rule either of defect in things necessary, or of superfluity in things unnecessary: which is an high affront to the wisdom of God, who as He is the object, so He is the Prescriber of all that worship which He will accept and reward.
I well know that this rule has given (I cannot say cause, but) occasion to many hot disputes about ecclesiastical rites and constitutions; some condemning whatsoever is prescribed or used in the service of God, besides things expressly commanded in Scripture, for encroachments upon the authority of God, and additions unto his worship, which He requires to be performed according to the pattern in the mount, and the model He has delineated for it: Others again maintaining the privilege and authority of the Church in ordaining some things for the more decent and reverend performing of the service of God, which are not particularly required in the holy Scriptures.
I shall not plunge myself into this angry and quarrelsome controversy: only give me leave to say and sadly to lament that the seamless coat of Christ is rent in pieces among them, whilst some think it more decent to sew on loops and fringes to it, and others will have none. And truly I think our differences are of no greater importance in themselves, though too woeful in their consequents, than this amounts unto. I shall clearly express my sense of this matter in a few words, without any reflection or bit∣terness, and so leave it to the judgment of every ordinary discretion.
Things which belong to the worship of God, may be considered either as parts of that worship, or only as circumstances and modifications of it:
First therefore, whatsoever is imposed on us as a substantial part of the worship of God, if it be not expresly required of us in the holy Scriptures, is to be not only refused, but abominated.
For this is a plain addition to what God has commanded, and by it we lay an imputation upon Him as though He wanted [lacked] wisdom to ordain what is necessary for his own service.
Then and then only is any constitution of man imposed for a part of divine worship when obedience unto it is urged upon us, not only from the authority enjoining it, but also from the necessity of the thing considered simply and nakedly in its own nature…
Other things are necessary for our observance only because they are commanded by their authority, to whom we owe conscienci∣ous obedience in things lawful and indifferent. But we utterly deny that the imposition of any such things makes them any parts of worship, of which they are only circumstances, or that these observances are necessary to us or acceptable to God antecedently to the command of authority, or that the worship of God were imperfect, defective, unacceptable and invalid to the ends for which it is appointed were not these observances commanded and performed: If indeed we thought otherwise, the bitterest of all their invectives, and the loudest of all their exclamations in calling our worship “superstition,” “will-worship” and “idolatry” would not show so much passion as a just and rational zeal.
But God forever forbid that any such ordinances of man should be introduced into our Church. We all join in this vote and do utterly renounce any such authority, and deny any such practice. We usurp not upon the consciences of any, nor endeavour to persuade them that that is in it self necessary which is not so by God’s commands or the Law of Nature, or that that is unlawful which is not condemned by either. We endeavor to keep ourselves and you as much from a positive, as a negative superstition: we endeavour to put due bounds between things simply necessary, either by the command of God or their own natural reason and goodness, and such as are in themselves indifferent. We say that nothing is a part of worship but what belongs to the former, but some things that belong to the latter may be used in worship as fit and decent circumstances:
And when such things are imposed, they become necessary; not indeed in themselves (for no human authority can alter the nature of things), but to our practice, and our consciences are obliged to them: But how? not indeed simply and absolutely, so that it shall never be lawful to omit them, but only in two cases: in case of scandal and contempt. We ought not to omit them if we judge any offence will be taken by others at our neglect: we ought not to omit them at any time out of a contempt and disrespect towards them.
And thus you see we put a vast difference between that which is a part of worship and that which is but a circumstance of worship: If any thing be commanded us by men, as a part of worship, which is not commanded us by God, we ought not to submit unto it. But:
Secondly, if any thing be imposed on us not as a part of worship, but as a circumstance and modification of worship, we may and we ought to submit unto it:
First, if the things so imposed be in themselves lawful and honest, which they are, if not condemned by the Scripture.
Secondly, if they tend to order and decency in the Church. Of which certainly they are as fit to be judges who have authority both in Church and State, as every private and perhaps less-knowing Christian.
Thirdly, if they are imposed by the command of a lawful power, to whom we ought to submit in all things that are lawful.
Fourthly, if they are such as neither for their levity nor number eat out or distract the seriousness and devotion of our spiritual worship: Which I think cannot justly be imputed to the observances of our Church, being very few for number and very grave and modest for use.
If such things as these be imposed upon us, the worship of God is not thereby either changed or adulterated, neither is there any addition made unto it, but the substance of that worship is still in conformity to God’s laws when yet the outward and indifferent manner of it is in conformity to man’s. Certainly it is no addition to baptism to give a name to the baptized, though we find no express command for it. And I much wonder among our carping brethren some or other had not scrupled this as well as another observance. It is no addition to the ordinances of Jesus Christ to appoint at what hour they shall be celebrated or in what garment, or in what decent posture, for all these things are extrinsical to the worship of God and fall under the cognizance and direction of our superiors.
Certainly did we but rightly weigh what is required as a part of worship and what only as a circumstance of worship, a great deal of heat and contention, and uncharitable prejudice would be removed and prevented. It is true our Savior, Mt. 15:9, condemns the scribes and Pharisees, that taught for doctrines the commandments of men: that is, they taught those things which were but the traditions and ordinances of their elders to be in themselves absolutely necessary to the serving and worshipping of God. But certainly this reproof falls not upon these, who though they do enjoin what they judge fit for order, yet do not teach them for doctrines, and are so far from thinking their commandments an essential part of worship that they would abhor and anathema∣tize all those that do so. Necessary they are to be submitted unto and practiced because enjoined by that authority to which God has committed the care of the First Table, as well as the Second, but [they are] not necessary in themselves as any part of the worship and service of God, without which, although they were not imposed by men, it would be unacceptable to Him: And whosoever thinks so, let him be accursed.
And now that I have delivered my judgment without bitterness, give me leave to make some few lamentations in the grief and bitterness of my soul:
Is it not to be bitterly lamented that in a Reformed and Orthodox Church there should be such schisms, rents and divisions, altar against altar, pulpit against pulpit, and one congregation against another?
And what is all this contention and separation for? Oh, they will tell you it is for the purity of religion, for the true and sincere worship of God, that they may serve Him purely without human additions or inventions. Thus goes the cry; and a company of poor, ignorant, well-meaning souls, because it is very demurely and gravely spoken, take it up and join with it, never examining the grounds and bottom of it; but conclude that these must needs be in the right who complain of corruptions and pretend to a happy and glorious reformation. Alas, my brethren, was there ever any schism in the world that did not plead the same? Did not others upon the same pretences separate from their communion upon which they now separate from ours? And may not the same argument serve to crumble them into infinite fractions and subdivisions? till at last we come to have almost as many Churches as men, and scarce a man constant and coherent to himself.
But what is it in our worship which they dislike? The substantials of it are all the same with their own: We utterly disavow that we make that any part of worship which the Scripture has not: and I think that man very much forsaken of reason and common understanding who shall endeavour to persuade us that we intend worship when we ourselves most earnestly and seriously profess the contrary.
Is it then that we differ about mere accidents and circumstances? I confess we do: but assert withal that these things are not a just cause of separation from us. If we look back upon the primitive times, we shall find that almost every Church had its different rites and observances; and yet under that diversity maintained unity and communion: Yea, and at this day, the reformed Churches observe different customs one from another and yet they inviolably hold communion together and we with them. The Gallican, Belgic, Helvetian and German Churches reject us not, nor we them, although we differ in rites and disci∣pline, and those things which are left to the prudence of every Church to constitute as they shall judge most necessary for order and edification.
Now certainly if these different rites and observances be no ground for one national Church to separate from the communion of another, they can be no ground for private persons to separate from the communion of that Church to which they belonged. Nay, although they might with reason dislike many usages either as frivilous or incongruous, yet it becomes the temper and modesty of a pious Christian, in things merely circumstantial, to submit his practice to the judgment of that authority under which he lives and not to separate from the communion of the Church, to forsake its assemblies, to disown its administrations, only because he thinks some things might be more conveniently ordered according to the model of his own or other men’s apprehensions: Which in the folly and sad consequences of it, would be to act like him who took up a beetle [mallet], and struck with all his force to kill a fly that he saw on his friend’s forehead. What else were this but to rend the body of Christ by an angry contending about the fashion of its garments, and to tear away its limbs by a violent striving to strip off those clothes which they think indecent?
For my part I freely profess that were my lot cast among any of the Reformed Churches beyond the seas, I would presently join in their communion and not at all scruple to conform myself to their received customs, although perhaps in my own private persuasion I may judge some of them to be less serious and less reverent than those of the Church of England, which are now so passionately decried and condemned. I have ever venerated that oracular advice of St. Ambrose to St. Augustine:
‘If thou wilt neither give offence, nor take offence, conform thyself to all the lawful customs of the Churches where thou comest.’ (Augustine to Januarius, epistle 118)
But I will not farther enlarge on this choloric and touchy controversy; only I pray that our wanton dissensions about these less important matters may not provoke God to deprive us of the substance and essentials of our religion and reduce us to such a condition wherein we should be heartily glad could we enjoy the liberty of the Gospel and the ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ under any of those forms of administration which are now so furiously debated amongst us. It were just with God to extinguish the light of his Gospel when we use it not to work by, but all our study and strife is how to snuff it.”
.
On Westminster & Ceremonies
Article
2000’s
Fentiman, Travis – “Editor’s Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025)
“Westminster”, pp. 18-21
“Testimonies & Westminster Standards”, pp. 56-77
.
Rutherford’s 13 Propositions from Rom. 14 & 1 Cor. 7-8
The Divine Right of Church Government… (London, 1646), Appendix, Introduction to the Doctrine of Scandal, Question 1, ‘Whether or not ceremonies, & the use of things not necessary in God’s worship, when they scandalize, be unlawful?’, pp. 4-7
“1st Proposition. The weak are not to be thralled in judgement or practice in thorny and intricate disputes in matters indifferent. This is clear, Rom. 14:1. Therefore, when people know not misty distinctions of relative and absolute adoration, of worship-essential or accidental, they are not to be here thralled by a law to practice ceremonies-human.
2. If a weak one eat herbs, fearing the practice of things forbidden by God’s law, he is commended, and his abstinence praise-worthy, as Rom. 14:2-3; and he ought not to be judged, and so ought not to be a wed by a law. Then abstinence and non-conformity is lawful in such a case.
3. He that eats, he that eats not; he that practices, he that practices not indifferent things, is not to be judged: 1. God has received the eater. 2. You are not to judge another man’s servant. It is against the Law of Nations. 3. If the weak fall, God is able to raise them. Therefore, if he be not to be judged as a contemner of God’s law in things indifferent, far less should he be judged by the Church law.
4. Observers of days, or non-observers of days, should have certainty of faith in these indifferent things; Therefore, the light of the Word should lead rulers and people here, v. 5, in things indifferent.
5. The observer of indifferent things, as days in that case at Rome, and the non-observers of days, should not trouble one another, because both are to observe and not observe indifferent things for God’s glory: 1. Both give thanks. 2. Both live and die as Christ’s, for God’s glory, vv. 6-9. Therefore God’s glory is the end that rules the use of ceremonies, as they are indifferent.
6. vv. 10-12, a Christian should not condemn a Jew, nor one brother another, in things indifferent: 1. Because we are brethren. 2. Because it is Christ’s place to judge and condemn. 3. Because every man must give an account for himself. Therefore, laws of rulers to condemn or punish are not to be made in such cases.
7. v. 13, When the use of things indifferent is a stumbling block and scandal to our brethren they are against charity and unlawful.
8. v. 14, There is a prolepsis. Meats clean or not clean may be eaten, but all meats are clean; and Paul is persuaded of that by Jesus Christ. Therefore the apostle answers by denying the major proposition in two cases and sets down a distinction: All things are clean in themselves, but they become unclean in two cases:
1. If one weak in the faith believe that the meat that he eats is against the Word of God, the meat to him is unclean.
2. If he eat before one that believes it is forbidden in God’s Law to eat such meats, his eating is a stumbling block to the weak. But one might say it is a taken scandal and not given: for it is lawful to eat; thy brother deems it unlawful out of ignorance of Christian liberty; so say Formalists: ceremonies be indifferent; if any offend at the use of them, it is a scandal taken, not given. O but Paul forbids to scandalize, or to eat.
9. The use of things indifferent, as ceremonies, before any law be made of them, by confession of Formalists, is indifferent and may be done and not done; but if they scandalize, Paul proves by eight arguments [that] they are unlawful:
1. It fights with charity, that for meat, so little a thing, for the knot of a straw, a ceremony, thou slay thy brother for whom Christ died, v. 15. Where these reasons be: 1. It is uncharitable walking; 2. it is murder; slay not him.
3. It is contrary to Christ’s love, who died for thy brother.
4. It makes religion and Christian liberty to be evil spoken of, v. 16.
5. From the nature of these things which are indifferent, these in which the Kingdom of God consists not, as meats and surplice, crossing, kneeling, etc. when they scandalize, ought to be omitted, as being: [1.] against righteousness and being sins of murder. 2. against peace, sins of contention; 3. against joy of the Holy Ghost, making sad, and discouraging thy brother in his Christian race; and he that serves God in peace and righteousness and joy is acceptable, v. 18.
6. The use of things indifferent, in case of scandal, conduce not to peace and edification, v. 19.
7. It is a destroying of the work of God, v. 20, illustrated by a repeated prolepsis: But the meat is clean; yea, but (says Paul) it is evil, and so morally unclean to him that eats with offence, v. 20.
8. Ab equo et bono [from equity and the good], we are to do good, but to eat and drink with the scandalizing of our brother, and to practice ceremonies is not good.
10. The practicing of things indifferent, or ceremonies, for the very keeping of the faith, that we have Christian liberty to practice, or not practice in the case of scandal, is not lawful, v. 22, set down by a prolepsis: Keep the faith of thy Christian liberty (in case of scandal) to thyself and to God.
11. In the use of things indifferent, we are to allow ourselves, that is to have the approbation of our conscience, that what we do is lawfully, v. 22.
12. He that practices indifferent things with a doubting conscience, and not in faith, sins and is condemned, v. 23.
1 Cor. 6:12, ‘All things (indifferent) are lawful in themselves, but they are not expedient,’ if we be brought under the power or band of them by law. Therefore, in the means of worship, not only must we see what is lawful, but also what is profitable and conducing to the end. He reasons upon a given, but not granted hypothesis, that fornication is indifferent [v. 13], as the gentiles taught, as we do in the matter of ceremonies.
1 Cor. 7:6, ‘But this I speak by permission, not of commandment.’ Therefore in things in which God has granted us liberty, to do or not to do, permission has place, not obliging necessity or penal laws.
13. There cannot be commanding laws in things that are politicly good or evil according to the individual complexion, temperature, or gifts of singular men; to marry or not to marry, cannot be commanded, for where God looses, no power on earth can bind, v. 33.
1 Cor. 8:7, Paul condemns them in the use of their liberty Christian, ‘Howbeit there be not in every man this knowledge;’ then that rulers may make laws in things indifferent, without scandal, they must remove ignorance. 2. If there be but one person weak in knowledge (there is not in every man that knowledge), a law obliging all in things indifferent cannot be made.
v 8, There is a definition of a thing indifferent. It is a thing that commends us not to God, which neither helps, nor hinders piety, nor makes a man better or worse before God. Then ceremonies pretended to be for order, decency, edification, to stir up the dull mind to spiritual duties, cannot be things indifferent.”
.
John Alasco’s Plea & Parable
‘Dedicatory Epistle to Edward VI’ (1552) in William Ames, A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship… (1633)
“Well does that father, and without doubt deserves praise, who having a daughter a virgin drawn by the guile of panders into some lewd and dishonest house, and there trimmed after the whorish guise does presently rescue her thence and bring her home to his own house before she be utterly spoiled. But the same father (if he be wise) thinks it not enough for the safety of his daughter, and the honor of his house, that he has brought her home again, unless he take from her wholly whatsoever he knows to be accounted in those houses a whorish attire.
Neither does he inquire whence such attire came first: but judges it dishonorable to himself, and so unworthy his daughter and whole family that any such thing at all as strumpets have used for dressings in their houses, should appear in his.
Neither does he give ear to their persuasions who bear him in hand that all things are to be esteemed according to the father’s mind in his own house; and so think that the father’s approbation can make that honest, in his own house, for his daughter and whole family which in another house is most dishonest, for any daughters that regard their own credits: ascribing so much to the father’s prerogative that whatsoever he approves, must be of others well liked of, so far as it concernes his own house. For he knows full well that although all those things which he has authorized in his own house be there well thought of, yet that is not enough, since the honor of his daughter, and his whole family, must not only be cared for within his own house, but also throughout the whole city, that he may remove all evil suspicions from his family among all his neighbors; and is heedfull that the panders have not the least occasion left them, of challenging or laying claim to the said daughter, as having some of their whorehouse marks upon her.
Even so in the Church of God, as in a city, magistrates and ministers are in place of parents, having the pure and right administration of the sacraments committed unto them of God, for to be tended and tendered as their own daughter. It is therefore very commendable in these parents of the church (as we may term them) if they rescue the lawful and pure administration of the sacraments from the violence and tyranny of the Romish panders, by taking it into their own care and custody.
But here they ought to remember (especially they who are called by the Holy Spirit, eminent ministers of God and nursing fathers of his Church, i.e. Christian kings and monarchs, that it is not enough for them, thus to have brought this daughter out of the Papists’ stews, home into their own care and keeping, unles they also put off from her, all that dressing, which they know to be whorish in the said stews, that no such thing may be seen with them, which may be accounted whorish: Especially in that city where there is great variety of judgments, the overruling whereof by man’s authority is not to be expected, and where there are so mamy hucksters for the stews remaining.
Nor let them hear the delusions of those who suggest that such kinds of dressing from whence soever they be taken may be made good and honest by authority. For well they know they are not set over the whole Church of God, but only one part of it, as a family in a city, and that therfore though they could bear out such things at home by their authority, yet it is their duty (as they regard public chastity and honesty) to procure the honor of their daughter and family not only within their own walls but also throughout the whole city; not suffering anything to be seen within their house, which they know to be held, urged, and maintained by the Romish stews and their instruments as their proper whorish stuff.
Last of all they must be wary, least any signs or tokens be left upon their daughter, by which she may be questioned again by these panders as one of theirs.
Novv (if it please your excellent Majesty) you are one of these nursing fathers of the Church of God, blessed be his name therefore: and in this high calling (by God’s providence) you have this ministry of the sacraments rescued out of the popish brothels, and brought into your own care and keeping: Here therefore be pleased to set before your eyes the foresaid example of a good father in those things which yet remain to be performed, i.e. in providing for the credit of this your reduced daughter and so of your whole family, not only in this your flourishing kingdom, but also in the catholic Church of Christ whereof you are a citizen, unto whom a principal part thereof as an honorable family is committed in trust.
This is that which all the godly throughout the Christian world do expect from your hand, and that the more earnestly because they know that God has enriched you with such excellent gifts, and placed you in so high a place almost above all others; even to this very end, that you might remove from the ministry of the sacraments all those popish trinkets, wherewith it has been fearfully profaned, and restore unto it againe that virgin-like attire,
wherewith it was of old adorned by the high King of Kings, and Lawgiver, Christ the Lord in his holy institutions. So shall your faith and fidelity be famous throughout the Christian world: and the Church of England grow more honorable under your government.”
.
On the Definition of a Ceremony
Article
Ames, William – pp. 44-48 of ch. 4, ‘Concerning the Nature & Definition of a Ceremony’ in A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship… (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633), Manuduction
.
May be an Action or Thing
Article
Ames, William – pp. 23-25 of ch. 4, ‘Concerning the Nature & Definition of a Ceremony’ in A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship… (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633), Manuduction
.
Quote
Samuel Rutherford
The Divine Right of Church Government… (1646), pp. 86-88
“Worship is an action, or performance, or thing, by which we tender our immediate honor to God from the nature of the thing itself:
1. I call it an action because the passion of dying or suffering is not formally worship, but only dying comparatively: rather than denying of Christ or dying so and so qualified: [in a comparative way] dying with patience and faith may be called a worship [2 Tim. 4:6].
2. I call it not an action only, but a performance or thing, because an office, as the priesthood, the ministry, is a worship and yet not an action; sometime[s], time itself, as the Sabbath Day is a worship; yet it is not an action: So the Lord calls it his Holy Day: and undeniably the Jewish days, the High Priest’s garment, and many things of that kind, were divine or religious performances, things or adjuncts of divine worship, but so as they are not merely adjuncts of worship, but also worship:
For the High Priest’s ephod was not only a civil ornament, nor was it a mere physical or natural means to fence off the injuries of sun and heaven; we do not think that the Lord in all, or any place of the Old or New Testament sets down any laws concerning garments simply, as they do fence off cold or heat; that belongs to art: only He speaks of garments, as contrary to gravity [being sober-minded], as signs of vanity and lightness, Isa. 3:16, etc.; Zeph. 1:8; 1 Pet. 3:3-4.
And of garments as religious observances, of which sort was the attire and garments of the priests and High Priests in their service, in which consideration the religious times, holy places, and Mosaical garments were divine worship, by which God was immediately honored; but [they were] not adjuncts only, or actions, but religious things or performances.
3. It is such a performance, as from thence honor does immediately redound to God. But that this may be the clearer, I conceive that there is a twofold, immediate honoring of God in the worship of God:
1. An honoring of God less immediate, as hearing of the Word, is an immediate honoring of God, because honor flows immediately from God, both ex conditione operis, and ex conditione operantis; ‘from the nature of the work’, and ‘[from the] intention of the worker’: yet it is a less immediate honoring of God, in regard that I may also hear the Word even from the condition of the work, and so from the intrinsic end of the worker that I may learn to know God and believe; for thus far I am led to honor God immediately in hearing the Word, that action of its own nature conveying honor to God; there intervenes also a medium amidst between me and honoring of God, to wit, the preacher or the Bible (to which no external adoration is due):
[2.] There is another more immediate worship, to wit, praising of God, from which, by an immediate result, God is honored, and in worship especially, strictly, immediate, God is immediately honored both in the intention of the work and the intrinsic end of it, and the intention of the worker; though no other thing be done, and others be not edified either in knowledge, increase of faith or any other ways:
And in this, duties of the Second Table, of mercy and justice, differ from worship in that such acts of love and mercy, as to give alms to save the life of my brother or of his beast, are not acts of worshipping God; their intrinsic end, and the nature of the work being to do good to the creature, principally, ex natura et conditione operis, though God also thereby be honored, yet in a more secondary consideration:
For I praying to God, do immediately, from the nature of the action, honor God, though no good should either redound to myself or to the creature; thereby it is true, God, by acts of love and mercy to our neighbor, is honored two ways:
1. In that men seeing our good works do thence take occasion to glorify our heavenly Father, whose truth teaches us by the grace of God to do these works, but the intrinsic and proper use of these is to do good to ourselves, as in works of sobriety, and to our neighbor, as in works of righteous dealing, but not immediately, and in the first and primary consideration to honor God, as in works of piety, holiness and worship, the honoring of God by secondary resultance, does issue also from these duties of righteousness, but not as from the acts of praying, praising, sacramental eating, drinking.
2. The doer of these acts of mercy may, and is to intend, the honoring of God.”
.
Distinctions between Natural Aptness, Observation, Institution & Ceremonies
Article
Ames, William – pp. 26-27 & 40-41 of ch. 4, ‘Concerning the Nature & Definition of a Ceremony’ in A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship… (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633), Manuduction
.
The Same Religious Use & End as Divine Worship, Not Divinely Appinted, makes False Divine Worship
Article
Ames, William – pp. 45-47 of ch. 4, ‘Concerning the Nature & Definition of a Ceremony’ in A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship… (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633), Manuduction
.
On Natural & Moral Signs & Ceremonies
Order of Contents
Articles 2
Quotes 2
.
Articles
1600’s
Bradshaw, William – ch. 3, ‘Of Natural Ceremonies’ in A Treatise of Divine Worship… (Middelburg, 1604), pp. 8-13
.
Quotes
Order of
Ames
Gillespie
.
1600’s
William Ames
A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship… (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633), Manuduction, ch. 4, ‘Concerning the Nature & Definition of a Ceremony’, p. 27
“…natural ceremonies, such as bowing of the body before superiors, embracing of those who are dear unto us, lifting up the hands and eyes to heaven in ordinary worship, which nature itself does teach all nations to observe, without any institution, though not without some government of counsel, nor without such variety, as nature itself is subject unto…”
.
George Gillespie
English-Popish Ceremonies, pt. 3, ch. 5, pp. 90-91
“As for the veils wherewith the apostle would have women covered whileas they were praying (that is in their hearts following the public and common prayer) or prophesying (that is singing, 1 Sam. 10:10; 1 Chron. 25:1) they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment, who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution.
This covering was a moral sign, for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings: wherefore, that distinction of habits [garments], which they used for decency and comliness in their common behavior and conversation, the apostle will have them, for the same decency and comeliness still to retain in their holy assemblies. And further the apostle shows, that it is also a natural sign, and that nature itself teaches it: therefore he urges it both by the inferiority or subjection of the woman vv. 3. 8-9 (For covering was then a sign of subjection) and by the long hair which nature gives to a woman v. 15. Where he would have the artificial covering, to be fashioned in imitation of the natural.
What need we anymore? Let us see nature’s institution, or the apostles’ recommendation for the controverted ceremonies (as we have seen them for women’s veils) and we yield the argument.
Last of all, the sign of imposition of hands, helps not the cause of our Opposites, because it the example of Christ, and the apostles, and their disciples, which our ceremonies have not: yet we think not imposition of hands to be any sacred or mystical sign, but only a moral, for designation of a person: let them who think more highly or honorably of it, look to their warrants.”
.
.
Actions materially the same as Old Testament Rites might be used, if Justified, for a Different Purpose
Order of Contents
Intro
Quotes
.
Intro
Sometimes the argument is made that things regulated in Old Testament worship, because they were regulated, and done away with, therefore must be excluded from Christian worship. That, without further qualification, is not true.
The building for meeting in Jerusalem, the Temple, was regulated according to its length, breadth, height, etc., and yet it was no sin for the Jews to meet in their towns throughout Israel in indifferent synagogue buildings, nor for Christians to use indifferent buildings for their worship. Buildings, though not of absolute necessity (the Church can worship publicly without them), yet facilitate and provide natural benefits for the good of public worship, though they are not religiously significant. Their indifferent relation to the worship remains the case though they are materially in the worship service.
Another example is burning incense to cover over the musty smell of the bar the church may meet in on the Lord’s Day. This is not Judaizing, and it is irrelevant that it has a material correspondence to the incence used by Levitical priests in the Old Testament.
.
Quotes
Order of
Bucer
Vermigli
.
1500’s
Martin Bucer
John Sprint, assander Anglicanus, showing the Necessity of Conformity to the Prescribed Ceremonies of our Church in Case of Deprivation (London: Bill, 1623), ‘Reformed Practices’
p. 175
“To the place of Mt. 15, even you Bishop [John] Hooper had rather receive your meat with your hands washed than with your hands unwashed (as the Pharisees did). To Col. 2, whatsoever is spoken there of beggarly and weak elements appertains to superstition: by which superstition these things were exacted as matters necessary or profitable to salvation, even after Christ was revealed: And whatsoever abuse there be of these garments [for ministers] (or the like ceremonies) that sticks not on the garments, but in impure minds.”
.
p. 179
“Nothing can truly be said to appertain to the priesthood of Aaron so far forth as it is abolished, but that which is used with such like superstition as if it were now (after Christ revealed) needful to salvation, or profitable of itself, or whereby some occasion is given to a man to assume or to retain this superstition with himself, or of troubling the peace and quiet of brethren; Bucer, Script. Anglican, fol. 707, to [John] Hooper.”
.
Peter Martyr Vermigli
Epistle to Hooper, fol. 1087 in John Sprint, assander Anglicanus, showing the Necessity of Conformity to the Prescribed Ceremonies of our Church in Case of Deprivation (London: Bill, 1623), ‘Reformed Practices’, pp. 180-81
“In the Law or priesthood of Aaron there were: 1. Sacraments, whereby it pleased God to confirm and seal the promises of Christ to come, all which I know are abolished and that we must believe that Christ is already given, not to be given: And seeing other seals of God’s promises are under the Gospel given by our Lord Himself, namely, bread and wine, we ought not to recall the antiquated signs.
2. Howbeit, there were some actions in the law of that nature that properly they may not be said to be sacraments: For they made to decency, to order and some benefit, which I do judge may be recalled and retained as agreeable to the light of nature, and furthering some profit to ourselves… no man is ignorant that tithes are enjoined in innumerable places for the maintenance of ministers: besides, if I might more diligently search and consider, as the time now will not permit me, I could find out not a few things which our Church has borrowed out of the law of Moses, and that from the first beginning of the Church…”
.
On 1 Cor. 14:40, ‘Let all things be done decently and in order.’
Article
Ames, William – A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633)
Manuduction, ch. 4, pp. 50-53
ch. 1, on section 16, ‘Concerning Order & Decency’, pp. 56-81
Rutherford – Divine Right
Cotton, John – ‘A Discourse upon 1 Cor. 14:40’ in Some Treasure Fetched out of Rubbish… (London: 1660), pp. 1-8
.
Principles for the Use of Indifferent Things in Worship
Order of
Article 1
Quotes 6+
Latin 1
.
Article
1600’s
Ames, William – ch. 1, on section 15, ‘Concerning Rules for Ceremonies’ in A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633), pp. 47-51
Ames provides these rules from reformed divines, that ceremonies:
1. Offend not any, especially the Church of God
2. Tend to the glory of God
3. Be not impious
4. Be not opposite to the analogy of faith
5. Be not scandalous
.
Quotes
Order of
Cartwright
Calderwood
Andrewes
Ames
Davenant
Abbot
Baxter
Collinges
.
1500’s
Thomas Cartwright
A Reply to an Answer made of Mr. Doctor Whitgift against the Admonition to the Parliament (1573), Answer to pp. 20-22, p. 27
“…in making orders and ceremonies of the Church it is not lawful to do what men list, but they are bound to follow the general rules of the Scripture that are given to be the square whereby those should be squared out. Which rules I will here set down as those which I would have as well all orders and ceremonies of the church framed by as by the which I wil be content that all those orders and ceremonies which are now in question whether they be good and convenient or no should be tried and examined by. And they are those rules which Paul gave in such cases as are not particularly mentioned of in scripture.
The first, that they offend not any, especially the Church of God. (1 Cor. 10:32)
The second is (that which you cite also out of Paul) that all be done in order and comliness. (1 Cor. 14:40)
The third, that all be done to edifying. (1 Cor. 14:26)
The last, that they be done to the glory of God. Rom. 6:7)”
.
1600’s
David Calderwood
“Propositions on Indifferent Things & Ceremonies in Worship” tr. T. Fentiman (1623; RBO, 2021), p. 2
“6. Though it were lawful to add other things contrived by ourselves, the Fathers, the papists or others to the sacred ceremonies instituted by God, yet nevertheless they must not be vain or frivolous; they are not to be multiplied excessively, and neither their perpetuity, uniformity or observation is necessary without a case of scandal or contempt.”
.
Lancelot Andrewes
A Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine at Large; or a Learned & Pious Exposition of the 10 Commandments (d. 1626; 1675), Ten Commandments, 2nd Commandment, ch. 5, p. 209
“And withal, there is no doubt but these ceremonies may be changed and varied according to the diversity and alteration of times and nations, and other circumstances. St. Augustine says in defence of this point (Ad Marcellinus, Epistle 5), Non itaque verum est quod dicitur, Semel recte factum 〈◊〉 est mutandum: mutata quippe temporis causa, etc…. Yet in ceremonies there are these four rules or cautions to be observed:
1. That they be not over many, and that those which be enjoined be necessary, according to the time and place wherein we live, according to the apostles’ example, who enjoined few things to those believing gentiles, Acts 15:28-29.
2. That the ceremonies enjoined be for edification, and not destructive to that which the substance builds and sets up. And this is the apostle’s counsel, ‘Let all things be done to edifying.’ (1 Cor. 14:26) For a destroyer (according to this rule) is a transgressor. (Gal. 2:18) And in this respect it is that the same apostle prohibits prayer in an unknown tongue. (1 Cor. 14:4)
3. That they be such as conduce to order: to which all things must be squared 〈 Greek 〉 according to order, (as the same apostle), else there will be confusion in the Church, and God is not the author of confusion. (1 Cor. 14:33)
4. Lastly, 〈 Greek 〉, that they be for decency. They must be such as make for the decent service of God. And therefore it is that the apostle inveighed against covering of the head and face [for men] in religious exercises. It was an uncomely and undecent thing for men to be covered, or women uncovered in the Church. (1 Cor. 11:4)”
.
William Ames
A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship… (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633), ch. 1, section 17, p. 84
“Those very feasts [in the Early Church] made a composition or mixture of human institutions with divine, and therfore did not preserve simplicity. They also were from their first rise not only equalled unto, but also extolled above the Lord’s Day.”
.
John Davenant
The Determinations, or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions, Publicly Discussed in the University of Cambridge, tr. Josiah Allport (1634; 1846), Determination 20, ‘The English Church is fully competent to bind to the observance of ceremonies’, p. 332 bound at the end of John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification, or the Disputatio de Justitia... trans. Josiah Allport (1631; London, 1846), vol. 2
“for although they may not be contrary to the faith, yet if they should too much increase, they become very offensive, ‘from loading the Christian Religion (which the mercy of God would have to be free) with servile burdens,’ as Augustine complained (Epistle 119);–on all these accounts we justly disapprove of many of the Romish ceremonies.”
.
Robert Abbot
A Trial of our Church-Forsakers... (London: Payne, 1639), sect. 15, p. 207 Abbot (c. 1588 – c. 1662) was a partially conforming English, puritan divine.
“‘Why then’ (say they) ‘have we cast out all the significant ceremonies of Popery?’ Not for their significancy barely, but for their weight and measure. They are not to them only as outward garnishments of worship, but as proper worship, efficacious and meritorious.
Their number stifles devotion and fills it with shows without substance. A cup of water refreshes, but a whole well of water chokes. Yea, an hundred sermons weekly would not edify; they would eat out our conscience in our particular callings. Much more would an hundred ceremonies eat out the substance of our general callings, when a few may much refresh and profit, if judgment overpower fancy and affection.”
.
Richard Baxter
Five Disputations of Church-Government & Worship (London: R.W., 1659), 5th Disputation, ch. 2, p. 407
“§27. Though all these things are left to human determination, and so are indifferent in themselves, before; yet may they become accidentally necessary or unlawful. And though man must determine of them, yet not as he list, without a rule: but by those sufficient general directions which God has given in Scripture, and the end and nature of the work. And to cross these directions is a sin in him that does determine.”
.
John Collinges
A Reasonable Account why some Pious, Nonconforming Ministers in England Judge it Sinful for them to perform their ministerial acts, in public, solemn prayer by the Prescribed Forms of Others… (London: 1679), ch. 4, p. 89
“In all religious commands there must appear to the person that obeys some reason from a divine command; either particularly or generally requiring the thing.
The mere will and authority of an another in these things is not reason enough to justify our obedience. In matters of that nature we must be very wary of idle and superfluous actions. To be of no use and insigni∣ficant is enough in worship to make a gesture or action sinful, yea, and an appropriated habit [garment] too.
There lies no necessity upon the superior to command any such things, nay, to do it will be a sin unto him, as Gideon’s ephod was a snare to his house, Judg. 8:27.”
.
Latin Article
1600’s
Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich – end of thesis 4, p. 749 mid in ch. 6, ‘Of Ceremonial Worship’ in Christian Theology (Hanau, 1634; 2nd ed., Amsterdam, 1657), bk. 2, ‘Of the Worship of God’
.
On the Original Reasons for the Anglican Ceremonies
Article
2000’s
Fentiman, Travis – pp. 45-46 in “Editor’s Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025)
.
Quotes
Order of
King James I
Zepper
Burges
Presbyterians & Independents
Baxter
.
1600’s
King James I
ed. William Barlow, The Sum & Substance of the Conference which it pleased his excellent Majesty to have with the Lords, Bishops & other of his Clergy… at Hampton Court, January 14, 1603 (London: Windet, 1604), 2nd Day, pp. 67-74
“Dr. [John] Rainolds objected the example of the brazen serpent, demolished and stamped to powder by Ezekiel, because the people abused it to idolatry: wishing, that, in like sort, the cross should be abandoned, because in the time of Popery it had been superstitiously abused. Whereunto the King’s Majesty answered diverse ways:
First, quoth he, though I be sufficiently persuaded of the cross in baptism, and the commendable use thereof in the Church so long: yet, if there were nothing else to move me, this very argument were an inducement to me for the retaining of it, as it is now by order established: For, inasmuch, as it was abused, so you say, to superstition in time of popery, it does plainly imply, that it was well used before Popery.
I will tell you, I haue lived among this [dissenting] sort of men (speaking to the lords and bishops) ever since I was ten years old, but I may say of myself as Christ did of Himself: Though I lived amongst them, yet since I had ability to judge, I was never of them; neither did anything make me more to condemn and detest their courses than that they did so peremptorily disallow of all things which at all had been used in Popery.
For my part, I know not how to answer the objection of the Papists, when they charge us with novelties: but truly to tell them that their abuses are new, but the things which they abused we retain in their primitive use, and forsake only the novel corruption. By this argument we might renounce the Trinity and all that is holy, because it was abused in Popery (and speaking to Doctor Rainolds merely) they used to wear hose and shoes in Popery, therefore, you shall, now, go barefoot.
Secondly, quoth his Majesty, what resemblance is there between the brazen serpent, a material visible thing, and the sign of the cross made in the air?
Thirdly, I am given to understand by the bishops, and I find it true, that the Papists themselves did never ascribe any power or spiritual grace to the sign of the cross in baptism.
Fourthly, you see, that the material crosses, which in time of Popery were made, for men to fall down before them, as they passed by them, to worship them (as the idolatrous Jews did the brazen serpent) are demolished, as you desire.”
.
Wilhelm Zepperus
On the Sacraments (Herborn, 1606), ch. 13, fol. 324-26, 328, as trans. by John Sprint, Cassander Anglicanus, showing the Necessity of Conformity to the Prescribed Ceremonies of our Church in Case of Deprivation (London: Bill, 1623), ‘Reformed Practices’, pp. 173-74 Zepper (1550-1607) was a German reformer.
“1. The furious clamors and persecutions of the Papists did not permit this reformation of ceremonies at the first: which were so violent and bloody, that it gave small or no leisure to the teachers and lights of the Church, neither was it safe for them to bend their care or cogitations this way.
2. The people were so drowned in the deep darkeness and idolatry of the Papacy that the amendment of ceremonies, and of external worship could not in those beginnings be undertaken. It was necessary to use doctrine, and to instruct the people of sundry and horrible errors, idolatry, superstitions and abuses, which the whole Papacy and Popish ceremonies have in their departure, that so all those ugly things might first be removed out of their minds, before they were removed from their sight. That which is not the work of one year, but a task of long season: For as ceremonies which are visible things and apprehended by the eyes do more affect and move than the invisible doctrine; So the people did closely stick to their accustomed ceremonies, and opposed themselves vehemently against the reformation of them: Even as we see at this day to come to pass, when as yet sound doctrine has prevailed and flourished for above these 80 years.
3. The Church in Popery was nothing else but a sick body: In which from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head, there was nothing sound and entire: Wherefore at the first beginning of reformation that whole chaos and abomination of error, and of Popish idolatry could not suddenly be perceived, but use and experience did daily manifest and teach every day more, than at the first.”
.
John Burges
An Answer Rejoined to that much Applauded Pamphlet of a Nameless Author… (London, Matthewes, 1631), Preface, p. 2
“At the Reformation of religion, some learned and godly men were of opinion that in detestation of the Popish superstition which had overspread and soiled all the worship of God, the best way was to as far from the Church of Rome as possibly might be:
Others, no less learned and godly than they thought it better to depart no further from the Romish Church than she had departed from the right way, partly that they that would might step over from them to us the more easily; partly that our departure from them might appear to be made rather of necessity than of choice, and not for things which might be tolerated, but for things intolerable.
Both aimed at one mark, but did not shoot after one compass; and the wiser sort and more pious pleased themselves and were not displeased with others in this difference.”
.
Leading English Presbyterian & Independent Ministers at the Savoy Conference (1661)
The Grand Debate between the most reverend Bishops & the Presbyterian Divines appointed by His Sacred Majesty as Commissioners for the Review & Alteration of the Book of Common Prayer... (London, 1661)
‘The Exceptions of the Presbyterian Brethren against some passages in the present Liturgy’, p. 2
“II. Further, we humbly desire that it may be seriously considered that as our first reformers, out of their great wisdom, did at that time so compose the Liturgy as to win upon the Papists, and to draw them into their Church-communion, by varying as little as well they could from the Romish forms before in use; so whether in the present constitution and state of things amongst us we should not according to the same rule of prudence and charity have our Liturgy so composed as to gain upon the judgment and affections of all those who in the substantials of the Protestant religion are of the same persuasions with ourselves.
Inasmuch as a more firm union and consent of all such, as well in worship as in doctrine, would greatly strengthen the Protestant interest against all those dangers and temptations which our intestine divisions and animosities do expose us unto from the common adversary.”
.
‘The Papers’, p. 64
“[Bishops:] ‘It was the wisdom of our reformers to draw up such a Liturgy as neither Romanist, nor Protestant could justly except against, and therefore as the first never charged it with any positive errors, but only the want of something they conceived necessary: so it was never found fault with by those to whom the name of Protestants most properly belongs, those that profess the Augustan [Augsburg] Confession:
and for those who unlawfully and sinfully brought it into dislike with some people to urge the present state of affairs, as an argument why the Book should be altered, to give them satisfaction, and so that they should take advantage by their own unwarrantable acts, is not reasonable.’ [The presbyterian and independent ministers go on to take exception to some of these statements.]”
.
Richard Baxter
The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace, or an Account of their Judgment in Certain Things in which they are Misunderstood… (London, 1679), Section 7, ‘Some Matters of Fact Preparatory…’, p. 120
“1. The root of the difference between the Old Nonconformists and the Conformists was that one sort thought they should stick to the mere Scripture rule and simplicity, and go far from all additions which were found invented or abused by the Papists, in doctrine, worship and government; and the other side thought that they should show more reverence to the customs of the ancient Church, and retain that which was not forbidden in the Scripture, which was introduced before the ripeness of the Papacy, or before the year 600 at least, and which was found lawful in the Roman Church, and common to them with the Greek, that we might not seem singular, odd and humorous, or to go further from the Papists than reason and necessity drave us.
And the laity seemed nowhere so sensible of the difference as between the way of ceremony and unceremonious simplicity, and the way of our many short liturgic prayers and offices and the way of free-praying from the present sense and habits of the speaker; while pacificators thought both seasonably good.”
.
Unprofitableness is Warrant for the Removal of Something Non-Necessary in Worship
Article
1600’s
Ames, William – pp. 77-78 of ch. 7, ‘Touching other Partitions of Ceremonies’ in A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633), Manuduction
.
On Signs, Teaching Signs & Religious Signs Generally & in the Context of Worship
Order of Contents
Article 1
Quotes 8
.
Article
1600’s
Lytler, Richard – ch. 11 in The Reformed Presbyterian, humbly offering to the consideration of all pious and peaceable spirits several arguments for obedience to the Act for Uniformity… (London: 1662), pp. 106-20
.
Quotes
Order of
Calvin
Zanchi
James I
Byfield
Davenant
Baxter
Tombes
Corbet
.
1500’s
John Calvin
Commentary, on Josh. 22
v. 16
“They thus assume it as confessed, that the two tribes had built the altar [of Ed] with a view of offering sacrifices upon it. In this they are mistaken, as it was destined for a different use and purpose. Moreover, had the idea which they had conceived been correct, all the expostulation which they employ would have been just…”
.
v. 21
“The state of the case turns on the definition. For the children of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh, explain that they had a different intention, and thus exculpate themselves from the charge, inasmuch as the nature of the proceeding was quite different from what the others supposed…
as if they had said, that it will be made palpable by the fact itself, that they never had any intention of devising any new form of worship; and they rightly explain how the altar would have been unlawful, namely, if they had built it for the purpose of offering sacrifice. For the Law did not condemn the mere raising of heaps of stones, but only enjoined that sacrifices should be offered in one place…”
.
v. 26
“The gross impiety of which they had been accused was now well refuted; and yet they seem not to have been in every respect free from blame, because the Law forbids the erection of any kind of statues. It is easy, however, to excuse this by saying, that no kind of statues are condemned except those which are intended to represent God. To erect a heap of stones as a trophy, or in testimony of a miracle, or a memorial of some signal favor of God, the Law has nowhere prohibited. (Exodus 20:4; Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 5:8) Otherwise, Joshua and many holy judges and kings after him, would have defiled themselves by profane innovation. But the only thing displeasing to God was to see the minds of men drawn hither and thither, so as to worship him in a gross and earthly manner. The children of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh do all that is required for their exculpation, when they declare that they would use the altar only as a bond of brotherly union; and add a sufficient reason…”
.
v. 30
“Phinehas and the ambassadors speak as if they had been delivered by the children of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh, because there was no longer any ground to fear the divine vengeance, when all suspicion of criminality had been removed…
…the two tribes and the half tribe carefully exert themselves to perform their duty by giving a name to the altar, which, by explaining its proper use, might draw off the people from all superstition.”
.
Jerome Zanchi
Of Redemption, ch. 19, fol. 447, as quoted in John Sprint, Cassander Anglicanus, showing the Necessity of Conformity to the Prescribed Ceremonies of our Church in Case of Deprivation (London: Bill, 1618), ‘Reformed Practices’, ‘Practice’, pp. 177-79
“If any thing be altered or added which is not commanded of God, being not essential, but accidental, and not as necessary, but as indifferent, appertaining to decency, or to order, or to edification, we cannot hence conclude that anything is altered of the appointed worship, or that there is another worship erected.
…
Another reason is because the primitive Church did not add water [to the wine] as a matter altogether necessary, and so as appertaining to the substance of the Lord’s Supper, but only to signify a mystery. But if any did commend it as necessary, they did undoubtedly deprave the Lord’s Supper…
The sum of all is this: Such things as are added, but yet as matters indifferent, for order, for decency and to edification, such matters do not change the substance of the sacraments, and therefore alter not the worship. But such things as are taken from the institution of Christ, or else are added as necessary, and appertaining to the substance, those things do corrupt the institution of the Lord, and so do establish another kind of worship.”
.
1600’s
King James I
ed. William Barlow, The Sum & Substance of the Conference which it pleased his excellent Majesty to have with the Lords, Bishops & other of his Clergy… at Hampton Court, January 14, 1603 (London: Windet, 1604), 2nd Day, pp. 67-74
“His [Knewstubs’s] objection against the cross consisted of three interrogatories: 1. Whether the Church had power to institute an external significant sign? To which was replied:
First, that he did mistake the use of the cross with us, which was not used in baptism any otherwise than only as a ceremony.
Secondly, by their own example, who make imposition of hands in their ordination of pastors to be a sign significant.
Thirdly, in prayer, says the Bishop of Winton, the kneeling on the ground, the lifting up of our hands, the knocking of our breasts are ceremonies significant: the first, of our humility coming before the mighty God, the second, of our confidence and hope, the other of our sorrow and detestation of our sins, and these are, and may lawfully be used.
Lastly, M. Deane of the chapel, remembered the practice of the Jews, who unto the institution of the Passeover, prescribed unto them by Moses, had as the rabbins witness added both signs and words, eating sour herbs and drinking wine, with these words to both, ‘Take, and eat these in remembrance, etc. Drink this in remembrance, etc.’ Upon which addition and tradition of theirs, our Sauiour instituted the sacrament of his Last Supper, in celebrating it with the same words and after the same manner; thereby approving that fact of theirs in parti∣cular; and generally, that a Church may institute and retain a sign significant: which satisfied his Maiesty exceeding well.
And here the king desired, to have himself made acquainted about the antiquity of the use of the cross.
Which Doctor [John] Reynolds confessed to have been ever since the apostles times, but this was the difficulty, to prove it of that ancient use in baptism… it fell from one, I think it was my Lord of Winchester, obiter, to say, that, in Constantine’s time it was used in baptism. What, quoth the King, and is it now come to that pass that we shall appeach Constantine of Popery and superstition; if then it were used, says his Majesty, I see no reason but that still we may continue it.
Mr. Knewstubs’s second question was that, put [the] case [that] the Church had such power to add significant signs, whether it might there add them where Christ had already ordained one; which he said, was no less derogatory to Christ’s institution, as he thought, than if any potentate of this land should presume to add his seal unto the great seal of England.
To which his Majesty answered that the case was not alike, for that no sign or thing was added to the sacrament, which was fully and perfectly finished, before any mention of the cross is made; for confirmation whereof, he willed the place to be read [in the Book of Common Prayer].
Lastly, if the Church had that power also, yet the greatest scruple to their conscience was, how far such an ordinance of the Church was to bind them, without impeaching their Christian liberty? Whereat the king, as it seemed, was much moved, and tolde him he would not argue that point with him, but answer therein as kings are wont to speak in Parliament, Le Roy J’auisera: adding withall, that it smelled very rankly of Anabaptism: comparing it unto the usage of a beardless boy (one Mr. John Black) who the last Conference his Majesty had with the ministers in Scotland (in December, 1602) told him that he would hold conformity with his Majesty’s ordinances for matters of doctrine: but for matters of ceremony, they were to be left in Christian liberty unto every man as he received more and more light from the illumination of God’s Spirit; even till they go mad, quoth the king, with their own light: but I will none of that, I will have one doctrine and one discipline, one religion in substance, and in ceremony: and therefore I charge you, never speak more to that point (how far you are bound to obey?) when the Church has ordained it. And so asked them again, if they had anything else to say?
Dr. Reynolds objected the example of the brasen serpent, demolished and stamped to powder by Ezekiel, because the people abused it to idolatry: wishing, that, in like sort, the cross should be abandoned, because in the time of Popery it had been superstitiously abused. Whereunto the King’s Majesty answered diverse ways.
First, quoth he, though I be sufficiently persuaded of the cross in baptism, and the commendable use thereof in the Church so long: yet, if there were nothing else to move me, this very argument were an inducement to me for the retaining of it, as it is now by order established: For, inasmuch, as it was abused, so you say, to superstition in time of popery, it does plainly imply, that it was well used before Popery.
I will tell you, I haue lived among this [dissenting] sort of men (speaking to the lords and bishops) ever since I was ten years old, but I may say of myself as Christ did of Himself: Though I lived amongst them, yet since I had ability to judge, I was never of them; neither did anything make me more to condemn and detest their courses than that they did so peremptorily disallow of all things which at all had been used in Popery.
For my part, I know not how to answer the objection of the Papists, when they charge us with novelties: but truly to tell them that their abuses are new, but the things which they abused we retain in their primitive use, and forsake only the novel corruption. By this argument we might renounce the Trinity and all that is holy, because it was abused in Popery (and speaking to Doctor Reynolds merely) they used to wear hose and shoes in Popery, therefore, you shall, now, go barefoot.
Secondly, quoth his Majesty, what resemblance is there between the brazen serpent, a material visible thing, and the sign of the cross made in the air?
Thirdly, I am given to understand by the bishops, and I find it true, that the Papists themselves did never ascribe any power or spiritual grace to the sign of the cross in baptism.
Fourthly, you see, that the material crosses, which in time of Popery were made, for men to fall down before them, as they passed by them, to worship them (as the idolatrous Jews did the brazen serpent) are demolished, as you desire.”
.
Nicholas Byfield
A Commentary: or Sermons upon the Second Chapter of the First Epistle of Saint Peter... (London, 1623), on 1 Pet. 2:13, pp. 588-90
“…I will set down a catalogue of inventions of men used for religious ends and uses without any commandment of God, and that both before the Law and under the Law, and under the Gospel.
First, before the Law we read of these things:
The laying of the hand under the thigh in swearing, Gen. 24, etc.
[Gen. 24:26, “And the man bowed down his head, and worshipped the Lord.”]
Jacob’s pillar erected, as a religious monument, Gen. 28:18.
Secondly, under the Law we read of these instances:
[Josh. 7:6, “And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the Lord until the eventide, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads.”]
The altar of the two tribes and a half, Josh. 22:10 & 27:30.
[Josh. 24:25-27, “So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the Lord. And Joshua said unto all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words of the Lord which he spake unto us: it shall be therefore a witness unto you, lest ye deny your God.]
[1 Sam. 7:5-6, “Samuel said, Gather all Israel to Mizpeh, and I will pray for you unto the Lord. And they gathered together to Mizpeh, and drew water, and poured it out before the Lord, and fasted on that day, and said there, ‘We have sinned against the Lord.'”]
David’s dancing and playing on all sorts of instruments and songs before the ark, 1 Chron. 13:8 and 15:16 and 2 Sam. 6:14.
David’s wearing of a linen ephod, the garment of the Levites, 1 Chron. 15:27.
David’s appointing of the offices of the Levites and his bringing in of the new order of singing men into the Temple, 1 Chron. 24 & 25.
The use of sackcloth and ashes in fasting.
Solomon built another altar besides the altar of the Lord, 2 Chron. 7:7.
Hezekiah kept the Passeover at a time not appointed by the Law, and the people kept it seven days longer, 2 Chron. 30:2-3, 23.
About the celebration of the Passover, it is manifest that the godly Jews brought in of their own heads:
1. The gesture of sitting, which Christ Himself also used.
2. The solemn use of the cup, of which mention is made also that Christ used it, Lk. 22:17.
The Rechabites abstinence not only from wine (according to the Law of the Nazarites), but from husbandry and houses, Jer. 35.
The Jews had everywhere synagogues, which were not commanded by the Law, Lk. 7:5.
[Jer. 34:18-19, “And I will give the men that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed the words of the covenant which they had made before me, when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof, The princes of Judah, and the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, and the priests, and all the people of the land, which passed between the parts of the calf;”]
Mordecai appointed the feasts of Pur, or ‘lots’.
Judas Maccabeus appointed the feast of Tabernacles, which our Saviour graced with his presence [Jn. 7:2].
Thirdly, under the Gospel:
Our Savior Christ approved the gesture of sitting and the cup at the Passover, the Jewish synagogues, and the feast of Tabernacles.
The apostle Paul used the Jewish ceremonies when they were no more the ordinances of God, as circumcision, shaving the head, purifying, vowing, contributing, yea sacrificing, Acts 21.
Abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols.
The observation of the Jewish Sabbath.
The women’s coverings, 1 Cor. 11.
The love-feasts.
The holy kiss.”
.
John Davenant
The Determinations, or Resolutions of Certain Theological Questions, Publicly Discussed in the University of Cambridge, tr. Josiah Allport (1634; 1846), Determination 20, ‘The English Church is fully competent to bind to the observance of ceremonies’, p. 331 bound at the end of John Davenant, A Treatise on Justification, or the Disputatio de Justitia... trans. Josiah Allport (1631; London, 1846), vol. 2
“And here, that we may not be drawn aside by the prevalence of vulgar error, it should be understood that ceremonies are not, therefore, unlawful, because they are significant. For the holy kiss, respecting which mention is made in Rom. 16:16, was a sign by which they wished to signify the fraternal love and union of all Christians.
And even the learned Peter Martyr, is so far from rejecting ceremonies because they are significant, that he says, ‘they are the more laudable, if, in the way of sermons, they admonish us of some duty.’ (on 1 Cor. 11)”
.
Richard Baxter
Five Disputations of Church-Government & Worship (London, 1659), 5th Disputation, ch. 2, pp. 403-5, 409-10, 419-20
“§17. 11. He that has commanded us to express our minds in several cases about his worship (as in confession of our sins, in profession of our faith, in choosing of our pastors, in consenting to the casting out or taking in, or restoring of members, in renewing promises of obedience, and the like) has hereby made a profession necessary in general, and so has made it our duty to signify our consent in all these cases by some convenient sign: For man’s mind is not known to others but by signs.
But He has not tied us absolutely to any particular sign. If a confession of faith be read, and we are called to signify our consent, or if we are called to signify our consent to be Church-members, or to be guided by our pastors, or submit to discipline; God has not tied us in such cases, whether we shall signify this consent by speaking, or by subscribing our names (Isa. 44:3-5) or by lifting up the hand, or by laying it on a Book (as in swearing) or by standing up, or such like. A sufficient signification or profession of our minds is necessary; but the special sign is left to our own, or our governor’s determination. Of which I shall speak more anon.
§18. To this end, and on these terms was the sign of the cross used heretofore by Christians, and to this end they used standing in public worship every Lord’s Day (forbidding kneeling) and afterward standing up at the [saying of the Apostles’] Creed: as also adoring with their faces towards the east, etc. They used these only as significations of their own minds, instead of words; As the prophets of old were wont by other signs, as well as words to prophesy to the people… And I dare not condemn the cautelous [prudent, cautious] use of such professing signs as these: Though the tongue be the chief instrument, yet not the only instrument to express the mind; and though words be the ordinary sign, yet not the only sign. Dumb men must speak by other signs: And usually more silent signs are fitter for assemblies, to avoid disturbance: And sometimes more permanent signs (as subscription, or a stone or pillar of remembrance, as Josh. 24, etc.) are more desirable. And this is left to human prudence.
§19. And therefore I durst not have reproved any of the ancient Christians that used the sign of the cross merely as a professing signal action, to show to the heathen and Jews about them that they believed in a crucified Christ, and were not ashamed of his cross. The occasional, indifferent use of this, when it is merely to this end, I durst not have condemned. Nor will I now condemn a man that, living among the enemies of a crucified Christ, shall wear a cross in his hat, or on his breast, or set it on his doors, or other convenient place, merely as a professing sign of his mind, to be but instead of so many words, q. d. [as to say] ‘I thus profess myself the servant of a crucified Christ, of whom I am not ashamed.’ Whether these things be fit or unfit, the time, place, occasion and other circumstances must show: but the lawfulness I dare not deny.
…
§40… I think neither magistrate nor synod should do any more than hinder undecency: But yet if they do more, and tie all to one habit [garment] (and suppose it were an undecent habit), yet this is but an imprudent use of power. It is a thing within the magistrate’s reach; He does not an alien work, but his own work amiss: and therefore the thing in itself being lawful, I would obey him and use that garment if I could not be dispensed with [it].
Yea though secondarily the whiteness be to signify purity, and so it be made a teaching sign, yet would I obey: For secondarily, we may lawfully and piously make teaching signs of our food and raiment, and everything we see. But if the magistrate had said that the primary reason or use of the surplice was to be an instituted sacramental sign, to work grace on my soul, and engage me to God, then I durst not have used it, though secondarily it had been commanded as a decent garment. New sacraments I durst not use, though a secondary use were lawful.
…
§57. That it [the minister making the sign of the cross in baptism] is ordained for this use, appears from the words (anon to be recited) in the use of it, and by those words prefixed before the Common Prayer Book, ‘of ceremonies; why some are abolished and some retained,’ where they say that they ‘be not dark and dumb ceremonies, but are so set forth that every man may understand what they do mean, and to what use they do serve,’ and ‘that they are such as are apt to stir up the dull mind of man, to the remembrance of his duty to God, by some notable and special signification, whereby he might be edified.’
So that this and such other (if there be more such) are appointed by their signification to teach the understanding, and stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God: Which are good works, but to be done only by good means. [Baxter goes on to take exceptions to the use of the cross in baptism]”
.
John Tombes
A Serious Consideration of the Oath of the King’s Supremacy (London: Hills, 1660), p. 24
“But they that have taken it [the Oath of Supremacy], or conceive they may take it, if imposed, do it, as being satisfied in their consciences by the foregoing arguments, or such like, that they do but what they may do lawfully without offence, and hope that it will fall out as it did in the business of the Altar of Ed, Josh. 22, that a right intelligence of their fact will prevent any breach between them and others, and unite them more closely.”
.
Theodulia, or a Just Defence of Hearing the Sermons & other teaching of the present Ministers of England against a book unjustly entitled, A Christian Testimony against them that Serve the Image of the Beast… (London: E. Cotes, 1667)
ch. 5, sect. 7, p. 163
“…if because of the ceremony of the surplice and cross… the second being only a monitory sign annexed to a rite of worship is not fitly termed worship…”
.
ch. 7, sect. 6, p. 231
“As for Josh. 22:10, etc. [about the altar of Ed], it makes for the Common-Prayer-Book, not against it: since that altar was allowed of, though it were for religious signification, and yet not by Divine institution; and therefore proves, that all inventions of men, whereby our worship of God is signified, are not unlawful, if they be not made necessary, nor the worship of God placed in the things so invented, or their use.”
.
John Corbet
Of Divine Worship, pt. 3, sect. 6 in Remains (London: Parkhurst, 1684)
Ҥ6. Of the Lawfulness of Significant Ceremonies
in Divine Worship
“By a ‘ceremony’ I understand an external rite in or about the worship of God. By ‘significant ceremonies’ I understand rites in divine worship signifying some material point of religion.
There is no controversy about those outward actions that by nature or general custom signify the reverence of the mind, as kneeling and lifting up our eyes and hands to Heaven in token of devotion to the God of Heaven, and being uncovered in prayer, etc. But the question is of those that signify merely by the force of authoritative institution or private arbitrary intention. Such significant things, though they may have some natural aptitude to signify such and such points of religion, yet they do not actually signify, but [only signify] as arbitrarily designed thereunto.
It is generally received that significant ceremonies in taking an oath may lawfully be used, and that not only such as naturally signify, as lifting up the hand towards Heaven, but such also as signify by institution, as laying the hand on a book or kissing the book. Now though the end of an oath may be a civil thing, as the ending of a controversy, yet the formal of it is divine worship. And the aforesaid ceremonies are expressive of the very external part of it, and they actually signify by force of institution.
Words signify by general custom, and have the same sense out of the worship of God as in it; and therefore the arguing from their lawfulness as signs of worship unto the lawfulness of instituted signs seems liable to exception. Nevertheless it may be said that instituted signs soon become customary and as well understood as words.
The Christians heretofore, being among infidels, might lawfully have the figure of the cross somewhere visible about them to show that they were Christians. For the meaning was no more than if they had said, “We are Christians.” But it may be replied this was no act of divine worship, but an indicant or speaking sign towards men.
With acknowledgment of my own weakness, I express my apprehensions of this matter. God has allowed words for signs expressive of divine worship, but I find not that He has allowed words only and forbidden gestures and actions for such an end. The dumb [who can’t speak] must express their internal worship by gestures and actions or they cannot externally worship God at all. If signs of devotion that are of customary signification be lawful, I see not why such as are of instituted signification should be unlawful, and especially when they become as customary, as those that have been without institution. And if instituted signs of devotion in general be lawful, I see not why signs of some special part of devotion, or mystery in religion, should be unlawful.
I am more confident of the warrantableness of rites and ceremonies of worship that are used only instead of so many words pronounced, than of those that are added to words for their more solemn ratification, as seals are to a writing or federal signs to a verbal contract. Nevertheless, the forementioned ceremonies of swearing seem added to the words of the oath for more solemn ratification; and it alters not the case whether the words be read by him that administers or pronounced by him that takes the oath, for either way they are his words that takes the oath.
Likewise I have more confidence of the warrantableness of those significant ceremonies that are of private arbitrary intention than of those that are of authoritative institution; also of those that are used occasionally and pro hic et nunc [for here and now], than of those that are used statedly.
Furthermore I apprehend that significant ceremonies of divine worship are more apt to degenerate into superstition; and if they be multiplied, that religion is therewith loaded as with unprofitable luggage; and that it is a form of religion rather Mosaic than evangelical, wherein spiritual worship is most regarded.
I think also that significant ceremonies are not necessary in genere, as those things are which are left to the determination of human authority, and so not to be instituted and imposed in the ordinary divine service.
I apprehend that our Lord Christ has instituted all those stated ordinances of positive worship that are necessary to the Church universal, and therefore that more of the same nature are not to be devised by men.
If any significant ceremonies be indeed necessary for some parts of the catholic Church in respect of time and place, there seems to me a fairer plea for their institution in those times and places; but the controverted ceremonies among us seem to be necessary for the whole Church in every age, if at all necessary.
Significant ceremonies of the same nature and reason with those perpetual ordinances that Christ has instituted for the universal Church may not be instituted by man, and particularly such as are made symbols of the Covenant of Grace and Christianity.
In matters doubted among sober Christians, superiors should take heed of strict imposing, and thereby wresting the consciences of their subjects and overstraining them to a compliance with them, in derogation to God’s authority in their consciences.
If superiors command that which is above their sphere to command, namely, things not necessary in genere, yet if they be not simply evil, subjects may do those things, unless they be evil in their consequence to a higher degree than the not doing of them would be. In this case it is not formal obedience, but they are done for the end’s sake and to avoid evil.”
.
On Mystical Signs & Ceremonies in Worship
Order of Contents
Articles 2
Quotes 3
.
Article
1600’s
Ames, William – in Fresh Suit
Recommended by Henry Jeanes.
Baxter, Richard – ch. 14, ‘Reasons against the Imposing of our late Controverted Mystical Ceremonies, as Crossing, Surplice, etc.’ in Five Disputations of Church-Government & Worship (London: R.W., 1659), 5th Disputation, pp. 467-82
.
Quotes
Order of
Rutherford
Baxter
Presbyterians & Independents
.
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
The Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646), A Dispute Touching Scandal & Christian Liberty, p. 87
“8. The non-necessaries, or such things as need not be in the worship of God, which do bring scandal, must 1. be such as are neither necessary in specie, nor in individuo, in kind, or in specie or nature, or in their individuals and particulars, as the whole category of men’s devices, as:
1. Unwritten traditions—not necessary, not written.
2. Human mystical, symbolical signs and ceremonies—not necessary, not written.
3. Human holy days, crossing, kneeling to elements, altars, crossing, surplice, rochets, etc.—not necessary, not written.
4. This and this human holy day, this crossing—not necessary, not written.”
.
Richard Baxter
Five Disputations of Church-Government & Worship (London: R.W., 1659), 5th Disputation, ch. 2, pp. 409
“§37. It seems to me that mystical signs stated by man in God’s public worship, directly to work grace on his soul from God, and that as instituted, and also to oblige man to God again, are unlawfully brought into the Church.”
.
Leading English Presbyterian & Independent Ministers
The Grand Debate between the most reverend Bishops & the Presbyterian Divines appointed by His Sacred Majesty as Commissioners for the Review & Alteration of the Book of Common Prayer... (London, 1661), ‘Exceptions’, pp. 9-10
“And it being doubtful whether God has given power unto men to institute in his worship such mystical teaching signs, which not being necessary in genere, fall not under the rule of doing all things decently, orderly and to edification, and which once granted, will upon the same reason open a door to the arbitrary imposition of numerous ceremonies of which St. Augustine complained in his days, and the things in controversy being in the judgement of the imposers confessed indifferent, who dare not so much as pretend any real goodness in themselves, otherwise than what is derived from their being imposed, and consequently the imposition ceasing, that will cease also, and the worship of God not become indecent without them; whereas on the other hand in the judgement of the opposers, they are by some held sinful and unlawful in themselves, by others very inconvenient and unsuitable to the simplicity of Gospel-worship, and by all of them very grievous and burdensome, and therefore not at all fit to put in balance with the peace of the Church, which is more likely to be promoted by their removal than continuance, considering also how tender our Lord and Saviour Himself is of weak brethren, declaring it to be much better for a man to have a millstone to be hanged about his neck and to be cast into the depth of the sea, than to offend one of his little ones, and how the apostle Paul (who had as great a legislative power in the Church as any under Christ) held himself obliged by that common rule of charity not to lay a stumbling block or an occasion of offence before a weak brother, choosing rather not to eat flesh while the world stands (though in itself a thing lawful), than offend his brother for whom Christ died; we cannot but desire that these ceremonies may not be imposed on them who judge such impositions a violation of the royalty of Christ and an impeachment of his laws as insufficient and are under the holy law of that which is written, Dt. 12:32, ‘What thing soever I command you, observe to do it, thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it;’ but that there may be either a total abolishing of them, or at least such a liberty that those who are unsatisfied concerning their lawfulness or expediency may not be compelled to the practice of them or subscription to them, but may be permitted to enjoy their ministerial Functions and Communion with the Church without them.”
.
On Christian Altars, Imitating Altars, the Word “Altar” & on Railings about it or the Table
Order of
Articles 6
Quotes 8
History 1
Latin 3
.
Articles
1500’s
Ridley, Nicholas – ‘Reasons Why the Lord’s Board should Rather be after the Form of a Table than of an Altar’ (1550) in Injunctions Given in the Visitation… in Works of Nicholas Ridley, pp. 321-24
Ridley (d. 1555) the English reformer and martyr under Bloody Mary argues against using an altar in worship (as in Romanism) and argues for the use of a table.
.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – ‘Of Altars’ in The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 4, ch. 12, ‘Of the Mass’, pp. 225-26
.
1600’s
Cawdrey, Daniel
Superstitio Superstes: or The Reliques of Superstition Newly Revived. Manifested in a Discourse Concerning the Holinesse of Churches & Bowing Towards the Altar, whereunto is Added a Censure of Two Letters Touching the Same Subject, the one Written by Doctor M., the other by M. Meade (London, 1641) 60 pp.
Bowing Towards the Altar, upon Religious Reasons, Impleaded as Grossely Superstitious. Being an Answer to Dr. Duncon’s Determination Lately Reprinted (London, 1661) 30 pp.
Ley, John – A Letter Against the Erection of an Altar, Written June 29, 1635, to the Reverend Father John L. Bishop of Chester (London, 1641) 32 pp.
Crofton, Zachary – Altar-Worship, or Bowing to the Communion Table Considered as to the Novelty, Vanity, Iniquity, Malignity Charged upon it. In an Antithesis to the Determination of Dr. Eleazar Duncon… (1661) 124 pp. ToC
Crofton (1626-1672) was reformed, a presbyterian and a puritan. He was born in Ireland, where he was raised, and came over to England in 1646. He was ejected from the Anglican Church at the Restoration.
Baxter, Richard – A Christian Directory… (London: White, 1673), pt. 3, pp. 882-83
Question 122, ‘May the name ‘priests’, ‘sacrifice’ and ‘altars’ be lawfully now used instead of Christ’s ‘ministers’, ‘worship’ and the ‘holy table’?’ [Yes]
Question 123, ‘May the communion-tables be turned altar-wise? and railed in? And is it lawful to come up to the rails to communicate?’ [Yes, Yes & Yes]
.
Quotes
Order of
Andreae
Fulke
Sprint
Rutherford
Baxter
Voet
A Brakel
Fisher
.
1500’s
Jacob Andreae
Lutheranism vs. Calvinism: The Classic Debate at the Colloquy of Montbeliard 1586 (Concordia Publishing House, 2017), ch. 4, ‘On the Reformation of Temples, Images & Organs’, p. 497 Andreae (1528–1590) was a leading Lutheran theologian debating Theodore Beza.
“There was a certain Count of your [Reformed] confession who possessed common jurisdiction in a certain church with a certain Prince of our [Lutheran] religion. Therefore since the Associate was judging that he [the reformed Count] had more of right in that church, he made sure that the altar was destroyed and that a table be built [for the Lord’s Supper] in the temple [church building].
The Prince found out later about this, and ordered that the table be removed and an altar be constructed again. The Count in return took care a second time in return that the altar be destroyed, and the table restored. The Prince likewise a second time ordered that the table be taken away and the altar restored. I do not know whether this happened a third time.
But the [reformed] Count later heeded the [Lutheran] Prince’s strictness, and left off from his course, such that the altar remained in the temple in place of the table.”
.
William Fulke
Stapleton’s Fortress Overthrown, ch. 3, p. 80 Fulke (1538–1589) was a English puritan.
“[Stapleton:] ‘From the Church they take altars, crosses, images,’ etc. [Fulke:] Because the temple of God has nothing to do with images, 2 Cor. 6:16.”
.
1600’s
John Sprint
Cassander Anglicanus, showing the Necessity of Conformity to the Prescribed Ceremonies of our Church in Case of Deprivation (London: Bill, 1623), ‘Patristic Practices’, p. 90
“The temples [church buildings] were erected to stand East and West, the altars of the Church stood Eastward and some toward the West; Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, bk. 5, ch. 22.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
The Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646), A Dispute Touching Scandal & Christian Liberty
p. 64
“The adjuncts of the church, as crucifixes, images, altars, ravels, mass-clothes and the like are properly monuments and instruments of idolatry, because these are not necessary, as is the material house, nor have they any common and physical influence in the worship, as the Temple has; yea all the necessity or influence that they have in the worship is only religious and human, flowing from the will of men, without either necessity from our natural constitution of body or any word of Scripture, and therefore they are to be removed upon this ground, because they are unnecessary snares to idolatry.”
.
p. 87
“8. The non-necessaries, or such things as need not be in the worship of God, which do bring scandal, must 1. be such as are neither necessary in specie, nor in individuo, in kind, or in specie or nature, or in their individuals and particulars, as the whole category of men’s devices, as:
1. Unwritten traditions—not necessary, not written.
2. Human mystical, symbolical signs and ceremonies—not necessary, not written.
3. Human holy days, crossing, kneeling to elements, altars, crossing, surplice, rochets, etc.—not necessary, not written.
4. This and this human holy day, this crossing—not necessary, not written.”
.
p.90
“7. If we may make images and crosses alike in shape, but dislike in use, in God’s worship, we may bring in golden calves to the temples [church buildings], and the image of Dagon, and the Sidonian gods, and altars such as Josiah destroyed, so at their first molding we imprint on them chaste and innocent religious intentions and signification, and make them alike in shape, but dislike in use to heathen worship. But sure the calf of Egypt and the calf that Aaron made, though like in shape, yet were dislike in use.”
.
pp. 91-92
“2. How does [Richard] Hooker prove that the vessels made for Baal are in their own nature more incurable than the sign of the cross?
You may remove the superstitious intention and idolatrous use of any vessel and turn it to a good use; yet Josiah burnt them to ashes. The like may be said of the groves which he stamped to powder and cast in the brook Kidron, and of the chariots five of the sun which he burnt with fire, and of the bones of dead men, not any of these being of their own nature more indifferent and innocent creatures of God, [nor] were of their own nature more scandalous and more incurable than the sign of the cross. The like may be said of altars…”
.
pp. 92-93
“Answer 2. We know no necessity to have, nor any danger to want [lack] such wares as surplice, crossing, bowing to altars, to elements, which sure the apostolic Church wanted, both in specie, and in individuo.”
.
Richard Baxter
Five Disputations on Church Government & Worship (London: R.W., 1659), 5th Disputation, ch. 2, p. 417
“§51. 7. And for the next ceremony, the name and form of an ‘altar’: no doubt it is a thing indifferent whether the table stand this way or that way: and the primitive Churches used commonly the names of ‘sacrifice’, and ‘altar’, and ‘priest’, and I think, lawfully. For my part, I will not be he that shall condemn them. But they used them but metaphorically, as Scripture itself does, Heb. 13:10, 15-16; Rom. 12:1; Eph. 5:2; Phil. 2:17 & 4:18. All believers are called ‘priests’, and their service, ‘sacrifices’, 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6 & 5:10 & 20:6.
I conceive that the dislike of these things in England (the form and name of an ‘altar’, and the rails about it) was not as if they were simply evil, but:
1. because they were illegal innovations, forced on the churches without law or any just authority; and
2. because the way of those times did cause men to suspect that somewhat worse was intended to be brought in by such preparatives, especially when the ministers were cast out.”
.
Gisbert Voet
‘On the Sacrifice of Melchizedek, on Gen. 14:18’ tr. Onku with AI in Select Disputations (Utrecht, 1669), vol. 5, p. 533 Latin
“VII. To bring back altars into the churches, whence they were ejected, is to forsake the former love and to relapse from perfection to imperfection.”
.
1700’s
Wilhelmus a Brakel
The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 2, pp. 566-67
“The gestures or the external manner of administration of this sacrament must be such as most closely resembles the first Lord’s Supper administered by Christ, as well as the administration of the Lord’s Supper by the apostles and the apostolic churches as recorded in the Holy Scriptures.
Then the Lord’s Supper was administered while seated at a table. Since it is a meal, it is therefore proper that it be administered in such a manner as one would serve either common or special meals. To come, one by one, to that which one calls an altar, to there receive the bread out of the hand of the celebrant—who time and again takes it from the altar and gives it to the communicant—to there receive it while kneeling, and to let it be put into his mouth, is superstitious and gives occasion for superstition.”
.
James Fisher
The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism Explained (1753)
“Q. 26. Are our forefathers to be blamed for pulling down altars, images, and other monuments of idolatry, from places of public worship at the Reformation?
No; they had Scripture precept and warrant for what they did, Num. 33:52, and Deut. 7:5 — “Ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.”
.
Historical
On the Post-Reformation
Good, James I – IV. “Reformed Church Orders against Altars” in History of the Reformed Church of Germany, 1620-1890 (Reading, PA: Miller, 1894), Appendix,
.
Latin Articles
1600’s
Alsted, Johann Heinrich – I. ‘Whether the sacred Supper is rightly termed ‘the Sacrament of the altar’?’ [No] in Polemical Theology… (Hanau, 1620; 1627), Part 5, ‘An Examination of the Controversies which are now agitated in these times between Evangelicals, which are commonly called Lutherans and Calvinists’, Class 7, Controversies on the Holy Supper, pp. 660-61
Voet, Gisbert
2. ‘Of Sacrifices, Priests, the Fire of the Sacrifices & Altars’ in A Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), Tract 5, Of Signs, VI. Of Types, Ceremonies & Sacrifices Abbr.
12. Genuflection at the Name of Jesus & unto the Table, or Altar 139
13. pt. 2 163
14. pt. 3 179
15. pt. 4 201
16. pt. 5 214
Ecclesiastical Politics (Amsterdam, 1663-1676)
vol. 1, pt 1, bk. 2, ‘Of Ecclesiastical Things, or Acts & Exercises’, Tract 1, ‘Of Formularies, or Liturgies & Rituals’, ch. 5, ‘Of the Ceremonies yet Remaining in the Greater Part of the German [Lutheran] Churches’, pp. 405-413
Outline
p. 405, Voet lists as the Lutheran practices disputed by the reformed: using images and altars, keeping feasts on account of the apostles and saints, baring the head and bowing the knee at the name of Jesus, ministers using sacerdotal vestments, baptism with exorcism and the sign of the cross, practicing private confession and absolution in preparation for the Lord’s Supper, using unleavened bread and a money-changer[?] with respect to the Supper, the minister not breaking the bread in the Supper, baptism (of infants) by women and other private individuals, administering the Supper privately to the sick, receiving the eucharistic symbol by the mouth and not first receiving it in the hand, singing latin songs, using a harmonious concert and organs, lighting candles for the administration of the eucharist, and bowing the knee at the sight of the eucharist.
p. 406, Section 2, “we come now to an examination of the controversy. They contend that the ceremonies are indifferent things, even working for good order.” Voet gives 6 considerations against this in section 2.
p. 408, Section 3, “Reasons and exceptions in defence of those [Lutheran] ceremonies are either general or particular. The particulars which have been so judged by Eckhard, have been briefly and vigorously refuted by Alting (Syllabus of Controversies with the Lutherans, Part 2, ‘On Controversies Surrounding Ceremonies’)” Voet then gives 5 general exceptions, with responses, and then, pp. 409-13, 6 testimonies from various figures used in support of the ceremonies, with responses.
.
vol. 3 (2nd part) (Amsterdam, 1663-1676), vol. 2, pt. 1, Book 4, Tract 4, ‘Of the External Requisites and Adjuncts of Sacred Practices’, Section 3, ‘Of Utensils and Other Adjuncts of Church-Buildings’, ch. 3. ‘Of Altars,’ pp. 920-35
Alting, Henry – Question 3, ‘Whether the Supper is to be administered on an altar?’, Reasons of the First Member in Syllabus of Controversies with the Lutherans, pt. 2, ‘On Controversies Surrounding Ceremonies’, p. 270 appended to A Logical & Theological Exegesis of the Augsburg Confession with an Appendix of the Problems Involved… (Amsterdam, 1647)
.
On Reverence to the Cross, Crossing & Crossing in Baptism
See also: ‘Crosses: Not for Places of Worship’, ‘Crosses apart from Worship: Lawful’ & ‘Cross around One’s Neck?’.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 5
Book 1
Quotes 6+
Latin 1
.
Articles
1600’s
Bradshaw, William – A Short Treatise of the Cross in Baptism… (Amsterdam: I.H., 1604) 25 pp.
Ames, William – ‘Crossing’ in ch. 4, ‘Concerning Idolatrous Ceremonies’ in A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship… (Amsterdam, 1633), pp. 427-28
Baxter, Richard
ch. 14, ‘Reasons Against the Imposing of our Late Controverted Mystical Ceremonies, as Crossing, Surplice, etc.’ in 5th Disputation, ‘Of Human Ceremonies: whether they are Necessary or Profitable to the Church and how far they may be Imposed or Observed?’ (London, 1658) in Five Disputations of Church-Government & Worship… (London, 1659), pp. 467-82
The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689)
ch. 12, ‘Of the Cross in Baptism‘, pp. 72-75
ch. 13, ‘Of Denying Baptism to them that Refuse the Cross’, pp. 75-77
ch. 50, ‘Of denying baptism to them that dare not submit to the use of the English crossing’, pp. 187-88
The terms of the Anglican Church post-1662 were that a minister must not baptize a Christian’s baby without signing the cross over it, and hence for a layman that refused this, the minister was forbidden to baptize the baby.
Cotton, John – ‘On the Sign of the Cross in Baptism’ in Some Treasure Fetched out of Rubbish… (London: 1660), pp. 60-64
.
Book
1600’s
Ames, William – A Reply to Dr. Morton’s General Defence of Three Nocent [Noxious] Ceremonies. viz. the Surplice, Cross in Baptism & Kneeling at the Receiving of the Sacramental Elements of Bread & Wine ([Amsterdam] 1622) 114 pp
.
Quotes
Order of
Beza
Rutherford
Baxter
Presbyterians & Independents
Corbet
.
1500’s
Theodore Beza
Lutheranism vs. Calvinism: The Classic Debate at the Colloquy of Montbeliard 1586 (Concordia Publishing House, 2017), ch. 4, ‘On the Reformation of Temples, Images & Organs’, p. 489
“For our hope is placed in the true cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, not in an image. For this reason I confess that I whole-heartedly detest the image of the crucifix. It is the image of the cruelty of the Jews against Christ, and so I cannot bear it.”
.
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
The Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646), A Dispute Touching Scandal & Christian Liberty, p. 87
“8. The non-necessaries, or such things as need not be in the worship of God, which do bring scandal, must 1. be such as are neither necessary in specie, nor in individuo, in kind, or in specie or nature, or in their individuals and particulars, as the whole category of men’s devices, as:
1. Unwritten traditions—not necessary, not written.
2. Human mystical, symbolical signs and ceremonies—not necessary, not written.
3. Human holy days, crossing, kneeling to elements, altars, crossing, surplice, rochets, etc.—not necessary, not written.
4. This and this human holy day, this crossing—not necessary, not written.”
.
Richard Baxter
Five Disputations of Church-Government & Worship (London: R.W., 1659), 5th Disputation, ch. 2, pp. 417-21
§52. 8. But of all our ceremonies, there is none that I have more suspected to be simply unlawful than the cross in baptism. The rest, as I have said, I should have submitted to rather than hinder the service or peace of the Church (had I been put to it: For living in those days in a privileged place, I had my liberty in all save days and the gesture). But this I durst never meddle with. And yet I know that many think it as reasonable and more venerable than any of the rest. Yet dare I not peremptorily say that it is unlawful: nor will I condemn either ancients or moderns that use it: nor will I make any disturbance in the Church about it more than my own forbearance will make: only my own practice I was forced to suspend, and must do if it were again imposed on me, till I were better satisfied. The reasons that most move me I shall give you in the end, but some of them take at the present.
§53. 1. This is not the mere circumstance of a duty, but a substantial human ordinance of worship: nor is it necessary in genere that man ordain any such symbolical mystical signs for God’s worship: And therefore it is a matter totally exempt from human power. There must be some time, some place, some gesture, some vesture, some utensils, etc. But you cannot say that there must be some teaching symbols, or mystical signs, stated by human institution in God’s worship. There is no command to man in Scripture de genere to institute any such thing. And therefore in the case of circumstantials I shall usually (of which more anon) obey the magistrate even where he does mistake, because it is his own work, though he misdo it: But here his action is like that of a judge in alieno foro, in another court, where he has no power, and therefore his judgment is null. It is not an act of authority to make and state new mystical signs (that are such in their primary use) in God’s worship: For there is no power but of God, and God has given no such power. They that say He has, let them prove it if they can. Natural and artificial helps we disallow not, but instituted signs that have what they have by institution, and that as a solemn stated ordinance, I know not that ever God required or accepted from the invention of man. I doubt this will prove a mere usurpation, and nullity, and worse.
§54. 2. Yea I suspect it will prove a human sacrament: either fully a sacrament, or so near akin to sacraments as that man has nothing to do to institute it. The Common Prayer says that ‘a sacrament is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace, given to us, ordained by Christ Himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof’ (in the Catechism). Let us try by this definition whether the cross in baptism as used in England be a sacrament.
§55. And 1. I may take it for granted that the want [lack] of the name, makes it not to be no sacrament. And 2. whereas in the definition it is said that it is ‘ordained by Christ Himself,’ that belongs to a divine sacrament only, and not to a human sacrament devised by usurpers. Otherwise you must say that there is no such thing possible as a human sacrament imposed by usurpers on the Church: what if all the essentials of a sacrament, such as are found in baptism and the Lord’s Supper, be invented by man and forced on the Church, is it therefore no sacrament? or only, no divine sacrament? However, let us not differ about bare names and words: It is the same thing that you call a sacrament, when God is the ordainer: and sure it will not prove it lawful because man is the ordainer; that’s it that makes it unlawful, because he wants authority and acts as an usurper. The Papists affirm that man has not power to make new sacraments, no not the Pope himself. Let not us go further.
§56. And 1. the outward visible sign here is the cross made in the forehead. 2. The inward and spiritual grace is a holy resolution to fight manfully under the banner of Christ and to persevere therein. The cross signifies the instrument of the sufferings of Christ and that we do own this crucified Saviour, and are not ashamed of Him, and will manfully fight under him. So that here is:
1. a signification of grace to be wrought on the soul, and given us by God.
2. an engagement to perform the duties of the Covenant ourselves.
On God’s part, we are to receive by this sign both [1.] qualitative or actual grace, and [2.] relative grace: 1. The cross is to teach our understandings and help our memories, and quicken up our dull affections, by minding us of a crucified Christ and the benefits of his cross.
§57. That it is ordained for this use appears from the words (anon to be recited) in the use of it, and by those words prefixed before the Common Prayer-Book, ‘Of Ceremonies, why some are abolished and some retained,’ where they say that they ‘be not dark and dumb ceremonies, but are so set forth that every man may understand what they do mean and to what use they do serve,’ and ‘that they are such as are apt to stir up the dull mind of man, to the remembrance of his duty to God by some notable and special signification whereby he might be edified.’ So that this and such other (if there be more such) are appointed by their signification to teach the understanding and stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, which are good works, but to be done only by good means.
§58. And that this is a way of working grace in the same kind as God’s Word and sacraments do is undeniable. For the Word and sacraments do work grace but morally, by propounding the object and so objectively teaching, remembering and exciting, and thus working on the understanding, memory and will and affections. However the spirit may work within, it’s certain that the ordinances work no otherwise. And not only protestants are agreed on this, but one would think that the Jesuits and all of their mind should be most of all for it. For faculties, they that will not confess any physical determination of them but make all operations both of Word, sacraments, and [the] Spirit itself to be but suasory or moral, one would think should hold more tenaciously than others that sacraments work grace but morally. And if no sacraments do more than objectively teach and excite, and the cross is appointed to do as much in this, then there is no difference between them to be found.
§59. And then [2.] for relative grace, it is plain that by the sign of the cross, as well as by baptism, we are entered into a state of Christianity; and so it is an investing sacramental sign. It lists us under the banner of Christ crucified: And that is the very essential nature of the sacrament of baptism itself. As listing invests the soldier in his relation, and consequently in his privileges, so does baptism by God’s appointment; and crossing is supposed by man’s appointment to invest men in the relation of the soldiers of Jesus Christ.
§60. Yea (more than is expressed in the definition of a sacrament in the Common Prayer Book), if you judge it essential to a sacrament to be an engaging covenanting sign, the cross is instituted to this end. Yea, more than that, if you judge it essential to a sacrament to be an engaging sign in the very Covenant of Grace itself, and not only in some particular promise, this also is the end of its appointment. It is to engage ourselves to a crucified Christ as our captain and Saviour by his cross, and to bind ourselves to the duty of soldiers or Christians to our lives’ end: and consequently to teach us to expect the privileges of faithful servants and soldiers from a crucified Christ.
§61. All this is expressed in the very words of ministerial application in the Common Prayer Book, which are these: ‘we receive this child into the congregation of Christ’s flock and do sign him with the sign of the cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified and manfully to fight under his banner against sin, the world, and the Devil, and to continue Christ’s faithful soldier and servant unto his live’s end, Amen.’ So that you see here it is used as a listing, investing, Covenant sign, engaging us to be Christ’s soldiers and not to be ashamed of his cross, or to confess his faith and manfully to fight, etc. and to persevere. What’s wanting here to make a sacrament?
§62. Yet had it been but a bare professing sign, like writing or lifting up the hand, to signify consent instead of words, I durst not have concluded so hardly of it: And thus it seems in ancient times it began to be brought into use: and the voluntary use of the cross on several occasions, in many countries at this day, does seem to be no other. But for my own part, I dare not be guilty by consent of making a human sacrament or stating such an engaging sacramental sign to all these uses in the public worship of God. I had rather suffer or leave my ministry than venture on this, while I see so much to make me fear that it is a sin. But again I say, as I reverence the ancients that used the cross (I think amiss, and yet more warrantably than we), so I presume not to censure them that judge it lawful; but only give the reasons that make me doubt and rather think it to be unlawful, though still with a suspicion of my own understanding, and a love and honor to dissenters.”
.
The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689), pp. 11-12 The preface is dated 1683.
“But those [leading presbyterian and congregationalist ministers] that were called by the king, and one another, 1660 and 1661, to treat of concord, and that assembled at Sion College, and elsewhere about it, did openly make known their minds: And I think they meddled not against any of these things following, by any accusation of them as sinful:
…
X. They accused not all significant use of the cross, but only that in baptism it seemed to have all or most of the nature of a human sacrament of the Covenant of Grace, as it is expounded in the [Anglican] Liturgy and Canon.”
.
Leading English Presbyterian & Independent Ministers
The Grand Debate between the most reverend Bishops & the Presbyterian Divines appointed by His Sacred Majesty as Commissioners for the Review & Alteration of the Book of Common Prayer... (London, 1661)
‘Exceptions’, p. 8
“XVIII. [We object] Because this Liturgy contains the imposition of diverse ceremonies, which from the first Reformation have by sundry learned and pious men been judged unwarrantable: as…
…
2. That none may baptize, or be baptized without the transient image of the cross, which has at least the semblance of a sacrament of human institution, being used as an engaging sign in our first and solemn covenanting with Christ, and the duties whereunto we are really obliged by baptism being more expressly affixed to that aery sign than to the holy sacrament.”
.
p. 98
“It is no undecent disorderly worshiping of God to worship Him without our cross, surplice and kneeling in the reception of the sacrament:
1. If it were, then Christ and his apostles had worship undecently and disorderly; And the primitive Church that used not the surplice, nor the transient image of the cross in baptism (but in an unguent) yea the Church for many hundred years that received the sacrament without kneeling.
2. Then if the king, parliament, and convocation should change these ceremonies, it seems you would take yourselves bound to retain them; For you say you must not worship God undecently: But that they may be changed by authority our articles determine, and therefore charity may well require the magistrate to change them without any wrong to the worship of God.
3. We appeal to the common judgment of the impartial, whether in the nature of the thing there be anything that tells them that it is undecent to pray without a surplice in the reading place, and not undecent to pray without in the pulpit; And that it is undecent to baptise without crossing, and not to receive the Lord’s Supper without…”
.
pp. 99-102
“3. Signs are exceeding various: At present we use but two distinctions:
1. Some are signs, Ex primaria intentione instituentis, purposed and primarily instituted to signify (as an esoucheon, or a sign at an inn door in common matters: and as the sacrament and cross in sacred matters) and some are signs but consequently secondarily, and not essentially as intended by the institutor (so hills and trees may show us what a clock it is: And so every creature signifies some good of mercy or duty, and may be an object of holy meditation: so the color and shape of our clothes may mind us of some good which yet was none of the primary or proper end of the maker or wearer).
2. Signs are either arbitrary expressions of a man’s own mind in a matter where he is let free, or they are covenanting signs between us and God in the Covenant of Grace, to work Grace on us as moral causes and to engage us sacramentally to Him; such we conceive the cross in baptism to be.
The Preface to the Common Prayer-Book says, ‘They are apt to teach and excite, etc.’ which is a moral operation of grace: And the canon says it is ‘an honorable badge whereby the infant is dedicated to Him that died on the cross.’ We are signed with it ‘in token that hereafter we shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight, etc.’ now if a thing may be commanded merely as a decent circumstance of worship, yet it is unproved that a thing that in its nature as instituted and in the primary intention is thus sacramentally to dedicate and engage us in Covenant to God, by signifying the grace and duty of the Covenant, be lawfully commanded by man:
1. Decent circumstances are necessary in genere; There must be some fit time, place, gesture, vesture (as such), utensils, etc. But that there be some such dedicating engaging signs in our covenanting with God signifying the grace of the Covenant, and our state and duty as soldiers under Christ (besides God’s sacraments), this is not necessary in genere, and therefore it is not left to man to determine de specie.
2. If there be any reason for this use of the cross, it must be such as was in the apostles’ days, and concerns the universal Church in all ages and places, and then the apostles would have taken care of it;
…
Reply: To make laws to determine of undetermined circumstances necessary in genere, to be some way determined and left to magistrates, or ministers de specie, and to do this according to the general rules of Scripture, and in order to the main end, and not against it, and is not against the royalty or will of Christ; but to make new dedicating covenanting symbols, to signify the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace and solemnly engage us unto God, and place those in the public worship which are not meet circumstances, but substantial institutions, not necessary in genere (that there should be any such at all, besides God’s sacraments) we fear this is a violation of the royalty of Christ and a reflection on his laws as insufficient: for first, if it belong to the power proper to Christ, then it is a violation of his royalty for any man to exercise it; But it belongs to the power proper to Christ: ergo, etc.
The minor is proved thus: If it belong to the universal head or Ruler of the Church as such, then it belongs to the power proper to Christ (for we are ready to prove there is none under him, no universal head or ruler personally or collectively and civilly one). But etc. If in the reason of it, it should be the matter of a universal law, if of any then it should be the work of the universal lawgiver, if any: but etc. If in the reason of it, it be equally useful to the Church-universal as to any particular Church or age, then it should according to the reason of it be the matter of an universal law, if of any: But, etc. it has the same aptitude to engage us to a duty of universal necessity, and has no reason proper to this age or place for it, but common to all. Moreover it is nowhere committed to the power or care of man, ergo it is proper to the care and power of Christ, no text is showed that gives man power in such things.
To do all things decently and orderly, and to edification is no giving of power on that pretense to make new covenanting dedicating signs, to do God’s work decently, etc. is not to make more such of our own heads: It is but the right modifying of the work already set us. And to do all decently, orderly and to edification was a duty in Moses’s time, when yet such things as these in question might not be added by any but God (when we say ‘by God’, we mean by his inspired instruments, and when we say ‘by Christ’, we mean by his inspired instruments).
If we should make laws that everyone is publicly to taste vinegar and gall, as a sign that we are not ashamed of, but resolved through all flesh displeasing difficulties to follow Christ, that died so, and thus to engage and dedicate ourselves to Him, this were to do more than to do all things decently and orderly which He appointed: If milk were to be publicly sucked or drunk by all in profession that we will feed on the sincere milk of his word and so dedicate us to him by Covenant, or if we were to put on an helmet, and other armor in token that we will be his soldiers to the death, and manfully fight under, etc. These engagements by such public signs are sacraments in the sense as the word was used of old when it signified a soldier’s solemn lysting or covenanting with his commander.
Thus by distinguishing decent and orderly modes, and Circumstances necessary in genere, from new ordinances, even solemn dedicating, covenanting or such like mystical signs, we have showed you what we grant and where you fail, and what is indeed a wrong to Christ and an accusation of his laws and what not… Abundance of things of lesser moment than these are commanded by God in the Law, to which He added that sanction Dt. 12:32, ‘Whatever things I command thee, etc.'”
.
John Corbet
Of Divine Worship, pt. 3, sect. 11 in Remains (London: Parkhurst, 1684), pp. 220-21
Ҥ11. Of the Cross in Baptism
Some nonconformists say that they deny not the civil use of the cross in coins and banners. Others of them say they dare not reprove the ancient Christians that used the sign of the cross merely as a professing, signal action to show to the heathen that they did believe in Christ crucified. Indeed that usage thereof was not an act of worship, but an informing of men touching their faith.
It seems lawful to signify, as by words so by other signs, that we are Christ’s and his devoted servants, for words are but a kind of signs.
The grounds of scrupling the sign of the cross in baptism are these:
1. That it is not a mere circumstance, but an ordinance of worship, as important as an external rite can be.
2. That being a solemn and stated, symbolic sign of a divine mystery and devised of men, it is of that classis or rank of things which are not necessary in genere, and so not allowed to be determined and imposed by men as things necessary in genere are allowed.
3. That either the whole nature of a sacrament, or at least a part thereof, is in it.
That it is a sacrament is thus proved: It is an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace. The outward sign is the representation of the cross, the instrument of Christ’s sufferings, and the inward spiritual grace is fortitude in the Christian warfare, according to the words of the Liturgy.
Here is a signification of grace to be given us of God and of our duty according to that grace. Likewise this sign has assigned unto it the moral efficacy of a sacrament for working grace, by teaching and exciting us to the spiritual warfare and minding us of Christ crucified. Also it signifies and seals our relation to Christ, or the grace of being a Christian. And the Liturgy so speaks, “We receive this child into the Congregation of Christ’s Flock, and sign him, etc. in token, etc.”
The pretense, that no rite can be a sacrament but what God has instituted, is answered before (Section 4). And though the imposers thereof say it is not a sacrament, yet if they so declare its meaning, as to be of the formal nature and reason of a sacrament, they make it to be one indeed, though in word they deny it.
If it were granted that it has not the complete or entire nature of a sacrament, yet there is one essential part of a sacrament most apparently in it, that is, to be an engaging sign on our part in the Covenant. For we use it as a token of engaging ourselves to Christ crucified as our Captain and Savior, by his cross, and to perform the duties of his soldiers and servants to our lives’ ends. And as baptism dedicates to Christ, so does the sign of the cross, according to the express words of the canon, viz. It is an honorable badge whereby the party baptized is dedicated to the service of Him that died on the cross. So it has that in it which is essential to a sacrament and part of the nature thereof at least.
Besides, it seems to be an ordinance of that nature and kind which Christ our Lawgiver has reserved to Himself from the reason in sections 3, 4, 5.”
.
Latin
Voet, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations (Utrecht, 1659 / 1667)
vol. 3
60. ‘Cross-Worship, or the Worship & Abuse of the Cross’, pp. 884-93
61. pt. 2, pp. 893-900
62. pt. 3, pp. 900-31
63. ‘An Addition to the Disputations on Cross-Worship & Indirect Idolatry’, pp. 931-34
vol. 4
‘On the cross’ in 50. ‘A Syllabus of Questions on the Decalogue’, ‘On the 2nd Commandment’, p. 782
.
On Bowing at Hearing the Name of Jesus
Articles
1500’s
Willet –
.
1600’s
Burton, Henry – Jesu-Worship Confuted, or, Certain Arguments against Bowing at the Name Jesus, proving it to be Idolatrous & Superstitious and so Utterly Unlawful… (London: H.C., 1660) 8 pp.
.
Quote
1600’s
John Corbet
Of Divine Worship, pt. 3, sect. 7 in Remains (London: Parkhurst, 1684), pp. 218-19
Ҥ7. Of Bowing at the Name of Jesus
It is rationally supposed that in this act, not the name, but the Person so named is made the object of adoration; the name pronounced is only the occasion of the present adoration of the Person.
Nothing in reason or Scripture does evince that it is simply evil to adore Christ by incurvation of the body or other reverent gesture upon occasion of the pronouncing of the name “Jesus.”
Howbeit, to make such incurvation a stated ordinance of worship may be an excess in religion, that is superstition (though not intolerable), partly because it too rigidly ties up Christians to a bodily exercise of no necessity nor of great moment; partly because it makes them attend to an over-curious gesticulation and verges to externalness and formality, hindering the inward life and power of devotion; partly because it makes a difference where God has made none and puts greater honor upon one name, that of right has not greater honor than the other, viz. “Christ,” “God,” “Lord,” or “Jehovah.” For though the name be not the object worshipped, yet it has an honor and preeminence given it above the other names without sufficient ground.
But if the said incurvation be so severely commanded that great mischief would follow the non-observance, I judge it may be done, though not formally, in obedience, yet for avoiding that mischief; and peradventure it may be expedient in that case to bow at the name of “Christ,” “God,” “Lord.” The place Phil. 2:10 is only a phrase expressing subjection to Christ, and used also to express subjection to God (Rom. 14:11, from Isa. 45:23).”
.
Undue Protestant Ceremonies are Not Equatable to the Old Testament High Places
Quotes
Order of
English Puritans
Fentiman
.
1600’s
English Puritans
A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025)
p. 226
“But what if all this were granted, that the use of our stinted prayers, catechisms and homilies were idolatrous (which yet we have proved to be otherwise), will it from thence follow that we are not that true Church? Is this a greater corruption in the worship of God than the retaining of high places, against which there is so express a commandment (Dt. 12:2; 1 Kn. 11:8–9; 2 Kn. 13:6), or than the burning of incense to the brazen serpent? (2 Kn. 18:4) And yet it is evident that the one of these was retained in the days of Asa (1 Kn. 15:14) and Azariah (2 Kn. 15:4) kings of Judah, and the other even till Hezekiah’s reign (2 Kn. 18:1–4): in which time notwithstanding it is manifest there was a true Church in Judah.”
.
p. 239
“The high places were continued in Israel and Judah, and that under the reign of sundry good kings [1 Kn. 3:3; 15:14; 22:43; 2 Kn. 12:2–3; 14:1–4, etc.], notwithstanding the reproof of many prophets [1 Kn. 22:42–43; 2 Chron. 15:1–2, 8, 17; 17:6; 19:2–3; 20:33]. Yet were those of Israel and Judah accounted the Church still; neither did the prophets cease to communicate with them. (2 Kings 1:3; 15:3–4)”
.
p. 252
“And seeing that they do in judgment and affection unfeignedly dislike [1 Sam. 8:6–7; 12:17–20; Mt. 23:3–4] that which, either through human infirmity (Rom. 7:15; 2 Chron. 20:33) or in Christian wisdom and to prevent more dangerous inconveniences (Gen. 47:13–27; Mt. 12:1–8; 17:24–27; Acts 16:3; 21:20–26; 1 Cor. 7:26–28), they are enforced to bear with ([Ex. 5:10–12] 1 Kn. 2:5; [1 Cor. 7:20–24]), we see not why they may not be accounted the true ministers of Christ notwithstanding they use these inconvenient ceremonies, as well as Paul might be judged to be a good Christian though he sometimes did that evil which he hated [Rom. 7:15] and Jehoshaphat a good king, though he endured the high places to continue in Judah all the time of his government because he was not able to abolish them [1 Kn. 22:42–43; 2 Chron. 20:33], and David though he suffered Joab to live many days after he had committed most unnatural murder [2 Sam. 3:27; 18:14; 20:9–10; 1 Kn. 2:5], because he was notable, whereas cutting him off would have caused manifest danger to his state [2 Sam. 3:39; 1 Kn. 2:5].
Thirdly, the use of the most unlawful ceremonies that are amongst us is not of force to make our ministry or our Church void and Antichristian, for the Galatians were still a true Church though they had received even those impotent and beggarly rudiments which they had once cast off (Gal. 4:9): much more we which cannot be said to have resumed them, as being never yet freed from the bondage of them. So was there still a true Church in Judah when the hill altars and high places were continued there (2 Kn. 14:4), which yet was a greater corruption in the worship of God than the ceremonies whereof question is made can possibly be accounted.”
.
2000’s
Travis Fentiman
“Editor’s Extended Introduction”, “Remaining Objections” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), p. 182
“Those who exaggeratingly refer to other Christian ministers sound in the fundamentals, albeit erring in other respects, as the sons of Belial or priests of Baal worshipping in the high places (where literal idolatry was used and other gods sacrificed to, a matter of fundamentals or tending to overturn them),¹ as the Separatists did,² are not harmless, but slanderous; cure yourself of that warped intoxication and protect others from it.
¹ Lev. 26:30; Dt. 12:2; 1 Kn. 11:7; 14:23; 2 Kn. 18:4; 21:3, 5; 23:20; 2 Chron. 11:15; 14:3–5; 28:25; 2 Chron. 31:1; 33:3, 17–19; 34:3; Ps. 78:58; Jer. 32:35; 48:35; Eze. 6:6, 13.
² Robert Browne, An Answer to Master Cartwright… (London: 1585), p. 48; Henry Barrow, A Collection of Certain Letters & Conferences… ([Dordrecht] 1590), p. 27; idem, A Plain Refutation of Mr. G. Giffard’s Reproachful Book (Dordrecht, 1591), pp. 2, 7, 63, 189, 216, 223.”
.
.
History
On the English Reformation & Puritan Era
Article
1600’s
Baxter, Richard – Section 7, ‘Some Matters of Fact Preparatory…’ in The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace, or an Account of their Judgment in Certain Things in which they are Misunderstood… (London, 1679), pp. 118-41
Baxter (1615–1691) gives a comprehensible and fascinating concise sketch of the history of Church conformity and non-conformity, in relation to political matters as well, from the beginning of the Prayer-Book to his own day. He was a first hand observer for much of the latter half of it. Where many historians admit perplexity about the confusing events, Baxter gives what he and others about him understood to be the causative factors and motivations for such, making a coherent, connected narrative.
.
Outline
Intro
1549-1552 Service-Book & Following
1. Origin, differences & consensus with Prayer-Book
2. Conflict at Frankfurt: Knox vs. Cox
3. Various survival tactics of non-conformists to 1640
1630’s & Rise of Laud’s Party
4. Dissensions amongst old and new conformists: Laud & new rising party: Arminianism, conciliation with Rome, property
5. Parliament’s involvement
6. Principles of Jewel, Bilson & R. Hooker
7. 1637-39: new ceremonies, persecution by Laud, alienation to bishops
1640’s, Parliament & Civil Wars
8. Parliament’s Fears, Parliament sits
9. 1641 Irish kill 200,000 persons
10. Irish claim King’s commission, safety lies in Parliament’s defense
11. 1642 Civil war, Parliament mostly conformists, presbytery little known
12. Parliament’s fear of new rising party & response
13. First open issue: about militia. Lieutenants appointed by Parliament almost all episcopal conformists
14. Same with general officers, colonels, majors etc.
Solemn League & Covenant, 1643, Westminster, to Cromwell, 1648
15. Parliament’s armies worsted, seek help of Scots, who pose SL&C as condition (1643), Parliament accepts rather than lose them, not imposed by force, opposition to prelacy an occasion of division, some take due to its lack of teeth
16. Most Westminster divines were conformists in case of deprivation, thinking the ceremonies a snare, they also took the SL&C, which only prohibits prelacy, not episcopacy, which many held moderately
17. SL&C a test for who Parliament could trust, then imposed. Many ministers and gentlemen refused it, also Cromwell’s soldiers, in many counties few took it
18. Pariament generally contrary to presbyterianism except for London, Lancashire and Coventry, where it was not imposed, but a tolerated or commended thing. It came to nothing shortly
King Executed, 1649, Cromwell’s Commonwealth to 1658
19. Parliament fought for “King and Parliament” till New Model Army, then only for “Parliament”, many deserted and sectaries joined Cromwell, who conquered, purged Parliament and executed King Charles I. Set up Commonwealth, sequestration of ministers that refused, Cromwell invades Scotland, sets up their own Parliament in England, Cromwell made Protector, rescued parish ministry, tithes and universities from sectaries
20. This all called “New Causes and Changes”, many presbyterian ministers against all this, some imprisoned, etc. Sober religious people become disaffected to new policies
21. Parish church ministers of every variety of view of Church government, many were not committed to one view
22. Many counties exercised a Church government of lowest common denominator for Episcopalians, presbyterians and Independents with love and concord, till 1659
Transition to Restoration of King Charles II, 1658-1660
23. Cromwell died, 1658, his son ejected, kingdom shamed for confusions, desire to restore King Charles II
24. First open united endeavors against Army to restore the King, including with (non-conformist) ministers who since were silenced and ruined
25. Division of the opposers, the Army and Commonwealth members, ruined them. Old Parliamentarians, Royalists, presbyterians, other ministers with Episcopal unified and restored King. Presbyterian officers of Army et al. turned against the Opposers, which turned the scales, no further resistance, Parliament prepares for King’s return, Baxter, Calamy, Gauden preach, King invited to return
26. Many for healing principles, concord, against revenge
27. Many non-conformists for return of King, necessary terms of concord with much yielding settled. King publishes ‘Gracious Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs’ which seemed to heal almost all breaches
Setting up the Restoration Church, 1660-1662
28. Chancellor gave bishoprics and deaneries to persons of concord
29. King agrees to alterations of Service-Book necessary for tender consciences, Savoy Conference with 12 bishops and 12 presbyterians and Independents to make recommendations to King, presbyterian party handed in 8 instances of “flat sin”, half of one instance handled, others passed over
Great Ejection, 1662
30. King’s “Gracious Declaration” died, Parliament made Act of Uniformity, 1662, above 2,000 ministers ejected and silenced on severe penalties
31. Protestation of some that “nothing but the fear of sin and God’s displeasure should hinder them from conformity, deprecating the woful effects of the division,” requesting abatements
32. Those ejected included:
1. Episcopalians, along the lines of Hooker, for Parliament’s War, for liturgy and ceremonies, who would otherwise conform;
2. Greatest part were “disengaged pacificators”;
3. presbyterians;
4. Independents, who were few;
5. Non-conformists for some things, not all (e.g. Perkins, Bayne, et al.) who otherwise sought to conform upon pain of deprivation.
Those who conformed known as “The New Conformity”.
33. “Presbyterian” became a label of reproach and applied by conformists to all non-conformists at this time, including presbyterians, independents, episcopalians and those neutral.
34. Older non-conformists were ordained by diocesan bishops; younger ones by assemblies of parish pastors, no other route being allowed
Blame & Complex Factors
35. Many charge the civil wars on the non-conformists, each party charges other sides. The truth:
1. Far more non-conformists were for the old Parliament than the late sort of Prelatists.
2. Some sectaries and some hot for Parliament did conform.
3. Some few in the King’s Army or cause, that suffered for him, were against the SL&C, were non-conformists.
4. Many more of the old Episcopal conformists were for Parliament, in contrast to the later sort.
5. Archbishop of York was one of Parliament’s army commanders.
6. Most ministers are dead that were in that war.
7. The Westminster Assembly was of almost all conformists.
8. So small is the number of the present silenced ministers that had any hand in the wars, that if they alone were ejected, the case would be judged easily and thankfully accepted. Most were youths in those years.
9. All the wars since the 1640’s were far from being owned by the common sort of present non-conformists
10. Parliament men then usually professed the principles of Bilson and Hooker and were conformists; so were the main body of the Westminster Assembly, Army, commanders, Lieutenants, majors and sea captains
11. Had hoped the King’s Act of Oblivion ended much of the past, but some conformed ministers still affirm in print that “All the non-conformists were guilty of the king’s death”. Some conformists cry out to magistrates to execute laws on non-conformists because of how they were sequestered under Cromwell, yet there were few non-conformists at the beginning of the wars and the now episcopal and presbyterian non-conformists much disliked the following Causes, parties and tragedies that followed
36. The people who now adhere to the non-conformists did not like the persecuting bishops in the late-1630’s, but, by ministers’ guiding, were hoping for more moderate bishops after that and had more favorable thoughts of episcopacy and submission to it, till some ministers were set over them against their wills and then 2,000 were silenced, so that the people were driven even further from conformity than even the silenced ministers.
37. 3/4ths of the ministers that had kept in the parish churches under the Parliament and Cromwell, notwithstanding the SL&C, Westminster’s Directory, etc., did prove conformists
38. Most of the conformists declared their consent to all things in the 1662 Service-Book before it was ever printed. Even if it was blameless, the ministers would have been silenced except by exercising implicit faith
Non-Conformity Continued, 1662-1679
39. Later attempts at conciliating non-conformists by peaceable divines were not effective, for “reasons unknown to us, or ineffable.”
40. Non-conformists have been called upon to tell the establishment what would satisfy them, who desire nothing but to exercise the ministry to which they were ordained, but the same ignorance and confusion prevails
.
Latin Articles
1600’s
Calderwood, David – ch. 9, ‘Of Indifferent Things & Ceremonies’ in The Altar of Damascus, or the Polity of the Anglican Church Obtruded upon the Scottish Church… (1623; Leiden, 1708), pp. 366-420 The eight propositions in this chapter are translated above in the English articles.
Alting, Henry – Syllabus of Controversies with the Lutherans, Part 2, ‘On Controversies Surrounding Ceremonies’ appended to A Logical & Theological Exegesis of the Augsburg Confession with an Appendix of the Problems Involved… (Amsterdam, 1647)
Table of Contents
Part 2, Controversies About Ceremonies 258
1. Of the Discrepancy of Rituals in the Administration of Baptism & the Supper 261 “Lutherans everywhere affirm [the following questions]; We, on the contrary, deny.”
Question 1, ‘Whether in the right administration of baptism, exorcism is adjoined; and in the administration of it in the case of necessity, it is able to be permitted to women by right?’ 261
Question 2, ‘Whether the breaking of the bread is so an indifferent ceremony that it may be left off? Whether the Supper ought to be offered separately to the sick? And whether rations of bread by place are to used for hosts (commonly so called) or circular wafers of bread?’ 265
Question 3, ‘Whether the Supper is to be administered on an altar?’ Whether the wine, in a goblet, is to be stretched forth and poured to the communicants, so that, indeed, the minister being dressed in white garments, each of the elements is not given into the hands, but is put into the mouths of the communicants?’ 270
2. Of Other Certain Rituals 274
“The State of the controversy is: Whether private confession and absolution is necessary? Whether bowing of the knees and an uncovering of the head is at the mention of the name of Jesus has been commanded? and lastly, whether Latin songs may be allowed in public assemblies? The Lutherans affirm; we deny.”
3. Of the Furnishing of Church Buildings [with Images & Organs] 278-81
“The state of the controversy is: Whether in church buildings of Christians images are to be tolerated, and also whether organs ought to be used? They affirm; we deny.”
Voet, Gisbert
Of Moderates, Tepids & Syncretists, & Of Them which are either Tepid or Approve of Lukewarmness, Moderation & Toleration about the Government & Ceremonies, named Hierarchics [Formalists] in Disputes in England in Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 2, tract 4 Abbr.
“In General
Whether every exhibited or postulated assent of moderation or syncretism in doctrine or in discipline with errors and impure churches is simply and in itself evil? It is denied.
Which therefore and of what kind is evil? It is explained.
…
What formally is Anglican puritanism (vulgarly so called)? It is explained.
Whether it really differs from the rule of the governance and practice of the French, Belgic and Scottish Churches, etc. add to this in the sense of Rainolds, Perkins, Cartwright and similar foremost theologians? It is denied.
…
Whether therefore Puritanism thus called is formally and objectively considered in itself and per se nothing other than genuine and simple Christianity and a genuine reformation? It is affirmed.
…”
Select Theological Disputations (Amsterdam: Jansson, 1667), vol. 4
p. 749 in 49. ‘A Disputation: Some Miscellaneous Positions’
‘On Instituted Worship; On the Sacred; Of Rites & Ceremonies’ in 50. ‘A Syllabus of Questions on the Decalogue’, ‘On the 2nd Commandment’, pp. 780-81
“Of Instituted Worship
1. Whether every instituted worship and its parts and circumstances are prescribed by the Word of God? It is affirmed.
2. Whether any through pretended opinions, the authority of the Church or the power of the magistrate are able to impose these in part on consciences? It is denied.
3. Whether instituted worship is mutable? It is affirmed with a distinction.
Of the Sacred
1. Whether the sacred is founded in a special ordination and by divine mandate? It is affirmed.
2. Whether under the New Testament some things are relatively sacred, such as church-buildings, times (except the weekly Sabbath), utensils, tables, cups, lamps, pulpits, furnishings, cloths, garments of ministers? It is denied.
3. Whether under the New Testament, is the preaching of the Word, the water of baptism and the bread and wine in the eucharist sacred? It is affirmed.
4. Whether whatever external particular the Church has instituted is sacred? It is affirmed.
See the disputation on benedictions and sacramental things.
Of Rites & Ceremonies
1. Whether all rites which adhere in the exercise of religion or in divine worship, whether public or private, are sacred? It is denied.
2. Whether ceremonies or rites in public worship are to be multiplied, to excite greater devotion, attention or reverence in men? It is denied.
3. Whether some ceremonies, which are called indifferent, are to be imposed on unwilling churches and ministers, indeed, under the penalty of a most grave censure, even deposition? It is denied.
4. Whether ceremonies are rightly distinguished into divine and human? It is affirmed.
5. Whether divine things are necessary for observation, at least by a necessity of divine precept? It is affirmed.
For remaining questions on ceremonies, see Ecclesiastical Politics, bk. 2, tract 2.”
Ecclesiastical Politics (Amsterdam, 1663-1676)
vol. 1, pt 1, bk. 2, ‘Of Ecclesiastical Things, or Acts & Exercises’, Tract 1, ‘Of Formularies, or Liturgies & Rituals’
ch. 1, ‘Of Formularies, or Liturgies’, pp. 343-360
Voet discusses regarding liturgies their (1) definition, (2) requisites and conditions, (3) divisions and (4) things opposite to them (false liturgies).
Under (1) their definition, Voet also discusses their genus, object and efficient cause (pp. 343-5).
Their (2) requisites and conditions are divided into those pertaining to their matter and those pertaining to their form (p. 345).
(3) How liturgies may be divided is discussed in sections 3-4 on pp. 346-54. They may be divided (1) on account of their material, extension or object, either partial or total, (2) on account of their form or construction, into guides and directories, formularies, or mixed; (3) on account of their efficient cause in public or private; (4) p. 347, according to Churches or nations:
1. ancient Churches, 2. p. 349, Swiss, 3. French, 4-5. Anglican, 6. p. 350, Scottish, 7. German, 8. Dutch; p. 351 Appendix on books of psalms and hymns by nations.
Section 4 (pp. 351-5) is on classifying liturgies according to groups outside of the protestant and reformed Churches, namely (1) the sects, (2) the Papacy, and (3) pp. 353-5 infidels (Jews, Samaritans, Muslims and heathens).
Section 5 on p. 355 discusses (4) the true and false liturgies of the ancients; Section 6, p. 356-9, of the modern eastern Churches.
ch. 2, ‘Some Questions on Liturgies & Liturgical Actions Determined’, pp. 360-374 “We come now to the problems, which are either of sacred [Scriptural] history and are didactic, or of Church history.”
1st Problem, ‘Whether ‘liturgy’ may designate a sacrifice properly so-called, it even being propitiating, or be a rule or order to be accomplished as like a sacrifice?’, p. 360
“We respond: it is further asked whether it be of a Scriptural or ecclesiastical use, or an ancient or new use.” 5 conclusions are given.
2nd Problem, ‘Whether the Old Testament Church from Moses to Ezra began to use and maintained liturgies?’, p. 361
3rd Problem, ‘Whether a liturgy from Ezra and the men of the great Synagogue (that consistory or Sanheidren, as it is termed in the Hebrew, beit deenu) was established, having been prescribed to the people of God, and was publicly used till Christ?’, p. 363 3 conclusions are given on p. 364.
4th Problem, ‘Whether forms & litugies were established in the apostolic Church from the apostles to that Church, such that they have been prescribed to all succeeding churches?’, p. 364 3 conclusions.
5th Problem, ‘Whether a universal liturgy ought to be formed and written, and imposed on all the Churches throughout the whole globe?’, p. 365 3 reasons are given.
6th Problem, ‘Whether one provincial or national liturgy ought to be established, and introduced into all of its consociating churches?’, p. 367 4 conclusions.
7th Problem, ‘Whether liturgies in the national language, whatever is commonly used to write, ought to be taken up in the churches?’, p. 368
8th Problem, ‘Whether a liturgy in Churches already settled, from their first gathering or its introduction at the Reformation, may be changed?, p. 369 1 conclusion.
9th Problem, ‘What is the Gregorian or Roman service (named after Gregory VII) and what is the Mozarabic, or Gothic, and in what place were they used, or are used in the Roman Church?’, p. 370
[No 10th Problem]
11th Problem, ‘How far it is better for a populace having been accustomed to the Roman liturgies and rites from the Papacy to the Reformation, to carry them over, if they had been so engaged initially by the reformers, having purged and yet retained the Missal, Breviary and other liturgical books and rites?’, pp. 372-4
ch. 3, ‘Of Rituals or Ecclesiastical Ceremonies’, pp. 374-384
This chapter is on the general introductory principles of the nature and properties of ceremonies, including (1) their name, (2) their nature and definition, (3) division and (4) opposites.
Under (1) Voet also briefly discusses adiaphora on p. 375.
Under (2) Voet gives numerous principles and distinctions as to worship (and its kinds) in general (p. 375) before delineating distinctions about ceremonies in general (p. 376).
p. 375, Voet distinguishes the following distinctions about worship: It is either natural or instituted. Natural is internal; instituted may be both internal and external. External is either alone or social, or private or public. Public worship is performed by the Church.
p. 376, Ceremonies are either divine or human. Divine ceremonies have been immediately instituted by God; therefore their observance is necessary. Divine ceremonies are either political or ecclesiastical. Political are either general and perpetual, observance of natural decorum, or particular, as ceremonies of the judicial law of Moses. Ecclesiastical are sacred, mystical and religious, either of the Old Testament (before or after Moses) or of the New Testament.
A human ceremony “which is observed in the practice of men, is called free. It is either civil or ecclesiastical. Civil is some external formality or a mode to be done between men, practiced by law or custom. These things are twofold: Either by a natural reason or necessity supporting, and therefore contributing to the essence or well being of something, such as a natural decorum or many aspects in the instruction of civil manners; or they are received by men as merely arbitrary and instituted. And such free ceremonies are either well-grounded or tolerated, or will be hissed at as vain, inept and rediculous as they may be seen openly in courts, halls, schools, barracks, colleges…”
p. 377, “Ecclesiastical is which is in the Church and is observed about the ecclesiastical exercises of religion; and the rite is called by another name, of indifferent things and decorum.”
Also under (2), Voet lists as requisites to ecclesiastical ceremonies, that they are to be: (1) few, (2) simple and easily observed, (3) free and indifferent, (4) that indifferent things in themselve may not be prescribed to the universal Church, that is, all churches, nor to the end of the world, nor to all particular churches in a nation, region, province or a city, nor by the magistrate, (5) they are to be held as mutable, even according to private pleasure, and (6) sister Churches may disregard them, not conform to them, but may retain their liberty as to what may serve them. (p. 378)
(3) On pp. 379-381 Voet discusses how human ecclesiastical ceremonies may be categorized by their (1) fundamentals, (2) efficient causes, (3) forms or modes, (4) subjects, or according to the times and states of the Church, or (5) by the ecclesiastical rites they occur in.
(4) In section 6, pp. 382-4, Voet (I) classifies those who oppose ceremonies:
(1) too much, the Enthusiasts and Libertines, in repudiating all external worship, (2) too little, who urge them as necessary and are indirectly involved in superstition, and (3) minimally, who bear up the appearance of evil and hold forth an occassion of evil and scandal.
Then (II) he says that ceremonies may be classified according to those who practice them, discussing the rites of:
(1) magicians and heathens, (2) the Jews, (3) the Muslims, (4) the Papists, (5) the Eastern Churches, (6) the Fathers and their successors, who merged into the Papal Antichrist, (7) the Anglicans & the Scots, and (8) the German, or Lutheran churches.
ch. 4. ‘The Controversy which Comes Between us & the Papacy on the Same Ceremonies, in General’, pp. 384-405 Irregular numbering
Section 1, Intro, p. 384
Section 2, 1st Consideration, p. 391 Irregular numbering
Section 3, 2nd Consideration, p. 392
Section 4, 3rd Consideration, p. 395
Section 5, 4th Consideration, p. 397
Section 6, 5th Consideration, p. 397
Section 7, 6th Consideration, p. 399
Section 8, 7th Consideration, p. 400
Section 9, Problem, ‘Whether all papal ceremonies, according to them, are properly sacred and mystical, mystically signifying or working sacred or spiritual things? I respond: Yes.’, pp. 404-05
ch. 5, ‘Of the Ceremonies yet Remaining in the Greater Part of the German [Lutheran] Churches’, pp. 405-413
p. 405, Voet lists as the Lutheran practices disputed by the reformed: using images and altars, keeping feasts on account of the apostles and saints, baring the head and bowing the knee at the name of Jesus, ministers using sacerdotal vestments, baptism with exorcism and the sign of the cross, practicing private confession and absolution in preparation for the Lord’s Supper, using unleavened bread and a money-changer[?] with respect to the Supper, the minister not breaking the bread in the Supper, baptism (of infants) by women and other private individuals, administering the Supper privately to the sick, receiving the eucharistic symbol by the mouth and not first receiving it in the hand, singing latin songs, using a harmonious concert and organs, lighting candles for the administration of the eucharist, and bowing the knee at the sight of the eucharist.
p. 406, Section 2, “we come now to an examination of the controversy. They contend that the ceremonies are indifferent things, even working for good order.” Voet gives 6 considerations against this in section 2.
p. 408, Section 3, “Reasons and exceptions in defence of those [Lutheran] ceremonies are either general or particular. The particulars which have been so judged by Eckhard, have been briefly and vigorously refuted by Alting (Syllabus of Controversies with the Lutherans, Part 2, ‘On Controversies Surrounding Ceremonies’)” Voet then gives 5 general exceptions, with responses, and then, pp. 409-13, 6 testimonies from various figures used in support of the ceremonies, with responses.
ch. 6, ‘On the Controversy about Some Ceremonies of the Anglican Church’, pp. 413-422
Voet first lists and describes the categories of those who oppose the Anglican ceremonies: (1) the conformists, (2) the puritans, and (3) the complete separatists (the Brownists and Barrowists). p. 414, bot, Voet describes the puritans, both conforming and non-conforming.
p. 415, mid, Voet lists as the disputed ceremonies: the cross and creed [catechismus] in baptism, confirmation, woman baptism, a white outer-garment [the surplice], reception to the communion of the Church and the Supper without a foregoing examination, a ring in the confirmation of matrimony, the succession[?, serie] of saints, bowing the knee or tipping the head at the name of Jesus, the reading of the apocryphal books [in the Church], a harmony of music, whether vocal or instrumental, without being accommodated for edification, the lengthy recitation of the liturgy and divine office, the terms ‘priest’ and ‘absolution’ and others occuring in the service-book, and kneeling at the Supper.
He also lists the ordinal of reading Scripture, involving the excluding from the public, ecclesiastical reading genuine books of Scripture, the reading of a translation which is not consistent, and the bad explanations and applications of Scripture texts in the service-book.
pp. 415-6, “Out of the ceremonies strictly so called, three are principal… genuflexion [bowing of the knees], that is, in the Supper, the cross in baptism and the white outer-garment [surplice] in the divine services.” Voet then gives a history of the literature of the dispute.
In Section 2, Voet gives 10 reasons which are commonly opposed to these ceremonies, pp. 416-8. On p. 418, Voet mentions the orthodox conforming clergyman and pious students who disputed with the puritans, over the point of conformity to inconvenient ceremonies on point of deprivation of the ministry, a leading author of which was John Sprint.
Section 3 gives a historical survey of how these old Anglican ceremonies and Papal relics were introduced (especially in Scotland by the Articles of Perth, 1618) and opposed by public authority.
Section 4, pp. 419-22, “I add now this small testimony” on how “the so-called indifferent ceremonies” entered England by law under Edward VI, and the context surrounding that. A’Lasco is block quoted near the end.
ch. 7. ‘Questions Further Explained on the Nature, Causes & Properties of the Ceremonies’, pp. 422-460 “On the public controversies [previously] explicated, we respond to various problems and questions on the ceremonies, by which the nature and properties of them may be the better laid open. I divide them into problems on ceremonies in general and on ceremonies in particular. The first classes [on ceremonies in general] pertain to what it is, or the definition, or the causes or properties.”
On the definition of a ceremony:
1st Problem, ‘Whether precepts have been instituted about sacred or divine ceremonies by God immediately by positive law, being called by another name in Scripture than law or moral precepts? We respond: No.’, p. 422
2nd Problem, ‘Whether all rites and external observances about divine worship in the Old Testament Church may have been formally sacred or divine, even types or prefiguring? We respond: No.’, p. 423
3rd Problem, ‘Whether therefore rites of order or decorum, or of whatever indifferent, ecclesiastical observation in the Old Testament are of no use in the New Testament? We respond: No.’, p. 423
4th Problem, ‘Whether something divinely consecrated, that is, an institution, prescription of external form, or a promise and assignation of moral efficiency worked by God in divine worship and spiritual things is a foundation properly so called of a religious or sacred ceremony? We Respond: Yes.’, p. 424
5th Problem, ‘Whether Ceremonies of whatever significance in the Word of God, or institution or prescription in whatever thing, immediately works divine, mystical, sacred or religious things?’ We respond: We deny in three following ways, but it is conceded in one way.’, p. 424
6th Problem, ‘Whether an indifferent or ecclesiastical ceremony from and in the Churches after the apostles, being observed or instituted by the apostles, may be founded by divine law? We respond: positively we deny; permissively we affirm.’, p. 424
7th Problem, ‘Whether the material of a ceremony, whether properly called sacred, or human or ecclesiastical, is only an action; or whether it may also be a quantity, quality or relation, and this for all that is predicated of it, as Swarez would have it? We affirm’, indeed, if with regard to ‘substance’ you take it with a grain of salt.’, p. 424
8th Problem, ‘Whether even a ceremony may be able to be appointed by a privation, ommision or abstinence? We respond: Yes.’, p. 425
9th Problem, ‘Whether the use is of the essence of a ceremony, whether truly sacred, or only apparently or supposedly so? We respond: No.’, p. 425
10th Problem, ‘Whether in the O.T. before Moses there had been sacred ceremonies properly so-called, and the observing of indifferent ecclesiastical ceremonies for the sake of decorum and good-order? I respond: Yes.’, p. 425
11th Problem, ‘Whether in the time of the N.T. there were instiuted, or observed by the apostles ceremonies properly called sacred and mystical, whether in their signifying or working, which however were not parts of divine worship, nor instituted by divine law, nor consequently necessary by the necessity of a precept? I respond: No.’, p. 425
“Indeed, nothing like the example of a ceremony has been exhibited thus far. On the laying on of hands and of the holy kiss, we speak below.”
12th Problem, ‘Why may authors, the Papists as well as our own, be seen to vary in the definition of a ceremony in the assignment of, even, the genera, or the object, or the foundation, or the efficient cause or the end? See Thomas, 1.2, Q. 99, art. 3; Hemmingsen, Works in folio, pp. 471, 800, 1,389; Zegedinum, Common Places in folio, p. 53; Francis Junius, On the Polity of Moses, ch. 7; Polanus, Syntagma in folio, p. 635; Daneus, Introductions, bk. 3, pt. 4, ch. 22; also Melanchthon, Pezel and Aretius cited below. We respond: A various acceptation of the term is in case.”, p. 425
Section 2, “Problems surrounding the causes of the ceremonies are these:”
1st Problem, ‘Whether by an apostolic example or practice any ceremonies may have had been founded to be observed in the Churches of the New Testament? We respond, you ought to distinguish…’, p. 425, bot.
2nd Problem, ‘Whether order and decorum in the receiving of the Supper (1 Cor. 11:21-22) and in the exercise of prophecy (1 Cor. 14:29,34) are ceremonies having been instituted by the Church?’, p. 426
3rd Problem, ‘Whether in Churches post-apostolic or gathered ecumenically or separately by nations, provinces, etc. power may be competent to assume and apply indifferent ceremonies in divine worship?’, p. 426
1st Conclusion: To the Church in the genus…
2. Of the universal Church of the whole earth, or of Churches congregated in an ecumenical synod…
3. I give the Churches of the whole earth…
4. Diocesan provinces of a synod…
5.
6.
4th Problem, ‘Whether preceding Churches or dictations universal, or national, or provincial, or particular, are able to oblige those following or succeeding of its order without some explicit or implicit interceding examination, choice, judgment or free consent of whichever succeeding Church? I respond: It is denied.’, p. 427
5th Problem, ‘Whether ceremonies ought to be changed without a grave and urgent necessity? We respond, ceremonies ought to be distinguished: the decorum of which is founded in a pure particular, civil custom [or more], from those which are observed out of some natural or hypothetical necessity, as the means to an end, or to something’s being or well-being…’, p. 427
1st Conclusion:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6th Problem, ‘From who is a change able to be made, from whatever pleases a minister, or from whatever pleases a session, a presbytery, or a provincial or national synod?’, p. 430
7th Problem, ‘Whether it may be conducive to prescribe or prohibit all the indifferent ecclesiastical laws or canons, or at least decrees?’, p. 430
1st Conclusion:
2.
8th Problem, p. 430
9th Problem, p. 431
1st Conclusion:
2.
3.
10th Problem, ‘Where from bishops or the magistrate certain new and [previously] unused ceremonies, but called ‘indifferent’, are obtruded, whether a Church or the ministers ought to receive them in order to avoid a greater evil, for instance persecution or a major change in doctrine, or schism, etc.? I respond:’, p. 431
1st Conclusion: If the reception may note approbation, it is denied. For none ought to exert force to bear on the conscience or the power of the Church and the cause of truth for this reason.
2. If indeed the reception may note ecclesiastical connivance or permission, or toleration: of the common members it is able to be distinguished…”
Section 3, “Problems on the affections or properties of the ceremonies follow…” p. 431, bot.
1st Problem, p. 431, 8 conclusions.
2nd Problem, ‘Whether all divine and evangelical ceremonies of the New Testament have been declared?’, p. 433
3rd Problem, ‘Whether a ceremony or rite, or type or shadow in the Old Testament may be turned back? We respond: No.’, p. 434
4th Problem, ‘Whether every rite or order in the Church of the Old Testament…’, p. 436
5th Problem, ‘Whether a ceremony is the same as a sign?’, p. 449
6th Problem, p. 451
7th Problem, ‘Whether a ceremony and a symbol are the same?’, p. 452
8th Problem, ‘Whether mysteries and ceremonies are the same…’, p. 452
Section 4, 9th Problem, ‘Whether rites in themselves and properly indifferent may always remain such even through the changed time and state of the Church? or whether indifferent things are able to be dismissed or taken off, and by what way?’, pp. 454-60
2 Conclusions, p. 454-7
6 Responses, p. 457
4th-6th Problems, pp. 457-60
ch. 8. ‘Questions on Some Rituals in Particular: on the Laying on of Hands, the [Holy] Kiss, Abstinence from Things Strangled & Blood, the Marriage Rite, Anointing, Shaking the Feet of Dust, Love Feasts, the Rite of Covenanting & of the Washing of Feet.’, pp. 460-81 3 sections
Section 1, p. 460 “Problems on rites follow, certainly not all, but only some select ones in particular that the Scripture has mentioned. Those remaining are nearly innumerable which occur in the books of the Old and New Testament or ecclesiastical writings, whether ancient, medieval, modern or recent…”
1st Problem, ‘What of the rite of laying on of hands in miracles (Mk. 16:18; 6:13)?’, p. 460 2 Conclusions.
2nd Problem, ‘Of what sort was the laying on of hands in blessing (Heb. 6:2)?’, p. 460
3rd Problem, ‘What ought to be decided about the laying on of hands in Acts 8 & 19:6 considered with Heb. 6:2?’, p. 461 3 Conclusions
4th Problem, ‘What is to be decided about the laying on of hands in ordination or the constituting of ministers (on which see 1 Tim. 4 & 5)?’, pp. 461-66
“I respond: The Papists make ordination a sacrament, and this the material of it, the laying on of hands (see Cornelius a Lapide, Commentary in location). This opinion has been refuted, see their antagonists. The Lutherans however reckon it according to the indifferent rites (see Eckhardt in location cited); however they are seen to discover something in it mystical and necessary however often they knowingly touch upon our indifferent things on this rite. We, however varied in locations and possibly in however many churches this right is used, yet adjudge it to be merely indifferent. See Piscator, Daneus and other commentators in 1 Timothy and Acts 6 & 13; and Alting in the Exegesis of the Augsburg Confession, p. 90. This right was commonly used in synagogues, schools and the polity of the Jews, from where it is seen the apostles took it, which is the opinion of Calvin in his Commentary on Acts 6 & 13, and Institutes, bk. 4, ch. 3, section 16.”
Queries 1-4, p. 462
Queries 5-7, p. 463-4
Query 8, p. 465-6
Section 2, ‘We come now to the rite of the kiss (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Pet. 5:14), of which it is queried, whether it may be a mystical or sacred rite, and have been by divine law imposed?’, p. 466
“I respond: It was a common rite, in species and form, from custom or practice then and there received; it was accustomed to be used as a sign of love, friendship, familiarity, even of subjection, etc.
On this rite: the Philology & Antiquary of [John de] Pineda [1558–1637, a Jesuit] on Job 31:27 has informed. Out of theologians other than Pineda: Aretius, pt. 3, [Jean de] Lorinus [1559-1634, a Jesuit] and [Andrew] Rivet on Ps. 2; and Lorinus in the same has cited Joseph Stephanus in the Tractate on Kissing the Feet of the Pontiff.”, p. 466
Section 3
Problem 3, ‘What ought to be made of abstinence from suffocated things and blood (Acts 15)? , p. 471
“I respond that it was a part of the obedience to the divinely given ceremonial laws until the death of Christ, and a fulfilling of the time of correction (Col. 2; Heb. 9). But by the death of Christ, it being one with the other ceremonials, became defunct as to observing it in conscience, yet not however until it had an honest funeral, but from reason of the scandal of the weak from amongst the circumcision, some of them were to observe them in parts till the Jews may be fully and plainly convicted of the cessation of the ceremonial law.”
Voet then says that this subject has been treated in other places and to see especially Hoornbeek’s Diatribe on Blood and Suffocation (not able to find on the net) and Andreas Libavius (1555-1616) on the Singulars (on the Hexameron), pt. 2 (the page number does not line up).
4th Problem, ‘Whether the joining of hands in the sign of a contract and the entrance of marriage is a divine, sacred or religious ceremony? I respond: None of them.’ p. 471
5th Problem, ‘What is to be decided of anointings or besmearings of oil and ointments?’, p. 472
6th Problem, ‘What of the Covering of Women in the Churches (1 Cor. 11)?’, p. 475 bot.
“It is not a rite indifferent, nor a sacred ecclesiastical ordinance, but a common one, by which out of a natural decorum it ought to obtain everywhere and ordinarily; where and however often women come together in some assembly or go out in public. That being, moreover, a covering or sheltering of the head, even [tum] natural, that is, the hair, or in addition [tum] something put on. Of that is put forth in verse 6 [14?], ‘Doth not nature teach…'”, pp. 475-6
7th Problem, ‘What about the shaking of the dust of the feet (Mt. 10:14; Mk. 6:11; Lk. 9:5, 10:11; Acts 13:51)?’, p. 476-8
8th Problem, ‘What about love-feasts?’, p. 478
9th Problem, ‘What of the rite of covenanting, or confederating, that is by a passing through slain, divided animal parts, which is mentioned in Gen. 15:17 & Jer. 34:18?’, p. 479
10th Problem, ‘What of the washing of feet (Jn. 13)?, p. 481
“I respond: Of this we have discussed above in the chapter, and thus I will not repeat it here.”
Voet may be referring to the 7th problem above on the command to shake the dust of of one’s feet. Though foot-washing is not explicitly mentioned in that section, the same principles would apply.
vol. 4, pt. 3, bk. 3, Of the Government of the Church with Respect to a State of Turbulence, Tract 1, Of the Dispersion and Regathering of the Church
5. Of Reformation in Rituals and Ceremonies 443
Question 1 445
2. ‘Whether for ministers in that Church infested with these rites it is lawful to take up the ministry and then to persevere in the ministry? I respond:
In what way? If indeed they proceed through the connivance of them, and persevere, they are tolerated. In which way they were tolerated in England in the beginning and exercise of the ministery of some non-conformists (so-called) through the leniency of some bishops and officials, and long and noble study and zeal, and piety of those favored ministers.’ 445
3. ‘Is it nonetheless lawful for a given Church, or founders of the Church, to purge or omit idle and dangerous rites, by their panting and counsel, in order to advance the cause of a more accurate reformation? I respond:
Why not? Thus churches in Germany, at the beginning of the Reformation, ministered the eucharist in round wafers without the breaking [of bread], and eventually came to the breaking of bread. Indeed, even amongst Lutherans, they progressed to the administration of baptism without exorcism.” 445
4. 445
.
.
.
“An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon… And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.”
Ex. 20:24-25
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”
Dt. 4:2
.
.
.
Related Pages
The Regulative Principle of Worship
Against Conformity to What is Not Right
The Right of Continued Protest unto the Truth
On Customs, the Holy Kiss, Foot Washing, Anointing with Oil, Love Feasts, etc.