On Impurities in Worship

“For a multitude of the people… had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, ‘The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.’ And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah…”

2 Chron. 30:17-21

“But I have a few things against thee… which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.”

Rev. 2:14-16

“And the rest will I set in order when I come.”

1 Cor. 11:34

Subsections

Occasional & Partial Conformity without Sin
God may Answer Unbelievers’ Prayers
Acts of Church Government & Discipline are Worship
May Partake in Lutherans’ Supper
Administration of Sacraments in Extraordinary Circumstances

Order of Contents

Intro
Impure Ordinances: Valid 16+
Impurity vs. Idolatry 16+
Principles 8+

Impure Life Defiles Worship 5+
All Worship is Impure 9+
Degrees of 15+
Necessary Duties though Others Sin 4+
Abstain from Sinful Impurities, though join in Service 8+

Nadab & Abihu 8
God May Accept Impure Worship 28+
Omitting Parts of Worship 12+
Some Impurities may be Performed 20+
Impure Worship may be Better than Pure 3

Need to Reform 2
When Impurities can’t be Reformed 5

Intro

The Christian ought to love God’s worship (Ps. 84), and as it is the Lord’s worship and due glory (Isa. 42:8; 48:11; Mal. 2:2), we ought to worship Him according to his pleasure, as He has revealed for us to do, not adding or taking away anything therefrom (Ex. 20:4-6; Lev. 10:1-2; Dt. 4:2; 12:32; 1 Kings 12:32-33; 1 Chron. 15:12-13; Prov. 30:6; Mt. 15:9; Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:23).

Yet what does one do if an act of public worship departs from the Scriptural standard? May one participate in it, and the service, or not? These questions are only the beginning of those that factor into the subject of impurities in worship.

This webpage will prove invaluable to you in walking you through faithful and sure Scriptural principles embedded in the Westminster standards and taught by past godly puritans. Precisely because of the complexity of the circumstances, issues and corruptions the puritans faced, in many ways far beyond our own, the principles they lay out, in faithful precision, go into the issues in more depth and detail than may be found nearly anywhere else.

Intro to Principles:
Validity of Impure Ordinances

To begin, not every corruption in a worship-ordinance overturns its validity. The impure ordinance may still retain its fundamental nature (or essence) and God’s authority and blessing, with edification (though mitigated) unto the people. For instance, the Lord’s Supper may not be administered in every way it ought to be, but it is still the Lord’s Supper, upheld by Christ’s Spirit, and not simply a snack. See this principle demonstrated from Scripture:

In Ex. 4:24-27 the Lord comes seeking Moses’s life, he not having circumcised his son. Moses’s wife, Zipporah, not real happy about the whole affair, takes a sharp rock (primitive even for their day) and cuts off her son’s foreskin and throws it at Moses’s feet with some uncomely words. That’s not really how circumcision should go, but the Lord accepted it as valid and spared Moses’s life.

Profoundly, Ex. 20:24 says, “…in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.” Irrespective of all the impurities that may be found in the assemblies of God’s people, yet for his name’s sake being revealed there, the Lord will bless the people nonetheless.

In evidence of this, none can deny the efficacy of the Temple rites to the believing Israelites through the history of the kings when “yet the high places” round about Jerusalem, filled with idolatry, sometimes of pagan gods, “were not taken away.” (2 Kings 14:1-4) Yet, nonetheless, king Amaziah in this passage is commended to a significant degree having done “that which was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not like David his father…”

Surely the worldly merchandizing and commercialization of God’s house before Christ purged it, twice (at the beginning and end of his ministry), did not remove the salvific authority and influence from the Temple worship, so far as Christ and many of the godly still attended it, and were obliged to (Mt. 8:4; Lk. 1:9; 2:27, 37, 46; 18:10; Jn. 5:14; 7:14; 8:2).

Though Paul spends half a chapter describing the disorders of the Corinthians about the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17-34), yet he is able to say of it, as it is in itself, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16)

The Word is spoken of in Scripture as “lively oracles,” (Acts 7:38), that is, the Word is life giving of itself by God’s Spirit (James 1:18, 21) irrespective of man’s corruption that attends it. So teaches Westminster, speaking of the universal Church on earth:

“Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints in this life… and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto…

particular churches… are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.” (WCF 25.3-4)

It is true ordinances may be so corrupted as to overturn their validity and authority,¹ sometimes becoming more dangerous than edifying. Hence the prophet in 1 Kings 13 places God’s curse upon the altar and communion meals of Northern Israel at its outset, due to the front and center open idolatry (1 Kings 13:1-8). Separation here is mandated (1 Kings 13:9-10). Likewise, the Roman mass has completely overturned the Lord’s Supper, bringing on it the curse and removal of God and all faithful Christians.²

¹ For the best material on how to tell when this occurs, see the presbyterian Zachary Crofton below.
² On the Legitimacy & Necessity of Separation from Romanism

Yet if ordinances remain valid, being the Lord’s, there is some degree of obligation Christians have in principle to countenance and hold fellowship with them, just as the Lord does.

Separatism?

While one ought never to sin (1 Cor. 15:34; WLC 99.5), yet it is not inherently wrong to be in a place where others sin in worship (Lev. 10:1-2 with vv. 7, 12; 1 Kings 18:25-29; Dan. 3:5-12; Mk. 1:22-27; Jude 12). Jesus told his disciples to positively go and hear and obey the scribes and Pharisees who sat in the seat of Moses’s authority, so far as they taught Moses’s Law (Mt. 23:1-3), an act of worship (Dt. 4:10; 6:6; Dt. 31:12; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:10), though the Pharisees and scribes also made up their own worship practices, which the disciples were not to do (Mt. 15:1-9).

Paul tells the Corinthians, not to forsake the assembly of the saints due to their corruptions in worship, but to reform and let every one examine, judge and purge himself (1 Cor. 11:27-31). The oft abused passage, 2 Cor. 6:17, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord,” refers not to the necessity of separating from Christ’s Church, or even local assemblies, but the necessity of coming out from the world into salvation and Christ’s visible Church:

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?… And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?…

‘…I will be their God, and they shall be my people.’ Wherefore come out from among them… and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters…” (2 Cor. 6:14-18)

Jesus, in his letters to his impure churches, tells Christians not to leave them, but to repent and keep their garments undefiled (Rev. 3:3-4).

While wholesale idolatry ought to be fled from (1 Kings 13:1-10; 2 Chron. 11:13-16; 1 Cor. 10:14, 21-22; 1 Jn. 5:21; Rev. 18:4), yet not every impurity or corruption is of the greatest or equal severity (1 Kings 15:14; 22:42-43), especially when Churches on the whole, such as at Corinth, “keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you,” (1 Cor. 11:2). This commendation of faithfulness was given to Corinth though they had leaders in worship ministering in unknown languages (1 Cor. 14:13-17), they mixed the Lord’s Supper with a common meal such that many did not discern the Lord’s body in it (1 Cor. 11:20-21, 29, 33-34), many things were out of order, confusion reigned (1 Cor. 14:33, 40), shameful things were occuring (1 Cor. 11:5-6, 14), people were getting drunk (1 Cor. 11:21) and a visitor might think they were out of their minds (1 Cor. 14:23).

Separatism, the belief and practice that one must separate in principle and withdraw all communion from a Church with mere impurities, is a great sin and schism (Rom. 14:22; 1 Cor. 12:25; Jude 19). If Jesus did not and does not (Mk. 1:22-27; Lk. 4:16; 1 Cor. 5:4; Gal. 6:18; 2 Tim. 4:22; Phile. 1:25; Rev. 2:1), neither should we.¹ When the Levites in Northern Israel moved south to the more pure worship in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 11:13-16), it was due to the Northern Church’s wholesale idolatry, with God’s excommunication attending, not due to mere impurities in worship.

¹ For reformed writings against separatists, see our page, ‘On Schism & Separatism’.

“False Worship”?

One justification often put forward for Separatism is that worship not prescribed by the Lord is false worship, which He does not accept. Therefore, according to some versions, God will not accept our worship in the midst of, or conjoined with, false worship.

Besides that “the word of God is… a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12), and hence able to distinguish each person’s worship in a mixed multitude, the label “false worship” in this cause, in the words of Richard Baxter, “is mere deceit.” As he notes, amidst other important factors: “Every sermon, prayer or sacrament which we administer has faultiness and sin and is so far ‘false worship’,”† in that the sins and sinful dispositions and inclinations of our soul defile in principle every act of worship we offer.

† References to unsourced quotes in this Intro are provided lower on this page. Baxter there fills out this and the larger issues more fully.

When some condemn “false” or impure worship, it is often the outward manner or performance that is at issue. Yet, in light of Baxter’s observation, what is worse: a falling short and sin of the heart, or of the outward motions of the body? (Mt. 6:23; Mt. 15:18-19) Conversely, what has more righteousness in it, the motions of the soul or those of the external body? (1 Sam. 16:7; Prov. 4:23; Mt. 6:22; 22:37) You ought to look into that.²

² See ‘On Internal & External Worship’, ‘Natural vs. Instituted Worship’, and compare ‘On the 1st Commandment’ with ‘On the 2nd Commandment’.

Clearly not every fault and degree of sin overturns the true, good and healthy worship that is in the (even impure) ordinance and act, especially when the substance of true inward spiritual worship is present.³ The impurity of an undue ordering of natural things in worship (1 Cor. 14:40), which things are not held to be religiously significant or means of grace, may be negligible, imprudent and/or tolerable. Paul gave it some time: “And the rest will I set in order when I come.” (1 Cor. 11:34)

³ See ‘On Internal & External Worship’.

In respect of things religiously significant in worship, in the time of Hezekiah many people came and ate the Passover who had not properly sanctified themselves according to God’s commandment. Yet their impure worship was accepted with the Lord, as:

“Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, ‘The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God… though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.’ And the Lord… healed the people.” (2 Chron. 30:18-20)

God may Accept Sincere, Impure Worship

It is sometimes held as doctrine: “Sincerity cannot make unscriptural worship acceptable to God.” If what is meant is that sincere, unscriptural worship is not approved and acceptable to God so far as it deviates to this degree from his Scriptural Law, this truism hardly needs to be mentioned. However, that sincerity cannot make unscriptural worship acceptable to God, simply, is in opposition to the Word. It can, by God’s grace. Besides the passage about Hezekiah above:

In Lev. 4:2-3, 13-14 a kind of sacrifice was provided and accepted for worship-sins done in ignorance (and this in contrast to sins of knowing, flagrant presumption: Num. 15:30). Later, when David of his own devising sought to make a house for the Lord, an act of worship (so far as such was above nature’s light and was for the Lord and his direct honor immediately), the Lord responded:

“Whereas it was in thine heart to build an house unto my name, thou didst well that it was in thine heart. Nevertheless thou shalt not build the house…” (1 Kings 8:18-19)

The sincerity of the kings Jehoshaphat and Jehoash went much towards their impure worship throughout their lives being accepted with God:

“Jehoshaphat… turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the Lord: nevertheless the high places were not taken away…” (1 Kings 22:42-43)

“Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days… But the high places were not taken away…” (2 Kings 12:2-3)

In the days of king Asa God “was found” by the people of Judah amidst their sincere, partly (yet significantly) unscriptural worship; and Asa’s heart was perfect all his days despite the high places remaining:

“And all Judah rejoiced at the oath: for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought Him with their whole desire; and He was found of them… But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days.” (2 Chron. 15:15-17)

Nor did the high places prevent God from accepting the Scriptural worship Asa did offer. The passage immediately adds:

“And he [Asa] brought into the house of God the things that his father had dedicated, and that he himself had dedicated, silver, and gold, and vessels.” (2 Chron. 15:18)

In Hezekiah’s time it is said, “the Levites were more upright in heart to sanctify themselves than the priests,” and yet their combined worship was evidently accepted of the Lord:

“the burnt offerings were in abundance… So the service of the house of the Lord was set in order. And Hezekiah rejoiced, and all the people, that God had prepared the people…” (2 Chron. 29:34-36)

In the New Testament, in Romans 14, where some persons are publicly worshippingª (vv. 2, 6) not in accord with the truth (vv. 14, 16, 20), yet it says God receives these weak believers (v. 3), makes them to stand before Him (v. 4), they are not to be judged (v. 3), but “let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (v. 5) and give God thanks (v. 6).

ª That eating or refusing certain foods and esteeming certain days more than others out of religious principle is a kind of worship, see ‘On the Definition of Worship’.

A major reason for this is that “the kingdom of God is not” in outward ordinances (such as “meat and drink”):

“but [in] righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.” (vv. 17-18)

Ought a person to separate from the assembly over such things? “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth [for others].” (v. 22)

Impurities in worship do not make void these fundamental Scriptural promises:

“The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.” (Ps. 51:17)

“…but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my Word.” (Isa. 66:2)

“The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” (James 5:16)

This Biblical teaching, that a worshipper’s sincerity may make their unscripturally impure worship, by God’s grace, acceptable with Him (Woe be to you if it doesn’t), was taught by the puritans John Dod, John Downame, John Cotton, Jeremiah Burroughs, John Owen, Stephen Charnock, John Corbet, Thomas Manton and Matthew Henry below. Does Christ’s intercession at God’s right hand for believers effect nothing? If God answered Hezekiah’s prayer for his impurely worshipping people, would He not answer the prayer of the One greater than Hezekiah? The Covenant believers are under is one of grace.

The great objection to this Scriptural teaching is often purported to be in Leviticus 10 where Nadab and Abihu, claimed (from silence) to be sincere, are killed for worshipping the Lord in an uncommanded way. There is much evidence Nadab and Abihu were devoid of any meaningful sincerity and when Aaron, in the second half of the chapter, breaks one of God’s worship-commands, his sincerity and impure worship is evidently accepted of the Lord. See this proved in detail below: ‘Leviticus 10 Cleared & Vindicated regarding the Doctrine of Impurities of Worship’.

Necessary Duties though Others Sin

If worship ordinances remain valid under impurities, maintaining some weight of obligation upon us, then necessarily we may be obliged to partake in some impure ordinances, especially when that is all that is available.

In 1 Sam. 2:12-17, the priestly sons of Eli, sons of Belial, having a predilection for raw meat, ordered their servant to take out meat from the sacrifices before they were fully cooked. When the people objected, force was threatened. While this scandal caused Israelites to abhor the Lord’s offering (v. 17), yet it was the only way the people could give their commanded sacrifice to the Lord; and ought they not to do this, and receive and eat their due from it (fully cooked), though the corrupt priests sin in the matter and damage the whole ordinance? Ought not one to receive what remains of their inheritance from the Lord though it has been diminished and corrupted by unfaithful ministers?

In the 1 Sam. 2 scenario, the people were not performing any impurity themselves. Yet the principle at hand goes farther than this. We are obliged to personally perform some impure acts of worship. An example is that though our private (and public) prayers are often tainted with impure dispositions, affections and thoughts, yet we are obliged to the material act, lest the necessary, obliging good be left undone.³

³ For how this can be so, see this explained in part in the section ‘Unbelieving Democracies’ in the article by Fentiman, ‘Theses on the Ethics of Civil Voting, with a Correction to the Booklet ‘Christ Centered Voting”.

The principle goes yet further, but for that, see the Intro and puritan quotes, with the Scriptures and Westminster excerpts, in the section below, ‘Some Impure Worship may be (and even must be) Lawfully, Personally Performed in Some Circumstances for the Inherent Good in it & for Higher, Good Reasons’.

On the flipside, if a worship act be sinful to perform in itself, one ought to abstain from it, though others sin in performing it. If this applies to private and social worship (Mt. 15:1-9), how much more to public? Yet this does not prevent one from partaking in the worship service where one can, for the good in it:

When Hananiah prophesied falsely before all the priests and people gathered in the Temple, Jeremiah hearing said “amen” to what was true in it (Jer. 28:6), before rebuking him for the rest (Jer. 28:7-16). In Paul’s time persons opposed to him preached Christ out of envy and strife; Paul just rejoiced that Christ was preached (Phil. 1:15-18).

The Best Worship

As one ought to do the greatest good one can, and instituted worship flows out of the 2nd Commandment, while givng God his due natural worship by honoring and obeying Him in all of life is more foundational and important, flowing out of the 1st Commandment,¹ so in seeking out the best worship, it may mean attending a church with less pure external ordinances. The Son chose to come in the flesh, far from those perfect ordinances of worship in Heaven, in order to abide with our very impure Church and her imperfect worship on earth, out of obedience to his Father (Ps. 40:6-8).

¹ See ‘Natural vs. Instituted Worship’, ‘On Internal & External Worship’, ‘On the 1st Commandment’ and ‘On the 2nd Commandment’.

Thus attending a church that even omits parts of Biblical worship may be best for one’s circumstances (that ethically applies beyond the era of Covid and spreading diseases).¹ Westminster Larger Catechism 99.5 rightly teaches: “what He commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times.” Nor are external worship ordinances the primary factor for choosing a church. You ought to choose a church where you can love the Lord your God the most, doing his will, and love your neighbor as yourself, helping others to do likewise.

¹ For help on that topic see ‘On Social Distancing & the Church’s Adaptation in a Time of Spreading Disease’.

Note that, despite the highly contextual arguments against Separatism on this page, the same puritans rightly taught, ‘Persons may Leave for a More Profitable Church’.

So far from being lifted up about a church’s pure worship ordinances (1 Cor. 8:1), humble yourself “under the mighty hand of God” (1 Pet. 5:6) in viewing from his Word and the faithful reformed divines below that, ‘All Worship is Impure before his Uncreated Being & Infinite Perfections: that of Sinners, the Holy Angels & of Spotless Glorified Saints, Forever’.

Occasional Communion

Only some of the principles on this page, much less specifics, have been touched on in this Intro. Yet life and its circumstances are often complicated, where guidance would be profitable. The theologian below who spelled out in greatest detail and precision the most principles relating to faithfully navigating impurities in worship is Richard Baxter. You may find this material in the section, ‘Principles of Union & Separation about Church Assemblies with Impurities of Worship in Them’, which may be the most practically and theoretically helpful section on this page.

The general tenor of Baxter’s view came to be known as “Occasional Communion” and was held and practiced by many English presbyterians and puritans before and after him.¹ Occasional Communion holds that, while one ought to love God’s pure worship and practice it where possible (if it be best to do so), and seek reform unto it, yet it is allowable, right, obliging and best to participate in and have communion with some impure churches and their worship, in some circumstances, ways, degrees and times, and this without sin.

¹ For presbyterians and puritans before Baxter: Baxter, The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace (London, 1679), 7. ‘Some Matters of Fact Preparatory…’, sect. 3, pp. 121-22; James Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue (1704), pp. 42-43. For presbyterians and puritans after Baxter, see a number of them below on this page.

We heartily endorse Occasional Communion (the dominant view of the Westminster divines) with its many attendent implications and details, though its practitioners did vary in some of the specifics (such as what precisely constitutes pure worship, what practices be sin or not, or may be tolerated or not, how far erring human laws about such ought to be deferred to, and in what contexts, etc.). As Baxter and many in his context, not to mention the Westminster divines, swore to the Solemn League and Covenant (1643), so Occasional Communion takes this into account. There is a section with more resources on Occasional Communion on our page, ‘On Schism & Separatism’: ‘On Occasional, Qualified, Material Communion & Conformity without Sin’.

Many of the Scriptures and arguments Baxter employs, amongst other divines on this page, are found in puritan writings before them arguing against the Separatists.¹ This Scriptural view, as Baxter lays it forth in detail on this page, is particularly apt for navigating the circumstances we find in America today (and across the world in all times, places and circumstances).

¹ For most all of those writings, besides as linked on this page, see ‘On Schism & Separatism’.

Also, for your good, be warned of those who grossly err on this subject of impurities and communion about them. In ignorantly (and often dogmatically and arrogantly) running to their extremes they inevitably and obliviously rush over things that ought to be distinguished (having little care for them).

If something sounds like it is against common sense, maybe it is? To give an example: Sorry, typical impurities in God-fearing protestant churches that seek to worship according to Scripture are not equivalent to the high places of ancient Israel (with attending ramifications) where literal, direct, on-one’s-knees-idolatry and the worship of pagan gods occured.

Follow “not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride” you “fall into the condemnation of the devil.” (1 Tim. 3:6) If you find yourself in the midst of beligerant people addicted to their own prejudices, the best advice is Paul’s: “mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them,” (Rom. 16:17) and “if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” (1 Cor. 14:38)

A few sections close the webpage: We ought to seek to reform impurities in God’s worship to the Lord’s Word so far as we can. Where we cannot, this page’s last section gives guidance.

Though this page is large, as your interest is piqued read through the many quotes below and you will find choice spiritual gems and treasure all the way through. May the Lord instruct you, shine his light upon your path, and be with you. With Him is life forever more.

“The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him; and He will shew them his covenant.”

Ps. 25:14

“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Mt. 5:19

Ordinances of Worship with Impurities in them are Valid

Order of Contents

Bible Verses 35+
Westminster
Quotes 15+
Latin 1

Bible Verses

Old Testament 20

Gen. 9:16 “And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.”

[The Covenant is objective, God looking upon the seal of it and having mercy.]

Ex. 4:24-27 “And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him [Moses], and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So He let him go: then she said, ‘A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.’ And the Lord said to Aaron, ‘Go into the wilderness to meet Moses.’ And he went and met him in the mount of God and kissed him.”

Ex. 12:23 “For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.”

[The Covenant is objective, God looking upon the seal of it and having mercy.]

Ex. 20:24 “…in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.”

Lev. 4:2-3, 13-14

“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them… then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the Lord for a sin offering…

And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty: when the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin…”

Lev. 10:16-20

“And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying, Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded.

And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord? And when Moses heard that, he was content.”

1 Sam. 2:12-17

“Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; they knew not the Lord. And the priest’s custom with the people was, that, when any man offered sacrifice, the priest’s servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with a fleshhook of three teeth in his hand; And he struck it into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; all that the fleshhook brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither.

Also before they burnt the fat, the priest’s servant came, and said to the man that sacrificed, ‘Give flesh to roast for the priest; for he will not have sodden flesh of thee, but raw.’ And if any man said unto him, ‘Let them not fail to burn the fat presently, and then take as much as thy soul desireth;’ then he would answer him, ‘Nay; but thou shalt give it me now: and if not, I will take it by force.’ Wherefore the sin of the young men was very great before the Lord: for men abhorred the offering of the Lord.”

1 Kings 8:64 “The same day did the king hallow the middle of the court that was before the house of the Lord: for there he offered burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings: because the brasen altar that was before the Lord was too little to receive the burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings.”

1 Kings 22:42-43 “Jehoshaphat… turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the Lord: nevertheless the high places were not taken away;”

2 Kings 12:2-3 “Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days… But the high places were not taken away…”

2 Kings 14:1-4 “Amaziah… did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not like David his father: he did according to all things as Joash his father did. Howbeit the high places were not taken away:”

2 Kings 21:4-5, 7

“And he [king Manasseh] built altars in the house of the Lord, of which the Lord said, In Jerusalem will I put my name. And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord… And he set a graven image of the grove that he had made in the house [of the Lord]…”

[It is clear in this example and similar ones in the OT that despite the sinful additions to God’s worship, these significant corruptions, even idolatry to other things, did not remove the efficacy of God’s instituted worship that continued.]

2 Chron. 15:15-18 “And all Judah rejoiced at the oath: for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought Him with their whole desire; and He was found of them… But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days. And he brought into the house of God the things that his father had dedicated, and that he himself had dedicated, silver, and gold, and vessels.”

2 Chron. 29:34-35 “But the priests were too few, so that they could not flay all the burnt offerings: wherefore their brethren, the Levites [who did not have that function by office], did help them, till the work was ended, and until the other priests had sanctified themselves: for the Levites were more upright in heart to sanctify themselves than the priests. And also the burnt offerings were in abundance… So the service of the house of the Lord was set in order.”

2 Chron. 30:17-21 “For a multitude of the people… had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, ‘The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.’ And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah…”

Isa. 55:11 “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”

Jer. 20:9 “Then I said, I will not make mention of Him, nor speak any more in his name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.”

Jer. 23:28-30 “What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every one from his neighbour.”

Hos. 6:6 “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”

Jonah 2:1-7 “Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish’s belly, and said, ‘I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and He heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice… the weeds were wrapped about my head… yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption… and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.”

New Testament 18

Mt. 23:1-3 “Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.'”

Mk. 1:21-23 “He entered into the synagogue, and taught. And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes. And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out…”

Jn. 2:14-16 “And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when He had made a scourge of small cords, He drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.”

Jn. 2:24 “But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men…”

Acts 15:21 “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”

Rom. 2:25, 27, 3:1-5

“…but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision… thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?…

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true and every man a liar; as it is written, ‘That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.’ But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say?”

Rom. 10:17 “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

Acts 7:38 “This is He, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him [Moses] in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:”

1 Cor. 1:25 “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”

1 Cor. 3:7 “So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.”

1 Cor. 11:13-14 “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?”

[The Corinthians’ prayers were evidently accepted despite the uncomeliness in their manner of offering them.]

1 Cor. 11:17-22

“Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse…

When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.”

1 Cor. 11:29-31 “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.”

1 Cor. 11:34 “And the rest will I set in order when I come.”

1 Cor. 14:9 “So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.”

1 Cor. 14:27-30 “If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.”

1 Cor. 14:32-34 “And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches…”

Phil. 1:15-18 “Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love… notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.”

Heb. 4:1 “Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.”

Westminster

Confession of Faith

ch. 25, ‘Of the Church’

“III. Unto this catholick visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.[g]

[g] 1 Cor. 12:28. Eph. 4:11-13. Matt. 28:19,20. Isa. 59:21.

IV. This catholick church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[h] And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and publick worship performed more or less purely in them.[i]

[h] Rom. 11:3,4. Rev. 12:6,14.
[i] Rev. 2-3. 1 Cor. 5:6,7.”

ch. 28, ‘Of Baptism’

“III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.[k]

[k] Heb. 9:10,19-22. Acts 2:41. Acts 16:33. Mark 7:4.”

[Though it is not said expressly here, yet undergirding this proposition was a common view that while baptism was not “rightly administered” by using immersion, yet baptisms by immersion were valid.]

Larger Catechism

“Q. 2. How doth it appear that there is a God?

A. The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God;[c] but his word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal Him unto men for their salvation.[d]

[c] Rom. 1:19,20. Ps. 19:1-3. Acts 17:28.
[d] 1 Cor. 2:9. 2 Tim. 3:15-17. Isa. 59:21.”

[Though nature’s light in man and the works of God have been defaced by man’s sins and its effects, and have been made impure thereby, yet they still, as they have been ordained, declare plainly there is a God. Similarly God’s Word and Spirit effectually reveal the Lord for salvation, despite whatever impurities may be present.]

“Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.[l]

[l] Matt. 28:19,20. Acts 2:42,46,47.

Q. 155. How is the word made effectual to salvation?

A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of enlightening,[m] convincing, and humbling sinners;[n] of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ;[o] of conforming them to his image,[p] and subduing them to his will;[q] of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions;[r] of building them up in grace,[s] and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.[t]

[m] Neh. 8:8. Acts 26:18. Ps. 19:8.
[n] 1 Cor. 14:24,25. 2 Chron. 34:18,19,26-28.
[o] Acts 2:37,41. Acts 8:27-39.
[p] 2 Cor. 3:18.
[q] 2 Cor. 10:4-6. Rom. 6:17.
[r] Matt. 4:4,7,10. Eph. 6:16,17. Ps. 19:11. 1 Cor. 10:11.
[s] Acts 20:32. 2 Tim. 3:15-17.
[t] Rom. 16:25. 1 Thess. 3:2,10,11,13. Rom. 15:4. Rom. 10:13-17. Rom. 1:16.”

“Q. 161. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?

A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted.[s]

[s] 1 Pet. 3:21. Acts 8:13 compared with verse 23. 1 Cor. 3:6,7. 1 Cor. 12:13.”

Directory for Public Worship

Preface

“In the beginning of the blessed Reformation, our wise and pious ancestors took care to set forth an order for redress of many things, which they then, by the Word, discovered to be vain erroneous, superstitious, and idolatrous, in the public worship of God. This occasioned many godly and learned men to rejoice much in the Book of Common Prayer, at that time set forth…

Howbeit, long and sad experience hath made it manifest, that the Liturgy used in the Church of England, (notwithstanding all the pains and religious intentions of the compilers of it) hath proved an offence, not only to many of the godly at home, but also to the reformed Churches abroad. For, not to speak of urging the reading of all the prayers, which very greatly increased the burden of it, the many unprofitable and burdensome ceremonies contained in it have occasioned much mischief, as well by disquieting the consciences of many godly ministers and people, who could not yield unto them…

…the [Anglican] Liturgy hath been a great means, as on the one hand to make and increase an idle and unedifying ministry… so, on the other side, it hath been (and ever would be, if continued) a matter of endless strife and contention in the Church… especially in these latter times, wherein God vouchsafeth to his people more and better means for the discovery of error and superstition…”

Of the Assembling of the Congregation & their Behaviour in the Public Worship of God

“…and humbly beseeching Him for pardon, assistance, and acceptance in the whole service then to be performed… And all in the name and mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Of Public Prayer before the Sermon

“And because we have been unprofitable hearers in times past, and now cannot of ourselves receive, as we should, the deep things of God, the mysteries of Jesus Christ, which require a spiritual discerning; to pray, that the Lord, who teacheth to profit, would graciously please to pour out the Spirit of grace, together with the outward means thereof, causing us to attain such a measure of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord, and, in him, of the things which belong to our peace…”

Of the Celebration of the Communion, or Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper

“The minister is to give solemn thanks to God for his rich mercy… vouchsafed to them in that sacrament; and to entreat for pardon for the defects of the whole service, and for the gracious assistance of his good Spirit…”

Quotes

Order of

Calvin
Hildersham
Attersoll
Rutherford
Puritan Ministers
London Presbyterians
Bolton
Wood
Firmin
Crofton
Nye
London Presbyterians
Turretin
Baxter
Mastricht
Howe

1500’s

John Calvin

Commentary on 1 Cor. 11, verse 20

“Paul says [in 1 Cor. 11:20] that in this way it ‘is not the Lord’s supper’ that is partaken of — not that a single abuse altogether set aside the sacred institution of Christ, and reduced it to nothing, but that they polluted the sacrament by observing it in a wrong way. For we are accustomed to say, in common conversation, that a thing is not done at all if it is not done aright. Now this was no trivial abuse, as we shall afterwards see.

If you understand the words ‘is not’ as meaning, ‘is not allowable’, the meaning will amount to the same thing… he condemns that profane admixture, which had nothing in it akin to the Lord’s Supper.”

Arthur Hildersham

A Treatise of the Ministry of the Church of England, wherein is handled this Question: Whether it be to be separated from, or joined unto. Which is discussed in Two Letters, the one [for joining] written for it [by Hildersham], the other against it [by Francis Johnson] (Low Countries, 1595), section 6, p. 79

“…although the name of ‘priests’ belong not to the true ministers of the Gospel, because it has been generally in our language given to the popish sacrificers: and although there be sundry circumstances and ceremonies appointed by the law to be used at their ordination, which I cannot justify, and many of those good orders [are] neglected which the Scripture prescribes in this case:

Yet is that office which the laws of our land call the office of the ‘priesthood,’ the very same in substance with the pastor’s office described in the Word: and the manner of outward calling unto that office which the Law allows is the very same in substance with that which is set down in the Word.”

1600’s

William Attersoll

The Badges of Christianity. Or, A Treatise of the Sacraments… (London, 1606), Ch. 5, ‘Of the third outward part of baptism’, pp. 146-7

“Again, hereby all Popish corruptions and mixtures brought into this sacrament [of baptism] are confuted and condemned, as their cream, their tapers [candles], their crosses, their censers, their salt, their spittle, their holy-water, their exorcisings and conjurations, having also an opinion of salvation and worship annexed unto them…

True it is, if all the other parts and actions be observed, these inventions and additions, which are so many abuses make not baptism void, neither bring a nullity thereof…”

Samuel Rutherford

The Due Right of Presbyteries… (London, 1644), pt. 1, ch. 8, section 8, p. 187

“See that variations may be in a sacrament, and yet such as make not the sacrament invalid, in [Domingo de] Soto (bk. 4, distinction 1, question 1, article 8), Suarez (3rd part, disputation 2, section 5 [4]), Vasquez (3rd part, Theological Disputation 239), Joan. de Lugo (Of the Sacraments, disputation 2, section 6, n. 104-5), Scotus ([bk.] 4th, distinction 3, question 2).”

Non-Conformist, Non-Separating, English Puritan Ministers

A Most Grave & Modest Confutation of the Errors of the Sect Commonly Called Brownists, or Separatists… (1604; London, 1644), ‘We have a true Ministry in England. II Exception,’ pp. 34-35 Note that William Rathband only published this work of the previous puritan ministers.

“Though none of those rules which Christ’s Testament has set down for the calling and ordaining of our ministry can be wanting [lacking] without a blemish and maime to the calling: And consequently they should all of them be carefully sought for, both by minister and people, yet may some of them be wanting without loss of the life and being of the calling:

Neither is that true which they [Separatists] affirm, that whatsoever minister has not a true and right calling in all points, though the office whereunto he be called be a true office, is no true minister, but an usurper, an intruder, a thief and a murderer.

For first, whatsoever is of the being and substance of the calling to the ministry, has been common to all true and lawful ministers that ever were in the Church, as well as the substance of the sacraments and discipline, and whole religion, has ever been one and the same in all places and at all times; whereas it is clear that some of the rules prescribed for the outward calling in the New Testament have not been always in use and practiced throughout God’s Church, no not in such ministries as the Word has given testimony to; for proof whereof may be alleged the calling, that those Levites, and preachers exercised, whereof there is mention made, 2 Chron. 17:7, 9.

For as in diverse other parts of God’s service, the omitting and swerving from sundry of God’s holy ordinances prescribed in the Word makes not the action itself void and unlawful (as is evident by that one example, 2 Chron. 30:26, 17-19) so the want and swerving from some rules prescribed, for the outward calling of the ministers, cannot be of force sufficient to make their calling void and unlawful.”

Samuel Bolton

The Arraignment of Error… (London: 1646), p. 287

“…the error of some must not nullify the ordinance of God.”

London (Presbyterian) Provincial Assembly

A Vindication of the Presbyterial Government (London, 1650), p. 123

“…sinful superadditions do not nullify divine institutions.”

James Wood

A Little Stone Pretended to be out of the Mountain, Tried & found to be a Counterfeit… (Edinburgh: Andro Andrews, 1654), sect. 12, pp. 341-42 Wood was a Scottish covenanter.

“We find no separation but in case of idolatry… We shall not deny but that whatsoever is practiced in the worship of God, or set up as an ordinance without God’s warrant in his Word, may be comprehended under idolatry, taking idolatry in a large sense, but that everything set up or practiced in the worship of God or in ordinances is such idolatry as is ground sufficient to separate from a Church wherein it is practiced as no true Church, is a conceit in itself without warrant of the Word, nay directly contrary to the allowed practice of God’s people in the Word, both in Old and New Testament. This conceit of Mr. Lockyer’s is very Brownism and rigid Separatism engrained.”

Giles Firmin

Separation Examined: or a Treatise wherein the Grounds for Separation from the Ministry & Churches of England are Weighed & Found too Light… (London: Bowtell, 1652), p. 26

“After Christ, I pray tell me, how long did the churches continue without superstitious mixtures? I doubt you will find the Church has not been long free; but we do not find separation presently and nulling of ministers. As now men should do well to give us a precept or example out of the Word where ordinances have been dispensed true for the substance, though some human mixtures have been joined to them, that therefore they were iterated [repeated].”

Zachary Crofton

Reformation, Not Separation, or, Mr. Crofton’s Plea for Communion with the Church… in a Letter, written July 20, 1661… (1662) Crofton (1626-1672) was a presbyterian and puritan born and raised in Ireland.

p. 16

“The scribes and Pharisees in the days of our Savior said but did not; laid heavy burdens on the people, which themselves would not touch with one of their fingers…

yet the Lord Himself, who reproved them, heard them and charged his disciples to hear them, because they sat in Moses’s seat. Let it be observed and remembered: the authority may, but the quality of the minister does not add to or abstract from the entity or efficacy of God’s ordinances; he may preach to my salvation who is himself a castaway.”

p. 24

“Baptism is fully and formally God’s ordinance, though the [sign of the] cross be needlessly and superstitiously added thereunto [on the baby’s head] and the parent (by virtue of whose interest in God’s Covenant, the child receives the seal) is unjustly excluded [in the Anglican practice], and a deputation of godfathers and godmothers is groundlessly imposed:”

Philip Nye

A Case of Great & Present Use: Whether we may Lawfully Hear the now Conforming Ministers who are Re-ordained & have Renounced the [Solemn League &] Covenant & Some of them [are] Supposed to be Scandalous in their Lives, Considered & Affirmatively Resolved (1672; 1677), Consideration 3, p. 25 Nye was a covenanting Independent, English puritan.

“To bring the lawfulness of known ordinances under dispute for some circumstances affixed has ever been of great advantage to Satan, whether in such disputes he prevails or not: For men are either beaten wholly off from the duty, or perform it with a more remiss and unsuitable spirit, which lies more directly in the way to prevent a blessing than the evils of others we ordinarily object…

If for substance the duty be so evident as not to be liable to a dispute in itself (as this of hearing [preaching] is): then Satan fastens scruples about circumstances, which prevailing, we have as little benefit from the ordinance or duty as if it were not.”

The Presbyterian, Provincial Assembly of London

Jus divinum ministerii evangelici. Or the Divine Right of the Gospel-Ministry… (London, 1654), pt. 2, ch. 2, pp. 30-31

“Mr. [John] Ball (no friend to episcopal government) in his answer to Mr. Can [a Separatist], has these words: In every true Church where the Word of God is entirely preached and received, and the sacraments for substance rightly administred, there is a true ministry and a true calling to the ministry, though in some things maimed and faulty.”

Francis Turretin

Institutes (P&R), vol. 3, 19th Topic, ‘The Sacraments’, section 3, p. 443

“II. …This latter opinion [of Martin Luther] is followed by the Lutherans of our day. They maintain that ‘to break’ means nothing else than to distribute the bread and give it to another; although they do not deny that Christ properly broke the bread. But this ceremony [of breaking the bread] is merely free and indifferent, lacking a command, which the church can at pleasure observe or omit…

III. The [reformed] orthodox retain the breaking which was employed by the Lord… They think it is not an accidental and indifferent ceremony, but according to the institution of Christ, no less necessary than taking it in the hand, delivering and communing.

Nor yet do they wish to contend so rigidly about it that no fellowship can be retained with those who omit it. They think this want [lack] of a thing not unimportant should neither be left unnoticed, nor tolerated if it can be corrected. Thus they are to be rebuked who hold this opinion, although they are not to be absolutely condemned.”

Richard Baxter

The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689), ch. 58, ‘Whether Communion with so Faulty a Church be Lawful’, p. 227

“Yea I dare not say that their [Anglican] by-offices, viz. baptism itself, notwithstanding their kind of godfathers and crossing, do frustrate the sacrament to the capable.”

Peter van Mastricht

Theoretical Practical Theology (RHB), vol. 5, bk. 7, ch. 5, section 25

“The Reformed acknowledge that the error of the Lutherans [consubstantiation], although it is quite crass, yet is not fundamental (like that of the papists is in their Mass), nor is it such that it ought to impede ecclesiastical communion among themselves and them, because it is acknowledged on both sides that all those communicating according to Christ’s precept receive spiritual communion with the whole Christ.”

1700’s

John Howe

‘Some Consideration of a Preface to an Inquiry Concerning the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters, etc.’ in The Works of John Howe, vol. 5, Containing the Treatises: On Divine Prescience & the Trinity… (d. 1705; Religious Tract Society, 1863), pp. 275-76 Howe was an English puritan.

“But if one avoid more ordinary communion with a church, as judging it, though not essentially defective, yet to want [lack] or err in some circumstances so considerable as that he counts [that] another church comes nearer the common Christian rule, the Holy Scriptures, and finds its administrations more conducing to his spiritual advantage; he may be led, by the judgment of his conscience, both, sometimes upon weighty and important reasons to communicate with the former [defective Church], and continue therein, according as those reasons shall continue urgent upon him; and yet, sometimes, as the cessant or diminished weight of such reasons shall allow, to communicate with the other [more spiritually advantageous church].

They that will not admit of this distinction, thus generally proposed, as a ground of such different practice in the general as is here expressed; but judge not only essential perfection, but a perfection by the concurrence of all desirable accidents, to be necessary also unto Christian communion, can have no communion with any Christian church on earth; for where is any to be found every way perfect?”

Latin Article

1600’s

Voet, Gisbert – 4th Question, ‘Whether the words by which the minister either summarily propounds or briefly exposits the administration, the command and the promise of Christ before the administration, and even in the administration itself, are preaching [concionatoria] words, or rather are the form of the eucharist, and are efficaciously and directly operative, or creating?’ in ch. 2, ‘Of the Consecration of the Symbols [Elements]’ in Ecclesiastical Politics, vol. 1, book 2, tract 2, section 4, p. 744

“I respond: the papists deny the former and affirm the latter.”

See also question 1 on pp. 741-42 where Voet says that the words of institution, etc. only establish for the elements a sacred, mystical and religious sign, which signifies, commemorates, certifies and seals according to the command and promise of Christ. That is, an analogy is established between the thing and the thing-signified, which is the essence of the sacrament, as many of the reformed argued.

This is all in contrast to many Medieval, Romanist discussions that if a word of the words of institution are left out, then it is not a sacrament.

On the Distinction & Difference between Impurities of Worship & Idolatry, & being Present & Worshipping Lawfully at an Assembly with certain Impure Acts of Worship by Some in it (Lev. 10:16-20; 1 Cor. 11-14) vs. Fleeing an Assembly with Literal Idolatry (Ex. 32:4; 1 Kings 13:1-10; 2 Chron. 11:13-16; 1 Jn. 5:21; Rev. 18:4)

Order of Contents

Westminster
Quotes 20+
Articles 2

Westminster

Directory for the Public Worship of God, Preface

Howbeit, long and sad experience hath made it manifest, that the Liturgy used in the Church of England, (notwithstanding all the pains and religious intentions of the Compilers of it) hath proved an offence, not only to many of the godly at home, but also to the reformed Churches abroad. For, not to speak of urging the reading of all the prayers, which very greatly increased the burden of it, the many unprofitable and burdensome ceremonies contained in it have occasioned much mischief, as well by disquieting the consciences of many godly ministers and people, who could not yield unto them…

In the meantime, Papists boasted that the book was a compliance with them in a great part of their service; and so were not a little confirmed in their superstition and idolatry…

Quotes

Order of

Geneva
Gifford
Hildersham
Bernard
Bradshaw
Robinson
French Reformed
Gillespie
Ball
Rutherford
Puritan Ministers
Congregationalists
Bolton
Durham
Crofton
Nye
Goodwin
Baxter
Corbet
Vines
London Ministers
Church of Scotland
Howe
Fentiman

1500’s

Ministers of Geneva

Letters of John Calvin ed. Jules Bonnet tr. Marcus Gilchrist (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication), vol. 3, Letter 346, ‘To the Brethren of Wezel’, pp. 30-31. Calvin is speaking to reformed refugees attending Lutheran churches. See the whole letter in general.

“With regard to the form to be observed in receiving the sacraments, it is not without reason that you entertain doubts and scruples, for nothing is better than to abide by that pure simplicity which we hold from the Son of God, whose ordinance ought to be our single rule, to which also the usage of the apostles was perfectly conformable. And indeed the moment we deviate ever so little from it, our admixture of human invention cannot fail to be a corruption.

But it seems to us that your condition is different from that of the pastors of the place and the great body of the people. If the pastors did their duty, they would employ all their endeavours to retrench those superfluities which do not tend to edification, or rather which serve to obscure the clearness of the gospel. The [civil] governors on their part would also do well to see to it. It is a vice to be condemned so far as they are concerned, that they keep up these unmeaning mummeries — which are as it were a residue of Popish superstitions, the recollection of which we should strive as much as in us lies to exterminate.

But in your capacity of private individuals, not only you may lawfully, but what is more, you should support and suffer such abuses as it is not in your power to correct. We do not hold lighted candles in the celebration of the eucharist, nor figured bread to be such indifferent things that we would willingly consent to their introduction, or approve of them, though we object not to accommodate ourselves to the use of them, where they have been already established, when we have no authority to oppose them.

If we were called upon to receive such ceremonies, we should hold ourselves bound according to the position in which God has placed us, to admit of no compromise in resisting their introduction, and in maintaining constantly the purity which the church confided to us already possesses. But should our lot be cast in some place where a different form prevails, there is not one of us who from spite against a candle or a chasuble [a ministerial vestment] would consent to separate himself from the body of the church, and so deprive himself of the use of the sacrament.

We must be on our guard not to scandalize those who are already subject to such infirmities, which we should certainly do by rejecting them from too frivolous motives.”

George Gifford

A Short Treatise Against the Donatists of England, whom we call Brownists... (London, 1590), ‘Brownist Position’, pp. 9-10 Gifford (c. 1548–1600 or 1620?) was a non-conformist, English, puritan preacher.

“For excepting imperfections, wants, spots, blemishes and faults, which destroy not the true worship of God, our Church does worship the Lord aright, without heresy, blasphemy or idolatry…

He that will have it to be no true worship of God in which there be errors and spots holds the heresy of perfection, which is very foul and detestable: for it is as far beyond our power to be perfect in God’s worship as to perform perfect obedience in the Second Table of the Law.”

A Short Reply unto the Last Printed Books of Henry Barrow & John Greenwood, the Chief Ringleaders of our Donatists in England… (London, 1591), pp. 95-97

“…ye are full Donatists [early Church heretics]… you do agree with them in the sum and substance of all the fowlest things…:

…
2. That ye condemn all the Churches in Europe which profess the Gospel… that their worship is blasphemous idolatry, in as much as they have liturgies…
…
3. That ye confound errors and heresies, as to make all errors heresies…
…
5. That ye deny the distinction of errors fundamental and not fundamental…
…
13. That ye deny men are to join in that worship where any errors whatsoever do appear, and are not reformed, and so open a most wide gap unto all schisms…
…
28. That ye maintain that no fault is to be tolerated in the church: but if any private man do espy a fault and reprove it, if they will not amend it, he is to forsake that church.”

Arthur Hildersham

“I deny not but a private Christian may dislike the corruptions that are allowed and practiced by a whole Church, he may refuse to subscribe or yield his consent unto them, he may by prayer and all other good means seek the reformation of them: but that any one private Christian or some few several assemblies [such as, of the Separatists] wherein also there are some learned men may account all the churches that are in an whole nation to be either as heathens (that is, such as are destitute of the Word and sacraments and service of God) or as publicans (that is, such as with whom they may not lawfully communicate and join in the said service of God), that do I utterly deny.”

[Hildersham’s larger argument, to which this is the conclusion, is that if a private person cannot be excommunicated by the power of the keys except it come through a higher Church censure (Mt. 18), then a national Church cannot be so excommunicated except by a larger representative Church.]

1600’s

Richard Bernard

Christian Advertisements & Counsels of Peace, also Dissuasions from the Separatists’ Schism, Commonly called Brownism… (1608), ‘The errors of the Separatists’, pp. 146-47

“But grant there were some corruptions added which men should put merit and holiness in to worship God by… is therefore all the worship false? Is good meat mixed with ill meat, false meat? or good, corrupted? This false distinction of true and false against us will not stand.”

Plain Evidences the Church of England is Apostolical, the Separation Schismatical, Directed Against Mr. [Henry] Ainsworth the Separatist, & Mr. Smith the Se-baptist... ([London, 1610]), ‘Reply to Mr. Smith’s Answer to this Second Error’, p. 155

“…he makes a flourish with Col. 2:23; Mt. 15:9, and hence makes a proof thus, that will-worship and vain-worship is forbidden there; and it is a transgression of the Second Commandment, and therefore idolatry, and so the church wherein it is offered is an idol.

So then he thus reasons: in what Church vain worship is, that Church is an idol. Not all his deceivableness of unrighteousness, nor all Satan’s sophistry can ever prove this.”

William Bradshaw

The Unreasonableness of the Separation made Apparent... (1614; Amsterdam, 1640), pt. 1, 6th Reason, p. 103

“We hold it as unlawful (as themselves) outwardly and but in appearance to join with idolaters in their idolatry; and yet we see not warrant why every particular act, that in a large sense is idolatrous, adjoined to God’s true worship, we should forbear our presence, as the true worship itself:

Or that our presence for the true worship’s sake alone should in respect of some point of false worship thereunto annexed be… the submitting our bodies to a strange worship, especially when we are not particular actors in it, but only present, beholding it with grief and suffering it in others for the true worship’s sake, unto which it is adjoind.

If this should be held unlawful then can no man present himself with a good conscience at any public worship of God wheresoever, because… he can have no assurance but that some errors in matter or form will be committed.”

John Robinson

A Treatise of the Lawfulness of Hearing the Public Ministers in the Church of England (d. 1625; 1634) in The Lawfulness of Hearing the Public Ministers of the Church of England Proved, by Mr. Philip Nye & Mr. John Robinson… (London, 1683), p. 27 Robinson (d. 1625) was a leading minister of the English separatists, which settled in Amsterdam.

“Objection 13: The Lord forbids Judah going to Gilgal or to Bethel, Hos. 4:15-16.

Answer: The meaning is plain, and the words express that they were not to go thither to offend and play the harlot in joining to idols, vv. 15-17. This I grant is to be done in no place, but deny any such thing to be done in the hearing [of established churches] by me pleaded for. The Scriptures everywhere forbid the going or coming to such places, or persons, as in or by which some evil is done, to wit, for the doing of anything evil or unlawful in, or with them.”

French Reformed Churches

2nd Synod of Charenton (1631), ch. 22, An Act in favor of the Lutheran Brethren, p. 297 in ed. John Quick,Synodicon in Gallia reformata, or, The Acts, Decisions, Decrees & Canons of those Famous National Councils of the Reformed Churches in France (London: Parkhurst, 1692)

“4… This synod declares that inasmuch as the Churches of the Confession of Augsburg [the Lutherans] do agree with the other Reformed Churches in the principal and fundamental points of the true religion, and that there is neither superstition nor idolatry in their worship, the faithful of the said Confession, who with a spirit of love and peaceableness do join themselves to the communion of our churches in this kingdom, may be, without any abjuration at all made by them, admitted unto the Lord’s Table with us…”

George Gillespie

English-Popish Ceremonies (1637), pt. 3, ch. 2

pp. 15-16

“…for every idolatry is superstition, but every superstition is not idolatry, as is rightly by some distinguished. (Synopsis of Pure Theology, disputation 19, thesis 30).”

p. 23

“…the retaining and using of temples [church buildings] which have been polluted with idols, be not in itself unlawful, yet the retaining of every such temple is not ever necessary, but sometimes it is expedient for further extirpation of superstition to demolish and destroy some such temples as have been horribly abused to idolatry, as Calvin (Commentary on Dt. 12:2 [80th sermon on Dt., on 12:1-5, pp. 491-92]) also and Zanchius (On the 4th Commandment, col. 709 [in All the Theological Works (1649), vol. 4]) do plainly insinuate.”

John Ball

An Answer to Two Treatises of Mr. John Can, the Leader of the English Brownists in Amsterdam (1642), pp. 105-6

“But we desire to see your commandment why for every particular act, that in a large sense is idolatrous, adjoined to the true worship of God, we should forbear our presence at the worship itself, or be said to communicate in the sin there committed? For then no man might present himself with good conscience at any public worship of God where anything is done amiss, for matter or manner, which is in effect to say, he cannot be present at any at all.

4. To communicate in the ordinances of God with the ministers of the Church of England is not to like, approve or reverence the institutions of men in the exercises of religion, nor to communicate with the teacher in his sin, nor in ought else that is amiss. For the worship is of God both for matter and manner.
…

To eat of meats sacrificed unto idols in the idol temple is to communicate with idolaters. These things are evident and freely granted. But the assembly met to call upon God, in the mediation of Jesus Christ alone, to hear the doctrine of salvation,soundly and purely preached, to receive the sacrament rightly administered, is not a false idolatrous assembly: they that repair unto it be not idolatrous or false worshippers. If you esteem of them as they show themselves by outward signs, you must esteem them to be of the true religion, and the true worshippers of God according to his will; the ministry in that assembly to be true, sound and faithful and of God for substance.”

Samuel Rutherford

A Peaceable & Temperate Plea… (London, 1642), ch. 11, pp. 162-63

“14th Objection: They object: To be present at a mass is to countenance an idol worship; so to be present in a church worship where there is any error in the worship is to countenance the error. For what worship we countenance to that we say, ‘Amen,’ and so we must consent to the wrong constitution of a church where are profane people?

Answer: To countenance a worship professedly idolatrous, where the name of the worship imports the worshipping of a false god, is unlawful, for others do interpret our presence [as] a joint worshipping with them. But our presence at every lawful worship that is acknowledged lawful, does not give so much as interpretatively signification of our consent to every particular in the worship, because hearing, discerning, choosing or refusing, believing or not believing, according as you find the points agreeable to God’s Word, or dissonant therefrom, intervenes between your presence at the worship, and your consent to the worship.

Now the act of consenting, approving and receiving the point of worship is formally to partake of the worship, else we could not obey the precept (1 Thess. 5:21) ‘Try all things.’ Some things in the preacher are to be borne with;

The preachers of the Separation have not an apostolic and infallible spirit; if any of them preach unsound doctrine, the presence of the hearers does not involve them in the guilt of the preacher’s erroneous worship. The Pharisees corrupting of the Law was known and rebuked by Christ, but yet Christ forbade Separation. ‘Hear them’ (Matt. 23) ‘they sit in Moses’ chair.’”

The Due Right of Presbyteries… (1644)

pt. 1, ch. 9, sect. 9, p. 265

“But know that the leaven of the external worship (except it evert the foundation) does not make the Church a falsely constituted Church.”

pt. 2, ch. 4, sect. 5, pp. 252-55

“Distinction 2. If the sins be against the worship of God, as idolatry, or sins of a wicked conversation, the worship of God remaining pure and sound, at least in professed fundamentals.

3. If the idolatry be essential idolatry, as the adoring of the work of men’s hands, or only idolatry by participation, as Popish ceremonies, the surplice and cross, being as means of worship, but not adored, and so being idols by participation, as [William] Ames and Mr. [John] Ball do well distinguish (Fresh Suit Against Ceremonies [pt. 2, ch. 2, sect. 10-14, p. 207, says 107]; Answer to Mr. Cann, pt. 2, p. 23), and before them, so does the learned [John] Reynolds (De [romanae ecclesiae] idololatria, bk. 2, ch. 2) and [Thomas] Bilson (of Chri. Ar. Subject., part 4, pp. 321-22) make use of the distinction.
…

5. Diverse degrees of separation are to be considered: hence these considerations:

…
2. If the whole and most part of the Church turn idolatrous and worship idols (which is essential idolatry), we are to separate from that Church: the Levites and the two tribes did well, as Mr. Ball says, to make a separation from Jeroboam’s calves; and the godly, laudably, 2 Kings 16:11, did not separate from the Israel and Church of God because the altar of Damascus was set up, and because of the high places. Things dedicated unto idols, as Lutheran images, may be called, and are called, 1 Cor. 10:34 [vv. 14, 28], idolatry, yet are they idolatry by participation, and so the cup of devils, 1 Cor. 10 [v. 21]. Paul does not command separation from the Church of Corinth and the Table of the Lord there.
…

5th Consideration. I see not but we may¹ separate from the Lord’s Supper where bread is adored and from baptism where the sign of the Cross is added to Christ’s ordinances, and yet are we not separated from the Church, for we professedly hear the Word, and visibly allow truth of the doctrine maintained by that Church, which do pollute the sacraments, and we are ready to seal it with our blood, and it is an act of visible profession of a Church to suffer for the doctrine mentioned by that Church.

¹ [Note that Rutherford says we “may”, and not that it is a necessity. As Samuel Bolton says on this page, one might be physially forced to attend the mass, yet this is without guilt. Baxter, also on this page, argues that one may submit to one’s baby being baptized with the sign of the cross in certain necessary conditions.]

6. We may well hold that [Pseudo?] Ambrose says well that a Church wanting the foundation of the apostles, is to be forsaken (Commentary on Luke, bk. 6, ch. 1 [This work is not in Patrologia Latina vols. 14-17 and may not be rightly attributed, yet see this reference for it]).
…

8. There may be causes of non-union with a Church, which are not sufficient causes of separation: Paul would not separate from the Church of the Jews though they rejected Christ, till they openly blasphemed, Acts 13:44-46; Acts 18:6. And when they opposed themselves and blasphemed, Paul shook his raiment and said unto them, ‘Your blood be upon your own heads, I am clean; from henceforth I will go to the Gentiles.’ There is a lawful separation, and yet before the Jews came to this, there was no just cause why any should have joined to the Church of the Jews who denied the Messiah and persecuted his servants, Acts 4; Acts 5, seeing there was a cleaner Church to which converts might join themselves, Acts 2:40-42.

9. There is no just cause to leave a less clean Church (if it be a true Church) and to go to a purer and cleaner, though one who is a member of no Church have liberty of election to join to that Church which he conceives to be purest and cleanest.”

Non-Conformist, Non-Separating, English Puritan Ministers

A Most Grave & Modest Confutation of the Errors of the Sect Commonly Called Brownists, or Separatists… (1604; London, 1644) Note that William Rathband only published this work of the previous puritan ministers.

Preface by Rathband

“…what end they [Separatists] proposed to themselves in their writings, which will evidently appear to be not so much the clearing of themselves from the crime of schism as the drawing of others to join with them, and the defacing of our [Anglican] Church, which they compare with the most idolatrous and heathenish nations that ever were, yea with Sodom and Babylon itself, and the disgracing [of] the ministers thereof, especially those whom heretofore they have most reverenced, whom they [now] sort with most wretched miscreants, Judas, Cain, Balaam and many others upon whom the Spirit of God has set a feareful brand of eternal condemnation.”

1st Exception, p. 16

“But what if all this were granted, that the use of our [Anglican] stinted prayers, catechisms and [read] 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 (Deut. 12:2), or than the burning incense to the brazen serpent? and yet it is evident that the one of these was retained in the days of Asa and Azariah, kings of Judah (1 Kings 11:8-9; 1 Kings 15:14; 2 Kings 15:4; 2 Kings 13:6), and the other even till Hezekiah’s reign ( 2 Kings 18:4): in which time, notwithstanding, it is manifest there was a true Church in Judah.”

Answer 1, p. 34

“…the use of the most unlawful ceremonies that are amongst us, is not of force to make our ministry void and Antichristian, or our Church, for the Galatians were still a true Church though they had received even those impotent and beggerly rudiments which they had once cast off: 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 alters and high places were continued there, which yet was a greater corruption in the worship of God than the [Anglican] ceremonies whereof question is made can possibly be accounted.”

Congregationalists at Westminster: Thomas Goodwin, William Bridge, Philip Nye, William Greenhill & Sidrach Simpson

An Apologetical Narration humbly submitted to the Honourable Houses of Parliament (London: Dawlman, 1643), p. 6

“We have always professed, and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most, either actually overspread with defilements or in the greatest danger thereof—that we both did and would hold a communion with them as the churches of Christ.”

Samuel Bolton

The Arraignment of Error… (London: 1646), p. 82

“If a man were unavoidably brought into an idolatrous temple, or to mass, he might trust in God for strength and grace to preserve him… when a man shall put himself upon such a temptation, either out of vanity, curiosity, or desire to see novelty (though it were not unlawful to afford presence in an idolatrous worship, which yet it is) yet does a man put himself upon a greater temptation than he can in God’s way with confidence expect preservation from or deliverance out [of].”

James Durham

The Dying Man’s Testament of the Church of Scotland or, A Treatise concerning Scandal (Edinburgh, 1659), pt. 2, ch. 14, pp. 147-50

“It may be said, ‘But are not the ordinances of Christ someway polluted by the unworthiness of such scandalous partakers? and if so, can polluted ordinances be partaken of without sin?’

Answer: We may consider polluting of ordinances in a threefold sense.

1. An ordinance may be said to be polluted when the essentials and substantials thereof are corrupted, so as indeed it ceases to be an ordinance of Jesus Christ: Thus the mass in Popery is a fearfull abomination and a corruption of the sacrament: in this respect, the ordinance (if it may be called an ordinance after that, for indeed it is not an ordinance of Christ) is polluted, and this may be many ways fallen into, and communion in this is indeed sinful and cannot but be so.

2. An ordinance may be said to be polluted when it is irreverently and profanely abused, though essentials be kept: Thus the Lord’s Sabbath may be polluted, which yet is holy in itself; So was the Table of the Lord polluted, Mal. 1. And in this sense the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was indeed polluted by the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11, when some came drunk or otherways irreverently to the holy ordinances;

In this respect, an ordinance may be said to be polluted to him that so goes about it, because to the unclean all things are unclean; but it is not polluted in itself, nor to any other that examine themselves, as the former instance does clear, because that pollution comes from nothing in the ordinance (it being in its essentials complete) but does arise from the sinfulness of such and such persons, and therefore must be commensurable with them.

3. An ordinance may be said to be polluted, upon this extrinsic consideration, to wit, when by some circumstance in it, or miscarriage of those that are about it, it is made common-like, and so wants that luster and honorableness that it ought to have; by such a fault the ordinance is made obnoxious to contempt and is despised by others, contrary to the Lord’s allowance. Thus the priests of old made the offerings of the Lord vile and contemptible [1 Sam. 2], which was not by corrupting them in essentials, nor making them cease to be ordinances, but by their miscarriages and corrupt irreverent way of going about them, they did lay that stumbling-block before others to make them account these ordinances contemptible. This may be diverse ways fallen into, as:

1. When the officer or minister has a profane carnal carriage…

2… when an officer does indiscreetly and indifferently administrate ordinances to precious and vile, as if they were common things… All those may be said to pollute the ordinances as they derogate from their weight and authority, and miscarry in the administration of them, and are ready to breed irreverence and contempt in others… yet all these do not pollute the ordinance in itself or make it to be no ordinance, nor do pollute it to any that does reverently partake of the same, and does not stumble upon the block that is laid before him…

If it be said that communicating in such a case does seem to approve such an admission and to confirm those in some good opinion of themselves who are admitted, and so there is a necessity of abstaining, though not upon the account that the ordinances are polluted, yet, for preventing the foresaid offence, which might make us guilty.

Answer:

…
2. Is not reverent and exemplary partaking of the ordinances at such a time a more edifying and convincing testimony against such untenderness, than by withdrawing to give a new offence?

3. The Lord’s precept in such a case, ‘Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat,’ does not leave the thing indifferent upon that ground; And therefore that objection is not here to have place, as the grounds formerly laid down do evince [prove]: For we are not to be wise or holy beyond what the Lord has commanded.”

Zachary Crofton

p. 16

“Will any object unto us the profaneness of the ministers, rudeness and disorder of the ministration of God’s worship, we yield it is too visibly true; but more vile administrators, or irregular administrations cannot be than were the sons of Eli in their service, who made the people to loathe the offerings of the Lord, and were rebuked, and described by Samuel in 1 Sam. 2:12-17…

O horrid uncleanness, most heaven-daring villany! Yet I find not that any God-fearing-Israelite forsook the sanctuary, or durst forbear their sacrifice; nor did Samuel (who reproved, and denounced God’s judgment against this profaneness) ever advise or direct the same.”

pp. 20-23

“Some corruptions incident to God’s Church and worship I say are substantial and intrinsic (not arising out of God’s ordinance as the genuine product and effect thereof, but) entering into the very body of the Church and substance of God’s worship, as a spider into wine or venomous worm into an apple; so as to vitiate the subject (that it cannot be used with safety) and nullify the very ordinances of God, that it alters their very nature to the loss of their efficacy, and transmits certain destruction to such as sit under the same;

Yea, which is done either by changing the matter and retaining the essential constitutive form, as by a solemn, regular cutting off a dog’s head or offering swine’s blood instead of a lamb or a kid, a baptizing (as some have done) by fire instead of water:

Or retaining the matter, but changing the essential form, as did Jeroboam and the Samaritans worshipping the true God by the very sacrifices and in the very order Himself appointed, but before self-devised symbols, calves to the one and the dove to the other, in a self-appointed place, Dan and Bersheba to the one, Mount Gerizim to the other, and by self-consecrated priests, the lowest of the people, and so departing from the Temple in Jerusalem, God’s ark in it and the Tribe of Levi: all which were essential to the form of divine worship:

And thus did the Corinthians eating and drinking at the idol sacrifices, which the apostle severely corrected, with a ‘ye cannot partake of the Table of the Lord and the table of devils…’ [1 Cor. 10:21] and by pointing them unto the essential form of the Sacrament, ‘the cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?…’ [1 Cor. 10:16]

Of this nature is baptism by a midwife, or any other private hand, though with water and in the name of the Father, Son and holy Ghost; or by water and a lawful minister, but in the name of God the Father of all things and Truth the Mother of all things; as I have read some have done.

Corruptions extrinsic and circumstantial are ordinances superadded unto, and so concomitant with, or conversant about God’s ordinances; but enter not into, nor do vitiate their subject: the which (these notwithstanding) do exist in matter, and essential form, perfect and entire, capable of due operation in their own course and nature, as stinking fish does nourish, or water puddled or in an unclean vessel does quench the thirst;

And these are either some matter superadded (not intermingled with, or destructive to God’s ordinances), such as were the high places, posts by God’s posts, thresholds by his thresholds, altar by his altar in Israel, unto the very image of jealousy set up in God’s house, which yet remained his and as such was continued, preserved and acknowledged.

The Lord Jesus found the Temple his Father’s house of prayer, though made a den of thieves; and such is our cross in baptism, though seemingly sacramental, yet distinct from God’s imitating seal of the Covenant; and such is a Roman linen vesture in ministration of God’s worship by a lawful minister, or some corrupt, rude and unsuitable ministerial method and order (which is the vessel, and only instrument of conveyance though unclean) of administration:

Such was the violent, and unfitting snatching of the priests’ part of the sacrifice by the sons of Eli, the confused acclamations of the Church of Corinth, speaking all at once, different matters in different tongues; and our [Anglican] imposed method, disorderly method of public prayer, by versicles, responds, abruptions, abreviations and popular acclamations, with artificial singing by boys and base fellows thereunto appointed: under all which God’s ordinances abide a subject complete, truly and formerly existent and distinct from these superadded corruptions, operative unto salvation, and therefore [they] may not be declined, or disowned.

Corruptions intrinsic are indeed such as do not only warrant, but necessitate non-communion, yea separation of the highest nature as a duty indispensable: In sense hereof all those in Israel who feared God and set their hearts to seek the Lord, prayed for, and (according to divine directions) departed from Dan and Bersheba, forsook the solemn assemblies Jeroboam had constituted and followed the Tribe of Levi, God’s only ministers, unto Jerusalem, God’s only place of public solemn worship; And our Savior resolved the woman of Samaria her enquiry concerning the place of worship with a ‘ye know not what ye worship; for salvation is of the Jews.’ [Jn. 4:22]

This is the very ground of the Reformed Church’s departure and non-communion with Rome, who though she be (by original constitution) the Temple of God, is become the very seat of Antichrist; and by the same so vitiated that her ministrations are the cup of abomination… [she has] nullified Christ’s ordinances: and (by many other intrinsic evils) poisoned God’s whole worship and rendered it directly destructive to salvation… and so [she is] the object of our departure, advised with a ‘lest ye partake of her sins:’ [Rev. 18:4] which were and are so universally diffused, and has so far vitiated the subject, that a guilt will be contracted by mere communion.

Corruptions extrinsic may and must grieve the spirits of God’s people, occasion their loud complaints, his ministers most zealous reproofs, and the studious endeavors of all to prevent and remove them; because scandals to the Church, prejudicial (though not directly destructive, to salvation) dishonorable to religion, and the God (whose prerogative it is to prescribe every pin and the very snuffers to be used in his House) and is therefore highly displeasing to God; provoking Him to rend a Kingdom from the house of David [1 Kings 11:1-13], to loathe and at last to leave his holy place, and remove his candlestick from such as will not fear Him in the simplicity of his own institutions without the vain and needless appendants of their own inventions:

But yet these cannot warrant separation or voluntary non-communion, because the Church abides related to God as his Spouse; his worship and ordinances remain for matter and essential form entire and exactly his own; notwithstanding the concomitancy of some superadded matter; or the unfit ministerial method and order by which they are dispensed; and God’s presence is to them continued (though with a grieved, striving Spirit, threatening his departure) and thereby we are under a possibility of salvation (though engaged to more care and industry);

This was the case of the prophets, our Savior and his disciples, the Church of the Jews and primitive Christians under the many parallel (yea transcending to ours) corruptions before mentioned, without any prescript or practice of separation or non-communion.”

Philip Nye

“My being present and hearing of a Conformist [minister is] no approbation of the evil of his conformity, and so no occasional or transient relation is raised thereby. Approbation is an act of the mind or heart; It is not showed to him or others by me until it be expressed outwardly by my words or gestures, which I have not in this case any occasion to do, his evil being done elsewhere and formerly, and not in our presence that now hear him.”

John Owen

A Discourse concerning Evangelical Love, Church-Peace & Unity, with the Occasions & Reasons present Differences & Divisions about Things Sacred & Religious (1672), ch. 3, pp. 82-83

“What assemblies of Christians we behold visibly worshiping God in Christ, we take for granted to be true visible churches. And when we judge of our own communion with them, it is not upon this question, whether they are true churches or no, as though the determination of our practice did depend solely thereon:

For as we are not called to judge of the being of their constitution, as to the substance of it, unless they are openly judged in the Scripture, as in the case of idolatry and persecution persisted in, so a determination of the truth of their constitution, or that they are true churches, will not presently resolve us in our duty as to communion with them, for the reasons before given. But in such a case, two things are by us principally to be considered:

1. That nothing sinful in it self, or unto us, be required of us as the condition of communion.

2. That we may in such churches obtain the immediate end of their institution, and our conjunction with them, which is our edification in faith, love and obedience.”

Thomas Goodwin

Works, 12 vols. (d. 1680; Edinburgh: Nichol, 1861), vol. 1, Exposition of Eph. 1 (1681), sermon 36, on 1:22-23

pp. 558-59

“Come to churches and say, ‘You have these defects among you, and these things to be reformed;’ but if you will come and say, ‘Your churches and your ministers are Antichristian and come from Babylon,’ there is nothing [that] provokes more….

…and I have learned this principle, which I hope I shall never lay down till I am swallowed up of immortality; and that is that which I said before: To acknowledge every good thing, and hold communion with it, in men, in churches, or whatsoever else. I learn this from Paul; I learn this from Jesus Christ Himself: He fills all in all; He is in the hearts of his people, and fills them in his ordinances to this day; and where Jesus Christ fills, why should we deny an acknowledgment and a right hand of fellowship and communion.”

Richard Baxter

Schism Detected in both Extremes… (London: 1684), pt. 2, p. 14

“3. The charge of ‘false worship’ unexplained, is mere deceit:

1. Worship is so far false as it is contrary to the rule. Every sermon, prayer or sacrament which we administer has faultiness and sin and is so far ‘false worship’.

2. But worship offered God on pretence that He instituted it when He did not, or that man has authority to command the like, is yet worse false worship.

3. And the worship of false gods or idols, is yet worse than that, and abhorred of God.

4. His [a separatist] making all faulty circumstances, such as he names, to be idolatry, because ‘false’, as he calls it, is yet more sinful and of mischievous importance [than the above three items].”

Catholic Communion Doubly Defended by Dr. Owen’s Vindicator & Richard Baxter… (London: Parkhurst, 1684), section 2, pp. 9-14

“37. To hold that any congregations are such whose worship is faulty, but such as God forgives and accepts, but that it is unlawful for us to join with them, lest it make us guilty of their sin, this (though it should be erroneous, and uncharitable and sinful) yet is not to excommunicate that congregation as no Church or no Christians.

But to say of any congregation that they want [lack] anything essential to Christianity or to make them capable to be loved as Christians, or that their worship of God is idolatry, or so bad as that God accepts it not, the evil of it being greater than the good (as poison in our food), and on this reason to declare that no good Christian should communicate with them, this is to excommunicate such [a] congregation, as far as one Church may excommunicate another, which is but by such renouncing their communion.²”

² [An equivalent example of this is in 1 Kings 13:1-10.]

38. There is no history that I have seen or heard that tells us of any Churches on earth that for many hundred years together did worship God without a liturgy as faulty as ours: To make them all idolaters, and such whose worship God cursed and accepted not, is to make them no true Churches; and if Christ had no Church, He was no Head and King of it, and so no Christ.”

Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen (RBO, 2024), p. 32

“…if you distinguish not of false worship, you will make but false work about it:

1. There is that which is the corrupting of God’s own necessary worship-ordinances in so gross a manner, either outwardly in the matter or inwardly in the mind, as that God will not own or accept the worship and worshippers.

2. There is that which is false in integrals, accidents or degrees by pardoned failings and infirmities.

To be “false” is to be disagreeable to the rule; such in some measure is every prayer, sermon or sacrament that ever you administered. He that says he has no sin is a liar [1 Jn. 1:10]. All sinful worship is so far false worship, which the best of men are guilty of.”

The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689), ch. 58, ‘Whether Communion with so Faulty a Church be Lawful’

p. 225

“But if their sermons, liturgy or lives have any faults, being not idolatry, heresy, blasphemy or such as renders their whole worship and assembling unacceptable to God, I disown communion in any of those [lesser] faults, though I be present.”

pp. 226-27

“Minister: …But is there any minister or Church that has no open faults in ministry and worship?

Lawyer: They mean not small infirmities, such as weak, faulty expressions, methods, disorders, dullness, etc. but gross, intolerable faults.

Minister: So then you are come to what I hold; I profess that if I see or hear any such blasphemy, idolatry, heresy or malignity as renders the worship abhorred of God, I will abhor it and avoid it.”

John Corbet

Of Divine Worship… in The Remains of the Reverend & Learned Mr. John Corbet, Late of Chichester Printed from his own Manuscripts (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1684) Corbet (d. 1680) was a congregationalist puritan.

“Pt. 2, ‘Of Idolatry’
§2. ‘Of Idolatry in General’

Idolatry is a species of superstition, being an excess in the object of worship. It is the giving of worship that is proper to God to that which is not God…

Pt. 3, ‘Of Superstition Less than Idolatry’
§1. ‘Of Excess in the Quantity or Measure of
Religious Observances’

All superstition is an excess in religion… this excess is either in the measure or in the kind when the rule of religion is transgressed in either of these ways; and in some instances there may be an excess in both…

§2. ‘Of Excess in Religious Observances,
for the Kind Thereof’

…Some kinds of religious worship may not be vicious in their nature, nor contrary to God’s holiness to command or allow, yet may be forbidden by the general precept of Scripture or other supernatural revelation.”

Richard Vines

On the Sacrament, p. 239 as quoted in A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London (London, 1685), vol. 1, John Williams, ‘The Non-Conformists’ Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England’, p. 21

“The Church may be corrupted many ways, in doctrine, ordinances, worship, etc. And there are degrees of this corruption; the doctrine in some remote points, the worship in some rituals of man’s invention or custom. How many Churches do we find thus corrupted, and yet no separation of Christ from the Jewish Church, nor any commandment to the godly of Corinth, etc. to separate.

I must in such a case avoid the corruption, hold the communion—But if corruptions invade the fundamentals, the foundation of doctrine is destroyed, the worship is become idolatrous; and what is above all, if the Church impose such laws of her communion as there is a necessity of doing or approving things unlawful, in that case, ‘Come out of Babylon.’ [Rev. 18:4] The Churches of Protestants so separated from Rome.”

A Treatise of the Institution, Right Administration & Receiving of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (London: 1657)

ch. 2, pp. 31-32

“These [formerly mentioned] separations are duty, and unto duty, but for a Corinthian to separate from God’s Church and God’s ordinance because some come unworthily to the Lord’s Table is no duty; because there is no command, it is no duty; and therefore we read not this word, ‘Come forth,’ in any of those epistles written to the seven Churches, Rev. 2-3, against which Christ says He ‘hath such and such things;’ they that lived in the impurer [church] are not called forth into the purer [church], but there are promises made to them that keep themselves pure, and duties enjoined them toward the impurer part, for we may not make these churches and Babylon all one, nor make every disease the plague.

Shall the sons of God, the angels, forsake the Lord’s presence because Satan came also amongst them? Job 1:6. Must Shem and Japhet leap out of Noah’s Ark, because there is a Ham there?

Would not our Savior rather have sent for John Baptist to have baptized Him rather than Himself have come from Nazareth to Bethabara, which some compute fourteen Dutch miles, that’s of ours fifty six? If that generation of vipers that came also to John’s baptism had either polluted the water, or the ordinance unto Christ? Mt. 3:7, 14.

The abuses reproved were such as depraved the ordinance, and the corruptions [were] such as put themselves forth in the communicants at the very time of their participation. The Lord’s Supper was so intermeddled with their festival cheer as the difference between the Lord’s body and their own repast [meal] was not truly made. They discerned not the Lord’s body.”

ch. 20, p. 246

“The secession of those good people from the idolatry erected by Jeroboam to worship at Jerusalem is allowed, 2 Chron. 11:16. The negative separation, or the not communicating in the worship of Baal, not so much as by knees or lips of those seven thousand in Israel, is liked of by the Lord, 1 Kings 19:18…

The flying of God’s people out of Babylon [Rev. 18:4], where idolatry is maintained by force of tyranny is called for and required.”

London Ministers

A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London (London, 1685), vol. 1, John Williams, ‘The Non-Conformists’ Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England’ Williams (d. 1709) was an Anglican bishop.

pp. 19-20

“If the corruptions are such as do not unchurch a church or affect the vital parts of religion. So says Mr. [John] Tombes:

‘Not every, nor many corruptions of some kind do unchurch, there being many in faith, worship and conversation [conduct] in the churches of Corinth, and some of the seven Churches of Asia (Rev. 2-3), who yet were golden candlesticks, amidst whom Christ did walk. But such general, avowed, unrepented of errors in faith, as overthrow the foundation of Christian Faith; to wit, Christ the only Mediator betwixt God and man and salvation by Him, corruptions of worship by idolatry, in life by evil manners, as are utterly inconsistent with Christianity, till which in whole or in part they are not unchurched.’ (Theodulia, Answer to Preface, §23 [‘Corruptions in Non-Fundamentals Unchurch Not’], pp. 47-48; Thomas Blake, Vindiciae Foederis, ch. 31, p. 229 ff. [ch. 42, p. 276])

For till then the corruptions are tolerable, and so afford no just reason to dissolve the Church, or to depart from it.
So Mr. [John] Brinsley:

‘Suppose some just grievances may be found among us, yet are they tolerable? If so, then is separation on this ground intolerable, unwarrantable: inasmuch as it ought not to be, but upon a very great and weighty cause, and that when there is no remedy.’ (Arraignment of Schism, p. 50)

So Mr. [James] Noyes:

‘Private brethren may not separate from Churches, or Church-ordinances which are not fundamentally defective, neither in doctrine or manners, heresy or prophaneness.’ (Temple Measured, [(1646), ‘Excommunication,’] p. 78)

To all which add the testimony of Dr. [John] Owen and Mr. [John] Cotton. The former asserts that:

‘many errors in doctrine, disorders in sacred administrations, irregular walking in conversation, with neglect and abuse of discipline in rulers, may fall out in some churches, and yet not evacuate their church-state, or give sufficient warrant to leave their communion and separate from them.’ (Evangelical Love, [ch. 3,] p. 76)

The latter says:

‘Unless you find in the church blasphemy or idolatry or persecution (i.e. such as forces them to leave the communion) there is no just ground of separation.’ (Exposition on 1 John, [on 2:19, ‘It is a note of seducers, or Antichristian Teachers, to depart from the fellowship of the Church’] p. 156)

This is universally owned. But if anyone should yet continue unconvinced, let him but peruse the catalogue of the faults of nine Churches in Scripture, collected by Mr. [Richard] Baxter (Cure of Church Divisions, Direction 5, p. 40 ff.), and I persuade myself he will think the conclusion inferred from it to be just and reasonable.”

p. 27

“They [the old non-conformists] further argue that Christ does still hold communion with defective churches, and not reject the worship for tolerable corruptions in it, and so neither ought we. It is supposed by Dr. [John] Owen that:

‘There is no such society of Christians in the world, whose assemblies, as to instituted worship, are so rejected by Christ as to have a bill of divorce given unto them, until they are utterly, as it were, extirpate by the providence of God, etc. For we do judge that wherever the name of Jesus Christ is called upon, there is salvation to be obtained, however the ways of it may be obstructed unto the most by their own sins and errors.’ (Discourse of Evangelical Love, ch. 3, p. 81)”

p. 32

“So another [John Barret], in his Farewell Sermon:

‘While all necessary fundamental truth is publicly professed and maintained in a Church, is taught and held forth in public assemblies and the corruptions there (though great, yet) are not such as make the worship cease to be God’s worship, nor of necessity to be swallowed down if one would communicate in that worship, while any Christian (that is watchful over his own heart and carriage, as all ought ever to be) may partake in the one, without being active in, or approving the other; there God is yet present, there he may be spiritually worshipped, served acceptably, and really enjoyed.’ (England‘s Remembrancer, sermon 4, p. 94)”

p. 38

“So that before this text [Mal. 1:14] can be opposed to what has been said, it must be proved:

1. That the things in question are corruptions, as much prohibited as the blind and lame under the Law.

2. That they are such as a person does choose, and it is in his power to help, and offers it when he has a male in his flock.

3. That such a corruption as affects not the substance of worship, does yet alter the nature of it, and makes the whole to be a corrupt thing and abominable to God.”

p. 63

“…the last advice given by a reverend person [Robert Porler] to his parishioners, in a farewell sermon in these words:

‘Take heed of extremes… Maintain… sober principles, such as these are, that every defective ministry, is not a false ministry; that sinful superadditions do not nullify divine institutions; that sinful defects in ordinances, do not hinder the saving effects of them.

That there is a difference betwixt directing a worship, prescribing things simply evil and manifestly idolatrous, and directing about worship things doubtfully-good being enjoined, but the unquestionable substance of worship being maintained. This latter does not justify separation.’ (England‘s Remembrancer, Sermon 16, p. 454)”

Church of Scotland

A Seasonable Admonition & Exhortation to Some who Separate themselves from the Communion of the Church of Scotland… unanimously agreed unto by the Commission of the General Assembly (1698; Edinburgh: Mosmam,1699)

pp. 5-7

“And it is a great sin to forsake these assemblies for worship, Heb. 10:25. We do not plead that Christians are bound to join with all who call themselves Christians, or Churches of Christ. Nay if they be heretical assemblies and such as overturn the foundation, or be idolaters in worship, we should have no fellowship with them, 2 Cor. 6:14; Rev. 18:4…

Does it not then concern all of you who withdraw from the communion of the Church of Scotland, in the congregations thereof, when assembled for the worship of God, to consider what you are doing, while there is not owned by Her any heresy, nor is she guilty of any idolatry in worship, nor is there any sinful condition of communion required of you…

…He has not yet forsaken us, but is yet in the midst of us, not only by his ordinances, these outward symbols of his Presence, but by his Spirit and the power of his grace, to the felt experience of many at this day, and sure it is not safe to separate when Jesus Christ does not separate, nor to quit the house when God and Christ abide in it and to refuse communion with that Church with whom Jesus Christ keeps communion…

We confess that we are not perfect, but we desire and aim to be better. Do not hinder but come and help us. Were there not as great defects and faults in some of the churches of Christ mentioned in Scripture, as at Corinth, Galatia and some of the churches of Asia, mentioned in Rev. 2-3? And yet there was no command nor allowance for any to separate from them. And let us ask while you separate from us, what Church is there on earth with which you would communicate and join in worship?…

…we may and ought to endeavor union and communion though there be many things defective such as: (1) Though there be difference of judgment in many things (see [James] Durham, [Treatise on Scandal, 1659, pt. 4, ch. 7] p. 317). ‘I mean’ (says he) ‘in such things as are consistent with the foundation and edification, for men’s understandings are not perfect, nor of equal reach.'”

p. 12

“By what principles do you walk? Are you presbyterians, or do you own the principles of rigid separatists? Will you read what our worthy divines have written on that subject?”

p. 16

“We are suspicious: There are three doctrinal mistakes and errors which occasion your division:… (2)… as if you could not maintain union and communion with any that differ from you in anything and comes not up to your mind in all things.”

1700’s

John Howe

‘Some Consideration of a Preface to an Inquiry Concerning the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters, etc.’ in The Works of John Howe, vol. 5, Containing the Treatises: On Divine Prescience and the Trinity… (d. 1705; Religious Tract Society, 1863), p. 284

“Again, your subjoined text of Scripture [to your book], ‘If the Lord be God, follow Him; but if Baal’—for what purpose was it set there? What? to signify that the God of the dissenters and of the Established Church differ as the living God and Baal?… It was uncharitable.

Uncharitable? That is a trifle in comparison; it was profane and most impious wit: yet you are mighty fond of the conceit and we have it over and over in the book that the conformists and dissenters serve two Gods—as the one of them is miscalled—and have two religions!… and, for aught appears you intend, in most of them [established churches], you blaspheme as a senseless idol—rebuke, and forgive you!”

2000’s

Travis Fentiman

“Editor’s Extended Introduction” 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;³ 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.

³ Our [puritan] authors below [in the book]: “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.” p. 248 below.”

Articles

1200’s

Aquinas, Thomas – Summa, pt. 2, pt. 1, Question 18, Article 11, ‘Whether every circumstance that makes an action better or worse, may place the moral action in the species of good or evil?’ [No]

“More and less do not change a species. But more and less is a circumstance of additional goodness or malice. Therefore not every circumstance that makes a moral action better or worse, places it in a species of good or evil.”

1600’s

Tombes, John – Theodulia, or a Just Defence of Hearing the Sermons & other teaching of the present Ministers of England… (London: E. Cotes, 1667)

Intro

section 9, ‘The defection of the Jews to Idolatrous inventions of men, is of a more heinous degree than use of human ceremonies with us’

Tombes (c. 1603–1676) was a student of William Pemble and an Anglican clergyman, who came to develop baptist views. In church government he is said to have been presbyterian. Towards the end of his life he was a communicating Anglican layman.

section 10, ‘Such testimony as the Prophets gave against the Jewish defection, is not now to be given against the Conformists’

section 11, ‘The conformist not chargeable as the false prophets of the Jews’

section 24, ‘Every error makes not a false Prophet’

section 25, ‘Separation by reason of some corruptions unwarrantable’

Section 26, ‘It is prudence to join in worship, and hearing where some errors and corruptions remain’

ch. 7

section 1, ‘All Idolatry is, by exhibiting Divine Worship to a Creature’

section 2, ‘All Will-worship of God is not Idolatry’

section 11, ‘Acting in the holy things of God, by an Office-power and modes of Idolaters, may be without Idolatry’

section 16, ‘The Crimination of the Ministers, as Idolaters, is not excusable’

ch. 9

section 7, ‘God’s people are not called out of the temples in England as places of false worship’

section 10, ‘A pollution in one part makes not the whole worship polluted’

Principles of Union & Separation about Church Assemblies with Impurities of Worship in Them

Order of

London Ministers – Summary
Baxter – Detailed
Corbet – Material Obedience for Good
McWard – Contagiousness
Owen – Occasional Communion
Baxter – Reformation & Conformity
Baxter – Gathering of Churches

Leaving for Profit
Abstaining from Public Worship

1600’s

London Ministers – Summary

“What opinion the sober and eminent non-conformists have of communion with the Church of England. And they generally hold:

1. That they are not totally to separate from it; this follows from the former and must be owned by all them that hold she is a true Church: for to own it to be such and yet to separate totally from it would be to own and disown it at the same time…” (p. 12)

“2. They hold that they are not to separate further from such a true Church than the things that they separate for are unlawful, or are conceived so to be; that is, that they ought to go as far as they can and do what lawfully they may towards communion with it.” (p. 16)

“3. They hold that they are not to [totally] separate from a Church for unlawful things, if the things accounted unlawful are not of so heinous a nature as to unchurch a Church, and affect the vitals of religion, or are not imposed as necessary terms of communion.” (p. 19)

“4. They argue that to [totally] separate for such defects and corruptions would destroy all communion. If this should be, says Mr. [William] Bradshaw (Unreasonableness of the Separation, [pt. 1, 6th reason,] p. 103), then no man can present himself with a good conscience at any public worship of God wheresoever, because… he can have no assurance but that some errors in matter and form will be committed.” (p. 29)

“5. They argue that to [totally] separate upon such an account [as that there are some defects in the public worship] is not at all warranted in Scripture.” (p. 31)

“6. They argue that there is no necessity for separation for the sake of such corruptions because a person may communicate in the worship without partaking in those corruptions.” (p. 32)

“7. They grant that it is a duty to join with a defective and faulty worship where we can have no better… Now in what cases this is to be presumed that we can have no better, he [Richard Baxter] shows:

1. When it is so by a necessity arising from divine providence;
2. A necessity proceeding from human laws which forbid it;
3. A necessity from the injury done to the public [by scandal]; and
4. When it is to our own greater hindrance than help, as when we must use none or do worse.

In these and the like cases it becomes a duty, and what is otherwise lawful, is thereby made necessary. And he that cannot join with a purer worship than what is publicly established, [1.] without the breach of human laws, or the disturbance of the public peace, or dividing the Church of God, or [2.] the bringing danger upon himself, is as much (where any of these or the like reasons are) restrained from so doing, as if it did proceed from natural or providential necessity; that is, the [latter] one he cannot do physically and naturally; the other [former one] he cannot do morally, honestly, and prudently.ª

ª [Breaking civil law (cf. Acts 5:29) is being placed by the author in the category of transgressing morality, honesty and prudence. However, in that English context, as Baxter mentions below, being confined in prison often involved ruining one’s family and possibly dying. This would place breaking civil law in the category of physical, natural and providential hindrances. One ought to remember that natural laws may override positive ordinances and God desires mercy more than sacrifice (Hos. 6:6). See Baxter’s further arguments regarding risking one’s livelihood below, and see ‘Public Worship under Persecution’ (which might surprise you for what the puritans had to say).]

Having thus far stated the case, and showed that it’s universally owned by those that dissent from the Church of England that communion in a worship not essentially defective and corrupted is lawful; and that it’s a received opinion that where better is not to be had, it’s a duty; and that better is not to had where it is not to be had lawfully.” (pp. 35-37)

Richard Baxter – Detailed

Catholic Communion Doubly Defended by Dr. Owen’s Vindicator & Richard Baxter… (London: Parkhurst, 1684), section 2, pp. 9-14

Charity to those that Differ

“6. Christian love must extend to those that differ from us, though [they be] faulty in cases of tolerable infirmity, so as not to judge or despise them, but to receive them to our communion, as Christ receives us, Rom. 14 & 15, approving all so far that serve God in that which his Kingdom does consist in, Rom. 14:17-18 [“the kingdom of God is… righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.”].”

Must not own Sin, Yet must Join with Others with Mixed Worship

“9. Though we must not by profession, word or subscription own the sin of any Church, we must [in some circumstances] join in their communion in the worship of God, with those whose worship is mixed with sin in matter and manner, so it be not sin that is by its evil predominant against the good of the duty, to make the work rejected of God (like poison in our food, which makes the hurt greater than the good), because else we must neither worship God ourselves [because of our own impurities], nor join with any in the world: all the works of sinful men being mixed with sin. To deny this, is virtually to separate from all the Christian world.”

Bare Presence does not Imply Complete Approval

“10. Therefore our bare presence is no signification that we approve all that is done in that assembly. The very nature of Christian communion is a profession of the contrary: we being bound by God to communicate in good and not to own the evil.

And if men command us to own all that they there do, their command cannot bind us against God’s, nor make our presence a profession that we obey them against God: it being God that is the Master of us and our work, and Christianity itself being a profession that we obey God before man. Else man by commanding us to own some ill word or circumstance might drive us from all Christian communion.

If men should command us in our private meetings to do it for an ill end or an ill principle (as in obedience to usurpers [such as Oliver Cromwell in the 1650’s]) we must not therefore forbear all private meetings, nor will our bare meeting signify our obedience to such commands. If the pastor of a single church (or many associated) tell the people, ‘Your meeting must be to own e.g. Anabaptistry, Antinomianism, Presbytery, Erastianism, Separation, etc.’ this binds them not either to own it or to withdraw without some greater reason. He is no master of their faith.

11. Nor will the bare knowing beforehand that the pastor will say or do somewhat unlawful[ly] make our presence guilty of approving it. We know beforehand that we and all men are sinners, and shall sin in what we do: And we may suppose men will speak as they think: And as we know not but any man may speak amiss till we hear what he says, so when we know that the pastors have tolerable errors, and will vent them, it will not make us guilty of their sin, nor bind us to depart: We meet to own Christianity and not all that the man will say or do (known or unknown). I know before that I shall have many faults in my own prayer (disorder, dullness, etc.) which I do not own, though herein I am guilty.”

Not to Prefer Worse to Better

“12. Yet no man should prefer worse before better, if all things [be] set together it be better indeed to the person at that time.”

Standard of Worship

“13. God has by his Son Jesus and his apostles¹ instituted all that in doctrine, discipline, worship and conversation [conduct] which is obligatory or necessary universally to all the Church, over and above what is required by the Law of Nature. And no man or men have power to add anything of universal obligation.”

¹ [Note that Baxter does not say Scripture is the rule, as presbyterians typically did, but what Jesus and his apostles instituted. This New Testament requirement tended to be distinctive of congregationalists.]

Determination of Particular Circumstances

“14. God has by nature and Scripture obliged men themselves to choose and determine diverse subordinate expressions, significations, modes, circumstances or accidents of this universal religion which are not themselves meet for an universal and unchangeable obligation, but [for] local, temporary and mutable [circumstances and obligations]: Some of which every man may choose for himself, some the present pastor must choose, some the associated pastors may choose, and some the magistrate may choose. These must be added to the universal duties, so far is such addition from being sin. I have often named many particulars, as:

The translation of the Scripture, which to choose: the version of the Psalms in rhyme or meter, the common use of new made hymns,¹ the dividing the Scripture into chapter and verse, the words of sermons, their method, the particular text to be chosen, what chapters to read, at what hour to begin, how long to preach, in what words to pray, whether the same oft or changed, whether forestudied or not, whether written or unwritten, whether studied and written by ourselves or by others, where the place shall be, where the pulpit, [baptismal] font, table, etc. shall stand; what ornaments they shall have, linen, silk, silver vessels or otherwise?

¹ [Elsewhere Baxter speaks of, “the choice of psalms and hymns: the use of David’s are lawful and so are others: but no institution ties us to one, but leaves us to choose.” Schism Detected in Both Extremes (1684), pt. 2, pp. 5-6. This is plainly false: Ex. 15:20-21; 2 Sam. 23:1; 1 Chron. 25:1-7; 2 Chron. 29:25-30; Neh. 12:45-46; Ps. 95:2; etc. See ‘Singing of Psalms’.]

Whether we be bareheaded or covered at prayer, sacrament, etc. Whether we shall kneel, stand, sit or be prostrate at prayer, etc. What distinctive garments pastors shall use, by what signs of consent and obligation men vow and swear, whether by putting the hand under the thigh [Gen. 24:2, 9; 47:29], lifting it up [Gen. 14:22; Dt. 32:40], subscribing, laying it on the Book,² kissing the Book,³ etc. What catechisms to use, with many more such.

² [See ‘On Laying One’s Hand on the Bible to Swear’.]
³ [See ‘On Trembling at the Word, Weeping before the Bible, Kissing the Stake, etc.’]

God has commanded men to choose such things as these by the rules of edification, love, peace, concord, order, decency, winning those without, etc.

15. These [things] may be called ‘worship’ in a sense subservient to God’s ordinances of worship¹ (as we worship men by putting off the hat, kneeling, bowing [Mt. 18:26; Lk. 14:10; Rev. 3:9], etc.). But if any will not call it ‘worship’, they must [then] not call it ‘false worship’, nor pretend that the controversy is any more than about the bare name.

¹ [For an explanation of this, see pp. 73-84 of Travis Fentiman, 1 Corinthians – Head-Coverings are Not Perpetual & they were Hair-Buns, with or without Material: Proven (RBO, 2022).]

16. They that feign such things as these to be sinful additions and an invading of Christ’s office and denying his faithfulness, etc. condemn the Scripture that commands such determinations, and contradict the Law of Nature and the practice of all Churches on earth, and would exterminate all God’s worship, which cannot be performed without some such determinations.”

On Free Prayer with Forms

“17. As God has not tied us to words in prayer or preaching (though he have recorded many forms in Scripture), but left all to choose what words, time and circumstances make fit (by book, or without) so the conveniences and inconveniences both of set forms and of free speaking are on each part so great and undeniable that we have no cause to censure that Church which uses both; that is, which agrees on a set form to show what the Church professes to own, if the minister should blutter out any error or indecency, and yet not restrain ministers from the due use of free speech.

18. It is a great sin out of a fond conceit of the excellency of either way above its due value to think and speak with unjust vilifying of the other way when God has tied us to neither alone: It is contrary to knowledge, love, peace and concord out of a self-conceitedness, peevishness or false prejudice received from others to think and speak worse of other men’s words in prayer than they deserve and to frighten the ignorant from lawful communion by calling that sin or false worship that is not so.”

Anglican Liturgy: Tolerable

“19. Not meddling with ministers subscribing, declaring, swearing, nor with the discipline, by-offices, baptizing as by our sort of godfathers’ covenanting without the parents, crossing and undue application of words at burial and such like, I know nothing in the common [Anglican] Lord’s-Day worship [1661] spoken in the name of the Church which a godly Christian may not join in with the exercise of the spirit of prayer with faith and comfort,¹ if prejudice and false apprehensions of it affright him not or put not his soul out of relish with it. (As on the other side: prejudice distastes many too much with the faulty methods and words of many men’s extemporate prayers.)”

¹ [Note Baxter specifies joining with the service in the spirit of prayer, but does not mention laypersons speaking. Much of the Anglican service was responsive readings. For the Biblical and reformed case that laypersons speaking responsive Scripture readings is not the ideal of Scriptural worship, see ‘Introduction to the Biblical Teaching on Responsive Readings’. Note, however, one may faithfully internally join one’s heart to what is right and edifying in impure worship, that is, the natural worship in it, without performing or approving what is erroneous about it.]

Liturgies

“20. There are so few Churches on earth that worship God without all set liturgies or forms as are next to none. And there are very few in all the world so good as the English liturgy and that have so few faults: which martyrs composed and joyfully used. And it is unchristian to renounce communion with any one Church for a reason that is common to all, or almost all, it being contrary to the communion of saints in one body, and [is] far worse than to slander any single man.”

Character Faults

“21. It is great self-condemnation in them that cannot bear to be censured, nor scarce be contradicted, yet thus to censure almost all the Church.

22. They that think that conforming ministers are guilty of great sin must consider what diversity of education, company and interest may do, even on men of conscience, and that we have all our sins. And it’s sinful uncharitableness to think and speak worse of them than they deserve and to talk against all for the faults of some.

23. So great is God’s mercy to this land in yet giving many godly able ministers to the public churches that it is sinful ingratitude to overlook or deny it, though many others be never so bad.”

We need Popular Religion Strengthened

“24. The religion that keeps possession of the parish churches¹ will be the national religion: Mourn therefore before God that ever any men professing godliness should either labor to get all sound Protestants to desert the parish churches or that any such have been against the restoring of nonconformists by that called a ‘comprehension’, which was but the withdrawing of such impositions as these very men thought sinful, and all this, lest it should diminish the number and strength of the private churches. By this we see what we are doing against ourselves, if God save us not.”

¹ [The Anglican parish churches tended to have a simpler and more plain and Scriptural worship than the cathedral churches of the cities, which had many more human and showy additions. Many of the older non-conformist ministers that separated from the cathedral worship yet would not separate in principle from the parish churches. Baxter was of this mind.]

On Conforming Ministers

“25. They that say conformists convert no souls take on them to know that of thousands which they know not: and forget that before 1640 there were few but conformists to convert them in the land, and that all the Westminster Assembly, save eight, were such.† And that the parliament kept near 7,000 in the ministry that all conformed on Aug. 24, 1662.²”

† [Note that strict uniformity and express subscription to the imposed Anglican service became much more universal at 1662 with the Great Ejection. Before that enforcement was much more spotty and there were often many more ways for faithful ministers in the Anglican Church to avoid the pertinent sinful practices. For a summary of the earlier diversity, see Baxter, The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace (London, 1679), 7. ‘Some Matters of Fact Preparatory…’, sect. 3, pp. 121-22; James Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue (1704), pp. 42-44.

Owen also documents that many of the Westminster divines were only occasional and partial conformists. Baxter says in the forecited work of the large share of Westminster divines that they, “thought conformity lawful in case of [ministerial] deprivation, but the things imposed to be a snare, which should be removed if it could be lawfully done…” (p. 127) For that view argued from just before that time, see John Sprint, Cassander Anglicanus, showing the Necessity of Conformity to the Prescribed Ceremonies of our Church in Case of Deprivation (London: Bill, 1623).]

² [The number that did not conform has been estimated to be around 2,000.]

We need Popular Religion Strengthened

“26. In most countries of England, many hundred persons to one must have Church communion in the parish churches, or have none at all: And to renounce all Church worship and communion rather than join in the parish churches and with the liturgy, and to persuade all to do so, is almost to draw the land to live like atheists and is so pernicious to souls that no good Christian should favour it. And it is a gross breach of the [Solemn League and] Covenant [1643] which renounces profaneness, schism and all that is contrary to godliness.

27. So much are Papists angry at Protestant ministers that keep them [non-conformists] out of the parish churches, [Papists] reviling them [such Protestant ministers] as trimmers, [Papists] supposing that conventicles [worship assemblies of non-conformists] can do them less harm, that all that love the Protestant religion should do their best to encourage† all such orthodox men and to strengthen the Protestant interest in the parish churches, and not join against them with the Papists (however it be with other intents and minds).”

† [Baxter speaks here only of encouraging the orthodox men in the parish or conformed churches, whether ministers or laymen. He does not say attending the parish churches is necessary in all contexts.]

Impurity with Love: better than Censoriousness without it

“28. So great is the peace and comfort of many parishes where the public ministers and all the religious people live together in love and amity that it loudly tells us how much better that is than to study to render each other odious, or vile and excommunicable.”

Public Service with Better Private Practice may be Best

“29. Such use of godly public ministers [in the parish churches] may well stand with the best improvement we can make of the private help of others.”

Overcome by Love

“30. If we would win any that we think worst of, yea, or ease ourselves [of their treatment of us], it must be by love to them and not by condemning them on controvertible accounts or by causeless singularities.”

Communion with Irregular Churches

“31. It is lawful to have transient communion with an occasional assembly of Christians that are no fixed Church, nor the minister the fixed pastor of any particular church.

32. It is lawful to have transient communion with a church of strangers or neighbors, without taking an account of the calling of their pastors or of their discipline.”

Worshipping with Unworthy Worshippers

“33. When we have right to God’s ordinances, if many intrude that have no right, when we cannot hinder it, we must not therefore forsake our right or God’s worship.”

Best may be that which can be Attained

“34. Though we must prefer better before worse, that worse may be best to us at that time and place when we cannot have better without more hurt than benefit to the public or ourselves. Among many ministers, weak and strong, all cannot hear the best, nor must renounce the weaker.

To live under the countenance of government under an honest¹ minister of mean parts in peace and concord, though he use the liturgy, is more to the common advantage of religion and to the profit of most particular souls than to hear an abler man with the distraction of disturbers² and to be fined and lie in prison on no better a cause.”

¹ [Baxter does not speak to the case of being under dishonest ministers.]

² [Two kinds of disturbers sometimes disturbed the assemblies of non-conformists: 1. Government officials; 2. The even more extremist sectarians that sought simply to disrupt them.]

35. It is not only the law of man that makes the foresaid parish communion a duty,ª but it is God’s law of love, concord, peace and universal communion, if there were no constraining law of man.”

ª [Baxter speaks of a communion, but not necessarily of an exclusive attendance upon that church.]

Interpretation of Refusers

“36. They that constantly refuse communion in the public churches while it is commanded and while many write to prove it sinful, and many are in prison and ruined for refusing it, are justly to be interpreted to hold it to be unlawful, unless they openly profess the contrary and give some better reason for their forbearance.”¹

¹ [Baxter’s basic position here, that it is not wrong to attend conformed churches or ones that had received a government indulgence (constraining certain restrictions), nor was separation from them always justified, was the same (with some qualifications) as the majority of the resisting Scottish covenanters at that time (1684) and before (since the era of persecution began in 1662), in contrast to the Scottish Cameronians (followers of Richard Cameron) who, since 1679, split from the majority and practiced (at least) double separation in this context (that is, not only to separate from evil, but to separate from those who don’t separate from evil, such as, in their eyes, ministers who had conformed at 1662 or with the government’s later offered indulgences). The arguments of the majority, resisting Scottish covenanters are better; see pp. 328-30 & 334-36 of Thomas M’Crie, Story of the Scottish Church (1875) and, from primary sources, Robert Wodrow, History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland, vol. 3, pp. 91 (rt col) & 93 (rt col).]

Distinguishing Separations which do or do not Imply Excommunication

But to say of any congregation that they want [lack] anything essential to Christianity or [that they lack anything] to make them capable to be loved as Christians, or that their worship of God is idolatry, or so bad as that God accepts it not, the evil of it being greater than the good (as poison in our food), and on this reason to declare that no good Christian should communicate with them, this is to excommunicate such [a] congregation, as far as one Church may excommunicate another, which is but by such renouncing their communion.²”

² [An equivalent example of this is in 1 Kings 13:1-10.]

Much Impure Worship is much Better than what other Churches do

“38. There is no history that I have seen or heard that tells us of any Churches on earth that for many hundred years together did worship God without a liturgy as faulty as ours: To make them all idolaters and such whose worship God cursed and accepted not, is to make them no true Churches; and if Christ had no Church, He was no Head and King of it, and so no Christ.”

Faulty Liturgies: no Worse than the Apostles’ Use of the Septuagint

“39. The use of faulty liturgies is no worse than the use of faulty translations of the Holy Scripture, which yet Christ and his apostles ordinarily [and voluntarily] used [i.e. the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament] (of which I shall say more anon).ª”

ª [See Baxter’s defense of this point below in the section of Principles on ‘Reformation & Conformity’.]

No Command to Depart; Don’t Censure Christ

“40. I have before proved how faulty the priests’ calling was in Christ’s time, and the Temple and synagogue worship, and the Pharisees’ long liturgies, on pretence whereof they devoured widows’ houses, and their corrupt doctrine, and how great the faults were in the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Sardis, Laodicea, Thyatira, Pergamos [Rev. 2-3], and those that James wrote to, from which none were commanded to depart;¹ And to condemn Christ or his apostles as favoring or using sinful communion is worse in Christians than it was in the Pharisees.”

¹ [2 Cor. 6:17, “Come out from among them, and be ye separate,” refers to coming out from the world to Christ and the Church, not departing from the Church. Rev. 18:4, “Come out of her, my people,” refers to coming out of idolatrous Romanism.]

The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (London, 1689), ch. 2, pp. 11-16

Imposition

“III. They [nonconformists] thought not the imposition of it [the Anglican Service-Book] a reason sufficient to prove it unlawful for them to use it, were there no more [issues with it].”

Material Participation in what is Faulty & Concord

“XXI… Rulers have authority to command that which is good, though not in a faulty manner; and when we cannot do the good without the faulty manner, it is their fault and not ours: e.g. If an inconvenient time, place, text, tune, etc. be chosen, the union and concord which is held by agreeing in those modes is necessary: He that will not join in them cannot join in the worship. So that we obey the ruler or guide as a determiner of the means of concord, which is necessary, and not sub ratione erroris [under the rule of the error], [we do not obey and perform the action formally] as misdetermining, though [we do the action] in that which is [materially] misdetermined…º And it’s to us a lawful circumstance, because [it is] necessary to concord and [is] commanded, though mistakingly.

º For a fuller explanation and validation of these distinctions, with the practical use, see the ‘Extended Introduction’ on our page, ‘On the Ethics of Material Cooperation with, & Associations with Evil’.

XXII. We [nonconformists] never held it unlawful to join with a Church or minister that has some faults, both personal and in their acts of worship, as if all that joined were guilty of all the faults there committed: No not though we knew before hand that some false doctrine would be uttered or fault committed: Else we must separate from all the world, and all [people must separate] from us.
…

XXIV. We never judged needless affected singularity a duty, but judge it best in lawful things for concord’s sake to conform to the custom of the Churches where we live or come.”

Scandal

“XXV. Though we think not that men may [morally] command us to destroy our neighbors’ souls by scandal, yet when disobedience to a ruler’s law is likely to do more hurt than the scandal taken at it comes to, we are for avoiding the greater hurt.
…

XXVII. We hold it unlawful to reproach all Churches that we see to be faulty, but it is our duty to keep peace with all. [Rom. 12:18; Heb. 12:14]”

Communion with Opposers

“XXVIII. We hold mental distant communion in faith and love with many Churches that by imposing sin do deny us local communion.”

When Active Obedience is Unlawful

“XXIX. Though I here tell you once for all that I justify not all that I can thus bear with, yet we can submit by peaceable silence to many abuses in a Church which we dare not subscribe to and approve, and use also passive obedience where active is unlawful.”

Not Desirous of Drawing Persons from other Churches

“XXXIX. We are so far from desiring to draw people from the parish churches into conventicles [separate assemblies], that we would keep up the honor of them to the utmost of our power…”

We Labor where there is Real Need, which Justifies It

“XL. We are not for preaching when we are forbidden, where there is not a real and evident need of our labors.”

Solemn League & Covenant does Not Change this

“XLI. We believe not that the Scots’ [Solemn League and] Covenant [1643]¹ or any other does oblige us to sedition, rebellion, schism or any sin; nor does [it] disoblige us from any obedience due to any superior.²”

¹ [Baxter had sworn to the SL&C.]
² [See ‘All Vows are Qualified’ and ‘Vows can Never Bind Beyond God’s Law’.]

John Corbet – Material Obedience for Good

Of Divine Worship… in The Remains of the Reverend & Learned Mr. John Corbet… (d. 1680; London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1684), pt. 3 Corbet (d. 1680) was an English, congregationalist puritan.

Imposition & Conscience

Section 6. “In matters doubted among sober Christians, superiors should take heed of strict imposing [for public worship], 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.”

Passive, Material Obedience, or Not, for a Higher Good

Section 6. “If superiors command that which is above their sphere to command [for public worship], namely, things not necessary in genere [by its kind], yet if they be not simply evil, subjects may¹ do those things, unless they be evil in their consequence to a higher degree than the not doing of them would be.² In this case it is not formal obedience,³ but they are done for the end’s sake and to avoid evil.”

¹ [Note Corbet does not say the person must do such things.]
² [This is akin to the Principle of Double Effect, which had its historical roots in the medieval natural law tradition, especially in the thought of Aquinas (d. 1274). “Classical formulations of the principle… require that four conditions be met…: first, that the action contemplated be in itself either morally good or morally indifferent; second, that the bad result not be directly intended; third, that the good result not be a direct causal result of the bad result [Rom. 3:8]; and fourth, that the good result be ‘proportionate to’ the bad result.” William D. Solomon, “Double Effect” in ed. Lawrence C. Becker, The Encyclopedia of Ethics (NY: Garland, 1977)]
³ [For this distinction and a further elaboration of these and related issues, see ‘On the Ethics of Material Cooperation with, & Associations with Evil’ and ‘Passive Obedience’].

More Passive, Material Obedience, or Not, for a Higher Good

Section 5. “Note that things not determined of God [for public worship] and left to the determination of men must be such as are necessary in genere, and not things idle and superfluous. A superior may not institute a superfluous thing that is not simply evil, though sometimes the inferior may lawfully obey therein; or to speak more properly, [the inferior may] lawfully do the thing to avoid inconvenience or to testify respect to the superior, though in that particular he has no lawful power to command.

Note also, that of things necessary in genere, the superior may not lawfully determine for such species, as, though not simply evil, may have a tendency to evil or be evil in the consequence, when he may determine that which will not be evil in the consequence. Yet the inferior may obey, or rather observe the thing commanded, when the evil consequence of non-observance will be greater than the evil consequence of observance.”

Robert McWard – Contagiousness

The True Non-Conformist... (Amsterdam, 1671), Dialogue 1, pp. 6-7 McWard was a resisting Scottish covenanter, and a disciple of Samuel Rutherford.

Separation from Contagious Corruptions

“You [the opponent] suggest that nonconformists think they may quit the communion of the Church if [the Church is defective] in their opinion, nor in the truth in every point…

[McWard responds:]… in [the] name of all true nonconformists… it is not every real difference in profession or practice that they hold to be a sufficient cause; Nor do they judge that, even the cause being sufficient, the separation should be always carried to the extremity; but the sound and clear rule which they propose for Christian practice in this matter is that where the controverted difference is such as would render a conjunction therein either sinful or contagious [Mt. 16:6; 1 Cor. 5:6; 15:33; Rev. 18:4], then a just and proportionate separation, precisely and with all tenderness, commensurate to the exigence, is the safer course.”

[Contagiousness should also be distinguished into corruptions that are contagious in principle, or have a tendency to this by their own nature (which all have, given the sinful nature of man), versus cases where the corruption is not actually contagious in fact, that is, where Christians have sufficient gracious strength to not be so infected.

The reason that contagiousness may be warrant for some separation is that we have a stronger obligation unto our own salvation, and that of our families by nature, and to the communion of the true spiritual Church, and to serve those who remain with the contagion by some separation, than we do to such a close attendence upon positive, external, diminished Church ordinances and even the salvation of others. See ‘On Love of God, Self-Love & Love for those Close to Us, in Relation to Others’.]

James Owen – Occasional Communion

Moderation a Virtue, or, The Occasional Conformist Justified from the Imputation of Hypocrisy… (London: Baldwin, 1703), pp. 7-9 Owen (1654-1706) was an English, Independent puritan. By “occasional conformity,” Owen does not mean ever doing that which is sinful.

Lawfulness & Need in Some Circumstances for Some Separation, while Maintaining Occasional Communion, or Conformity

“John the Baptist was an occasional conformist to the Jewish Church: He went to Jerusalem to worship thrice a year at the solemn feasts, according to the Law [Dt. 16:16]; but at other times he held separate assemblies¹ in the wilderness of Judea at Jordan [Mk. 1:5], and at Aenon [Jn. 3:23], where he taught and baptized…

¹ [For a summary in English Church history after the Reformation of presbyterians and puritans who at times held separate assemblies from the established Anglican Church, yet still held communion with her, see James Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, 1704, pp. 42-44.]

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Author of our holy religion, was also an occasional conformist. We find Him sometimes in the Temple and synagogues; at other times preaching in private houses, on mountains and in the wilderness, etc… He preached in separate congregations, was a dissenter from the imposed ceremonies and traditions of the elders, and vindicated his disciples in their non-conformity to them, telling his censorious accusers that they ‘taught for doctrine the commandments of men.’ (Mt. 15:1-9; Mk. 7:1-8)

The apostles of our Lord Jesus, in imitation of their Master, were occasional conformists. One, while we find them in the Temple at public worship and teaching there (Acts 3:1; 4:1); another [time] while in a private meeting, or conventicle, as some would call it. St. Luke says, ‘They continued daily with one accord in the Temple’, and ‘broke bread from house to house.’ (Acts 2:46)

St. Paul, the apostle of the gentiles, was eminent for occasional conformity. He exhorts the Christians to assert their freedom from the law of ceremonies (Gal. 5:1), lives himself after the manner of the gentiles (Gal. 2:14), and by consequence, in fellowship with them, yet occasionally purified himself in the Temple, according to the Law of Moses. (Acts 21:26) He was a dissenter from the ceremonies of the Law, and yet submits to them to avoid offense [Acts 16:3; 18:21]. He statedly communicated with the gentile Churches, but holds occasional communion with the national Jewish Church. He judged occasional communion lawful, but did not therefore conclude constant communion a duty, nay, it had been sinful to him and all other Christians; for then they must have separated from the fellowship of the Gospel [Acts 15:7-19; Gal. 2:9-21], and renounced Christianity…

From this different constitutions of the Jewish [in Acts 15:21] and Gentile Churches, it follows: 1. That there was no exact uniformity in the Churches planted by the apostles. Nor did they make any laws of uniformity in lesser matters, as the condition of Christian communion; but left the believers to follow their different sentiments, and to approve themselves to God therein. Some were free to eat all things, others eat herbs, rather than forbidden flesh, or clean flesh dressed after the manner of the gentiles, some observed days, others not. (Rom. 14:2, 5) Here is a manifest difference in practice, and the rule or canon which the apostle gives about it, is not a rule of uniformity, but of charity, not to despise or judge one another. (Rom. 14:3)”

Richard Baxter – Reformation & Conformity

Intro

Baxter (1615-1691) here demonstrates, through an extended comparison, or parable, from real, then-recent and current events in England that the puritans had lived through and were in the midst of (including taking into account covenanting), that it may be moral and for the greater good (and even necessary) to tolerate receding to a lesser state of past reformation for a time and in the circumstances while the previous or a greater reformation cannot be sustained or made without greater harm than good.¹

¹ To see this principle further ethically verified, including from more of Church history, see point 27 of ‘Choosing the Lesser of Two Evils’ in the article by T. Fentiman, ‘Theses on the Ethics of Civil Voting, with a Correction to the Booklet ‘Christ Centered Voting”.

Specifically, Baxter defends both ministers administering, and laypersons attending and using, under certain circumstances, a faulty liturgy (the Anglican Prayer-Book service) when the benefits outweigh the alternative (including possible civil repurcussions). Baxter did not believe there was anything strictly sinful in the regular morning and evening services of the liturgy for the Lord’s Day,¹ though there were such things in other parts of the liturgy throughout the year (which he would not perform).

¹ Book of Common Prayer for the Lord’s Day: 1559; 1662.

Whether one agrees with this premise or not is not really relevant; don’t get side-tracked by it. The principles Baxter lays out, argues and elaborates on regarding seeking reformation according to God’s Word and yet being willing to conform so far as able without sin, where necessity and expediency dictate, are far reaching and profound.

Baxter also argues from principles the Jews, Christ and the apostles acted upon in their context in using and worshipping with the Septuagint, a significantly faulty Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Keep in mind in all this that Baxter himself did suffer much for keeping up a congregational church (often against the laws) that did not use the Anglican liturgy, but fully exercised the purity of worship as he understood it.

Samuel Bolton (a Westminster divine) concurred in this principle elucidated by Baxter:

“And thus I have showed you what materials our brethren will afford us to this building [of Church government], which I could for my own part rather be content to sit down withal, than by raising it higher, but heighten our confusion, run the mischief of division among ourselves, than which no penal evil can be sadder and more uncomfortable. I wish we might all remember the apostle’s rule, Phil. 3:15-16…” The Arraignment of Error… (London: Miller, 1646), p. 311

Catholic Communion Doubly Defended by Dr. Owen’s Vindicator & Richard Baxter… (London: Parkhurst, 1684), section 5, ‘A comparison of the use of a faulty translation of the Scripture and a faulty liturgy’

A Real Parable

“In Queen Elizabeth’s days [1558-1603] the Bishop’s Translation of the Bible and that called “the Old one,” being faulty, were only in use. King James procured a better [translation in 1611, the KJV], but the [Anglican] Liturgy still retained the Old one.

Suppose a law were made [in the 1630’s] that only the Old faulty translation be used; many refuse it and suffer for it; the [largely puritan] Parliament comes [in the 1640’s] and establishes the New Translation, and swears all men [in the Solemn League & Covenant, 1643] to promote it as a part of reformation; we are in possession of it for sixteen years: then a law is made [in 1662] that all shall go to prison that use any but the Old; two thousand [ministers] break this law and use the New, and suffer part of the penalty [in the Great Ejection of 1662], and shift from the rest as long as they can.

At last the State is resolved to suffer them no longer [in the following two decades], but in prison they shall lie: Hereupon many suffer imprisonment; many die there. Some few in London keep up secret worship with the New Translation and others go to the Churches where the Old is used. In the countries there is not past one minister in twelve or twenty miles that keeps up a meeting in the use of the New one.

The few that yet do say that to use the Old one, or join with such as do, is covenant-breaking and false worship, and unlawful, and a going back from reformation.”

Seeking Reformation, Occasional Conformity & Covenanting

“Some that live in countries where none in twenty miles openly use the New one, come to Richard Baxter for counsel; he desires them to bring one of the contrary judgment and judge when they hear both: He tells them that:

1. They should keep up the New Translation as far as they can in God’s public worship, while the hurt will not be greater than the benefit.

2. That when they have no public church or worship to join with, but what uses the Old one, they should rather join with such than none, as also when they cannot have the New one without more hurt than benefit.

3. And that while they can have the New one, they should not renounce communion with the churches that use the Old one, as separating from it as unlawful, but only disown the faults of the Old one, while they disown not the communion of the churches in the use of it.

The other says:

1. That it is a cursed thing to offer God a worse [worship] while we have better.

2. That we are sworn [by the SL&C] against it.¹

¹ [The SL&C does not mention the KJV, but the argument is that the KJV is held (by them) to be part of the reformation, or the reforming process, that the SL&C binds to.]

3. That it is false worship and obeying man before God.

4. That we [the ones who only use the New translation] do but keep our possession, which they would put us out of, and it’s they that separate from us, and not we from them.

5. That we keep to God’s Word, which is the only rule. And therefore communion with the Old Translation is unlawful, and we should rather suffer death.

Baxter answers:

I. (1) That it is a cursed thing to give God no public worship because we cannot have the New Translation, and to live like atheists if we cannot have what we would. None is worse than the Old. Family worship without church worship is worse than an Old Translation. (2) And that it is not we that offer God the worse before the better; it is they that exclude the better, which we protest against, having not our choice.

II. That he that sware [1.] to give over all church worship unless he have the New Translation, swore wickedly like an atheist; and he that swore [2.] to communicate with no church that used the Old Translation, swore wickedly like a schismatic; and he that swore [3.] that God’s providence should never return him to a necessity of using the Old,¹ swore blasphemously, as if he could have governed the world against God.

¹ [Note that such conditions are not in the SL&C. See also ‘All Vows are Qualified’ and ‘Vows can Never Bind Beyond God’s Law’.]

III. That all worship is so far false as it is faulty; That to forsake all public worship when we cannot have the better translation is to be righteous, unrighteously, over much [Eccl. 7:16], and too little [righteous], and to disobey both God and man.

IV. Keep your possession as long as you can without more hurt than good. I am not one that ever strove to take it from you. But do your brethren in prison enjoy public worship? You’ll say, ‘They do better. It’s easier bearing their imprisonment, poverty and death than your own.’ But what shall ten parts of the kingdom do that must have the Old Translation or none? You’ll say, ‘I suppose, they may give over all church worship as impossible and take up with family worship.’ But stay:

1. Must you not first prove the Old so bad as that no-church worship is better? Have you proved this?

2. Will not your reason prove that we must also separate from you? Have not weak ministers as bad faults as a weak translation?

3. What’s become then of your saying, ‘We had possession’? Have they possession of better that have none at all? Or will you be without all, because you had once possession of better? And will it excuse your ungodliness that you can lay the blame on them that dispossessed you? Or if they be schismatics for so using you, does it follow that you are none, if you persuade all to separate from all God’s Church worship rather than join where the Old Translation is used?

V. God’s Word is the rule, but only a general rule for words, modes and circumstances. To love God and our neighbour and the unity of the Church are his greatest commands. Go learn what these mean. To violate these and forsake all Church worship, if you cannot have the best translation, is not to keep to the rule, but most grossly to violate it in the greatest commands against many Scripture admonitions which vehemently urge you to love and unity.”

Christ & the Apostles used a Bad Translation

“But, good friend, if really Christ and Scripture be your guide, I desire no more; tell me, and lay by partiality: Did not Christ and his apostles use both in the synagogues, Church, meetings and writings a faulty translation of the Old Testament, and as bad as ours. Deny it if you can for shame. Though sometimes they varied, they mostly used the Septuagint, according to which our faulty translation of the Old Testament is made, as it differs from the Hebrew. Is this no confutation of you?

[(1)] Yea, Christ and the apostles used it the rather because it was in common use.

(2) And are you sure that among so many Greek differing copies as we have of the New Testament, that you use and follow none but the best.¹

¹ [Note that some of the more narrow Textus Receptus (‘The Received Text’) crowd, who exclusively define that term according to a few dozen manuscripts (out of the 5,000+ that exist) from 1500’s Europe (numerous of which are compilations), contrary to the reformed themselves who desired and sought faithful manuscripts from elsewhere, are contrary to the ecumenical doctrine of Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 1, sect. 8, which makes no such conditions but rather speaks of that which has been “kept pure in all ages,” in reference to “the Church,” that is the whole of Christ’s Church.

That limited group of 1500’s manuscripts and compilations still has textual variants and various readings that cannot be further decided between by providence. Nor is providence (such as manuscripts being located in Europe under Romanism, and hence then accessible and used by godly protestants in the Reformation) in every respect a determinative rule, if you read the book of Ecclesiastes and consider the extent of the Jews’ moral corruption, through whom God preserved his written Old Testament Word, Rom. 3:2-4; 9:4, not only through the Old Testament era but also through the Middle Ages and into the period of the Reformation.

In fact, the most prominent centers for copying and preserving God’s Word in the Hebrew Scriptures in the Middle Ages (by the Jews, unbelievers) lay outside Europe. If Japheth should come into the tents of the promised line of Shem with the advent of the Messiah, according to the promise (Gen. 9:27; Isa. 66:18-21), one might expect even the Scriptures written with the coming of the Messiah (in Greek) to be faithfully preserved even in areas descended from Shem, such as such areas governed by the Byzantines.]

Plain or Bad Bread is Better than None

“I would add a similitude [It was actually a real and common scenario in that era]: Supposing that we had just possession of the public church-places and tithes, and they are taken from us, and we can blame them that did it and say over and over, ‘We had possession;’ and therefore it is unlawful to meet in worse rooms, for God must have the best: will this hold when you cannot keep possession?

Will you rather worship nowhere? This is no better than if you would tell all men they should die rather than eat brown bread, if force take all other [food] from them, because it is unjustly done and they had possession of better.

Good friends, keep your possession for me, but I own not the famishing of all that are dispossessed. If you do, I do not.”

Bad Translation & Bad Liturgy

“Objection: But this case is unlike to that of liturgies. Answer:

The Scripture is God’s own Word: A mistranslation makes that to be his Word that is not; which sure is a tenderer matter than in what words we speak our own minds to God. Sure [it is that] a depravation of Scripture is more [of a depravavation] than [that of] a ceremony: Were liturgies such an alteration of God’s own words, you would more plausibly accuse them. One that said, ‘God said this’ or that, which He said not, was worse than one that spake his own words indecently to God. To say, ‘This is God’s Word,’ which is not, is indeed adding to it [Prov. 30:6]; but so it is not to speak words as our own.

How much the Septuagint differs from the Hebrew, how many verses it leaves out, how many additions and alterations it makes, is commonly known. Christ’s and the apostles’ use of this was no approbation of its faults, much less their presence in the synagogues when others read Moses and the prophets in them. And the Psalms in the Septuagint translation were part of their liturgy. For man to speak faultily is no wonder: It has a more plausible pretence for separation to say that men corrupt the Word of God. And yet when it is but such an effect of human imperfection, it is no just pretence.

But yet a word more:

Question 1: Do you think that the Pharisees and scribes had so much of the gift of extemporary prayer that they could, and did use to make long prayers, as if it were by the spirit-extempore? Say so and you will disgrace the doctors’ arguments that lay so much on this manner of praying [by forms]. No doubt but it was forms and liturgies that they used; yet when Christ condemns them for praying in the streets to be seen and using long prayer for a pretence to devour widows’ houses:

2. Did Christ speak one word against them as forms or liturgies? Did He want [lack] zeal or knowledge?

3. Had they not been good in themselves, what cloak could they have made for so great evil?

4. Did Christ or his apostles ever forbear [abstain from] the synagogues for the sake of these long liturgies?”

Reconciliation

“Come friends, there is no end, nor much hope in disputing against fixed prejudice and wrong confident conceits, how clear soever the light be against it. Hold your judgment and I shall hold mine till God irresistibly reconcile us; and if you cannot forgive me, I can forgive you, but not own the guilt of your mistakes and the effects; I have too much already of my own. I had rather you accused me than [my own] conscience [accuse me] for wilful contracting¹ anymore. The Lord save us from our enemies, but more especially from our friends and all their temptations, and above all, from ourselves.”

¹ [Baxter means here either a wilful receding from doing what he ought, or unnecessarily limiting his Christian liberty unto doing righteousness, or both.]

Scarecrows for Extremism

“It amazes me to hear wise and godly men say, ‘It is Popery that is coming in upon us;¹ therefore, let us all forsake the parish-churches, quasi die [as by the day]. The enemy will take the city within these few years; therefore, let us all go out of it today. Like him that killed himself for fear of dying some years hence. Dementation goes before perdition. Who knows not that the religion of the parish churches is likely to be the national religion? And shall we persuade protestants to leave them all?”

¹ [There was an increasing scare in the mid-1680’s, not wholly imaginary, that England would either become, or be invaded by Romanists. This lead to the Glorious Revolution of 1689.]

Conformists & Love

“Passion, provoked by some men’s badness, has too much conquered love to conformists in some men’s minds so that they scruple not too uncharitable opinions and words of them. This is contrary to Christian love. I doubt not but there were hundredsº of godly conformable ministers in England on Aug. 24 1662. Seven thousand or more did conform that had been kept in in the [puritan] Parliament’s time [1640’s to 1650’s]; were all those seven thousand tolerable the year before and ungodly the next year? Many conformists now in London were taken for very good men in 1659. At once the other extreme [of people] most study to get them out [of the establishment]; and shall we also call all men on pain of hazarding their souls to forsake them?

º [Note that he does not say thousands.]

A very great Churchman above 40 years ago was heard say to his brethren:

‘The non-conformable puritans are snakes. We have the law against them and can tread them down when we will: But it is the conformable puritan that is the devil of England, to be cast out.’

And shall we second this, and that as in opposition to it? Grace is lost as far as Christian, impartial love is lost. And they that lose religion themselves, which lies in love, are likely to be no good keepers of it in the Church.

If a good man that we value become a danger to the truth, we are angry if his error be but contradicted, lest his name be blemished: But some dare say the conformists are all false, ready to betray the Church to Papists, who now do far more to keep them out than we do. This is against Lam. 3:17 [“Thou hast removed my soul far off from peace.”].

If there be any such conformists high or low, I am none of their advocate;ª God will find them out and judge them. But I am confident that it is also conformists (by the advantage of their possession) that will do more to stop their [Papists] desired success than nonconformists can do.

ª [Regarding full lay-conformity to Anglicanism after 1662, as required by law, Baxter lists 12 things he refused as sinful and/or irrational: The English Nonconformity (1689), ch. 4, pp. 22-23. Regarding ministerial conformity, he lists 40 things just before it in the same chapter: pp. 17-22.]

I am sure Bishop [John] Jewel, [James] Ussher, [Thomas] Morton, [Joseph] Hall, [George] Downame, [John] Davenant, etc. were far from Popery. And what man living has written stronglier against it than Dr. Isaac Barrow (against whose book a doctor has newly dashed his reputation, as a bubble against a rock: And what the Bishop of Lincoln, the Bishop of Hereford, Dr. Peter Moulin, Dr. Stillingfleet, and many more have done, is known.

Your [non-conformist puritan] Mr. Matthew Mead once commended a conformist for a benefice to me with these words, ‘I take him to be the holiest man I know;’ I have loved him the better ever since for his candor, charity and impartiality.”

Richard Baxter – Gathering of Separate Churches

The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace, or an Account of their Judgment in Certain Things in which they are Misunderstood… (London, 1679), sect. 6, pp. 47-49 & 51-58, 85, 100-2, 118

When Gathering of Separate Worship Assemblies or Churches is Schismatic

“XXVIII… Gathering new churches by way of separation from others, or gathering assemblies without the consent of the lawful pastors who had the charge of the people of those assemblies, is a sin and schism in all these cases following:

1. In general, when the laws, practices or persons of the church which they separate from give them no sufficient cause of a departure.

2. In general, when in the judgment of true reason, according to the notable evidence of the case, the said assemblies are likely to do more hurt than good.

3. When such assemblies are gathered in opposition to some truth which the separaters would thereby disown (e.g. infant-baptism, the lawfulness of [some] set-forms of praise or prayer, or any sound doctrine) or [they are gathered] for the profession and propagation of some heresy or error (as Antinomianism, Popery, etc.).

4. When such churches are gathered by men that have no true fitness and calling for the sacred ministry or the work which they undertake.

5. When they are gathered by the pride of the ministers that would thereby unduly set up themselves and draw away disciples after them, or by their covetousness, seeking not the good of the flock, but the fleece, not them, but theirs, not serving the Lord Jesus, but their own bellies: or when gathered, by the pride of the people that unjustly think those that they separate from [are] men unworthy of their communion, and say to them, ‘Come not near to us; we are holier than you,’ Isa. 65:5.

6. When they are gathered by a quarrelsome passion, falling out with the pastors and people whom they separate from. The parting of Paul and Barnabas [Acts 15:36-40] had some evil in it.

7. When they are gathered to encourage and strengthen a sinful faction or party, or when men separate from others for fear of being censured by such a party, as Peter did withdraw from the gentile Christians lest he should displease the erroneous Jews, Gal. 2.

8. When it is done out of a proud overvaluing of men’s own opinions, or some odd singularity whereby men cannot bear those that are not of their mind, or whereby they would fain be more conspicuous as more orthodox and wise than others.

9. When it is done mistakingly to set up some wrong course of Church government or worship (as that the people may have the power of the keys or of examining and judging all admitted members, or that Papal government or the mass may be introduced, [or for] enthusiastical disorderly talking by pretended inspiration, by ignorant uncalled men, or to introduce such traditions and superstitions as the Papists use, etc.).

10. When it is done upon a false conceit that a man’s presence with any Church that has known error or faults in doctrines or worship is guilty [of] approving them; and therefore that they must separate from all such.

11. When they separate out of an unruliness of spirit, because they will not be governed by their lawful pastors in lawful things, as time, place, order, etc. or because a minor part in elections is over-voted by the major part and cannot have their wills.

12. When they separate out of a profaneness of mind, not enduring the power of the preacher’s doctrine or the holiness and discipline of the Church, but would be licentious, while they would be called religious. All these are unlawful separations and assemblings.

13. Yet that which is unlawful as to the principle, end and manner secundum quid [‘according to that’], is not always unlawful simply and in the thing itself, for a proud, covetous, turbulent person may sinfully do a lawful thing.

XXIX… When pastors by concord or magistrates by laws have settled lawful circumstances or accidents of Church order or worship, or discipline, though they be in particular but human institutions, it is sinful disobedience to violate them without necessary reason, e.g. parochial order, associations, times, places, ministers, maintenance, Scripture-translations, etc.

XXX… When able, faithful pastors are lawfully set over the assemblies by just election and ordination, if any will causelesly and without right silence them, and command the people to desert them, and to take others for their pastors in their stead, of whom they have no such knowledge as may encourage them to such a change, we cannot defend this from the charge of schism, which puts a congregation on so hard a means of concord as to judge whether they are bound to that pastor that was set over them as Christ appointed, or must renounce him and take the other when they are commanded. So Cyprian in the case of Novatian says that he could be no bishop because another was rightful bishop before.”

When Gathering of Separate Worship Assemblies or Churches is Lawful or Necessary

“XXXVII… It is no schism to preach and gather churches, and elect and ordain pastors and assemble for God’s worship against the laws and will of heathen, Mahometan or infidel princes that forbid it. For thus did the Christians for 300 years [in the Early Church]. And if there be the same cause and need, it is no more schism to do it against the laws and will of a Christian prince, because:

1. Christ’s laws are equally obligatory,
2. Souls [are] equally precious,
3. The gospel and God’s worship equally necessary,
4. And his Christianity enables him not to do more hurt than a pagan may do, but more good.

If therefore, either out of ungodly enmity to his own profession or for fear of displeasing his wicked or infidel subjects, he should forbid Christian churches, he is not to be therein obeyed.

XXXVIII… If a prince (heathen, infidel or Christian) forbid God’s commanded worship and any commanded part of the pastor’s office (as in Papists’ kingdoms, prayer in a known tongue and the cup in the Lord’s Supper is forbidden, and as they say, all preaching save the reading of liturgies and homilies is forbidden in Moscovy [Russia], and as the use of the keys is elsewhere forbidden), it is no schism to disobey such laws (what prudence may pro hic et nunc [‘for here and now’] require of any single person, we now determine not).
…

XLIII…

2. No man has his power to destruction, but to edification. The bonum publicum [public good] is the end of government…

3. Every man (especially experienced Christians) have more sense and knowledge of what is profitable and congruous to them than standers-by have, how learned soever:

As ignorance makes a few, short, plain, oft repeated words in a familiar style more profitable to low-bred persons than an accurate learned discourse would be, so men’s several tempers and vices makes that matter and manner of preaching profitable to them which to others seems otherwise;

And as a nice lady must not tie her family of laboring persons to the matter and measure of her diet, nor revile them as gluttons or fools if they like it not:

[So] no more must learned men confine plain people to wordy orations (whether learned or pedantic) and say, ‘This is best for them’. Much less must they silence causlessly such teachers as truly profit them, or tie them to homilies or liturgies only and say, ‘Here is as much as is necessary to salvation.’ Nor is it any schism in the people if they refuse to be so confined by them and denied such helps to their salvation as God has sent them and made their due.

4. Order is an excellent means of edification and of preserving truth, charity and peace, but it is but a means to the ends of the things ordered and the public good. Therefore if order should be made the advantage of heresy, Church-tyranny or iniquity, and be turned against the good of Church and souls (as it is in the policy of the Roman Church and in well ordered armies of rebels or such as have unlawful wars), this would make it no schism or sin to break such order.
…

LI. Objection 2: If there be able preachers in one part of the parishes, and the other part have such as deliver all that is necessary to salvation intelligibly, it is unlawful to preach against the will of the prince or prelates in such a country.

Answer: We deny this unproved assertion… they should be thankful for so much [of that preaching, done against the will of the prince or prelates] and gladly accept it in such churches when they can have no better. But [it is] not [the case]:

1. That it is in the power of any man justly to forbid them better when God provides it;

2. Nor that they must obey such a prohibition, as such (though prudence may discern forbearance to be a duty by accident when the hurt would be greater than the good).

…
LIII. Objection 3: But the hurt of the people’s choosing teachers and assemblies without or against the ruler’s will is greater than the hurt that comes by the want [lack] of better teachers. Answer:

1. The people’s choice does hurt by accident, in those countries where the rulers put down necessary helps and where the people are erroneous, heretical and unruly, and so where the people would choose unsufferable men, supposing still that… the rulers alter not or violate not Christ’s laws by which He has appointed the ordering of assemblies; Therefore it is the ruler’s office to hinder the people from doing mischief, without hindering them from their duty and from doing well; to govern them in their work, and not to forbid it.

2… without holiness none shall see God, Heb. 12:14… It is not then easy to think of a greater hurt than to forbid men such means, without which experience assures us that few comparatively are thus enlightened and renewed to God, and with which more comparatively are renewed.

To say that God can bless to us an ignorant heartless, carnal teacher, is no answer while experience certifies us that comparatively He does not do it. If the people would choose such pastors, rulers must do their best to change their minds and to provide better for them. But that’s not the case that we are now speaking to. If people would run into sects and heresies, rulers may punish and restrain false teachers that dangerously corrupt the Christian doctrine and seduce the people’s souls. But they may not therefore silence the faithful ministers of Christ; and adhering to such ministers does not any hurt of itself, nor any way tend to the furthering of so much hurt as the contrary would do.

3. For who knows where to bound his obedience to such silencers as aforesaid… if 1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000 parishes must choose the apparent hazard of their souls and refuse such helps as experience certifies us they greatly need, in obedience to man, why must not the rest of the parishes do so also? May I give away the needful helps to my salvation because others have them, as if their salvation might satisfy me instead of my own?

4… the old saying is true (owned even by the Papists, see Pet. De Marc•, De Eccl. Const.) that Ecclesia est in imperio [‘The Church is in the empire’, and therefore not usually of equal extent with it, and hence the Church needs to grow]… And the Temple [church building] is a prison and not a Church [so far] as men are there forcibly driven against their wills…

Yet constraining the ignorant and heretical to hear sound teachers we are far from opposing. But when Paul has said [that there be the qualification for ministers:] ‘Not a novice,’ [1 Tim. 3:6] if rulers will silence better teachers and set up novices that are unskilful in that great and sacred work, and never felt that work of faith, love, and heavenliness on their own souls which they must preach to others, this will do more hurt than the people’s choice of better men.
…

…
LX… He is not the physician whom we can trust that does not cure men…
…

LXII. If the people, conscious of their great necessity of pastoral oversight and help, and of Christ’s command to use it, do live in a parish or country where they cannot have it from those that the magistrate allows, either because they cannot perform it for them or because they will not: it is no schism for such to seek and use it from worthy, though prohibited men.

We before spake of the schisms of teachers, and now [we will speak] of hearers… In several cases the people may possibly be [unfortunately] deprived of this [pastoral oversight]…

1. When public pastors are at so great a distance from them as that such pastors cannot come to them, nor they and their families go so far without such inconvenience and trouble as will frustrate the end of their endeavors: As in France where the Protestants must go twenty miles or ten to a church, which the weak, children and aged cannot do, nor the rest of the family without such cost and pains, and loss of time as will deprive them of the benefit…

2. Where parishes are so great that the allowed pastors cannot preach to half or a fourth or tenth part of the people, and cannot visit half the sick, and baptize, and administer the Lord’s Supper as is necessary, and have not time if the ignorant and doubting, and troubled persons should come to them for counsel, resolution or comfort…

3. Where the allowed pastors are so slothful or proud that they will not condescend to these offices of personal help to many thousands, especially of the poor.

4. Where they are young raw men, or ignorant of such matters, unable to counsel people as their necessities require, in order to their salvation…

5. Where they are so profane and malignant that if poor people come to them with cases of conscience, or for counsel what they must do to be saved, they will but deride them as scrupulous and precise, and make them believe that to be solicitous about salvation and afraid of sinning, and seriously godly, is but to be hypocrites, melancholy or mad…

6. When they are heretical and not to be trusted in point of faith.

7. And when they are so factious and schismatical as that their preaching and conference tends to render other good Christians odious, and stir up men to hate, persecute or separate from them, and so to destroy true love and concord.

In any of these cases when the people or part of them are deprived of those pastoral helps which their necessity requires, and God commands, they may seek it where they can best have it.

LXIII. In all these cases it is an unsatisfactory answer to tell them that religion is kept up in the land and that other persons or parishes have what they want, or that order and obedience must be preferred to their supply, or that God can save them without a pastor, etc. For so God can save the heathen world without the Gospel preached if He please: And so you might persuade the poor to famish rather than [go] against law to beg, because if thousands of them die of famine, yet other people are supplied and have plenty: Or you might tell men that they must use no physician, though they die for it, if they have no tolerable one allowed them by the magistrate, because others have physicians…

What if the parish priest could baptize but one of many (or not all)? Must the rest be content to be unbaptized? If not, why must they be content without all public preaching and worshipping of God, and the Lord’s Supper, and personal helps of pastors which they need?

LXIV. Yet here we must declare:

1. That in such necessity people must, caeteris paribus [‘other things being equal’], first seek their supply in that way that is most for peace and most for public good, and least scandalous or dividing, and that is most agreable to the ruler’s will and honour.

2. That for some short season in which his soul is not apparently hazarded, as also in the tolerable loss of some measures of pastoral help, a man must submit his own personal advantage to public interest and may hope that God will make it up. As also when it tends to his probable greater advantage afterward by putting by some present storm: But not statedly, to be without Christ’s instituted ordinances and helps.

For example, parish order is desireable and is the ruler’s will: If therefore supply can be had in a neighbor parish for them that want [lack] it in their own, and by an allowed minister rather than a disallowed, it should be chosen, unless the disparity be so great as to weigh down the contrary inconveniences. And if for a time any be constrained to another way, they should do it but as an extraordinary necessity for the present time till they can be supplied in the allowed parochial way; and avoid as much as possibly they can all ways, though lawful, that encourage true schisms.

3. And we must profess that if any preachers or people shall out of self conceitedness pretend necessity when there is none, their pretence is no justification of their disorder or disobedience. Magistrates may regulate us in the circumstances of those duties which the Law of Nature or the Gospel [in an established Christian nation] do command: But if on such pretence of regulating circumstances, they will violate or contradict either the Law of Nature or the Gospel, and destroy the duty itself or its end, we are not bound in such cases to obey them, but must pariently suffer.

…
LXVI…

4. Cyprian’s conclusion before mentioned is known, inviting the people to forsake a bad pastor, Plebs maximam habet potestatem [‘The people have the greatest power’], etc. And he convinces the people that if they forsake not such they are guilty.
…

6. The [English] law or canon forbids it to no man in England to desert men, sobeit they will but remove their dwelling into another parish, which is an extrinsic circumstance of human order…

LXVII… God will have mercy rather than sacrifice [Hos. 6:6], and prefers men’s salvation to ceremony or Church laws.
…

LXIX… Where under any of the foresaid unjust prohibitions the silenced ministers and people shall gather no distinct churches, but only auditories or chapels as parts of the parish churches, and that only where there is (through the bigness of the parish or distance from the parish church, or paucity, or insufficiency, or unfaithfulness of parish priests) a true necessity, not unchurching or separating from the parish Church, but owning it and holding communion with it, and promoting the reputation of the true parish minister and communion, and persuading others to the like, we cannot see that this is any schism; but rather their practise [is schismatic] who fire and divide men’s minds by envious clamors against the innocent, and [who be] proudly calling others schismatic.

LXX… we hold that gentle forbearing [of] tolerable differences, even in distinct churches guilty of schism, so they be kept from unpeaceable reviling of others, is a meeter way to avoid the mischiefs than with prison, sword or fire to exasperate them.

It is noted that Nestorius the heretic was the first sharp persecutor of the Novatians: But most of the better bishops tolerated them, as did the emperors: And two prudent gentle bishops of Constantinople, Atticus and Proclus, reduced the Joannites and lenified other divided parties, which the flercer men had made and kept up by their violence.”

On Seeking another Church for Greater Profit

Travis Fentiman, MDiv

The issue of “separation” (an ambiguous word) often mentioned on this page, in the debates in the Post-Reformation concerning Separatists, was usually one of a total, necessary separation on principle due to impurities in the church or its worship. Or in the words of Samuel Rutherford, the issue respected a person acting in an equivalent manner to the case of one making “a vow never to set his foot” in such a church. (Due Right of Presbyteries, 1644, pt. 1, ch. 4, p. 73)

That is very different than Christians who, for their own spiritual health or other necessities, may choose to attend another more profitable church, herein following the general rule of nature’s light and Scripture to do all things unto edification. (1 Cor. 14:26) Thus Rutherford in the same place said that this case:

“is no separation from the visible Church, but [only] a removal from one part of the visible Church to another, as he separates not out of the house who removes from the gallery to remain and lie and eat in the chamber of the same house, because the gallery is cold and smoky and the chamber not so…”

Many of the same puritans quoted on this page against Separatism affirmed, ‘Persons may Leave for a More Profitable Church’, that is, if persons are not utterly renouncing all communion with the previous impure church. One may yet attend the more impure church when it may be suitable, as Richard Baxter rightly teaches in the principles set forth above.

When ought one to remove to another more profitable church? Baxter answers this with precise accuracy, taking into account not only the edification of the individual, but also the edification of Christ’s Church (1 Cor. 14:5, 12, 26):

“Sixthly, if you live under a worse and unreformed Church, or unprofitable minister, if necessity hinder not, you may remove your dwelling to a better.

Seventhly, and where churches are near and there is no great hurt or disorder [that] will follow it, you may join with another church without removing your dwelling: But this you may not do when the hurt to the public is likely to be greater than the good to you.” (Cure of Church Divisions, 1670, Direction 36, p. 204)

Be sure to note that ‘An Impure Church may be Better than a Church with Purer External Ordinances’ and ‘One May Miss Services & Leave a Church due to Providence without Permission, & a Letter of Transfer is Not Necessary’.

On Abstaining from Public Worship

When it may be Right to Abstain from Attending Public Worship

An Impure Life Defiles Pure External Worship & Makes it Impure

Order of Contents

Bible Verses 12
Westminster
Quotes 6

Bible Verses

Old Testament 6

1 Sam. 15:21-23 “But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in Gilgal. And Samuel said, ‘Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.'”

Ps. 15

“Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbor, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbor. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not. He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.”

Ps. 51:7, 10-11, 14 “Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy Spirit from me. Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.”

Ps. 66:18 “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:”

Isa. 1:13-16

“Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto Me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.

And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;”

Isa. 6:3-5

“And one cried unto another, and said, ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.’… Then said I, ‘Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.'”

New Testament 6

Mt. 5:23-24 “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.”

Jn. 9:31 “Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.”

James 2:10 “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”

James 4:8 “Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.”

1 Jn. 3:14 “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.”

1 Jn. 4:20 “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?”

Westminster

Directory for Public Worship

Of Public Prayer before the Sermon

“…the minister who is to preach is to… to call upon the Lord to this effect:

‘To acknowledge our great sinfulness, First, by reason of original sin, which… doth defile our best actions…'”

Order of Quotes

Calamy
Burroughs
Hall
Jekyll
Charnock
Baxter

1600’s

Edmund Calamy

The Great Danger of Covenant-Refusing & Covenant-Breaking. Presented in a Sermon… (London: 1646), p. 30

“What though the Church-worship be pure, yet if the worshippers be impure, God will not accept of the worship? And if families be not reformed, how will your worshippers be pure?”

Jeremiah Burroughs

Gospel Worship... (London: 1647), Sermon 7, p. 116

“God will manifest that He is displeased with such duties that thou doest perform; He will manifest it one way or other that He is a holy God, and He does not accept of such unholy things as thou doest tender up to Him; for the truth is, if God should accept of such unholy things from men, God may be said to be like unto themselves.

As a man if he does entertain any as his familiar friend that is naught and wicked, it is his disgrace and dishonour… So God may employ the most wicked men in the world in some outward services, but if He should accept of them in his worship, it would be a dishonour to God, and therefore God, that He might sanctify his own name, He will manifest his displeasure at one time or other against such duties of worship you that perform worship in a formal manner and with unclean, vile hearts;”

Thomas Hall

The Beauty of Holiness… (London: 1655), ch. 2, pp. 44-47

“Fourthly, it may inform us, if our God be so holy and pure, then his worship also must be pure. What should a pure God do with an impure and mixed worship? He will have no plowing with an ox and an ass… Dt. 22:10-11. There is no serving Him and idols too, Josh. 24:19. He tells these idolaters, ‘Ye cannot serve the Lord, for He is an holy and a jealous God’ that can endure no co-rival in his worship. He will have all done there according to the pattern; we must set up nothing in his worship without the warrant of his Word, Mt. 28:20. Whatsoever He commands, not whatsoever men command, must we observe to do. God’s courts are courts of holiness and therefore no uncleanness must be set up there, Isa. 62:9…

Fifthly, it informs us that the persons must be pure: As the worship must be pure, so must the worshippers; The God of purity must have pure servants: the fountain of holiness will have none but holy followers. It is a disgrace to an eminent holy man to have a bastard lay claim to him. Ps. 50:16, To the wicked says God, ‘What hast thou to do to declare my statutes?’ Whenever we come to worship this glorious God, we must wash our hands in innocency, Ps. 26:6, and purge our families from sin, as Jacob did his from idols before he went to Bethel, Gen. 35:1-3.

The people must be sanctified and prepared before the Lord will deliver his holy Law unto them; then and not tell then does God speak, Ex. 19:14-15 compared with 20:1. He will not take a wicked man by the hand. What communion has light with darkness, purity with impurity, virtue with vice, beauty with deformity, life with death, or the chiefest good with the foulest evil? There must be always a purging of our hearts from sin before we draw nigh to God in praying, hearing, sacraments, etc. else the Lord will abhor both us and our duties, and will answer us according to our idols, Eze. 14:3-4.

Under the Law, if any man came to offer a sacrifice with his uncleanness on him, he must be cut off; there must be washing and cleansing before he came; so in all our approaches to God in duty there must be not only a habitual, but also an actual fitting and preparing of ourselves for the work. Therefore when James (4:8) had commanded us to draw nigh to God, he presently adds, ‘Cleanse your hands ye sinners, and purify your hearts.’

Our hearts are not fit to serve the living God till they be purged from dead works, Heb. 9:14; God will not vouchsafe to reason with us, nor to have any communion with us, till we have first washed ourselves and made us clean; Isa. 1:16-18, ‘Then come let us reason together.’ The Lord will be worshipped in the beauty of holiness or not at all, Ps. 96:9, there is no pleasing Him without it, and none that ever had it in truth but pleased him.”

Thomas Jekyll

Peace & Love Recommended & Persuaded in Two Sermons… (1675) Jekyll (d. 1698) was an Anglican minister.

“…there being no greater affront to God in the world, nor any thing more destructive to ourselves, than thus presumptuously to sin both against Him and our own souls by presenting ourselves before Him so directly contrary to his nature and commands; for He has taken such care that his worship should be free from all such mixtures of hatred and malice, that He will rather for a time dispense with his worship itself and have it deferred than endure that it should be thus unduly performed:

‘For if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remember that thy brother has ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, first, be reconciled unto thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.’ (Mt. 5:23-24)

Whereby it appears that the performance of any outward service unto God, without Love to our brother, is very displeasing unto Him, who requires mercy rather than sacrifice at our hands: For if the gift, when brought to the altar, must rather be left there than offered up, sure there can be no acceptance or reconciliation with God, unless we be also reconciled unto our brother, because that this must be done before the other can be begun. How many then have offered not only fruitless, but abominable sacrifices unto Him, and instead of pacifying, have but the rather provoked Him, nay, and have with all earnestness, even besought Him to ruin and destroy them?”

Stephen Charnock

Several Discourses upon the Existence & Attributes of God (London, 1682), ‘On the Holiness of God’, p. 564

“If we ‘stretch out our hands towards Him,’ we must ‘put iniquity far away from us’ (Job 11:13-14); the fruits of all service will else drop off to nothing. ‘Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant to the Lord;’ When? when the heart is ‘purged’ by Christ sifting as a ‘purifier of silver’. (Mal. 3:3-4)”

Richard Baxter

Schism Detected in both Extremes… (London: 1684), pt. 2, p. 9

“Superstition is an offering somewhat as pleasing to God, which is not pleasing to Him. All Christians have some degree of this in matter or manner; for we know but in part, and prophesy in part, etc.

And so [it is the logical consequence of separatistic principles that] no Christians must join with others. But must they not give over all religious duty themselves, seeing their own defects more defile them than other men’s [defects]?”

All Worship is Impure before his Uncreated Being & Infinite Perfections: that of Sinners, the Holy Angels & of Spotless Glorified Saints, Forever

Order of Contents

Bible Verses 56+
Westminster
Quotes 9

Bible Verses

All Worship of Sinners (even the Regenerate) is Impure 20+

Old Testament 14

Gen. 3:21 “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”

[This shedding of blood and covering, by God, was previous to the first recorded instituted worship in Gen. 4:2-4.]

Gen. 17:2, 10-11 “And I will make my covenant between Me and thee… This is my covenant, which ye shall keep… ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin;”

[In visibly entering God’s Covenant of Grace, at the outset, before all further worship, a token of their sinful flesh, from birth, had to be cut off and discarded. This bloody mess was of itself an ordinance of worship.]

Ex. 12:7, 13 “And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it… and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you…”

Lev. 4:2, 13

“And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty…”

Lev. 12:1-7

“If a woman have conceived seed, and born a manchild: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean… And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled…

And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering… unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her;”

[At the bearing of a child, the mother and the child were unclean and had to be purified before all further instituted worship.]

Dt. 6:5 “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.”

Dt. 16:16 “…they shall not appear before the Lord empty…”

2 Sam. 24:24 “…neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost me nothing.”

1 Kings 15:5 “Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that He commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”

1 Kings 22:42-43 “Jehoshaphat… turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the Lord: nevertheless the high places were not taken away;”

2 Kings 12:2-3 “Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days… But the high places were not taken away…”

Jer. 3:10 “And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto Me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord.”

Isa. 6:3-5 “And one cried unto another, and said, ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.’… Then said I, ‘Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.'”

New Testament 4

Mt. 22:37 “Jesus said unto him, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.'”

Jn. 1:29 “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

Jn. 4:22, 24 “Ye worship ye know not what… they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”

James 4:8 “Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.”

All the Worship of Holy Angels, Spotless Glorified Saints & All Creatures Whatsoever is Impure before God, Forever 36+

Old Testament 24+

Ex. 3:14 “I Am That I Am.”

Ex. 15:11 “Who is like unto thee, O Lord?”

Dt. 4:12 “And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude;”

Dt. 4:24 “For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire,”

Dt. 29:29 “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God”

1 Kings 8:12 “The Lord said that He would dwell in the thick darkness.”

1 Kings 8:27 “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee;”

Job 4:17-21 “Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker? Behold, He put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?… Doth not their excellency which is in them go away? they die, even without wisdom.”

Job 15:15 “Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.”

Job 25:5-6 “yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?”

Job 40:9-10 “Hast thou an arm like God? or canst thou thunder with a voice like Him? Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; and array thyself with glory and beauty.”

Job 40:15-18 “Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, He taketh up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. All nations before Him are as nothing; and they are counted to Him less than nothing, and vanity. To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto Him?”

Job 41:11 “Who hath prevented Me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.”

Ps. 8:3-4 “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?”

Ps. 16:2 “O my soul, thou hast said unto the Lord, ‘Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not to Thee;'”

Ps. 16:11 “Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.”

[So far from our worship adding anything to his essential, infinite, unbounded and unending blessedness, as if He needed it or was bettered by it (v. 2), He will be serving us with rivers of pleasure, forever more. We will be increasing debtors to Him forever, not He to us.]

Ps. 50:9-12 “I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats out of thy folds. For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills… the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.”

Ps. 97:2-5 “Clouds and darkness are round about Him… A fire goeth before him… His lightnings enlightened the world: the earth saw, and trembled. The hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth.”

Ps. 99:5 “…worship at his footstool; for He is holy.”

Ps. 103:14 “For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.”

Isa. 6:1-3 “…I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.'”

Isa. 40:12-18

“Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?

Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught Him? With whom took He counsel, and who instructed Him, and taught Him in the path of judgment, and taught Him knowledge, and shewed to Him the way of understanding?

Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, He taketh up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering. All nations before Him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.

To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto Him?”

Jer. 10:7 “Who would not fear Thee… there is none like unto Thee.”

Dan. 9:9-10 “I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him: thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him:”

Mal. 3:6 “For I am the Lord, I change not.”

New Testament 12

John 1:18 “No man hath seen God at any time.”

Jn. 8:58 “Jesus said unto them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.'”

Jn. 18:5 “Jesus saith unto them, ‘I am.’ [εγω ειμι]”

Rom. 11:33-36 “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto Him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever.”

Acts 17:24-25 “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;”

1 Tim. 6:16 “Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting.”

Heb. 1:3 “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power…”

Heb. 12:29 “For our God is a consuming fire.”

1 Jn. 4:12 “No man hath seen God at any time.”

Rev. 1:8 “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”

Rev. 1:13-17 “And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And He had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw Him, I fell at his feet as dead.”

Rev. 4:11 “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.”

Rev. 5:13-14 “And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, ‘Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.’ And the four beasts said, ‘Amen.’ And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.”

Rev. 19:5-7 “And a voice came out of the throne, saying, ‘Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.’ And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, ‘Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him:'”

[These new and continuing commands to give praise to God show that the declarative glory due to our infinite God can never be fully fulfilled or match what is due to Him according to his glorious perfections.]

Westminster

Larger Catechism #7

“Q. 7. What is God?

A. God is a Spirit, in and of Himself infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection; all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, everywhere present, almighty, knowing all things, most wise, most holy, most just, most merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.”

Order of Quotes

All Worship of Sinners: Impure

Baxter
Jenkins
London Ministers
Claude
Burkitt

All Worship of All Pure Holy Creatures: Impure Forever

Calvin
Perkins
Hutcheson
Charnock
London Ministers

All Worship of Sinners, though Regnerate, is Impure

1600’s

Richard Baxter

Schism Detected in both Extremes… (London: 1684), pt. 2

p.9

“And he that will communicate with none that sin in preaching, prayer, sacraments, shall communicate with none “

p. 14

“3. The charge of ‘false worship’ unexplained, is mere deceit: 1. Worship is so far false as it is contrary to the rule. Every sermon, prayer or sacrament which we administer has faultiness and sin and is so far ‘false worship’.”

William Jenkins

Commentary on Jude, verse 19 as quoted in A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London (London, 1685), vol. 1, John Williams, ‘The Non-Conformists’ Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England’, p. 24

“Must not he who will forbear communion with a Church till it be altogether freed from mixtures tarry till the Day of Judgment, till when we have no promise that Christ will gather out of his Church whatsoever does offend? This was it that amongst other reasons conquered the prejudices of that good man Mr. Joseph Alleine and kept him from separation, of which we have this account:

He knew of how great moment it was that the public worship of God should be maintained and that its assemblies should not be relinquished though some of its administrations did not clearly approve themselves unto him, because upon the account of some imperfections and pollutions in them, supposed or real, to withdraw communion, is evidently to suppose ourselves joined before our time to the heavenly Assembly or to have found such an one upon earth exempt from all mixtures and imperfections of worshippers and worship.”

London Ministers

p. 20

“All, even the best men, in a strict, legal sense, are unworthy, and that even of common mercies from God, much more of this prime duty and privilege of Christianity…

all men are sinners and their best services imperfect and impure; But then, the right they have to this privilege does not depend on their own merit and worth, but, as was said before, on the promise of God…”

pp. 12, 29

“What opinion the sober and eminent non-conformists have of communion with the Church of England. And they generally hold:

…
4. They argue that to separate for such defects and corruptions would destroy all communion. If this should be, says Mr. [William] Bradshaw (Unreasonableness of the Separation, [pt. 1, 6th Reason,] p. 103), then no man can present himself with a good conscience at any public worship of God wheresoever, because… he can have no assurance but that some errors in matter and form will be committed.”

Jean Claude

Mr. Claude’s Answer to Monsieur de Meaux’s book… concerning the Church (London, 1687), pp. 61-62 Claude (1619-1687) was a French reformed professor of theology.

“Where was then that Church which does not only maintain some truth, but teaches and maintains all truth?… from hence it necessarily follows that there was not in any place of the world besides, any public worship, nor any exterior body at all, little or great, that served God in perfect purity.”

William Burkitt

The Poor Man’s Help & Young Man’s Guide… (London, 1694), ‘To the people of my charge’

“But know that the best communion and best religion in the world, the holiest doctrine and the purest worship will be of no avail to impure worshippers and impure livers…”

All the Worship of All Holy Angels, Glorified Saints & Creatures is Impure, Forever

Be it noted that while Christ’s sacrifice makes our worship legally righteous and acceptable to God in that regard, yet it does not make or account our worship to be uncreated or infinite.

1500’s

John Calvin

Sermons… upon the Book of Job (London: 1574), 2nd sermon on ch. 15, 58th Sermon, pp. 298-99

“[Job 15:15] ‘For God finds not steadfastness in his saints (that is to say in his angels), neither are the heavens clean in his sight:’…

For first and foremost they [men] had need to be cleaner and purer than the angels, and they had need to surmount the brightness of the sun and the stars, seeing that the heavens themselves are infected before God, if comparison should be made between them and Him…

But there is another higher righteousness in God, which surmounts all creatures, insomuch as no angel is able to satisfy it. And no wonder at all: for what comparison is there between an infinite thing and a thing that has bounds? Behold, although the angels have great glory in them: yet are they but creatures. And what is God? He is an infinite thing, insomuch that when we think upon Him, we ought to be ravished into astonishment. So then let us not think it strange, that God’s righteousness should be so high that when all creatures come to that point, all that is to be found in them shall be nothing at all, but they shall deserve to be utterly wiped out…

And so far are we unable to stand upright that the very angels of heaven are confounded there. And why? Because the very heavens themselves are not clean. For whereas God has created the sun to give light to the world, and given some brightness to the stars also: it follows not therefore that they have a divine perfection.

We must remember what has been said afore: namely that all the creatures that God made do keep still some marks of his grace. But if a man would compare that which is in the creatures with that which is in God: he shall find that the one is all and the other is nothing. Thus ye see how the heavens are not clean, that is to say, that there is always some imperfection in the creatures, so as they have not the power to stand before God, as in respect of the infinite glory that is in Him.”

1600’s

William Perkins

“A Warning Against the Idolatry of the Last Times, & an Instruction touching Religious or Divine Worship’ in The Works (d. 1602; London: Legatt, 1626), vol. 1, p. 703

“God is not only a spirit or spiritual substance, but He is every way infinite and has sufficiency of all perfection in Himself. And therfore He takes no delight in any good thing that the creature can communicate to Him: but his delight is in the communication of his own goodness to us, and in all such duties whereby we conform ourselves to Him and magnify his goodness. Thus Paul, Acts 17:25, that ‘God needs nothing,’ and therefore He is not worshipped with anything made by the hands of man. And the Lord says by the Psalmist (Ps. 50; 8; 14) that He does not principally respect our gifts and our sacrifices, because all things are his, but He respects praise and thanksgiving.”

George Hutcheson

An Exposition of the book of Job being the Sum of 316 Lectures (1657), sermon on Job 15:15-16, p. 213

“Doctrine 1. Albeit the Lord have made creatures which are excellent above man, especially as he is now fallen by sin, yet none of these are so perfect as that they can boast of purity before Him. For it is here again inculcated that saints and the heavens are not clean. So that whatever perfections there be in some creatures above others, yet all of them must be sensible of imperfection before God.
…

3. The best sight will be got of the emptiness of the creatures perfections when we look to God, how perfect He is, and what his thoughts are of the creatures; for they are not clean in his sight, says He, whatever others may think of them.”

Stephen Charnock

Several Discourses upon the Existence & Attributes of God (London, 1682), ‘On the Holiness of God’, p. 500

“He contains the holiness of all creatures put together and infinitely more. As all the wisdom, excellency and power of the creatures, if compared with the wisdom, excellency and power of God, is but folly, vileness and weakness; so the highest created purity, if set in parallel with God, is but impurity and uncleaness. Rev. 15:4, ‘Thou only art Holy:’ ‘Tis like the light of a glow-worm to that of the Sun; ‘The heavens are not pure in his sight, and his angels He charged with folly,’ Job 4:18; 15:15.

Though God has crowned the angels with an unspotted sanctity and placed them in a habitation of glory, yet as illustrious as they are, they have an unworthiness in their own nature to appear before the throne of so holy a God; Their holiness grows dim and pale in his presence. ‘Tis but a weak shadow of that divine purity, whose light is so glorious that it makes them cover their faces out of weakness to behold it, and cover their feet out of shame in themselves [Isa. 6].

They are not ‘pure in his sight’ because though they love God (which is a principle of holiness) as much as they can, yet not so much as He deserves: They love Him with the intensest degree, according to their power, but not with the intensest degree, according to his own amiableness: For they cannot infinitely love God, unless they were as infinite as God, and had an understanding of his perfections equal with Himself, and as immense as his own knowledge. God having an infinite knowledge of Himself, can only have an infinite love to Himself, and consequently an infinite holiness without any defect; because He loves Himself according to the vastness of his own amiableness, which no finite being can.

Therefore, though the angels be exempt from corruption and soil, they cannot enter into comparison with the purity of God, without acknowledgment of a dimness in themselves. Besides, ‘He charges them with folly,’ and ‘puts no trust in them,’ because they have the power of sinning, though not the act of sinning: They have a possible folly in their own nature to be charged with. Holiness is a quality separable from them, but it is inseparable from God. Had they not at first a mutability in their nature, none of them could have sinned, there had been no devils; but because some of them sinned, the rest might have sinned:

And though the standing angels shall never be changed, yet they are still changeable in their own nature, and their standing is due to grace, not to nature; and though they shall be forever preserved, yet they are not, nor ever can be immutable by nature, for then they should stand upon the same bottom with God Himself; but they are supported by grace against that changeableness of nature which is essential to a creature: The Creator ‘only hath immortality,’ that is, immutability (1 Tim. 3:16).”

London Ministers

A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London (London, 1685), vol. 1, ‘The Case of Indifferent Things used in the Worship of God’, Question: ‘Whether things not prescribed in the Word of God may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship?’, p. 27

“…the defects that must arise from all worship given by creatures to a Creator.”

On Degrees of Impurities & Degress of what is Better for Worship

Order of Contents

Bible Verses 30+
Westminster
Quotes 15+

Bible Verses

Degrees of Impurities 12+

Old Testament

Lev. 13:8 “And if the priest see that, behold, the scab spreadeth in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a leprosy.”

Ezra 3:12-13 “But many of the priests and Levites and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men, that had seen the first house [the older more glorious temple], when the foundation of this [rebuilt, lesser] house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice; and many shouted aloud for joy: So that the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people:”

Isa. 1:4-6

“Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.”

Isa. 1:22 “Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:”

Jer. 8:5 “Why then is this people of Jerusalem slidden back by a perpetual backsliding?”

Lam. 4:1-2 “How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!… The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers…”

Mal. 1:7-8 “Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts.”

New Testament

Lk. 12:47-48 “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”

1 Cor. 11:4-5 “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”

1 Cor. 11:13 “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?”

Gal. 4:3 “Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:”

Gal. 4:9-11 “But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.”

Col. 2:20-23 “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.”

Degrees of what is More or Less Better for Worship 18+

Old Testament

Ex. 20:25 “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.”

[The plain simplicity of God’s ordinances here is better than human artifices being added to it.]

1 Kings 15:14 “But the high places were not removed: nevertheless Asa’s heart was perfect with the Lord all his days.”

2 Kings 18:5-6 “He [Hezekiah] trusted in the Lord God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. For he clave to the Lord, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses.”

2 Chron. 29:20-21, 32

“Then Hezekiah the king rose early, and gathered the rulers of the city, and went up to the house of the Lord. And they brought seven bullocks, and seven rams, and seven lambs, and seven he goats, for a sin offering for the kingdom, and for the sanctuary, and for Judah…

And the number of the burnt offerings, which the congregation brought, was threescore and ten bullocks, an hundred rams, and two hundred lambs: all these were for a burnt offering to the Lord.”

2 Chron. 29:34 “But the priests were too few, so that they could not flay all the burnt offerings: wherefore their brethren the Levites did help them, till the work was ended, and until the other priests had sanctified themselves: for the Levites were more upright in heart to sanctify themselves than the priests.”

Ezra 6:16-17 “And the children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy. And offered at the dedication of this house of God an hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin offering for all Israel, twelve he goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel.”

Ps. 69:30-31 “I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify Him with thanksgiving. This also shall please the Lord better than an ox or bullock that hath horns and hoofs.”

Eccl. 5:5 “Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.”

Song 1:2 “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.”

Isa. 62:1 “For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.”

Hos. 6:6 “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”

Hag. 2:3-9 “Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing?… The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts:”

New Testament

Mt. 12:11-13 “And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.”

Lk. 5:39 “No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.”

Lk. 10:41-42 “But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things, but few things are needed—indeed only one. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.”

1 Cor. 11:15 “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”

1 Cor. 11:34 “And the rest will I set in order when I come.”

1 Cor. 14:1-5 “Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God… But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.”

Col. 2:16-17 “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

Heb. 12:22-24 “But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.”

Rev. 21:23 “And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.”

Westminster

Confession of Faith, ch. 25

“IV. This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[h] And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[i]

[h] Rom. 11:3,4. Rev. 12:6,14
[i] Rev. 2-3. 1 Cor. 5:6,7

V. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[k] and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[l] Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth to worship God according to his will.[m]

[k] 1 Cor. 13:12. Rev. 2-3. Matt. 13:24-30,47.
[l] Rev. 18:2. Rom. 11:18-22.
[m] Matt. 16:18. Ps. 72:17. Ps. 102:28. Matt. 28:19,20“

Directory for the Public Worship of God

Preface

In the meantime, Papists boasted that the book was a compliance with them in a great part of their service; and so were not a little confirmed in their superstition and idolatry…

Of Publick Reading of the Holy Scriptures

“We commend also the more frequent reading of such scriptures as he that readeth shall think best for edification of his hearers, as the book of Psalms, and such like.

When the minister who readeth shall judge it necessary to expound any part of what is read, let it not be done until the whole chapter or psalm be ended; and regard is always to be had unto the time, that neither preaching, nor other ordinances be straitened, or rendered tedious. Which rule is to be observed in all other publick performances.”

Of Prayer After Sermon

“The prayer ended, let a psalm be sung, if with conveniency it may be done.”

Concerning Public Solemn Fasting

“So large a portion of the day as conveniently may be, is to be spent in publick reading and preaching of the word, with singing of psalms, fit to quicken affections suitable to such a duty: but especially in prayer…”

Concerning the Observation of Days of Public Thanksgiving

“And, because singing of psalms is of all other the most proper ordinance for expressing of joy and thanksgiving, let some pertinent psalm or psalms be sung for that purpose, before or after the reading of some portion of the word suitable to the present business.”

“…let him dismiss the congregation with a blessing, that they may have some convenient time for their repast and refreshing.”

Order of Quotes

Degrees of Impurities

Cartwright
Gifford
Hildersham
Perkins
Gillespie
Puritan Ministers
Durham
Baxter
Corbet
Vines
London Ministers
Rule
Howe
Fentiman

Degrees of Better Worship

Cameronians
Shields
Tallents

Degrees of Impurities

1500’s

Thomas Cartwright

The Second Reply of Thomas Cartwright Against Master Doctor Whitgift’s Second Answer Touching the Church Discipline (Heidelberg, 1575), ‘Of election of ministers’, p. 246

“Furthermore that must be observed: what kind of idolatry that is which saint Paul says may fall into a brother and yet he retain the name of ‘brother’. (1 Cor. 8, 10) This appears upon the discourse he makes in that epistle to have been only a sitting down to eat at the feast of idolaters, made in honor of their idols, without any honor done to idols by sacrifice or bodily worship, and without any conscience of that meat more than of other.

Which although he prove a species of idolatry: yet was that one of the least and lightest kinds, and such as holding still the foundation of Christianity, could not without obstinacy in it, cut [him] from the church. Whereby [it] falls out that the papists, which in their idolatry raze the foundations of true religion, cannot, by that place, come into any account of the church of God.”

George Gifford

A Short Treatise Against the Donatists of England, whom we call Brownists... (London, 1590) Gifford (c. 1548–1600 or 1620?) was a non-conformist, English, puritan preacher.

Preface

“…the question between them and me… is not about the controversy in our Church, as whether there be imperfections, corruptions and faults in our worship, ministry and church government, nor how many, great or small. But whether there be such heinous enormities as destroy the very life and being of a true Church and make an utter divorce from Christ.”

‘Brownist Position’, p. 8

“Such as the worship is in Popery, where they teach and do many things contrary to the principles of faith, placing holiness and the worship of God in their own inventions, and seeking remission of sins, and the merit of eternal life in every beggarly superstitious observation and ceremony.

But if by false manner of worship you understand every error, fault and corruption in matters of religion, which though they be evil and to be condemned, yet overthrow not the faith, nor the very essence of God’s true worship, but be in circumstances, or in parts that may be maimed, and yet the life remain: then I deny the proposition as most erroneous, false and heretical…”

Arthur Hildersham

“…we are able to prove that greater corruptions have been found in those Churches unto which the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures has given notable testimony: 2 Kings 12:23[?]; 14:3-4; 2 Chron. 20:31; Mt. 15:5-6; Lk. 3:2 & 2:22, 27; Mt. 8:4 & 23:2-3; 2 Cor. 11:21-22; 1 Cor. 15:12; Rev. 2:14-15, 20-21.”

1600’s

William Perkins

“A Warning Against the Idolatry of the Last Times, & an Instruction touching Religious or Divine Worship’ in The Works (d. 1602; London: Legatt, 1626), vol. 1, p. 700

“If it be demanded how the worship of God should be a sin in any man, considering it is so commanded, I answer sins be of two sorts: The first is when something is done that is flat contrary to the commandment of God; the second is when that is done which God commands, but not in that manner God commands.”

George Gillespie

English-Popish Ceremonies (1637), pt. 3, ch. 1

pp. 1-2

“…superstition is the opposite vice to religion, in the excess, as our divines describe it; for it exhibits more in the worship of God than He requires in his worship… We see he [Jonas Porree referencing Zanchi] accounts superstition to be in the addition of ceremonies not instituded by Christ, as well as in the addition of more substantial matters…

Now our ceremonies, though they exhibit worship to God, yet this is done inordinately, and they make the worship to be otherwise performed than it should be; for example, though God be worshipped by the administration of the sacraments in private places, yet not so as He should be worshipped…

…ceremonies… have no necessary nor profitable use in the Church (as has been proved) which kind of things, cannot be used without superstition.”

p. 5

“…which this Papist affirms: yet in that he thus pleads for those constitutions of the Church from scripture and reason, forsaking the ground of human authority, he is a great deal more modest and less superstitious than those [who are] our opposites, who avouch the ceremonies as necessary…”

Non-Conformist, Non-Separating English Puritan Ministers

A Most Grave & Modest Confutation of the Errors of the Sect Commonly Called Brownists, or Separatists… (1604; London, 1644), Answer 1, p. 33 Note that William Rathband only published this work of the previous puritan ministers.

“That the [Anglican] ceremonies wherein opinion of holiness is, or has been put, many of our ministers have cast off, so that this reason makes nothing to justify separation from all our Church assemblies.”

[This statement implies the puritan ministers were willing to bear the yoke of other ceremonies that did not have an opinion of holiness, or superstition, about them.]

James Durham

The Dying Man’s Testament of the Church of Scotland or, A Treatise concerning Scandal (Edinburgh, 1659), pt. 1

ch. 1, p. 13

“13. Sometimes scandal is in immediate duties of religious worship, as praying, preaching, conferring, speaking, judging of such things, etc. that is, either by miscarrying in the matter of what is spoken, or by an unreverent, light, passionate manner, etc.”

ch. 6, pp. 25-26

“Assertion Two. Yet in other things there ought to be great respect had to offense, and men ought to be swayed accordingly in their practice, as the former reasons clear. As (1), if the matter is of light concernment in itself, as how men’s gestures are in their walking (suppose in walking softly, or quickly, with cloak or without) men ought to do, or abstain, as may prevent the construction of pride, lightness, etc., or give occasion to others in any of these. Of such sort was womens’ praying with their heads uncovered amongst the Corinthians, it being then taken for an evil sign.

Yet if it is necessary, there is nothing little, as Moses will not leave a hoof (Ex. 10)…”

The Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland, or a Treatise concerning Scandal… (Edinburgh, 1659), pt. 3, ch. 3, p. 164

“…grace exempts not from error in judgment; for, it is likely that Solomon, if he did not actually commit idolatry himself, yet became too inclinable that way…”

Richard Baxter

A Christian Directory… (London, 1673), pt. 3, Christian Ecclesiastics, p. 895

“Q. 138, ‘How may we know the Fundamentals, Essentials, or what parts are necessary to Salvation? And is the Papists way allowable that (some of them) deny that distinction, and make the difference to be only in the degrees of men’s opportunities of knowledge?’

…And whereas they [Papists] would make all the parts of Christian faith and practice equally necessary, where men have a capacity and ability to know, believe and practice them, it is a gross deceit… And thereby they make all sins and errors as equal as all duties and truths (James 3:2; 1 John 1, end). Whereas:

1. There is no man that has not some error and some sin.

2. There is no man that does all that ever he was able to do to understand all the truth.

3. Therefore there is no man whose errors themselves are not (many of them at least) culpable or sinful.

4. And they that distinguish between mortal and venial sins, and yet will not distinguish between mortal and venial errors, are either blind or would keep others blind. As it is not so damning a sin for a man to think a vain thought, or to speak a vain word, as not to love God or holiness (no though he was more able to have forborne that idle word than to have loved God), so it is not so mortal a sin (that is, inconsistent with a justified state) to mistake in a small matter (as who was the Father of Arphaxad, or what year the world was drowned in, etc.) as to blaspheme the Holy Ghost or deny Jesus Christ to be the Savior of the world, or to deny that there is a God or everlasting life, or a difference between good and evil. All sins are not equal in magnitude or danger. Therefore all errors are not equal in magnitude sinfulness or danger.”

Catholic Communion Doubly Defended by Dr. Owen’s Vindicator & Richard Baxter… (London: Parkhurst, 1684), section 2, pp. 9-14

John Corbet

The Nonconformist’s Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England, together with a Modest Defense of Ministerial Nonconformity... (London: 1683), The Nonconformists Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England, pp. 5-6

“I own… the worship there performed… as in the preaching of the Word, and prayer before and after sermon, to be in the main sound and good for the substance or matter thereof…

Though I judge their form of worship to be in many respects less perfect than is to be desired; yet I have found my heart spiritually affected and raised towards God therein…

the lawfulness of partaking in that worship, it being sound for the substance in the main, and the mode thereof being laudable in diverse forms and orders, and passable in the most, though in some offensive, inconvenient, or less perfect.”

Pt. 3, ‘Of Superstition Less than Idolatry’
§1. ‘Of Excess in the Quantity or Measure of
Religious Observances’

§2. ‘Of Excess in Religious Observances,
for the Kind Thereof’

Richard Vines

On Sacrament, p. 246 & p. 31 as quoted in A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London (London, 1685), vol. 1, John Williams, ‘The Non-Conformists’ Plea for Lay-Communion with the Church of England’, p. 55

“For we may not make every disease the plague.”

London Ministers

p. 32

“They [older non-conformists] argue that there is no necessity for [total] Separation for the sake of such corruptions, because a person may communicate in the worship without partaking in those corruptions…

1. This separation of the good from the bad in divine worship they grant possible. So Mr. [John] Ball:

‘If some things human be mixed with divine, a sound Christian must separate the one from the other, and not cast away what is of God as a nullity, fruitless, unprofitable, defiled, because somewhat of men is annexed unto them. In the body we can distinguish betwixt the substance and the sickness which cleaves unto it; betwixt the substance of a part or member, and some bunch or swelling, which is a deformity, but destroys not the nature of that part or member, etc.’ (Trial of the Grounds, etc., [ch. 13,] p. 308)

…
2. They grant that what is faulty and a sin in worship, is no sin to us when we do not consent to it. So Mr. [John] Corbet:

‘My partaking in any divine worship, which is holy and good for the matter and allowable or passable in the mode for the main, does not involve me in the blame of some sinful defects therein, to which I consent not and which I cannot redress.’ (Non-Conformists Plea, etc., p. 6)

So another [John Barret], in his Farewell Sermon:

p. 38

“So that before this text [Mal. 1:14, “cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing:”] can be opposed to what has been said, it must be proved:

1. That the things in question are corruptions, as much prohibited as the blind and lame under the Law.

2. That they are such as a person does choose, and it is in his power to help, and offers it when he has a male in his flock.

3. That such a corruption as affects not the substance of worship, does yet alter the nature of it, and makes the whole to be a corrupt thing and abominable to God.”

Gilbert Rule

The Good Old Way Defended… (Edinburgh: 1697), section 12, p. 279 Rule was a Scottish, divine-right presbyterian.

“Other Ceremonialists used to plead for the Church’s ceremony-making power with a little more caution and limitation, so as they are careful to shut the door against the Popish ceremonies: Some [shut the door] because of their ineptitude, the bulk of them, because of their number, being a burden…”

1700’s

John Howe

‘Some Consideration of a Preface to an Inquiry Concerning the Occasional Conformity of Dissenters, etc.’ in The Works of John Howe, vol. 5, Containing the Treatises: On Divine Prescience & the Trinity… (d. 1705; Religious Tract Society, 1863), p. 276

“It is true that accidental defects may be more or less, and it requires great accuracy to apply what is here generally said to particular cases…”

2000’s

Travis Fentiman

1 Corinthians – Head Coverings are Not Perpetual & they were Hair-Buns, with or without Material: Proven (RBO, 2022), pt. 1, ch. 5, ‘1 Corinthians 11’, ‘A Matter of Decorum, Not Necessarily Sin’, p. 59

“If head-coverings were by a sovereign, positive, religious appointment, Paul might be expected to condemn their misuse as disobedience, lawlessness, a transgression, sin, iniquity or idolatry, possibly on par with… Saul’s religious treason (1 Sam. 15), Nadab and Abihu’s debacle (Lev. 10) or some of the Colossians’ and Galatians’ will-worship (Col. 2:16–23; Gal. 4:8–11).

Instead his language is far different: Paul speaks of dishonor ([1 Cor. 11] v. 4), shame (vv. 6, 14), custom (v. 16), comeliness (v. 13), glory (v. 15) (also “becometh” in 1 Tim. 2:9–10), appeals for persons to judge within themselves (v. 13), and speaks of disagreements herein involving contention (v. 16). Peter associates women’s modest hair with an “ornament” and being “chaste” (1 Pet. 3:2–4). All these factors are common to nature’s light and society, arising therefrom.”

Degrees of Better Worship

1600’s

Cameronian Ministers

Alexander Shields, Thomas Lining & William Boyd, An Account of the Methods & Motives of the Late Union & Submission [in 1690] to the [General] Assembly [of the Church of Scotland] (London: 1691), pp. 21-22

“…we might find much matter, both of rejoicing and mourning, in the wonderful commencement and advancement of this work of reformation [in 1689-1690]. As at the Jews’ return from Babylon to Jerusalem, the priests and Levites, and all the people shouted with a great shout when they praised the Lord because the foundation of the House of the Lord was laid; Yet some of them that had seen the first House wept with a loud voice so that the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of weeping.

So at this time we are called to rejoice with thanksgiving for, and we should indeed be very ungrate and unworthy if we did not acknowledge with praise and admiration, the mercy of God which endures forever, manifested and magnified in the progress of this work hitherto…

But though for these things we be called to rejoice, yet we are no less obliged to mourn when we observe this House of the Lord, so unlike the former, wanting many things the former had, and pestered with many things the former wanted [lacked]. As at the building of the second House, after the captivity of Babylon, they that had seen the first House wept with a loud voice when they observed its constitution and structure, so far short of the former, for order and beauty, and wanting some glorious prerogatives the other had, as the Urim and Thummim, the fire from Heaven, the ark of the testimony, etc. So, they that have seen our former reformation in its integrity [in 1638-1650], before the late deformation, can hardly refrain from weeping at the sight of the sad disproportion between this and the former. In the former, as the constitution was calculated in the nearest conformity to the divine pattern;”

1700’s

Alexander Shields

An Enquiry into Church-Communion, or, A Treatise Against Separation from the Revolution Settlement of this National Church, as it was settled in 1689 2nd ed. (1706; Edinburgh: William Gray, 1747), p. 34

“In which case the Church cannot be settled all in one day, or in one year, but must crave time, as the building of Solomon’s Temple, and of the second Temple after the Babylonian Captivity, which was not accomplished in several years. Nor can it be planted over again all at once, no more than it could be in Joshua’s days, or the Judges, or in the time of the reforming kings of Judah, until the Canaanites and other enemies be subdued. Nor can it be purged totally altogether, but gradually, least it be in hazard of a superpurgation.”

Francis Tallents

A Short History of Schism: for the Promoting of Christian Moderation & the Communion of Saints (London: Parkhurst, 1705), p. 110 Tallents (1619–1708) was a non-conforming English presbyterian minister.

“For some say they [presbyterians] are not to do so [practice occasional communion] because we are bound always to do that in the worship of God which is best, and there cannot be two bests. Therefore since they judge their own way to be best, they ought always to go in it and never to join with any others, neither with the Church by law established [in England], or any others.

This is somewhat plausible, seems a strong argument to some, but is far from it. For persons and churches that are better than others are to own others, if built on the true foundation, and [are] to impose no intolerable things for true, though [on] distempered churches, and to strive to hold an outward communion with them, the stronger and better with the weaker, and (much more) the weaker [ought to hold outward communion] with the better and stronger.

Therefore the presbyterians think themselves bound to join sometimes with the conformists, though they judge their own way better than theirs; and that in doing so sometimes, they do that which is best.”

On Performing Necessary Duties though Others Sin in Them

Order of Contents

Bible Verses 3
Article 1
Quotes 5

Bible Verses

Old Testament

Gen. 31:43-53

“And Laban answered and said unto Jacob, ‘…Now therefore come thou, let us make a covenant, I and thou; and let it be for a witness between me and thee. And Jacob took a stone, and set it up for a pillar…

And Laban said to Jacob, ‘…The God of Abraham, and the God of Nahor, the God of their father [Terah], judge betwixt us.’ And Jacob sware by the fear of his father Isaac.”

[Both Terah (Abraham’s father) and Nahor (Abraham’s brother) worshipped false gods, per Josh. 24:2, “Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor: and they served other gods.”]

1 Sam. 2:12-17

Wherefore the sin of the young men was very great before the Lord: for men abhorred the offering of the Lord.”

New Testament

[Jesus obliges his disciples to go and hear the scribes and pharisees and do all that they enjoin from Moses’s authority. Yet the Gospels record that they also taught the necessity of the traditions of men (Mt. 15:1-9), which the disciples were not to do. Therefore Jesus obliged his disciples to a conjoint action where the other side would be sinning in their exercise of it.]

Article

2000’s

Fentiman, Travis – “Editor’s Extended Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025)

p. 90, fn. 260 of “Objections: Leading in what is Wrong,
Confirming Superstition & Interpretive Scandal”

pp. 124-26 of “Leading Conforming Covenanters: Baillie, Honyman & Leighton”

pp. 139-41 of “Wamphray’s Arguments, 1678”

Quotes

Order of

Geneva
Cartwright
Hildersham
Baxter
London Ministers

1500’s

Ministers of Geneva

We must be on our guard not to scandalize those who are already subject to such infirmities, which we should certainly do by rejecting them from too frivolous motives.”

Thomas Cartwright

‘A Letter of T. C. To Richard Harrison Concerning Separation’ (1584), pp. 12-13 in The Judgment of Mr. Cartwright & Mr. Baxter Concerning Separation & the Ceremonies (1673) Note that EEBO lists the author as Cartwright (1634-1689), which is untrue. This same work is in Cartwrightiana, pp. 48-58.

“Moreover, when a magistrate is not able to do some part of his office, as for example, being able to do the duties which are to be performed in peace, is insufficient for martial affair, yet no man refuses that which he is able to give because he is not able to do all that is required: Even so, endeavoring to our uttermost a sufficient ministry, I would think in the mean season that the good things they are able to give us may be taken at their hands.”

Arthur Hildersham

“…being persuaded in my conscience that the Lord had a true Church in this Realm [of England]… which, being assembled out of all the parts of the land in Parliament, did commit this authority to ordain ministers unto the bishops: and knowing out of the Word of God that every true Church has this power and authority to ordain ministers:

I considered with myself that though the Church offended in committing this power and authority unto them that by the Law of God were not capable of it, yet I might without sin seek and take the Church’s ordination at their hands: as I may reverence and take the benefit of the prince’s power and authority, which is of God, though it be committed unto and exercised by men that by the Law of God are not capable of it.

Secondly, seeing it is a thing not to be refused if a man entering into the ministry might have the approbation of all and every one of the ministers of the Gospel in the land:¹ it seems unto me the approbation of that bishop, that is also a minister and preacher of the Gospel, cannot be deemed to be merely unlawful.²

¹ [That such makes a valid ordination, see ‘The Implicit or Tacit Consent of Church Governors is Sufficient for the Power of Being an Office-Bearer’ and ‘That Persons who enter Church Office by Corruption, with the Standing Consent of the Rest of the Church Governors, is Valid’.]

² [Samuel Rutherford with much of the reformed likewise rightly argued that, while the office of a regular episcopal bishop is not Scriptural, nor do they have power, nor should be given power so that a single bishop could ordain a minister, yet the bishops did receive and maintain, with corruptions, the nature of the ministerial office: ‘That Episcopal Bishops & Prelates are Unlawful but Valid Gospel Ministers’.]

Thirdly, the authority of the Christian Magistrate (without whose liking and allowance a minister cannot be admitted to the ministry in peace) coming [joining] to the bishop by act of Parliament, I may more boldly come to him³ for his approbation in regard of the Law: not looking so much unto the man, [but] as regarding with reverence the power of the law and Christian magistrate.”

³ [Note that George Gillespie, though possibly agreeing with much of this, delayed his own ordination for several years, “having conscientious objections to receiving ordination from an episcopal bishop.” David Lachman, ‘Preface to New Edition’ in Aaron’s Rod Blossoming (1646; Sprinkle, 1985).]

1600’s

Richard Baxter

The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (London, 1689), ch. 2, p. 14

“We [nonconformists] never held it unlawful to join with a Church or minister that has some faults, both personal and in their acts of worship, as if all that joined were guilty of all the faults there committed: No not though we knew before hand that some false doctrine would be uttered or fault committed: Else we must separate from all the world, and all [people must separate] from us.”

London Ministers

“It’s granted that the fault of another in the ministration of divine worship is none of ours, nor a sufficient reason to absent from it or to deprive ourselves of it. Thus Mr. [Richard] Baxter:

‘The wording of the public prayers is the pastor’s work and none of mine, etc. And why should any hold me guilty of another man’s fault which I neither can help, nor belongs to any office [duty] of mine to help any farther than to admonish him.’ (Cure, [Direction 35,] p. 197; Jerubbaal Justified, pp. 16, etc. 22, 34)

And that the faults of him that ministers are no sufficient reasons to debar ourselves of communion in the worship, Mr. [Philip] Nye affirms and proves by this argument:

‘If I may not omit a duty in respect to the evil mixed with it, which is my own; much less may I thus leave an ordinance for the evil that is another man’s, no way mine or to be charged upon me; this were to make another man’s sins or infirmities more mine than my own.’ (Case of Great & Present Use, p. 10 [p. 5])

Thus is the case resolved with respect to the cross [being signed by the minister upon the child’s forehead] in baptism: ‘I may not only,’ says one (Of Scandal: a Discourse, p. 65),

‘do that which I judge to be inconvenient, but suffer another to do that which I judge to be unlawful, rather than be deprived of a necessary ordinance: e.g. If either I must have my child baptized with the sign of the cross or not baptized at all, I must suffer it to be done in that way though I judge it an unlawful addition, because the manner concerns him that does it, not me (at least not so much), so long as there is all the essence. He must be responsible for every irregularity, not I.’’

Thus Jacob took Laban’s oath, though [Laban did so] by his idols [Gen. 31:53; Josh. 24:2], etc. After the same manner does Mr. Baxter resolve the case in his Christian Directory, p. 49 [pt. 3, q. 49].”

One May & Ought to Separate or Abstain from Sinful Acts of Impure Worship while Not Separating from the Rest of the Divine Worship Service

Order of Contents

Bible Verses 18+
Westminster
Article 1
Quotes 10+

Bible Verses

Old Testament 6

Ex. 23:2 “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.”

Dt. 4:2 “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. 12:32 “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”

Lev. 10:1-2, 12-13

“And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord…

And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, ‘Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it is most holy: And ye shall eat it in the holy place, because it is thy due, and thy sons’ due, of the sacrifices of the Lord made by fire: for so I am commanded.'”

[Though Nadab and Abihu were killed for their worship-sin, yet the rest of the worshippers were to continue worship in the assembly, and were not to separate from it.]

Job 31:26-28 “If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness; and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand [out of religious worship to the sun or moon]: This also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge: for I should have denied the God that is above.”

Dan. 3:10-12

“…every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image: And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.

There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.”

New Testament 12+

Mt. 15:2-3 “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?“

Rom. 3:4 “let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.”

Rom. 3:8 “And not rather (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), ‘Let us do evil, that good may come’? whose damnation is just.”

Rom. 6:1-2 “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”

Rom. 14:5 “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”

Rom. 14:22-23 “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”

1 Cor. 1:10 “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; “

1 Cor. 11:19 “For there must be also heresies [divisions] among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.”

1 Cor. 12:15 “That there should be no schism in the body;”

Gal. 4:3, 9-11 “Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world… But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.”

2 Tim. 3:16-17 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

Rev. 20:12 “…and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.”

Westminster

Larger Catechism 99.5

“5.That what God forbids, is at no time to be done;[w] what He commands, is always our duty;[x] and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times.[y]

[w] Job 13:7,8. Rom. 3:8. Job 36:21. Heb. 11:25.
[x] Deut. 4:8,9.
[y] Matt. 12:7.”

Q. 153. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?

A. That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,[i] and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation.[k]

[i] Acts 20:21. Matt. 3:7,8. Luke 13:3,5. Acts 16:30,31. John 3:16,18.
[k] Prov. 2:1-5. Prov. 8:33-36.

Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?

[l] Matt. 28:19,20. Acts 2:42,46,47.

Confession of Faith, ch. 25

[h] Rom. 11:3,4. Rev. 12:6,14
[i] Rev. 2-3. 1 Cor. 5:6,7“

Article

1600’s

Ball, John – ch. 9, “It is lawful for a Christian to be present at that service which is read out of a book in some things faulty both for form and matter” in A Friendly Trial of the Grounds tending to Separation... (Cambridge: Daniel, 1640), pp. 157-87

Order of Quotes

Cartwright
Gifford
Ames
Rutherford
Brinsley
Leigh
Firmin
Wood
Crofton
Voet
Nye
Baxter
Corbet
London Ministers
Rule
Church of Scotland
Tallents

1500’s

Thomas Cartwright

eds. Peel & Carlson, Cartwrightiana (London: Halley Stewart, 1951), 3. ‘A Reproof of Certain Schismatical Persons,’ pp. 225-26

“Neither may they forbid a communion with them in good because all communion in evil is denied us.

Neither to hear them preach evil or untruth is to communicate with them in evil, except we yield to, believe, or obey their evil.

And so those Scriptures forbidding to hear are to be understood. For Jeremiah did hear the false prophet Hananiah and said ‘amen’ to his prayer (Jer. 28:6). That is, to that good, or to those words of his prayer which might be taken well, he answered ‘so be it, the Lord ratify they words,’ but yet he reproved the evil.”

George Gifford

A Short Reply unto the Last Printed Books of Henry Barrow & John Greenwood, the Chief Ringleaders of our Donatists in England… (London, 1591), p. 20

“Will you not see how you contrary Saint Paul directly, who in whole chapters almost… does labor nothing else but to persuade the Christians that held diverse opinions touching some things in God’s worship, yet to join together? Rom. 14 & 15.“

1600’s

William Ames

‘Letter to John Robinson’ (1611) in The Works of John Robinson (London: Snow, 1851), 3.86

“That which is lawful for them to do… that is lawful for others to join with them in: for that which is no sin in the principal is none in the accessory, ceteris paribus [other things being equal]. And it cannot be simply unlawful to join in any action that is lawful, quatenus talis [so far as it is such].”

A Second Manuduction for Mr. [John] Robinson. Or a confirmation of the former in an answer to his manumission (Amsterdam, 1615), p. 10

“…the mere want [lack] of performing one part of the charge does not hinder but that a man may well communicate in the other parts which are well undertaken and discharged also.”

Marrow of Sacred Divinity (London, 1642), bk. 1, ch. 31, sect. 39

“Yea the Church does never wholly cease to be visible, for although sometime there scarce appear a Church anywhere so pure that one may fly unto it in communion of the same worship in all things: yet the Church does in some sort abide visible in that very impurity of worship and profession.”

Samuel Rutherford

The Due Right of Presbyteries (London: Griffin, 1644), ch. 4, sect. 5, Question 3, In what cases it is lawful to separate from a Church?, p. 254

“5th Consideration. I see not but we may separate from the Lord’s Supper where bread is adored, and from baptism where the sign of the cross is added to Christ’s ordinances, and yet are we not separated from the Church, for we professedly hear the word and visibly allow truth of the doctrine maintained by that Church, which do pollute the sacraments, and we are ready to seal it with our blood, and it is an act of visible profession of a Church to suffer for the doctrine mentioned by that Church.”

John Brinsley Jr.

The Araignment of the Present Schism of New Separation in Old England… (London: John Field, 1646) Brinsley (1600-1665) was an English nonconforming presbyterian clergyman and an ejected minister in 1662.

p. 15

“Which refusal [of church communion] may be either partial or total. Partial, in some particular acts and exercises, wherein a man cannot (or at least conceives he cannot) communicate without sin.

Total, a rejecting and renouncing of all religious communion. This latter all divines look upon as a schism, and that most properly so called.”

pp. 24-25

“2. Rash [Schisms]. 1. Where a ground and cause is pretended, but it is but a light cause. Possibly… some corruptions in or about the worship of God, but those not destructive to the ordinances, being not in substance, but in ceremony; and those such as the person offended is not enforced to be active in… Now in this case to separate, it is a rash separation, because it is upon a ground not sufficient, a light ground.”

London (Presbyterian) Provincial Assembly

A Vindication of the Presbyterial Government (London, 1650), p. 117

“There were many godly and learned non-conformists of this last age that were persuaded in their consciences that they could not hold communion with the Church of England in receiving the sacrament kneeling, without sin, yet did they not separate from her. Indeed, in that particular act they withdrew, but yet so as that they held communion with her in the rest, being far from a negative, much more from a positive separation.

Nay some of them, even then when our churches were full of sinful mixtures, with great zeal and learning, defended them so far as to write against those that did separate from them (Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Dod, M. Hildersham, Mr. Bradshaw, Mr. Ball). He that will never communicate with any Church till every thing that offends be removed out of it must tarry till the great day of Judgment, when (and not till then) Christ will send forth his angels to gather out of his kingdom everything that offends and them that do iniquity. (Mt. 13:9)”

Edward Leigh

Body of Divinity, p. 377

“We do not leave communion of true Churches for corruptions and sins, but only abstain from the practice of evil in our own persons, and witness against it in others, still holding communion with the Churches of Christ.”

Giles Firmin

Separation Examined: or a Treatise wherein the Grounds for Separation from the Ministry & Churches of England are Weighed & Found too Light… (London: Bowtell, 1652), p. 29

“Suppose there should be some human mixtures… why do you not communicate with them in those ordinances which are pure?

James Wood

A Little Stone Pretended to be out of the Mountain, Tried & found to be a Counterfeit… (Edinburgh: Andro Andrews, 1654), pt. 2, sect. 1, p. 202

“…as to the preaching of the Word, we grant that the people are not obliged to give blind and implicit obedience to what is delivered by the ministers, as if they ought to receive as the Word of God whatsoever is delivered by them, but that they have power and ought by the judgment of discretion to search the Scriptures whether the things delivered by the ministers be so, to try the spirits whether they be of God or not, to prove all things and hold fast that which is good, Acts 17:11; 1 Jn. 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:18; and the like judgment of discretion we grant to them in relation to other parts of worship.”

Zachary Crofton

Reformation, Not Separation, or, Mr. Crofton’s Plea for Communion with the Church… in a Letter, written July 20, 1661… (1662), p. 16 Crofton (1626-1672) was a presbyterian and puritan born and raised in Ireland.

“…all corruptions in God’s Church and worship are displeasing to God and distastful to his people embracing the simplicity of the Gospel; but all corruptions are not alike in operation, quality and extent, nor of a like influence on God’s Church and worship:

Consider therefore, some corruptions are substantial and intrinsical, vitiating the very subject, and so universally spread through the worship of God, that it cannot be used without sin; others are circumstantial and extrinsical to the same, vain, needless appendants, superadded by man’s will, but which notwithstanding God’s ordinances remain entire and exactly his, and may be used without participation in the affixed corruption.”

Gisbert Voet

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. 7, ‘Questions Further Explained on the Nature, Causes & Properties of the Ceremonies’, Section 2, “Problems surrounding the causes of the ceremonies are these”, p. 431

“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:

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…”

Philip Nye

“Objection 2. Ordination and conformity, and common-prayers and ceremonies are connected with preaching, as one entire service; by partaking therefore of the one we contract the pollution of the other.

Answer 1: What God Himself in a moral way joins together, no man may separate, only God Himself: But what God in nature has joined together, He gives us leave to separate, as chaff from wheat, etc. And so likewise for what man joins together, especially in the service of God and such matters thereof as God has not required; A set liturgy or stinted form of prayer for matter and words to be used (much less to be inseparably joined with preaching) is not required by the Lord, nor indeed is there any such necessary dependance by our laws…

Answer 2… Nor are they so inseparably joined by our laws: But if they were, it is sufficient to my conscience that God has not so joined them. Our actings, and the reasons or grounds of them, are not to be interpreted in Church-matters by human laws; If they were, it would be difficult to inhabit in some commonwealths with a good conscience. Our living within the precincts of such a parish, our laws interpret as being of the same particular church with them for all Church-ordinances: but this being man’s law only, we judge ourselves not so necessarily involved by our habitation. A Church according to Scripture is a spiritual body: The limits are part of the essence and constitution of such a body, and therefore ought to be spiritual and of the same nature, and not merely human, as is the division of parishes.”

Richard Baxter

A Second Admonition to Mr. Edward Bagshaw… (London: Simmons, 1671), pp. 116-17

“3. It is an untrue supposition and but a begging of the question that our presence with anything obtruded unlawfully is a prejudice to that fundamental of the sovereignty of Christ. All men that sin do sin against his soveraignty: And all that obtrude anything unlawfully sin against it by that obtrusion. But if you obtrude a rash and passionate prayer on the people, or an erroneous or disorderly prayer, or an ill-composed hymn or psalm, their presence is no approbation of your error, nor denying of Christ’s sovereignty.

Do you, or can you believe and make all your followers believe that the synagogue-worship and the Temple-worship were kept so pure by the priests, Levites and Pharisees in Christ’s days, as that there was nothing of human tradition obtruded? Or nothing but what God commanded? Can you believe this? Or can you believe that Christ was not usually or often present there? See Luke 4:16. At Nazareth where he had been brought up, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day—And of Paul its said, Acts 17:2. As his manner was, he went in to them, and three Sabbath dayes reasoned—Or do you believe, that Christ was a sinner? and that He contradicted his own sovereignty? What! and yet be a perfect Saviour? Who is it now that prejudices fundamentals?”

The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace, or an Account of their Judgment in Certain Things in which they are Misunderstood… (London, 1679), sect. 6, pp. 38-39

“It is one thing to deny total communion, and another to separate but secundum quid [according to that] for some act or part; And that is either a great and necessary part or some small or indifferent thing or ceremony.”

Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen (1684; RBO, 2024), p. 25

“He [Owen] intimates that it is not in our power to close with some and not withal. This is his first error. Though man give us no such power, God does: as it is in my power to believe all that one speaks truly and well, and not that which he speaks amiss. I am not bound to own all that any preacher or priest shall say in the church. God put it in the disciples’ power to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees [Mt. 16:6], and yet to hear them [Mt. 23:1-3]. Proving all things [1 Thess. 5:21] is not approving all things.”

The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689), p. 11 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:

…
IV. They offered to use it [The Book of Common Prayer] when amended; and if that could not be had, they told you in their reply their purpose rather to communicate in the use of it than not at all, and to have used all the lawful part themselves if they might be suffered in their public places and ministry on such terms.”

John Corbet

“I would… be free from giving them an occasion of withdrawing from the established worship more than is necessary.”

London Ministers

1. This separation of the good from the bad in divine worship they grant possible. So Mr. [John] Ball:

…
2. They grant that what is faulty and a sin in worship, is no sin to us when we do not consent to it. So Mr. [John] Corbet:

So another [John Barret], in his Farewell Sermon:

‘While all necessary fundamental Truth is publicly professed and maintained in a Church, is taught and held forth in public assemblies, and the corruptions there (though great, yet) are not such as make the worship cease to be God’s worship, nor of necessity to be swallowed down if one would communicate in that worship, while any Christian (that is watchful over his own heart and carriage, as all ought ever to be) may partake in the one, without being active in, or approving the other; there God is yet present, there he may be spiritually worshipped, served acceptably, and really enjoyed.’ (England‘s Remembrancer, sermon 4, p. 94)”

Gilbert Rule

The Good Old Way Defended… (Edinburgh: 1697), sect. 10 Rule was a Scottish, divine-right presbyterian.

p. 247

“There may be a partial separation when one ordinance is so corrupted that we cannot join in it and yet can join with the Church in all other acts of communion: and a total separation when either the Church will not suffer us to join with her in any part of her service unless we join in all; or she is so corrupt that we can join with her in nothing that is religious. The former by most wise and sober men is not reckoned such a schism as that any are to be blamed as schismatics on that account;”

p. 257

“Again, he [an episcopalian] argues we cannot be said to be members of a particular Church, or to hold communion with it, if we do not join in their worship, as it is established among them.

This is easily answered by a plain distinction: unless we join in their established worship, as to the greatest and chief acts of it, conceditur [it is conceded]: as to all the parts of it, even to the least, negatur [I deny]. I may join with a Church in the Word and sacraments; and yet if they have a holy day or two beside the Sabbath, may forbear; yea I may, without this be a member of that Church (if they will suffer me), which all the Reformed Churches do, except the Episcopal Church of England.”

pp. 258-59

“… for I think neither ancient nor modern divines will call them schismatics who cordially join with the Church where they live in all of her worship, except this [singing of a human-composed doxology]…

It is false also that all the Churches abroad have human ceremonies so twisted with their solemn worship that presbyterians cannot join with them. We have often (and do when occasion serves) very cordially, and to our edification, joined with them, and yet partake in none of these: nor is so much of these among them as he [the episcopal opponent] would make us believe.”

Church of Scotland

p. 9

“‘It is’ (he [James Durham] says) acknowledged by all that there is no separation from a true Church in such ordinances as men may without sin communicate into, although others may be guilty therein.’ [Treatise on Scandal, pt. 4, [ch. 7,] p. 320, Rule 2]”

p. 12

“Are you presbyterians, or do you own the principles of rigid separatists? Will you read what our worthy divines have written on that subject? They will tell you that it is not only a sinful separatism and schism where it is without cause, but where it is carried beyond the ground, so that though there were ground to separate from communion in one ordinance, as the Lord’s Supper, there were not sufficient ground to separate from all.”

p. 25

“…get more esteem of God’s public worship and ordinances and of the good to be received by them… Return, return dear brethren in love and peace to the union and communion of the Church in uncontroverted duties which involve you in no sin. If any thing offend you, exonerate yourselves by your testimony in God’s order and way, but neglect not your duty and wrong not your own souls.”

1700’s

Francis Tallents

A Short History of Schism: for the Promoting of Christian Moderation & the Communion of Saints (London: Parkhurst, 1705), p. 108 Tallents (1619–1708) was a non-conforming English presbyterian minister.

“And sometimes the main reason why they [presbyterians] go to worship God with them is to show they hold communion with them; that though there be many things amiss, against which they bear a real testimony by their non-conformity, yet they go to them to show to the world they separate not from them, and the better to maintain that spiritual love which ought to be among the members of the churches of Christ.”

On Nadab & Abihu in Lev. 10: Is it Consistent with Impure Worship being Accepted of God?

Order of Contents

Lev. 10 Vindicated
Quotes 7

Leviticus 10 Cleared & Vindicated regarding the Doctrine of Impurities of Worship

Travis Fentiman

Outline

Intro
Nadab’s Transgression Light?
Nadab’s Daring Iniquity
No Ground of Separation
2nd Half: Aaron’s Piety
Aaron’s Weakness: Worship Accepted
New Testament:

General Equity, Ananias & Cornelius, Rev. 7
2 Cor. 3, Veil & Jn. 4
Objection: Heb. 12
Objection: Worship in ‘Truth’

Conclusion
Application

Intro

To show that nearly all impurities in worship are of the utmost heinousness, liable to the breaking out of God’s wrath and are to be detested as making the worship strange fire, rejected of God, preachers turn to the debacle of Nadab and Abihu in Lev. 10 and begin to profoundly emphasize the details.

What fault was so small as theirs, laced with good intentions, as using common fire of their own making for their sacrifice of incense instead of the God-given fire from the altar? Did not they have every excuse, being young, ignorant, just entering upon their duties? Yet they worshipped God in a way He had not expressly commanded (Lev. 10:1). And what was the result? The Lord’s fire immediately leaped from the altar and killed them! This is a precedent for all ages. Good intentions don’t make false worship accepted by God. What could be more clear?

Yet there is more to the story, especially in the second half of the chapter, which is just as inspired as the first (though it is rarely preached on): Aaron, who had even more responsibility in Israel’s worship, transgressed against what God had expressly commanded (vv. 16-18), with good intention (v. 19), but was not killed for it. Rather, Moses’s response being an indicator, Aaron and his impure worship was graciously accepted of God (Lev. 10:19-20).

The difference between Nadab and Abihu’s action and Aaron’s and why God did not accept the one but did the other will be further explained and illustrated before the New Testament is turned to, showing that God does have a compassionate regard for the impure worship of his sincere saints; why this is so will also be seen.

Was Nadab & Abihu’s Transgression Light?

The old English, Calvinistic clergyman, Gervase Babbington (d. 1610), whose works are otherwise very highly commended, in order to show how great an offense the smallest deviation from God’s worship is to Him, in giving Nadab and Abihu the benefit of the doubt, laid it on thick:

“For they were but yet green in their office, and so of ignorance might offend, being not yet well acquainted with the nature of their office. Again, of forgetfulness they might offend, not remembring or thinking of the matter, as they ought…

there was no malice in them, or purpose to do evil, but wholly they aimed at God’s service, with a true meaning, although in the manner they missed somewhat.” Comfortable Notes upon… Leviticus (1604), on Lev. 10, p. 76

Adding to this list of innocent characteristics, the beloved English puritan pastor, Matthew Henry marks up the attributes of Aaron’s two sons:

“Were they not the sons of Aaron, the saint of the Lord, nephews to Moses, the great favourite of heaven? Was not the holy annointing oil sprinkled upon them, as men whom God had set apart for Himself? Had they not diligently attended during the seven days of their consecration…

Would it not excuse them that… it was the first offence, and done in a transport of joy for their elevation? And besides, never could men be worse spared: a great deal of work was now lately cut out for the priests to do, and the priesthood was confined to Aaron and his seed… if two of them die, there will not be hands enough to do the service of the tabernacle…” Commentary, on Lev. 10, vv. 1-2

Babbington goes further and does not hesitate to add an unrelenting survey of Scriptures showing how good intentions do not necessarily make actions or worship accepted of God. The survey can hardly be surpassed (Ibid., pp. 79-80); in fact, it is truly profound and is commended to you.

However, there are many things Babington (and other commentators and preachers) overlook: Nadab and Abihu were not so pure and innocent. Their action, besides not being directed of God, was soaked full of culpability and was most daring, and that just after God had miraculously sent fire down from the heavens (Lev. 9:23-24).

Nadab & Abihu’s Daring Iniquity

So far from Nadab and Abihu’s worship-fault being light, Henry says it was “a great sin… and a great sin we must call it.” Besides that they offered their own common fire apart from the commandment of the Lord, Henry adds:

“1. It does not appear they had any orders to burn incense at all at this time. It is true their consecration was completed the day before… but, it should seem the whole service of this solemn day of inauguration was to be performed by Aaron himself, for he ‘slew the sacrifices’ (Lev. 9:8, 15, 18), and his sons were only to attend him (Lev. 10:9, 12, 18); therefore Moses and Aaron only ‘went into the tabernacle’ (Lev. 9:23). But Nadab and Abihu were so proud of the honour they were newly advanced to, and so ambitious of doing the highest and most honourable part of their work immediately, that though the service of this day was extraordinary, and done by particular direction from Moses, yet without receiving orders, or so much as asking leave from him, they took their censers and they would enter into the tabernacle at the door of which they thought they had attended long enough [cf. Lev. 10:7-9], and would burn incense.

And then their ‘offering strange fire’ is the same with ‘offering strange incense,’ which is expressly forbidden, Ex. 30:9. Moses, we may suppose, had the custody of the incense which was prepared for this purpose (Ex. 39:38), and they, doing this without his leave, had none of the incense which should have been offered, but common incense, so that the smoke of their incense came from a ‘strange fire’… The priests were to burn incense only when ‘it was their lot’ (Lk. 1:9), and, at this time, it was not theirs…

3. Incense was always to be burned by only one priest at a time [Lev. 4:7; 16:12], but here they would both go in together to do it.

4. They did it rashly, and with precipitation. They ‘snatched’ their censers [Lev. 10:1], so some read it, in a light careless way, without due reverence and seriousness: when all the people ‘fell upon their faces’ before the ‘glory of the Lord,’ they thought the dignity of their office was such as to exempt them from such abasements. The familiarity they were admitted to bred a contempt of the divine Majesty; and now that they were priests they thought they might do what they pleased.

5. There is reason to suspect that they were drunk when they did it, because of the law [against priests drinking alcohol in their ministrations] which was given upon this occasion, Lev. 10:8. They had been feasting upon the peace-offerings and the drink-offerings that attended them, and so their heads were light, or, at least their ‘hearts were merry with wine;’ they ‘drank and forgot the law’ (Prov. 31:5) and were guilty of this fatal miscarriage.

6. No doubt it was done presumptuously, for if it had been done through ignorance they would have been allowed the benefit of the law lately made, even for the priests, that they should bring a sin-offering, Lev. 4:2, 3: But ‘the soul that doth aught presumptuously,’ and in contempt of God’s majesty, authority, and justice, ‘that soul shall be cut off,’ Numb. 15:30.”

In addition to this, God had previously (Lev. 10:3) told Israel, “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh Me,” this being a main stated reason for God’s penalizing these two sons of Aaron. Specifically, the priests were to “put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean.” (Lev. 10:10) It’s hard to miss this throughout the whole of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. Everything in the priests’ ministrations had to be anointed, cleansed and set apart for the priests’ ministrations before the opening ceremonies. Everything had been (Lev. 8-9); but where was the fire? It came down from Heaven, and needless to say, was therefore accepted and holy. Yet Nadab and Abihu brought their own common fire, an act devoid of all sense or the fear of God.

Aaron’s sons’ action in the extraordinary and heightened context, summed up as them having ‘offered strange fire before the Lord’ (Num. 3:4), besides using fire the Lord had not commanded, was not small or a product of ignorance, was deeply morally corrupt and could not have been sincere in any meaningful sense, flying in the face of God’s Law on many counts, being a complete disregard for it, and that before all the people (Lev. 10:3) at the very paradigmatic setting up of the Lord’s ordinances and worship. They immediately received the stated penalty of the Law for such high-handed presumption:

“But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously… the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.” (Num. 15:30)

No Ground of Separation

This debacle, as great as it was, did not prevent the rest of divine worship from proceeding (Lev. 10:12-15), as some might have it, because the ordinance, promise, presence and blessing of God is more effectual than man’s corruption (WCF 25.3-4).

The fire did not reach out and consume the other worshippers, nor did they die, though the strange fire and incense was offered on the people’s behalf (recall that Christ’s intercession is more effectual than that of any corrupt minister). The sin was peculiarly that of Aaron’s sons; the people did not consent to it. “Every man shall die for his own sin.” (2 Chron. 25:4) The rest of the offered sacrifices were accepted (Lev. 10:12-20). To separate from the assembly on account of the false worship of Nadab and Abihu would be simply to separate from God’s worship and presence through the revealing means of his ordinances (Ps. 133:3).

The 2nd Half:
Aaron’s Submission & Piety

In contrast to this, when Moses tells Aaron, as a man to a man, the evident reason for the disastrous punishment, “This is it that the Lord spake, saying, ‘I will be sanctified, etc.,'” “Aaron held his peace.” (v. 3) Aaron then submits to Moses’s instruction and helps carry out his dead sons, in conformity with the Lord’s ordinance (vv. 6-7). The Lord shows his care for Aaron, preemptively to what will follow, in speaking to him directly (vv. 8-11).

Moses, evidently revealing the Lord, becomes angry that the goat sin-offering had been wholly burnt and none was reserved for the priests to eat. (v. 16) Aaron was involved, and had the greater responsibility, as he responds for his two remaining sons when they alone are (very moderately) charged by Moses. (vv. 16, 19) Aaron is not dealt with in a hard manner.

Aaron’s Weakness, his Worship Accepted

Aaron could have pleaded, or been confused, by a similar Scripture that bullock sin-offerings were to be wholly burnt (Lev. 4:21), or given the excuse that he did half of what God said in having the goat burnt, just as many today plead for a broad view (or application) of the Regulative Principle of Worship.

Rather, Aaron notes his great sorrow coupled with his truly good intention (it was not simply because he lost his appetite in his sorrow): “such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering today, should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord?” (Lev. 10:19) He sought to do things in a way to be accepted of the Lord. The sacrifices were to be eaten cheerfully (Dt. 12:7), not with sorrow (Dt. 26:14; Hos. 9:4); so Aaron refrained. Yet this could hardly be a sufficient justification in this circumstance, as Aaron appears to be acknowledging his fault and Moses had told Aaron not to show outward expressions of sorrow, but to keep the Lord’s commandment (vv. 3, 6-8, 10-11), especially in front of the people (v. 3). Aaron’s response here is very different than it was at the idolatrous golden-calf incident, where he blamed the people. (Ex. 32:22-24)

Aaron here in his sincere, though impure worship, mixed with natural factors and human weakness, was comparing Scripture with Scripture as it were, coming to a close, but not wholly sound conclusion. Aaron appeals that they offered the substance of the praise God commanded: “Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord…” (Lev. 10:19) They had substantially sanctified the Lord according to his ordinances, and that in front of the people (v. 3).

Moses’s response, and it seems the Lord’s, was (literally from the Hebrew): “And it was good in his eyes.” (v. 20)

New Testament:
General Equity, Ananias & Cornelius, Rev. 7

To only mention a few things about New Testament worship (the following is by no means exhaustive): It is true many of the principles in Lev. 10 continue into the New Testament by general equity, including whatsoever is not prescribed by God as worship by his revealed will being forbidden as worship (WCF 21.1; Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:23; 2 Tim. 3:15-16). The reason is, the principle fundamentally stems, even apart from Scripture, from the Light of Nature, that nature, especially under depravity, does not formally reveal positive institutions of worship. Therefore, to make up positive institutions to worship God by, above nature’s light, and apart from special revelation, is to play God.

This said, the emphasis of New Testament worship is signfiicantly different than that of Mosaic worship (Jn. 1:16-17; 4:23; Gal. 3:23-24; 4:1-3). No precedent like Lev. 10 is repeated in the New Testament, except Acts 5:1-11, where Ananias and Sapphira are struck dead for giving an offering to the Lord’s Kingdom, or to God (Lk. 21:4), a kind of worship,¹ by a partial-truth white lie. Lev. 10 condemned a corruption of external worship; Acts 5 condemns an act of pure external worship brought with compromised internal worship: something the Lord never commanded.

¹ See ‘On the Definition of Worship’.

The ceremonial is not here magnified, as in Lev. 10, but their moral corruption for vanity’s sake is exposed and purged as a precedent for New Testament worship. Malachi, speaking of the Messiah, had prophesied of the Church age:

“He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver… that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord…” (Mal. 3:3-4)

An emphasis in the New Testament is on offering worship by a pure heart and life (Rom. 1:9; Heb. 9:14; 10:22; Jam. 4:8; 1 Pet. 3:15), not on the ceremonial, but with a pure natural and internal worship (Acts 9:31; Rom 12:1), the very heart, substance and soul of worship; else how do you explain the commendation of the gentile Cornelius, who initially had little experience with Jewish or Christian public worship ordinances?:

“There was a certain man… called Cornelius… a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway… a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews…

behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, and said, ‘Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.'” (Acts 10:1-2, 22, 30-31)

In the striking picture in the vision in Rev. 7:9 of “a great multitude which no man could number… [that] stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands,” crying “with a loud voice… ‘Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb,'” the white robes and palms are not instructing us in the mode of external worship, but signify the faithful purity of life (vv. 13-14), with joy, rejoicing and thanksgiving (Lev. 23:40; Joel 1:12; Jn. 12:13; Rev. 7:17) that Christians are to have, cleansed in Christ, in giving their life’s worship (vv. 13-15) to God.

2 Cor. 3, the Veil & John 4

2 Cor. 3 further contrasts Old and New Testament worship. It characterizes the Old as a “ministration of death, written and engraven in stones,” (v. 7) which may seem to have some allusion to the mortal events of Lev. 10. In contrast, by emphasis, “ministers of the new testament” are “not of the letter, but of the Spirit: for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.” (v. 6)

Not to be misunderstood, New Testament worship must be according to the Lord’s precepts, lest we be lawless (this being the very definition of iniquity, 1 Jn. 3:4), but the Spirit poured out in fuller measure in the continuing New Testament era (Joel 2:28-29; Zech. 12:10; Mt. 11:11; Jn. 15:26; Acts 2:1-4; Rom. 8:1, 4; Gal. 5:25; Eph. 5:18) does make the public means of grace more effectual, and therefore impurities of worship, especially external ones, less impeding and provoking to God, even in comparison to Aaron’s case (Lev. 10:16-20). There is no Lev. 16:2 in the New Testament:

“the Lord said unto Moses, ‘Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil… that he die not…”

It is not for nothing that veil was torn in two at Christ’s death. (Mt. 27:51; Col. 2:14; Heb. 10:19)

There was not a more corrupt worship claiming semblance to the true religion by the authority of Jehovah than that of the Samaritans (Jn. 4:20). Yet how moderately and tenderly did Jesus deal with the Samaritan woman at the well, unto her and others’ evident conversion (Jn. 4:28-29, 39-42)? What Paul says of the Christian ministry is true for assemblies with impure worship in it (such as Corinth, whom Paul was speaking to):

“God… hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” (2 Cor. 5:18-19)

Objection: Hebrews 12

Some will object Heb. 12:18-29. The Mosaic worship at Sinai was terrible and fearful (even unto death, v. 20); how much more therefore (vv. 22-28) is New Testament worship? for our God is a consuming fire (v. 29). Therefore it is concluded: impurities in worship are even more blameworthy and provoking to God than they were for Nadab, Abihu and Aaron.

While it is affirmed that we in the New Testament era are to “serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear” (v. 28), and the above conclusion does follow with respect to God’s Law, yet it does not follow with respect to God’s gracious accepting of impure worship by the blood of Christ.

Is it for nothing the passage speaks of “Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant, and… the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel” (v. 24)? Abel’s blood cries out for vengeance; Jesus’s that sinners be forgiven, may have peace and be ushered through the torn veil to the throne of grace (Mk. 15:38; Col. 1:14, 20; Heb. 9:12; 10:19; 12:19).

Heb. 12, and the book of Hebrews in general, is explicitly speaking of the temptation to and reality of apostasy (2:1-3; 3:7-19; 4:1-11; 5:2; 6:4-8, 15; 8:13; 10:25-31, 35-39; 12:1-4, 15-17, 25; 13:5, 7, 9, 17). A similar passage in Heb. 10, just before it, likewise speaks of rejecting Christ and sliding into apostasy (10:25-31, 38-39). In this context, worship apart from faith and the Savior, only under the Law, only reveals God as “a consuming fire”, more terrible than at Sinai.¹

¹ The “for” in v. 29, “For our God is a consuming fire,” is ambiguous, whether it is referring to the immediately previous verse, or the leading elements of the larger passage (including the temptation to apostasy, which seems more probable). If it does refer to the preceding verse, involving Christian worship and serving God through godly fear, yet v. 29 is an injunction for persons to receive (v. 28) the offer of the New Testament Kingdom and worship, and continue in it, in contrast to apostasy.

The context of Hebrews 12, with a view to apostasy, does not speak to or conclude that impurities in Church age worship will be, or should be punished more than under the Mosaic Law (which would be contrary to 2 Cor. 3).

Objection: Worship in ‘Truth’

To respond to one last objection, Jn. 4:23 may be insisted on, that New Testament worship is to be not only in spirit, but in truth. Therefore, impurities in worship, not being according to truth, are not accepted as worship.

It is strange how “truth” is taken here as referring particularly to a standard of external ordinances. Yet even in Ps. 51, revealed long before by prophecy, do we not sing in verse 6, “Behold, Thou desirest truth in the inward parts.” A soul inwardly characterized by being straight and true, and loving what is true from the Lord, is that element of natural worship by which the Lord will “then”, and only then, “be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering.” (Ps. 51:19) I see the sacrifice of that Lamb for sins of the world (Jn. 1:29), with no deceit in his mouth (Isa. 53:9), accepted of the Father as well-pleasing to Him (53:10), though He be barred from the external ordinances outside the camp as unclean and impure.

The emphasis in the New Testament is not on correct external worship, as it was under Moses (see the book of Leviticus). It is no wonder impure worship (internal and external) is more graciously accepted now of the Lord than it was then. Ps. 51:17, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”

“And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”

Jn. 1:16-17

Conclusion

More than one commentator on Lev. 10, unable to see the difference between Nadab and Abihu’s action and Aaron’s, has left the cunundrum as to why one was rejected and the other accepted to be resolved by the secretly held, sovereign counsel of God. Fortunately the record testifies otherwise, as Babbington, you will be glad to know, notes:

“At which answer [of Aaron, v. 19], says your chapter, Moses was content [v. 20], so bearing with his infirmity… but not leaving an example to forgive them that maliciously transgress the commandment of God. And as Moses is said to have stayed his anger, so you see the Lord Himself did, not punishing again this fault. It lays open unto us the great kindness of our gracious God…” Leviticus, on ch. 10, pp. 88-89

How Babbington can reconcile this, and what he goes on to say in a similar vein, with what he had previously said, I cannot figure out; but I am glad his heart brought him to the safe and good answer when he could not see his way through his own principles. To further elaborate why God rejected one impure worship and not the other:

Nadab and Abihu’s action for which they were killed, besides being uncommanded, was self-evidently unclean, devoid of reverence, flew in the face of numerous of God’s laws, was morally corrupt, nor could have had a pure intention, they were not sincere, were likely drunk, and it was the height of daring presumption, devoid of all natural worship, and that in extraordinarily heightened circumstances in front of God’s immediate (not simply mediate) presence. For that they brought on themselves the stated consequence written in God’s Law.

In the second half of the inspired chapter, Aaron is seen to be pious, fearing God and submitting to Him, he seeking to be accepted by Him according to his Will. Aaron’s worship, albeit in a degree impure, substantially fulfilled God’s ordinance, though it fell short through human weakness and natural factors. Though confused in comparing, as it were, one Scripture with another, he was humble, reverent and sincere. His impure worship, being mixed with much true natural worship, the heart of all instituted worship (see also on internal worship), it must be concluded, was accepted with God.

The emphasis in the New Testament is not on correct external worship, as it was under Moses, but on morally pure worship through the Spirit, the ministry of whom through his simple and plain ordinances is life giving, the Christian ministry being one of reconciliation. The argument from the lesser to the greater in Heb. 12, from Old to New Testament worship, is set in the context of the danger of apostasy, which threats are not applicable to any and all impurities in the worship of those sincerely taking refuge in Christ. Above all, God desires truth in the inward parts and a broken and contrite spirit; these He will not despise.

To see it proved beyond any shadow of a doubt, from Scripture first, then the puritans, that God may accept impure worship, see the section below: ‘God may Graciously Accept Impure Obedience & Worship’.

Application

To apply this and end: worshippers and ministers with a broken and contrite heart (Ps. 51:16-17; Isa. 66:2), full of natural worship, sincerity and good intentions, seeking to worship acceptably in God’s sight by his Word, substantively fulfilling the way worshippers may come through Christ, though being impeded somewhat or significantly by natural factors, their own mistakings and impurities, this worship, in spirit, by the Spirit, and in substantial truth (Jn. 4:23), God graciously accepts.

We must give account for it though, as Aaron, and what will we plead but these things and God’s mercy in our Savior? Such does not relieve us from the kind and wise discipline of our righteous Father (as with Aaron), but it shows that we are sons and daughters, and therefore accepted of Him (Heb. 12:5-11, as Aaron was). Whereas those who with moral corruption disregard God’s worship, have no pure intention and do not sanctify Him, but daringly reproach Him, are but bastards and will not escape.

The Lord has laid down aforehand in his Law, under the 2nd Commandment (a sum of instituted worship), our doctrine on impurities:

“I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep my commandments.” (Ex. 20:5-6)

Quotes

Calvin
Babbington
Hall
Willet
Trapp
Poole
Henry

1500’s

John Calvin

Commentary, on Lev. 10

“v. 16, ‘And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin-offering;’… in such serious matters Moses had not spared labor and care, whereas the sons of Aaron, as if they had neither heard nor seen anything of the sort, pervert the whole order of them, although they had been just before reminded that they had been appointed to keep the charge of God. Perhaps they were impelled to this error by the trouble arising from their grief…

Further from the anger of Moses, which is mentioned in his praise, we may infer that the transgression was no light one, although it was not so severely punished as the presumption of Nadab and Abihu… But the reason why God was more merciful to them than to their brethren is only known to Himself. Conjectures may, indeed, be advanced; but at last we must come to this, that because God’s judgments are hidden, they are not therefore unjust; but that we must humbly adore their depth into which the minds of men cannot penetrate.

v. 19, ‘And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day;’ Aaron replies that it arose from pious fear that they had not feasted before God, because they would in a manner have defiled the sanctuary by their tears and melancholy… but it was not a just defense; for he ought rather to have striven against the feelings of the flesh so that his domestic calamity should not withhold him from the service of God. But, inasmuch as in his perplexity his fear was deserving of pity, Moses forgives him; and it is said that he was appeased, because he finds less of evil than he supposed.”

1600’s

Gervase Babbington

Comfortable Notes upon the Books of Exodus & Leviticus… (London: 1604), on Lev. 10, pp. 88-89

v. 16, “‘And Moses sought the goat that was offered for sin, and lo it was burned; therefore he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar the sons of Aaron, which were left alive, etc.’ Part of this goat, being a sin-offering, should have been eaten, I mean the shoulder and breast alotted to the priest, but it was all burned contrary to the Law. For which Moses was justly offended, having seen so lately God’s wrath upon the other fault. The answer of Aaron you have in the 19th verse in effect and sense, as if he should have said:

‘I confess and acknowledge the ordinance of God is to be kept, and we are to eat with joy of the parts alotted unto us of the sacrifice for sin…’

At which answer, says your chapter, Moses was content, so bearing with his infirmity, considering his great sorrow, but not leaving an example to forgive them that maliciously transgress the commandment of God. And as Moses is said to have stayed his anger, so you see the Lord Himself did, not punishing again this fault. It lays open unto us the great kindness of our gracious God, of whom the Psalm says, ‘He is full of compassion and mercy, long suffering and of great goodness. He will not alway be chiding, neither keeps He his anger forever. He deals not with us after our sins: neither rewards us according to our wickedness, etc.’…

Lastly, in that Moses admitted a reasonable excuse, we may learn to abhor pride, and to do the like. Pride, I say, which scorns to hear what may be said against the conceit we have once harbored. A modest man or woman does not thus. But even for his servant and his maid, holy Job had an ear, and did not despise their judgment, their complaint or grief, when they thought themselves evil entreated by him.

The example of God Himself is instead of a thousand, who mercifully both heard and accepted of Abimelech’s excuse for taking away Abraham’s wife. ‘I know’ (says he) ‘that thou didst it even with an upright-mind, and therefore I kept thee also that thou shouldest not sin against me, etc.’ Shall the Lord be thus sweet and we so dogged, so churlish, so stern, and sour, that no excuse may serve for a thing done amiss, if once we have taken notice of it? Beware, beware, and remember your own frailty well. A stubborn frowardness has hurt many; sweet gentleness and courtesy never any, but though wicked men were unthankful, yet our gracious God was pleased.”

Joseph Hall

Contemplations on the Historical Passages of the Old & New Testaments (1614; London: 1868), bk. 6, Contemplation 2, pp. 66-67

“While the people with fear and joy see God lighting his own fire, fire from heaven, the two sons of Aaron, in a careless presumption, will be serving Him with a common flame; as if He might not have leave to choose the forms of his own worship.

If this had been done some ages after, when the memory of the original of this heavenly fire had been worn out, it might have been excused with ignorance; but now, when God had newly sent his fire from above, newly commanded the continuance of it, either to let it go out, or, while it still flamed, to fetch profane coals to God’s altar, could savour of no less than presumption and sacrilege.
…

Speed of death is not always a judgment: suddenness, as it is ever justly suspicable, so then certainly argues anger, when it finds us in an act of sin. Leisure of repentance is an argument of favor. When God gives a man law, it implies that He would not have judgment surprise him.”

Andrew Willet

Hexapla in Leviticum, that is, A Sixfold Commentary upon the Third Book of Moses, called Leviticus… (London, 1631), on Lev. 10, pp. 197-98

“37th Question, Why Nadab & Abihu were Judged Only, and Not Eleazar and Ithamar, who also were in Error.

…
2. Therefore the reason may be that these two had aliquam excusationem, ‘some excuse’ of their sin, because they were in grief, but their brethren which were slain had no such excuse.

3. And beside the Lord would not extinguere pontificiam dignitatem, at once ‘extinguish the pontifical dignity’ granted to Aaron and his posterity.

4. But chiefly the cause was the mercy of God, which He always tempers with his judgments: He was contented with this example of severity, as the Lord said to the angel that smote Israel after David had numbered the people: ‘It is sufficient, hold now thine hand.’

5. Yet this is the best resolution, after we have scanned what we can, that the true cause was the good pleasure of God, whereof no reason is to be yielded, sure we are,Quamvis occulta sint Dei iduicia, non ideo iniqua esse, ‘although God’s judgments be secret, yet they are not unjust.'”

“42nd Question, How Moses was contented with Aaron’s Answer.

1. He did not absolutely approve of his reason, as though he had done it intuita divino, by divine direction, as Cajetan: for Moses was better acquainted with God’s mind than Aaron, and there was a direct commandment, which should not have been omitted.

2. But Moses rather in human commiseration bears with Aaron’s infirmity: 1. because he saw him forced by a kind of necessity… 2. and afflication was not to be added to affliction, Osiander: and Moses found it to be of less fault than he supposed, Calvin: he did it not willingly, but of human frailty and of perplexity through grief, and therefore was to be pitied.

3. And it may be Moses deferred his further admonishing of Aaron till another time because he saw now he was in grief…”

John Trapp

Commentary, on Lev. 10

“V. 1, ‘And Nadab and Abihu’ — These jolly young priests, overjoyed haply of their new employment and overwarmed with wine, as some gather out of Lev. 10:9, over did themselves the very day of their service, Lev. 10:19 and are suddenly surprised by a doleful death.
…

V. 16, ‘And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron’ Passion for their dead friends had so transported the priests that they knew not well what they did… but then it must not be excessive as here, and as 2 Sam. 18:33.
…

V. 18, ‘Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy (place): ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy (place), as I commanded.’ Thus, by misreckoning a point, ye have missed the haven and hazarded yourselves to the rocks of the divine displeasure, against which your brethren so lately split.”

Matthew Poole

Annotations, on Lev. 10

“V. 3… this being the first violation of the law newly given, and committed by those who should have been the strictest observers and assertors of it, did deserve a very severe punishment.”
…

V. 12… Moses repeats and reinforces the former command… partly to encourage them to go on in their holy services and not to be dejected for the late severity, as if God would no more accept them or their sacrifices.
…

V. 16. ‘The goat of the sin-offering,’… which he [Moses] inquired into more than into the other sacrifices, because a mistake there was easy and probable, because that matter might seem something doubtful, by reason of two laws concerning it seemingly contrary, the one Lev. 4:21, where it is to be burned, the other Lev. 6:26, where it was to be eaten. But they are thus reconciled: It was to be burnt when the blood of this sacrifice was brought into the holy place, Lev. 4:16, 17; and when that was not done, which Aaron this first time could not do, for the reason expressed in Lev. 10:18, it was to be eaten, and here lay their mistake… he spares Aaron at this time, as overwhelmed with sorrow, and because the rebuking of him before his sons might have exposed him to some contempt.
…

V. 19. ‘This day have they offered;’ they have done the substance of the thing though they have mistaken this one circumstance. ‘Such things have befallen me;’ whereby, having been oppressed with grief, and almost bereft of my reason, it is not strange nor unpardonable if I have mistaken.

‘Should it have been accepted?’ because it was not to be eaten with sorrow, but with rejoicing and thanksgiving, as appears from Dt. 12:7; Dt. 26:14; Hos. 9:4; and I thought it fitter to burn it, as I did other sacred relics, than to profane it by eating it unworthily.

V. 20. He [Moses] rested satisfied with his answer, either because he thought it reasonable, seeing the letter of the law ofttimes yields to necessities or great accidents, 2 Chron. 30:18; Mt. 12:3,Mt. 12:4; or at least because the things alleged were mitigations of his fault, and he would not add affliction to the afflicted, but rather defer the debate of it to a fitter opportunity.”

A Synopsis of Interpreters, on Lev. 10 in The Exegetical Labors of the Reverend Matthew Poole, vol. 6 (VA: Master Poole Publishing, 2011), pp. 152-54

“Verse 17… ‘Why did ye not eat?’ They ought to eat this he-goat, Lev. 6:16, which, when they were not able on account of grief, they supposed was to be burned ([Cornelius] Lapide).
…

Verse 19… ‘How was I able to eat, etc.?’… that is to say, I was not, therefore, worthy or fit, who should eat. See Dt. 12:7; 26:14; Hos. 9:4 ([Henry] Ainsworth). Therefore, it was to be burned, as was done with the rest (Bonfrerius)… Some maintain that Aaron justifies himself (thus Lyra, Bonfrerius). This does not satisfy; for Moses blames this. It was rather a mitigation of the crime, than a just defense ([Andrew] Willet)…

Verse 20: ‘And when Moses heard that, he was content’; ‘He received satisfaction’ Hebrew: ‘it was good, etc.’ Moses received the excuse as just (Menochius, Lapide, Ainsworth). For often the letter of the Law yields to necessities: 2 Chron. 30:18, etc.; Mt. 12:3, 4 (Ainsworth).

[Others deny this:] Rather in human compassion he tolerates the infirmities of Aaron (Willet out of [Martin Cellarius] Borrhaus [d. 1564]). Because Aaron had recognized the defect, and because he was unwilling to add affliction to the afflicted (Lyra); and he discerned that the evil was lesser (Willet out of Calvin).”

Matthew Henry

Commentary, on Lev. 10, vv. 12-20

“This distinction the priests must carefully observe, and take heed of making any blunders… He enquires concerning one deviation from the appointment… Now observe here:

1. The gentle reproof Moses gives to Aaron and his sons for this irregularity…

Yet observe how very mildly he deals with Aaron and his sons, considering their present affliction. He only tells them they should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, but is willing to hear what they have to say for themselves, being loth to speak to the grief of those whom God had wounded…

2. The plausible excuse which Aaron makes for this mistake. Moses charged the fault upon Eleazar and Ithamar (Lev. 10:16), but it is probable that what they did was by Aaron direction, and therefore he apologized for it…

(2) How he makes this an excuse for his varying from the appointment about the sin-offering… He does not plead that his heart was so full of grief that he had no appetite for it, but that he feared it would not be accepted. Note: [1] Acceptance with God is the great thing we should desire and aim at in all our religious services…

3. The acquiescence of Moses in this excuse: He was content, Lev. 10:20. Perhaps he thought it justified what they had done. God had provided that what could not be eaten might be burnt. Our unfitness for duty, when it is natural and not sinful, will have great allowances made for it; and God will have mercy and not sacrifice.

At least he thought it did very much extenuate the fault; the spirit indeed was willing, but the flesh was weak [Mt. 26:41]. God by Moses showed that he considered his frame. It appeared that Aaron sincerely aimed at God’s acceptance; and those that do so with an upright heart shall find He is not extreme to mark what they do amiss. Nor must we be severe in our animadversions upon every mistake, considering ourselves, lest we also be tempted.”

God may Graciously Accept Impure Obedience & Worship

Order of Contents

Bible Verses 64+
Westminster
Quotes 28+

Bible verses

God may Graciously Accept Impure Natural Worship, including Obedience, & that of Unbelievers 17+

Note that natural worship (including obedience to God) is more fundamental than, and the raison d’etre of, instituted worship. If God may accept impure natural worship, how much more impure instituted worship?

Old Testament 10

Gen. 20:4-7

“But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, ‘Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation? Said he [Abraham] not unto me, ‘She is my sister?’ and she, even she herself said, ‘He is my brother:’ in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.’

And God said unto him in a dream, ‘Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against Me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her. Now therefore restore the man his wife;'”

Gen. 22:10-12 “And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, ‘Abraham, Abraham:’ and he said, ‘Here am I.’ And he said, ‘Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.'”

[God here accepts the will for the deed with respect to a sacrfice of worship.]

Josh. 2:1-4 “And Joshua… two men to spy secretly… And they… came into an harlot’s house, named Rahab, and lodged there… And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, ‘Bring forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into thine house: for they be come to search out all the country.’ And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, ‘There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were:'”

[Compare this with Heb. 11:31, “By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.”]

1 Kings 21:26-29 “But there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord… And it came to pass, when Ahab heard those words, that he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly. And the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, ‘Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because he humbleth himself before Me, I will not bring the evil in his days: but in his son’s days will I bring the evil upon his house.'”

2 Kings 17:24-33

“And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon… and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel… And so it was at the beginning of their dwelling there that they feared not the Lord: therefore the Lord sent lions among them, which slew some of them.

Wherefore they spake to the king of Assyria, saying, ‘The nations which thou hast removed, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land: therefore He hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land.

Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, ‘Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence… and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land.’ Then one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and… taught them how they should fear the Lord.

Howbeit every nation made gods of their own, and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in their cities wherein they dwelt.

And the men of Babylon… and the Avites… burnt their children in fire to… the gods of Sepharvaim. So they feared the Lord, and made unto themselves of the lowest of them priests of the high places, which sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places. They feared the Lord, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence.”

[The assumption here is that God was appeased in some degree and caused the lions to stop killing the people when the people began to fear the Lord and keep certain of his worship ordinances, albeit while greatly corrupting that worship and including the worship of other gods.]

Ps. 99:8 “Thou wast a God that forgavest them, though Thou tookest vengeance of their inventions.”

Ps. 103:8-14

“The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever. He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear Him. As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us. Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear Him. For He knoweth our frame; He remembereth that we are dust.”

Song 1:5-8

“[Church:] ‘I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother’s children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept….’

[Christ:] ‘If thou know not, O thou fairest among women…'”

New Testament 8

Mk. 9:21-25 “And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, ‘Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.’ When Jesus saw that the people came running together, He rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, ‘Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.'”

Lk. 17:10 “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.'”

Rom. 12:1-2 “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Rom. 14:1-14

“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s….

But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ… So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.”

2 Cor. 8:12 “For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.”

Heb. 11:31, “By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.”

[Compare this with Josh. 2:1-4 above.]

Rev. 2:1-6

“Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write… I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.

Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.”

Rev. 3:1-3

“And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write… I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.”

God may Graciously Answer Unbelievers’ Prayers 20+

God may by Common Grace Hear & Answer Unbelievers’ Prayers

God may Graciously Accept Impure Instituted Worship 28+

Old Testament

Ex. 28:36-38 “And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it… ‘Holiness To The Lord.’ And thou shalt put it… upon Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts… that they may be accepted before the Lord.”

Lev. 4:2-3, 13-14

Num. 23:21 “He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither hath He seen perverseness in Israel: the Lord his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them.”

2 Sam. 7:2-13, 18, 28-29

“…the king [David] said unto Nathan the prophet, ‘See now, I dwell in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains.’ And Nathan said to the king, ‘Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the Lord is with thee.’ And it came to pass that night, that the word of the Lord came unto Nathan, saying, ‘Go and tell my servant David, ‘Thus saith the Lord, Shalt thou build Me an house for Me to dwell in?…

And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name…’…

Then went king David in, and sat before the Lord, and he said, ‘…now, O Lord God, thou art that God, and thy words be true, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant: Therefore now let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant, that it may continue for ever before thee: for thou, O Lord God, hast spoken it: and with thy blessing let the house of thy servant be blessed for ever.'”

1 Kings 8:18-19 “And the Lord said unto David my father, ‘Whereas it was in thine heart to build an house unto my name, thou didst well that it was in thine heart. Nevertheless thou shalt not build the house; but thy son that shall come forth out of thy loins, he shall build the house unto my name.'”

1 Kings 22:42-43 “Jehoshaphat… turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the Lord: nevertheless the high places were not taken away;”

2 Kings 12:2-3 “Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days… But the high places were not taken away…”

2 Chron. 30:17-21

“For there were many in the congregation that were not sanctified: therefore the Levites had the charge of the killing of the passovers for every one that was not clean, to sanctify them unto the Lord.

For a multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim, and Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, ‘The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.’

And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people. And the children of Israel that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness:”

Ps. 51:16-17 “For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”

Isa. 66:2 “…but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my Word.”

Hos. 6:6 “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”

Jon. 1:5, 15-16 “Then the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god… So they took up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging. Then the men feared the Lord exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the Lord, and made vows.”

Zech. 3:3-5 “Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, ‘Take away the filthy garments from him.’ And unto him he said, ‘Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.’ And I said, ‘Let them set a fair mitre upon his head.’ So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments.”

New Testament

Mt. 26:41, 45 “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak… Then cometh He to his disciples, and saith unto them, ‘Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed…'”

Lk. 8:15 “But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.”

Acts 10:1-4, 25-26, 33-35, 44

“There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius… A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway… And he said unto him, ‘Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God…

And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, ‘Stand up; I myself also am a man.’…

‘…Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.’ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, ‘Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him….’ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.”

Acts 17:10-11 “And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

Rom. 14:4-5 “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand… Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”

Rom. 14:17-18 “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.”

1 Cor. 1:27-29 “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.”

1 Cor. 11:13-14 “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?”

1 Cor. 11:17-22

“Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

1 Cor. 11:34 “And the rest will I set in order when I come.”

1 Cor. 12:31 “But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.”

1 Cor. 14:9 “So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.”

1 Cor. 14:20 “Brethren, be not children in understanding:”

1 Cor. 15:12 “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?”

Heb. 4:12-13 “For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.”

Heb. 11:22 “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”

James 5:16 “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”

Rev. 2:12-16

“And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write… I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.”

Rev. 2:18-20

“And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write… I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.”

Westminster

Larger Catechism

“Q. 172. May one who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord’s supper?

A. One who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof;[a] and in God’s account hath it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it,[b] and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ,[c] and to depart from iniquity:[d] in which case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians[e]) he is to bewail his unbelief,[f] and labour to have his doubts resolved;[g] and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord’s supper, that he may be further strengthened.[h]

[a] Isa. 50:10. 1 John 5:13. Ps. 88. Ps. 77:1-12. Jonah 2:4,7.
[b] Isa. 54:7-10. Matt. 5:3,4. Ps. 31:22. Ps. 73:13,22,23.
[c] Phil. 3:8,9. Ps. 10:17. Ps. 42:1,2,5,11.
[d] 2 Tim. 2:19. Isa. 50:10. Ps. 66:18-20.
[e] Isa. 40:11,29,31. Matt. 11:28. Matt. 12:20. Matt. 26:28.
[f] Mark 9:24.
[g] Acts 2:37. Acts 16:30.
[h] Rom. 4:11. 1 Cor. 11:28“

Directory for the Public Worship of God

Of the Assembling of the Congregation & their Behaviour in the Public Worship of God

“…and humbly beseeching Him for pardon, assistance, and acceptance in the whole service then to be performed… And all in the name and mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Of Public Prayer before the Sermon

“To acknowledge and confess, that, as we are convinced of our guilt, so, out of a deep sense thereof, we judge ourselves unworthy of the smallest benefits, most worthy of God’s fiercest wrath, and of all the curses of the law, and heaviest judgments inflicted upon the most rebellious sinners…

Notwithstanding all which, to draw near to the throne of grace, encouraging ourselves with hope of a gracious answer of our prayers, in the riches and all-sufficiency of that only one oblation, the satisfaction and intercession of the Lord Jesus Christ… and humbly and earnestly to supplicate for mercy…

And, with confidence of his mercy to his whole church, and the acceptance of our persons, through the merits and mediation of our High Priest, the Lord Jesus, to profess that it is the desire of our souls to have fellowship with God in the reverend and conscionable use of his holy ordinances; and, to that purpose, to pray earnestly for his grace and effectual assistance to the sanctification of his holy sabbath, the Lord’s day, in all the duties thereof, publick and private, both to ourselves, and to all other congregations of his people, according to the riches and excellency of the gospel, this day celebrated and enjoyed…

And because we have been unprofitable hearers in times past, and now cannot of ourselves receive, as we should, the deep things of God, the mysteries of Jesus Christ, which require a spiritual discerning; to pray, that the Lord, who teacheth to profit, would graciously please to pour out the Spirit of grace, together with the outward means thereof, causing us to attain such a measure of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord, and, in him, of the things which belong to our peace…”

Of the Celebration of the Communion, or Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper

Order of Quotes

Gifford
Greenham
Perkins
Hall
Willet
Downame
Dod
Dutch Annotations
Cotton
A. Jackson
Burroughs
J. Jackson
Firmin
Mayer
Guild
Crofton
Steele
Owen
Charnock
Poole
Baxter
Corbet
Manton
London Ministers
Rule
Henry
Mayo
Gill

1500’s

George Gifford

A Short Treatise Against the Donatists of England, whom we call Brownists... (London, 1590), ‘Brownist Position’, pp. 17 Gifford (c. 1548–1600 or 1620?) was a non-conformist, English, puritan preacher.

“Thus your first accusation, that we worship the true God after a false manner, is with false slander and furious outrage of speech, crying out of idolatry, blasphemies and abominations when as ye can show no one ground of the holy religion and worship of God which is not holden sound and entire among us, only ye rip up corruptions and spots in ceremonies, orders and circumstances, which touch not the foundation, but are such as men may err in and yet be God’s dear children and true worshippers.”

Richard Greenham

The Works of… Richard Greenham… (d. 1594?; London: Welby, 1612), pt. 4, ‘Godly Instructions’, ch. 66, ‘Of God’s Worship, & of Religion True & False’, p. 803

“Moses was not so well when he was in Midian, as if he had been in Canaan, yet better than when he was in Egypt: for though Jethro had not the worship of God pure in every respect, yet was not he an idolater. For then Moses would not have dwelt with him, nor yet have sacrificed with him, if he had offered to a strange God. Whence we learn two things:

The first, that if we have the chief and principal points of religion with us although there may be some wants and defects, yet that we make much of God’s great blessing therein, and labor carefully and diligently to use them, showing ourselves thankful to God for them: so will the Lord in his due time bestow more blessings upon us, and minister that which is wanting unto us.

Secondly, that the Lord will always have some to keep his truth, to the glory of his own name, and the condemnation of the wicked. Jethro’s religion may be tried by these notes:

1. That he rejoiced more for the deliverance of God’s people than for the promotion of his son.
2. Because he was careful to confirm his faith by the experience of them which had received greater graces.
3. Because his joy did break out into an open profession of sacrifice.
4. His divine speech and good counsel which he gave to Moses does testify that he was a pure worshipper of God: at the least he held the chiefest, and was not a novice in religion.

By Jethro’s example we may learn to try our religion, if it be pure, then:

[1.] It works in us a care to use all the means.
2. We take joy in them.
3. We express the fruits of it in our life.
4. We rejoice more at the prosperity of God’s people than at our own preferments or commodity.”

1600’s

William Perkins

The Whole Treatise of the Cases of Conscience… (Cambridge: Legat, 1606), bk. 2, ch. 5, question 2, “How God is to be Worshipped & Served?”, pp. 256-57, 259-60, 262

“…the spiritual worship of the inward man, and [that is] the very ground and foundation of all true worship of God: for God is a spirit and therfore must be worshipped in spirit [Jn. 4:24], that is, in the the mind, conscience, will, and affections. Indeed all the worship of God is spiritual, even that which we call outward; yet not of itself, but by virtue of the inward, from which it proceeds.

The heads of inward worship are two: adoration of God and cleaving to God…

The second virtue of adoration is inward obedience of the hidden man of the heart. The Lord prefers this obedience before all sacrifice, 1 Sam. 15:22…

Now we cleave unto God by four things: by faith, hope, love and inward invocation…

we are to lift up our hearts unto God, upon every occasion, that by inward and holy motions and affections they may be (as it were) knit unto Him.

Now to conclude this point touching inward worship, we must remember that it alone is properly, simply, and of itself the worship of God; and the outward is not simply the worship of God, but only so far forth as it is quickened by the inward, and grounded upon it. For God is a Spirit, and therefore the true worship that is done unto Him must be performed in spirit and truth, Jn. 4:24.”

Joseph Hall

Contemplations upon the Principal Passages of the Holy Story. The Second Volume; in Four Books (London: 1614), ‘Nadab & Abihu’, pp. 176-77

“…God took notice of the sacrifice: but now they see the fire coming out from the presence of God, they are convinced both of the power and acceptation of the Almighty; They are at once amazed, and satisfied to see the same God answer by fire, which before had spoken by fire:

God does no less approve our evangelical sacrifices than theirs under the [Mosaic] Law; But as our sacrifices are spiritual, so are the signs of his acceptation: Faith is our guide, as sense was theirs. Yea even still does God testify his approbation by sensible evidences: when by a lively faith, and fervent zeal, our hearts are consecrated to God, then does his heavenly fire come down upon our sacrifices; Then are they holy, living, acceptable. [Rom. 12:1-2]”

Andrew Willet

Hexapla in Genesin & Exodum… (d. 1621; London: 1633)

on Gen. 22, 4. Places of Doctrine, 3rd doctrine, p. 206

“[Gen. 22] Verse 12: ‘Seeing for my sake thou hast not spared thine only son.’ God accepts the resolute purpose and will of Abraham for the done deed. An obedient will then is accepted before God as the work itself: as the Apostle says, ‘If first there be a willing mind, God accepts it according to that a man has, not according to that he has not, 2 Cor. 8:12. [So Wolfgang] Musculus.”

on Ex. 4, 4. Places of Doctrine

“3rd Doctrine. Temporary obedience does often turn aside a temporary punishment.

Verse 26. ‘So He departed from him, etc.’ Zipporah here not of any devotion, but of necessity, circumcised her son, yet it pleased God so to accept of this forced obedience that he spared Moses:

So many times a temporary and external obedience does turn away a temporal punishment: as Ahab’s sackcloth put off the punishment threatened, that it came not in his days. So the Samaritans’ corrupt worship of God delivered them from the lions, 2 Kings 17 (vv. 24-33). [So Josias] Simler. [Johannes] Piscator.

If God be so pleased sometime with outward service, accepting the small beginnings of those that are coming unto Him: how much more acceptable unto Him is the true spiritual worship?”

on Ex. 20, 10th Commandment, 5th Confutation, p. 1875

“This regeneration and inchoate obedience, being wrought in the faithful by the Spirit of God, though it do not wolly extirpate and root out sin, yet it keeps it so under, that it reign not in them: and it so renews them that they labour to resist sin, and to live according to the Law of God: which obedience though it be in itself imperfect, yet is it accepted of God by faith in Christ, in whose perfect righteousness, whatsoever is imperfect in our obedience, is perfected, and our imperfections pardoned; [So Erasmus] Marbach.”

on Ex. 28, q. 36, ‘How Aaron is said to bear their iniquities’, p. 539

“[Ex. 28] Verse 38. ‘That Aaron may bear the iniquity of the offerings.’… the words following in the end of the verse, ‘to make them acceptable before the Lord,’ show that the meaning is not that Aaron should be punished, but that by his office, their offerings, though otherwise imperfect, should be accepted.”

John Downame

A Guide to Godliness or a Treatise of a Christian Life (London: 1622), bk. 4, ch. 1, §4 ‘That our imperfect obedience is accepted of God, if it be done in sincerity and integrity’, pp. 405-6

“This may move us to embrace integrity and sincerity, because the Lord so highly esteems it, that He accepts of our obedience as perfect which springs from it, though it be stained with much corruption, and joined with many imperfections.

…those are said to have been perfect before God who in simplicity and uprightness of heart laboured after perfection, and served God in sincerity and truth, as Noah, Abraham, Job, David, Asa, Zachary and Elizabeth, though they had many corruptions and imperfections which in the Scriptures are recorded of them…

And therefore David uses his sincerity in praying, as an argument to persuade the Lord to give him audience: ‘Give ear’ (says he) ‘unto my prayers, which go not out of feigned lips.’ (Ps. 17:1) And Hezekiah’s integrity of life, as a reason to move Him for the repealing of the sentence of death and prolonging of his days. ‘Remember now, O Lord,’ (says he) ‘I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth, and with a perfect heart, etc.’ (Isa. 29:13)”

John Dod

Ten Sermons, Tending Chiefly to the Fitting of Men for the Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper (1634), The Fourth Sermon of the Lord’s Supper, on 2 Chron. 30:18-20

p. 111

“But by reason of the short warning that they had, a multitude of the people of Ephraim, and Manasseh, Issachar and Zabulun had not cleansed themselves according to the Law in that behalf provided, Ex. 12; Num. 9, and therefore were in danger to be cut off, Lev. 7:20.

In this regard they were in great distress, and in a sore strait, yet they thought it better to receive the sacrament, though they failed in some circumstances of their preparation, than to omit it until the next year, having wanted it so long before, whereupon they adventured to eat the Passover;

…Hezekiah, in fear of God’s displeasure and in commiseration of the people that stood in danger of God’s plagues and punishments, falls to prayer for them and is instant with the Lord in that behalf: He saw their great desire to be made partakers of it; the pains that they had taken to come unto Jerusalem for that very purpose; and perceived a strange hand of God inclining their hearts so far… And thus he prayed unto God for them…

The word that is translated ‘be merciful’ signifies thus much in effect, as if he had said, ‘The good Lord pardon and supply that which is wanting [lacking] in him that prepares his whole heart.’ And now they wanted not so much willingness, as time to prepare themselves…”

p. 112

“Another argument there is taken from them, that ‘they sought the Lord, etc.’ Which seeking of theirs is set out by the manner of it, that they prepared their whole heart to seek Him: Not as if their hearts were so free from sin, or so full of grace as they should have been; but that they were true and plain, and sincere: Not such as had no sin, for it is said, ‘they were not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary,’ but that did love no sin: Not such hearts as wanted no grace, or preparation for God’s ordinance: But such as were humbled for the want of grace and of that preparation that they should have made…

For it is said, ‘He healed the people,’ that is, gave them that which God does offer unto his people in the sacrament: They received the seal of the Covenant, and He made good the Covenant unto them…”

p. 119

“But what is that good and honest heart which they are commended for? it is a heart that does fully purpose to do well, though it fail much in that which it performs: that resolves beforehand to avoid the evil that shall be reproved, and to do the good duties that shall be commanded, and to believe and rest upon the promises that shall be pronounced, as far as God shall give ability, etc.

Now wheresoever there is such a ready inclination unto goodness, there will be a bringing forth of fruit; though not in all alike, yet every one will do somewhat: and God will acknowledge them for good ground, and honest-hearted Christians, that yield Him but a thirty-fold, as well as those that yield Him sixty-fold,or an hundred-fold: for a less measure of fruitfulness is an argument of truth, as well as a greater measure, and therefore shall be respected and rewarded.”

pp. 120-21

“since none here have any prayer made for them [by Hezekiah] but such as bring with them to the Lord’s house a single and sincere heart, therefore if we would have benefit by any of the means of salvation, let us be sure that though we be burdened with many corruptions, yet we seek the Lord with an unfeined desire of profiting by his ordinances…

let us use the means whereby our hearts may be made pure and undefiled, namely the Word, sacrament and prayer…”

p. 121

“and make account that we shall not be disappointed when we come thus affected unto Christ Jesus. And then He will enrich us, that before were poor, and clothe us that before were naked, and enlighten our eyes that before were altogether shut up in blindness and ignorance.”

p. 122

“for undoubtedly the Lord will not send them empty away; their labor shall not be lost, nor their hope be disappointed: but they shall certainly have good success according to their expectation:

I. Because they have done what they could for their part.

2. Hezekiah’s prayer stands in as good force yet still, as it did at that time when it was made…

…and therefore coming thus affected and prepared, they cannot miss of the promised blessing.”

pp. 122-23

“The doctrine hence arising is this, that so long as we labor to keep the substance of God’s worship, though we fail in some circumstances thereof, He will be merciful to us. If we embrace the substance thereof willingly, and fail in the circumstances unwillingly, God will never lay it to out charge.

Examples will prove this more fully unto us: ‘Ye have heard of the patience of God’ (says the apostle James) ‘and ye know what end God made with him.’ (James 5:11; Job 3)… there was in him a great deal of passion and distemper: and that he held out but very weakly in a great part of the conflict… yet because he held out in the substance of godliness, in the midst of all his woes and miseries… and in the end acknowledged his fault and desired to lay his hand upon his mouth: because (I say) these good things were found in him, God passes by his infirmities and takes notice of his patience, with high commendation thereof… For the Lord in his wisdom considered that it was not through any stubbornness, or rebellious disposition that he brake out in that manner…”

(London, 1610), 4th Sermon

pp. 125-28

“In like manner is Rahab commended as one that by reason of her faith and works perished not with them which obeyed not, when she had received the spies peaceably. Yet if we look into the story, we shall easily discern a great deal of infirmity in that very work of love and mercy, by which she got the testimony of such a notable faith: for she bewrayed much unbelief in making a lie to preserve the spies in safety…

So the angel (as is recorded in the Gospel) rebuked those good and faithful women, for that they sought the living among the dead: yet… He is risen again, as He foretold you that He would: yet herein does your uprightness appear, that you hold out still in the love and profession of Christ, even now, when He is in such disgrace and dislike… Thus we may perceive how favourable the Lord is towards his children that offend not upon set purpose and presumptuously: but through Satan’s instigation or through human frailty…

This makes for the confutation of their error:

1. That think they have no calling to come to the sacrament because they see more and greater faults in themselves than they can espie, or then, indeed, there are in many other Christians… They find so much hypocrisy, so much pride, so much vain-glory and self-love… that they… begin to fear that God will in no sort accept of them, if they should come unto the table of his Son… and therefore [these things] should by no means keep them from the holy sacrament…

Further, [2.] those that by reason of their infirmities will forgoe that ordinance do greatly dishonor God and lay an hard imputation upon Him, as who should say that He were such an extreme and rigorous Judge as will accept of none but of those that have attained to a great measure of perfection.

Besides, [3.]… they have a calling to partake of the sacrament, as appears in this text… all such as prepared their whole hearts (that is, did their best endeauour with a true and sincere heart) to seek the Lord.”

p. 129

“yet withall those that have fewer talents, and do Him less service, shall not be despised, nor rejected, but according to their works be accepted and recompenced: for one may be faithful in a little, as well as in a great deal. Therefore let this be an encouragement unto us to draw near unto God in his worship: if we cannot come as we would, let us come as well as we can, and bring those talents which we have: if we cannot make a long prayer, let us make a short: if we cannot cry fervently unto the Lord, let us sigh that we cannot do better: if we have but a little faith, let us pray with the man in the Gospel, ‘Lord I believe, help mine unbelief:’ which if we can do, the Lord will be merciful unto us, though we be not fitted in every respect according to that which is required of us.”

p. 132

“‘And the Lord heard Hezekiah, etc.’ It being a prayer of faith that he made for such things as God had promised, and for such persons as to whom the promise did belong, he receives an answer to his request: for so it is said, ‘the Lord heard Hezekiah:’ that is, accepted and granted his suit:'”

p. 136

“when we see our manifold imperfections in God’s service… let us repair unto the Lord, and beseech Him that is true and faithful in all promises, that He will make good his word unto us in those particulars, giving us strength to do what He commands us…”

The Dutch Annotations

tr. Theodore Haak (1637/1657), on 1 Kings 15:14

“‘The high places indeed were not taken away yet the heart of Asa was perfect.’

…understand this perfection and uprightness of the king properly in respect of his affection, inclination and zeal in and for the pure worship of God, although in the residue of his life he had several infirmities and imperfections.”

John Cotton

A Modest & Clear Answer to Mr. [John] Ball’s Discourse of Set Forms of Prayer (London, 1642), p. 86

“We do not say (for our parts) that all praying upon a book or instituted forms is but cold prayer, because God may pardon the ignorance of his people and accept the sincerity of their hearts, help them with some spiritual affections, even in such prayers…”

A Practical Commentary, or an Exposition with Observations, Reasons & Uses upon the First Epistle General of John (London: 1658), on 1 Jn. 1:1-4, p. 4

“Dost thou give anything to God? offer up any obedience? do it in the sight of thine own weakness and imperfection, and so thou worshippest Him, through whom our lame sacrifices are acceptable, Col. 3:17, for none but God could do this for us.”

Arthur Jackson

Annotations upon the Remaining Historical Part of the Old Testament... (Cambridge, 1646) Jackson (1593?-1666) was an English clergyman of strong presbyterian and royalist views; he was ejected in the Great Ejection of 1662.

on 2 Sam. 7, p. 361

“Verse 5… But David was not the man he had appointed for this work, and therefore though the Lord commended David for this holy intention, as is evident, 1 Kings 8:18, ‘And the Lord said unto David my father, ‘Whereas it was in thine heart to build an house unto my name, thou didst well that it was in thine heart,” and made many gracious promises unto him at this time, vv. 10-12, etc. to testify how well He took it that he had such a purpose in his mind: yet withal He made known to him that He meant not that it should be done by him, but by his son…

Verse 6… Though David’s intent was generally in itself good, insomuch that the Lord Himself commended him for it, as is manifest in that place before cited, 1 Kings 8:18, yet it was not without some mixture of error: for herein he failed, because he undertook to do it without any particular direction or warrant from God, led hereto only by the judgment of his own reason, that it was not fit God should dwell within curtains, when He dwelt in an house of cedar; and therefore though the Lord told him that his purpose was in the general commendable, yet withall He rejected his purpose and discovered thereby that he should have waited his leasure and direction, and disproved his reason…”

on 2 Chron. 30, vv. 20 & 22

“Verse 20. ‘And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.’

That is, He sanctified them by his Spirit in an extraordinary way; or, He did not punish them, but forgive them that their infirmity, and accepted them as if they had been purified.

Verse 22. ‘And Hezekiah spake comfortably to all the Levites, that taught the good knowledge of the Lord.’

That is, he encouraged them in their work, and gave them hope of God’s mercy to the people as concerning those that had eaten the Passover and were not cleansed according to the Law.”

Jeremiah Burroughs

Gospel Worship... (London: 1647)

Sermon 4, on Lev. 10:3, “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh Me.”

pp. 63-64

“First, if we tender up to God all that we have. Though we be never so poor and mean, yet if God has the strength of our souls, God accepts it. For we are to know that God does not stand in need of what we have, or of what we do; but that we might show our respect to Him: Therefore if we give all that we have, God accepts it.

As a child, if it puts forth all its strength that it has to do a business which the father bids him, whether the business be done or no, the father looks upon it and accepts it as suitable to the child’s strength; and it shows the respect that the child has to his father.

And as it is storied of an emperor that when a poor man had nothing to offer him but a little water that he had taken up with his hand, he having nothing else, the emperor accepts of it. So that’s that which God looks for, that the creature should lift Him above all.

If therefore when thou comest to worship God, God has more of thy heart then ever any creature in the world had, God accepts of that, and that you must look unto; Can you say so, when you go to worship God: Lord it is true there is much weakness in my spirit, but Thou that knowest all things knowest that thou hast more of my heart than ever any creature in the world had. This is suitable to God: God will account this (in the Covenant of Grace) to be a present suitable to Himself.

As in the Law, when they offered to the building of the Temple, every one could not offer gold and silver and precious stones, but some came and offered badgers-skins, and some women did spin and offered coats-hair to the building of the Temple, and so God accepted of that being the most they could do.

2. In the second place, when we do not only offer unto God the most we can, but when we add to this the grief of our souls that we can do no more, when the soul shall strive to the uttermost it can, and when it has done all, says, ‘I am an unprofitable servant; Oh that I could do more!’ This is suitable to God.

3. Thirdly, the people of God though they be weak, yet the weakest servant of God is able to offer up to God somewhat that is suitable to the infinite majesty of God, upon this third ground, because that there is a kind of impression of God’s infiniteness in those services that a gracious heart does tender unto God, and therefore [it is] suitable unto God.”

pp. 69-70

“And the reason why there must be this sanctifying of the heart is:

1. First, because the Lord does first accept of the person before He does accept of the action: Men indeed do accept of the persons of men because they do good actions, but God accepts of the actions of men because their persons are good. If indeed we see a man do good, then we love him and accept of the person of the man; but God first will accept of the person before the action: As the Lord accepted of Abel first, and then He accepted his offering [Gen. 4:4; Heb. 11:4]…

you must first look after means of acceptation of your persons, which is through the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and through the sanctification of his Spirit, whereby you come to have his image and life, and so are accepted, and then all that proceeds from you comes to be accepted…

2. Secondly, our hearts must be sanctified because the Lord does look more to the principle from whence a thing comes than at the thing itself… So God is not pleased with anything that comes from us except He knows that it comes from a principle of love, grace, and holiness in our hearts.”

Sermon 6

pp. 93-94

“Bodily worship without soul-worship is nothing; but soul-worship may be accepted without bodily worship; therefore it is the soul that God does principally look at in holy duties: If you be not able to worship God in your bodies, you may worship Him in your souls, and God regards that bodily exercise in holy duties is little worth…

but it is nothing in comparison: the great work is the work of the soul, for God is a Spirit and must be worshipped in spirit. And God is said to be a Spirit… it notes the simplicity of God… but in the simplicity of your hearts you must come to worship God, and thus you shall worship Him with such worship as is some way suitable to him as he is a Spirit.”

p. 101

“It should make me come with expectation of great things from God; do not come unto God as unto an empty vine, but as unto a full vine, and the more thy faith is raised to expect great things from God, the more acceptable art thou to God: Certainly the higher anyone’s faith is raised when they come into his presence, to expect the greatest things, the more acceptable;”

Sermon 7, on Lev. 10:3, “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh Me.”

p. 119

“…if so be that thou makest conscience of sanctifying God’s name in duties, then He will sanctify his name in a way of mercy; that is, He will manifest how He does accept of the least degree of holiness though there be much mixture: God has a way to take away the mixture by the blood of his Son, and then to accept of any holiness He sees in thee, He will sanctify his name by meeting with thee and revealing his glory to thee when thou art worshiping of Him:

There is an excellent scripture for this, Ex. 29:43, ‘There I will meet with the children of Israel and the Tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory.’ Thou that hast a gracious heart and art worshiping of God in sincerity, thou art as a tabernacle of God, and God has his service and worship from thee; thou art as the temple of God, and ‘There will I meet with thee’ (says God) ‘and I will sanctify my Tabernacle by my glory.’ God will sanctify thy heart by his glory if thou doest sanctify his name.”

p. 120

“…hereafter at the great Day of Judgment it will be a part of the glory of God to manifest before men and angels how He did accept of those holy services that thou didst tender up to Him; when hypocrites shall be cast away and abhorred, and thou who hadst an upright, sincere heart shall be owned before God, and before men and angels at that great Day; and God shall say, ‘Well, it is a part of the glory of my holiness to make it appear that I have accepted of these holy things that these my poor servants have tendered up to Me.'”

Sermon 14, on Lev. 10:3, “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh Me”, p. 286

“…notwithstanding much vanity of thoughts, the Lord will accept of any desire that they have to sanctify his name in holy duties…”

John Jackson

Directions for the Private [& Public] Worship of God: Divided into Two Parts… (London, 1648), p. 10 in Epitome Ugaiainonton Logon, or, A Taste of the Truth as it is in Jesus, consisting of Ten Questions & Answers… (London, 1648) Jackson (1600-1648) was a Westminster divine.

“Remembring always after, or about the time when your prayer is ended, to take notice not only of your defects and failings in prayer, to be humbled for them, and of the sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness… to cover them. (Rom. 4:7)”

Giles Firmin

Separation Examined: or, a Treatise wherein the Grounds for Separation from the Ministry & Churches of England are Weighed & Found too Light… (London: 1652), pp.

“Objection [of Separatists]: They [wicked people] mix with us in our [congregational] singing; mixed worship we cannot join in.

Answer: I cannot conceive what harm this can do to you; is the mixing of your own corruption in your service less prejudicial to the acceptance of it with God, than the presence of wicked men joining in the service?”

John Mayer

A Commentary upon the Whole Old Testament... (London: 1653), on 2 Samuel, ch. 7, p. 390

“And that David might not think this motion of building God an house displeasing unto Him, although he was not permitted so to do, it is said, 1 King: 8:18, ‘Whereas it was in thy mind to build Me an house, thou didst well,’ which is here omitted, the Lord approved it expressly as a pious intention in David. And lastly because he bent his mind to the building of an house for God, the Lord promises to requite him with the like, and to build him an house, as it is said He did for the midwives of Egypt, He built them houses…”

William Guild

The Throne of David, or an Exposition of the Second of Samuel (d. 1657; Oxford, 1659), on ch. 7:1-18, p. 131

“V. 11. Where it is told David that in respect he intended to build a house to God, the Lord likewise should make him a house. We see that the Lord will not suffer the good and laudable intentions of the godly to be unrewarded: much more their pious and commendable actions, no, not a cup of cold water given to one of his, which shall want its reward. Which should be a great encouragement to pious and good works.”

Zachary Crofton

Reformation, Not Separation, or, Mr. Crofton’s Plea for Communion with the Church… in a Letter, written July 20, 1661… (1662), p. 25 Crofton (1626-1672) was a presbyterian and puritan born and raised in Ireland.

“I confess their Common-Prayer is my burden, by reason of its defects and disorder, and the rudeness of the ministerial method. I stand convinced it ought to be altered; yea, abolished… yet I must confess I find in it no matter to which (on a charitable interpretation) a sober serious Christian may not say, nay, can deny his ‘Amen’.

And though I distaste the ministerial method, I cannot disown in it the essential form of prayer, (viz.) A calling upon God in the Name of Christ… nor do I see on what ground I can deny, or refuse my ‘Amen’ to what is prayed for… because they are rudely and unfittingly expressed, whilst the irregularity of that common order is no bar to God’s acceptance of my more regular ‘Amen’ thereunto given.”

Richard Steele

An Antidote against Distractions, or an Endeavor to Serve the Church in the Daily Case of Wanderings in the Worship of God (London: 1667), ch. 9, pp. 204, 213-14

“But, lest any honest Christian should by his frequent distractions be discouraged from his duties, or in his holy duties, I shall… prevent such a temptation by laying down some encouragements:

…
The fifth encouragement is that our God can gather some sense out of a distracted duty, and do us some good by it. Rom. 8:27, ‘He that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit;’ ’tis true of our spirit as well as of God’s. The great searcher of hearts knows what you came pregnant with, what you meant, though you missed it in the delivery. He can tell what was written in the letter, though it did miscarry, and will answer your godly meaning, and overlook your unwilling failing, Ps. 103:13, ‘As a father pitieth his children, so the Lord…’

Why, the child comes sometimes full of a suit to the Father, and he is quite out in his tale, has forgotten what he would have, but the Father knows what he wants and what he would have said, and grants the whole. And so, provided thou be a child, and art heartily sensible of thy wants, and comest panting to the Throne of Grace; thy heavenly Father will accept thy meaning, and grant thy petition…”

John Owen

A Discourse concerning Evangelical Love, Church-Peace & Unity, with the Occasions & Reasons present Differences & Divisions about Things Sacred & Religious (1672)

ch. 3, pp. 84-86

“Other churches there are in the world which are not evidently guilty of the enormities in doctrine, worship and discipline before discoursed of. These all we judge to be true churches of Christ; and do hope that his promised presence is with them in their assemblies.

Answerable hereunto is our judgment concerning their officers or rulers, and all their sacred administrations. It becomes us to think and believe that the one [their offices] have authority from Christ and that the other [their sacred administrations] are accepted with Him:

For it is most unwarrantable rashness and presumption, yea an evident fruit of ignorance, or want of love, or secular private interest, when, upon lesser differences men judge churches to be no true churches and their ministers to be no true ministers, and consequently all their administrations to be invalid…

But the validity or invalidity of the ordinances of Christ, which are the means of union and communion with Him unto all his disciples, depend not on the determination of things highly disputable in their notion, and not inconsistent with true Gospel-obedience in their practice…

We stand to the judgment of Christ and his Word. We cannot but judge indeed that many Churches have missed, and do miss in some things the precise rules of their due constitution and walking; that many of them have added useless, superfluous rites to the worship of God among them; that there is in many of them a sinful neglect of evangelical discipline, or a carnal rule erected in the stead of it; that errors in doctrines of importance and danger, are prevalent in sundry of them; that their rulers are much influenced by a spirit of bitterness and envy against such as plead for reformation beyond their measure or interest; yet that hereupon they should all or any of them immediately forfeit their church-state, so as to have no lawful ministers, nor acceptable sacred administrations, is in itself a false imagination, and such as was never by us entertained.”

ch. 5, pp. 212-13

“Some are so proceeded against for not observing of holy days, some for not kneeling at the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, some for not using the sign of the cross in baptism; and what would become of ministers that should neglect or omit to wear the surplice in sacred administrations is easy to conjecture. But these things are all of them unwritten and unscriptural.

Great and many indeed have been the disputes of learned men to prove that although they have no divine institution, nor yet example of apostolical or primitive practise, yet that they may be lawfully used for decency and order in the worship of God. Whether they have evinced what they aimed at is as yet undetermined… they are all granted to be arbitrary inventions of men…

For what men think meet to do themselves in the matters of the house of God and his worship, it may be measured and accepted with Him according to their light and design. But for what they impose on others… they ought to have his warrant and authority for.”

A Discourse of the Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer (London: 1682), ch. 11, pp. 232-33

“For the persons and duties of men may be accepted with God, when they walk and act in sincerity according to their light, though in many things, and those of no small importance, sundry irregularities are found, both in what they do, and in the manner of doing it. Where persons walk before God in their integrity, and practice nothing contrary to their light and conviction in his worship, God is merciful unto them, although they order not everything according to the rule and measure of the Word.

So was it with them who came to the Passover in the days of Hezekiah: they had not cleansed themselves, but did eat the Passover otherwise than it was written, 2 Chron. 30:18; for whom the good king made the solemn prayer suited to their occasion:

‘The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary; and the Lord hearkened unto Hezekiah and healed the people,’ vv. 18-20.

Here was a duty for the substance of it appointed of God, but in the manner of its performance there was a failure: they did it not according to what was written, which is the sole rule of all religious duties. This God was displeased withal, yet graciously passed by the offence, and accepted them whose hearts were upright in what they did.”

Stephen Charnock

Several Discourses upon the Existence & Attributes of God (London, 1682)

‘Of Spiritual Worship’, p. 169

“As the goodness of outward acts consists not in the acts themselves, so the acceptableness of them results not from the acts themselves but from the inward frame animating and quickning those acts, as blood and spirits running through the veins of a duty to make it a living service in the sight of God.

Imperfections in worship hinder not God’s acceptation of it, if the heart spirited by grace be there to make it a sweet savour. The stench of burning flesh and fat in the legal sacrifices might render them noisome to the outward senses; but God smelt a sweet savour in them, as they respected Christ. When the heart and spirit are offered up to God, it may be a savory duty, though attended with unsavory imperfections.”

‘On the Goodness of God’, pp. 656-57

“6. The goodness of God is seen in bearing with the infirmities of his people and accepting imperfect obedience. Though Asa had many blots in his escutcheon [a coat of arms as an emblem], yet they are over-looked, and this note set upon record by divine goodness, that his heart was perfect towards the Lord all his days: ‘But the high places were not removed, nevertheless Asa’s heart was perfect with the Lord all his days.’ (1 Kings 15:14) He takes notice of a sincere, though chequered obedience, to reward it, which could claim nothing but a slight from Him if he were extreme to mark what is done amiss.

When there is not an opportunity to work, but only to will, He accepts the will, as if it had passed into work and act. He sees ‘no iniquity in Jacob,’ (Num. 23:21) i.e. He sees it not so as to cast off a respect to their persons and the acceptance of their services: His omniscience knows their sins, but his goodness does not reject their persons. He is of so good a disposition that He delights in a weak obedience of his servants, not in the imperfection but in the obedience: ‘He delights in the way of a good man,’ (Ps. 37:23) though he sometimes slips in it: He accepts a poor man’s pigeon as well as a rich man’s ox; He has a bottle for the tears and a book for the services of the upright (Ps. 56:8), as well as for the most perfect obedience of angels. He preserves their tears as if they were a rich and generous wine, as the vine-dresser does the expressions [pressed out flowings] of the grape.”

Matthew Poole

Annotations on the Whole Bible

on 2 Samuel, ch. 7

v. 4 “‘It came to pass that night’: because David’s mistake was pious, and from an honest mind, God would not suffer him to lie long in his mistake…”

v. 7 “‘Spake I a word?’ did I ever give any command about it? without which neither they did, nor thou shouldst attempt it.”

v. 8 “‘So shalt thou say unto my servant David’: lest David should be too much discouraged or judge himself neglected and forsaken of God, as one thought unworthy of so great an honor, God here gives him the honourable title of ‘his servant’, thereby signifying that He accepted of his service and of his good intentions, which also was expressed at this time, as it may seem from 1 Kings 8:18, though not in this place.”

v. 11 “‘He will make thee an house’; for thy good intentions to make him an house, ‘He will make thee an house’…”

on 2 Chron. 30, v. 20

“…from all which the Lord was pleased now to heal them, by pardoning this their sin, and accepting them and their services, as if they had been clean;”

Richard Baxter

The Cure of Church Divisions (London: Symmons, 1670), pt. 1

Direction 32, p. 186

“For my part I have often truly professed, that I look at many liturgies which I have read as I do at the prayers of some honest men who use little method, nor very meet words and often toss God’s name through weakness; who put that last which should be first, and that first which should be last, but yet the matter is honest and good.

I would not prefer such a man in a congregation before an abler man who will speak more composedly and agreeable to the matter: But yet I would not be so peevish as utterly to refuse to join with such a one. But as God does not reject his prayers notwithstanding all his weakness, no more would I. And I had rather have such prayers than none at all.”

Direction 58, p. 284

“Though God in mercy can distinguish between his own and ours, and does not count the whole worship to be in vain where any degree of superstition is mixed (for then most zealous persons were undone), yet the superstitious part of worship is always in vain;

And all the rest is made as vain where that is the predominant and denominating part. Thus overdoing is undoing, and thus the superstitious are (materially) righteous overmuch.”

Sacrilegious Desertion of the Holy Ministry Rebuked & Tolerated Preaching of the Gospel Vindicated (1672), ch. 2, pp. 16-17

“For the benefit of Christian love and concord may make it best for certain seasons to join even in defective modes of worship, as Christ did in the synagogues [such as with forms of prayer] and Temple in his time. Though the least defective must be chosen when no such accidental reasons sway the other way. And perhaps some nonconformists’ own administrations may be as defective as the Liturgy…

6. They [nonconfomrits] prefer their own manner of worshipping God as better than the [Anglican] Liturgy in their opinion, and therefore to be chosen when they may choose; but they account it not the only acceptable worship, but are present with you in spirit, desiring a part in the prayers of all true Christians in the world.”

Schism Detected in both Extremes… (London: 1684), pt. 2

p. 9

“3… Christ does not disown all imperfect worship that has some superstition: And we must receive one another as Christ receives us.

4. It was superstitious persons that Paul commands Christians to receive to communion, Rom. 14:5. Thus he [the separatist opponent] condemns the apostles and the Churches then, and the Scripture itself.”

p. 15

“11. He [a schismatic] condemns as idolaters all the Churches on earth for six hundred, if not one thousand years after the apostles; not one Church, Christian or heretic (as far as any history tells us that I have found), did ever deny such things as he calls false worship or idolatry.

They all went further than our [Anglican] parish churches do. At baptism they used the white garment, tasting milk and honey, chrism or anointing the forehead, crossing; they adored only standing, and not kneeling, every Lord’s Day, all as significant ceremonies: No one Church or person is said to scruple these; I think they did not [do] well: but God rejected not their worship.

12. He makes all or near all the Churches on earth idolaters at this day: All on earth save the Protestants are far grosser in their liturgies and ceremonies than the English: Of the Protesants, Sweden, Denmark, Saxony and all the Lutherans have liturgies, crossing, ceremonies, church-images, consubstantiation. The Helvetians [Swiss] are such as are called Erastians, making the magistrate the only ruler, and [making] sacraments common [to all, having no excommunication]. Geneva and France, yea and Holland, have their liturgies and some rites.”

Catholic Communion Doubly Defended by Dr. Owen’s Vindicator & Richard Baxter… (London: Parkhurst, 1684), section 2, pp. 9-14

“”28. So great is the peace and comfort of many parishes where the public ministers and all the religious people live together in love and amity that it loudly tells us how much better that is than to study to render each other odious, or vile and excommunicable.
…

37. To hold that any congregations are such whose worship is faulty, but such as God forgives and accepts, but that it is unlawful for us to join with them, lest it make us guilty of their sin, this (though it should be erroneous, and uncharitable and sinful) yet is not to excommunicate that congregation as no Church or no Christians.

² [An equivalent example of this is in 1 Kings 13:1-10.]

38. There is no history that I have seen or heard that tells us of any Churches on earth that for many hundred years together did worship God without a liturgy as faulty as ours: To make them all idolaters, and such whose worship God cursed and accepted not, is to make them no true Churches… and if Christ had no Church, He was no Head and King of it, and so no Christ.”

Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen (RBO, 2024), p. 32

“…if you distinguish not of false worship, you will make but false work about it:

2. There is that which is false in integrals, accidents or degrees by pardoned failings and infirmities.

John Corbet

pt. 2, “§21. Whether a Course of Idolatry in what kind soever
Infers a State of Damnation

The meaning of this question is whether all idolatry be mortal sin, not only in respect of desert, but existence, as sins whose ordinary habitual practice denies the being of grace and presence of the sanctifying Spirit.

That all idolatry, in whatsoever degree, is not of this nature is plain. For idolatry in general is the giving of that honor to the creature which is due to the Creator alone; and this lies not only in solemn avowed worship, but in the affection of the heart… And it is too common among the true worshippers of God to rob Him of his honor and to place it upon the creature, and that habitually, as on a child, or wealth, etc. though only in a mortified and not in a prevalent degree. The remainders of covetousness, which is idolatry [Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5], is a witness hereof.

And if this may be in reference to the idols of the heart, why not also in reference to the idols of the temple [church building]? Nay, more easily may it be in this latter than in the former respect in some devout persons that live in darker times and places, because it may proceed not from the love of the creature more than God, but merely from ignorance and error about the way of divine worship. [2 Kings 17:24-33]

Wherefore I doubt not but many holy souls in darker ages and countries have been habitually or customarily guilty of a lower kind of idolatry in making idols to themselves, not simply as God, but κατα τι [according to the kind]. And the excessive honor they gave to the creature did not destroy the sincerity of their devotion towards God [2 Kings 17:24-33], nor deny their unfeigned giving of the highest honor to Him alone. For such we now speak of may heartily and prevalently own the true God and all the essentials of religion, and so they may be of the true Church of God [2 Kings 17:24-33], as true is taken for the essence and not for the integral perfectness and healthfulness of the Church.”

pt. 3, “§7. Of Bowing at the Name of Jesus

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.” [as in the Anglican service]

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.”

Thomas Manton

Works, vol. 15

‘A Preparative Sermon for Receiving the Sacrament’, p. 336

“(2) There is dignitas convenientiae [worthiness of fitness], which consists, though not in a perfect and exact proportion, yet in some fitness and meetness unto that which is required. Thus, in scripture, are we commanded ‘to walk worthy of the Lord,’ worthy of our profession, worthy of the gospel… And thus must we come worthily: that is, so fitted and prepared as may bear some resemblance and agreement to the solemnity of the work that we go about.

And in this sense, this worthiness follows that worthiness which is called by divines dignitas dignationis — ‘a worth of acceptance’, or a desiring of God to take our actions in good part for Christ’s sake, and to pardon the many failings that accompany them.”

‘First Sermon’ of Sermons on the Sacraments

pp. 351-52

“Go to the Word of God, look what is written; and then the Lord will accept the service, when thou strivest to come near the commandment. See what is punctually required, and then diligently set thyself awork. The Lord will accept weak endeavors, so they be suitable to the command; so you do but endeavour to perform what is written, the Lord will accept it more than all the pomp and outside of those that would supererogate in the outward part…

lookest to what God requires; though thou dost not come near it but in thy purposes and desires, the Lord will accept thee. All that the faithful could say for themselves in the prophet was, ‘The desire of our soul is to thy name, and to the remembrance of Thee,’ Isa. 26:8. And all that Nehemiah could urge for the best Jews was that they did desire to fear God’s name, Neh. 1:11.

I say, see thou hast prepared to meet the Lord in his own ordinances, and wouldest feign do what is written: remember the death of the Lord Jesus after the due order and right manner, then the Lord will be pleased with thy sacrifice.”

p. 354

“…for when we see the strictness of the institution, and how far we come short of it, we are ready to doubt that we do too little, less than God requires…

the true soul can comfort itself in the sincerity of its desires; for though God accounts nothing little that springs from an upright heart…

Though they cannot be perfect in their services, yet they will make a right choice, serve God after his own manner; not make it up in the pomp, what is wanting in the power of religion, as many do; but look principally to the inward part, to the truth of religion.”

London Ministers

“So another [John Barret], in his Farewell Sermon:

Gilbert Rule

A Rational Defence of Non-Conformity… (London, 1689), pt. 1, sect. 1, p. 39 Rule was a Scottish, divine-right presbyterian.

“…for I shall not judge what acceptance an impure worship, invincibly not known to be such, may find with God…”

1700’s

Matthew Henry

Commentary on the While Bible

on 2 Samuel, ch. 7, vv. 4-17

“We have here a full revelation of God’s favour to David and the kind intentions of that favour, the notices and assurances of which God sent him by Nathan the prophet…

David’s purpose to build God a house is superseded. God took notice of that purpose, for he knows what is in man; and He was well pleased with it, as appears 1 Kings 8:18, Thou didst well that it was in thy heart; yet he forbade him to go on with his purpose (2 Sam. 7:5): “Shalt thou build me a house? No, thou shalt not (as it is explained in the parallel place, 1 Chron. 17:4)…

That worship only is acceptable which is instituted; why should David therefore design what God never ordained? Let him wait for a warrant, and then let him do it. Better a tent of God’s appointing than a temple of his own inventing…

God was not indebted to him for his good intentions, but, whatever he did for God’s honour, God was beforehand with him, 2 Samuel 7:8, 9…

Blessings are entailed upon the family and posterity of David. David had purposed to build God a house, and, in requital, God promises to ‘build him a house,’2 Samuel 7:11. Whatever we do for God, or sincerely design to do though Providence prevents our doing it, we ‘shall in no wise lose our reward.’ He had promised to make him a name (2 Sam. 7:9); here he promises to make him a house, which should bear up that name…

Though David came short of making good his purpose to build God a house, yet God did not come short of making good his promise to build him a house. Such is the tenour of the covenant we are under; though there are many failures in our performances, there are none in God’s.”

on 2 Chron. 15, vv. 8-19

“But the reformation was not complete; the high places were not all taken away, though many of them were, 2 Chron. 15:3, 5. Those in the cities were removed, but not those in the cities of Judah, but not those in the cities of Israel which were reduced to the house of David; or those that were used in the service of false gods, but not those that were used in the service of the God of Israel. These he connived at, and yet his heart was perfect. There may be defects in some particular duties where yet the heart, in the man, is upright with God. Sincerity is something less than sinless perfection.”

on 2 Chron. 30, vv. 13-20

“The irregularities they were guilty of in this solemnity. The substance was well managed, and with a great deal of devotion…

2. Many were permitted to eat the passover who were not purified according to the strictness of the law, 2 Chron. 30:18. This was the second month, and there was not warrant to put them off further to the third month… And they were loth to forbid them communicating at all, lest they should discourage new converts, and send those away complaining whom they desired to send away rejoicing. [Hugo] Grotius observes from this that ritual institutions must give way, not only to a public necessity, but to a public benefit and advantage…

‘The good Lord pardon every one’ in the congregation that has fixed, engaged, or ‘prepared, his heart’ to those services, though the ceremonial preparation be wanting. Note:

(1) The great thing required in our attendance upon God in solemn ordinances is that we prepare our hearts to seek Him, that we be sincere and upright in all we do, that the inward man be engaged and employed in it, and that we make heart-work of it, it is all nothing without this. ‘Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward part.’… For this is the ‘one thing needful,’ that we ‘seek God,’ his favour, his honour, and that we set our hearts to do it.

(2) Where this sincerity and fixedness of heart are there may still be many defects and infirmities, both the frame of the spirit and the performance of the service may be short of ‘the purification of the sanctuary.’ Corruptions may not be so fully conquered, thoughts not so closely fixed, affections not so lively, faith not so operative, as they should be. Here is a defect in sanctuary purification. There is nothing perfect under the sun, nor ‘a just man that doeth good, and sinneth not.’

(3) These defects need pardoning healing grace; for omissions in duty are sins as well as omissions of duty. If God should deal with us in strict justice according to the best of our performances, we should be undone.

(4) The way to obtain pardon for our deficiencies in duty, and all the iniquities of our holy things, is to seek it of God by prayer; it is not so a pardon of course but that it must be obtained by petition through the blood of Christ.

(5) In this prayer we must take encouragement from the goodness of God: ‘The good Lord pardon;’ for, when He proclaimed his goodness, He insisted most upon this branch of it, ‘forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin.’…

2. A successful prayer… not only [He] did not lay their sin to their charge, but graciously accepted their services notwithstanding; for healing denotes not only forgiveness (Isa. 6:10; Ps. 103:3), but comfort and peace, Isa. 57:18; Mal. 4:2.”

Daniel Mayo

in Matthew Henry’s Commentary, on 2 Corinthians, ch. 8, vv. 7-15 Mayo, an English puritan, was the continuator of 2 Corinthians after Henry died, using Henry’s outlines.

“For, 2. This would be acceptable to God. This ‘willing’ mind is accepted (2 Cor. 8:12), when accompanied with sincere endeavors. When men purpose that which is good, and endeavour according to their ability to perform also, God will accept of what they have, or can do, and not reject them for what they have not, and what is not in their power to do: and this is true as to other things besides the work of charity…

It is accepted, indeed, where there is a performance as far as we are able, and when providence hinders the performance, as in David’s case concerning building a house for the Lord, 2 Sam. 7:1-29.”

John Gill

Exposition of Whole Bible, on 2 Samuel, ch. 7, v. 5

“‘Go and tell my servant David.’ The Lord speaks very honorably and respectfully of him, owns him to be his servant in other things though he did not choose to employ him in this; and though he was not the person, nor this the time, to build the house of the Lord, yet, as he showed a good will towards it, so far it was acceptable to God:”

That Persons or Whole Churches Omitting Parts of Worship (whether Personal, Family or Public) due to Necessary Factors (including Providential & for Reformation) may be Acceptable to God

Order of Contents

Bible Verses 8
Westminster
Quotes 12

Bible Verses

Old Testament 5

Ex. 8:25-26 “And Pharaoh called for Moses and for Aaron, and said, ‘Go ye, sacrifice to your God in the land.’ And Moses said, ‘It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?‘”

Lev. 10:16-20

¹ [Compare: Dt. 12:7; 26:14; Hos. 9:4.]

Dt. 12:8-11

“Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes. For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God giveth you. But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; Then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes…”

Num. 15:1-3 “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land of your habitations, which I give unto you, and will make an offering by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering…”

Num. 28:6 “It is a continual burnt offering, which was ordained in mount Sinai for a sweet savour, a sacrifice made by fire unto the Lord.”

New Testament 2

Mk. 13:28-30 “He said unto them, ‘An enemy hath done this.’ The servants said unto him, ‘Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?‘ But he said, ‘Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.'”

[Note that this most immediately respects Church discipline, which is a form of worship.]

Rom. 1:11-15 “For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established… I purposed to come unto you (but was let hitherto) that I might have some fruit among you also… So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.”

[Though Paul could not preach to the Romans in the circumstances, yet no doubt God accepted the will for the deed.]

Westminster

Larger Catechism 99.5

“5.That what God forbids, is at no time to be done;[w] what He commands, is always our duty;[x] and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times.[y]

[w] Job 13:7,8. Rom. 3:8. Job 36:21. Heb. 11:25.
[x] Deut. 4:8,9.
[y] Matt. 12:7.”

Directory for Public Worship

Of the Assembling of the Congregation

“If any, through necessity, be hindered from being present at the beginning, they ought not, when they come into the congregation, to betake themselves to their private devotions, but reverently to compose themselves to join with the assembly in that ordinance of God which is then in hand.”

Of Public Reading of the Holy Scriptures

“Beside publick reading of the holy scriptures, every person that can read, is to be exhorted to read the scriptures privately, (and all others that cannot read, if not disabled by age, or otherwise, are likewise to be exhorted to learn to read,) and to have a Bible.”

Of Prayer after Sermon

“The prayer ended, let a psalm be sung, if with conveniency it may be done.”

Order of Quotes

1st Book of Discipline
Cartwright
Hildersham
Ames
Willet
Ball
Rathband
Gillespie
Baxter
Long
Mastricht
Church of Scotland
Howe
Fentiman

1500’s

Scottish 1st Book of Discipline 1560

9th Head, ‘Concerning the Policy of the Church’

“…there are two sorts [of Church policy]: the one utterly necessary, as that the Word be truly preached, the sacraments rightly ministered, common prayers publicly made… These things, we say, are so necessary, that without the same there is no face of a visible kirk.

The other is profitable, but not of mere necessity: as, that psalms should be sung; that certain places of the scriptures should be read when there is no sermon… Of these and such others we cannot see how a certain [uniform] order can be established. For in some churches the psalms may be conveniently sung; in others, perchance, they cannot…”

Thomas Cartwright

[Cartwright’s context is where Church reformation cannot practically be made without the magistrate, who acts as a hindrance to it in significant ways. The Church is thus limited by this and cannot do all she otherwise would, including in worship, and yet she may receive the blessings of the establishment the magistrate does provide.]

Arthur Hildersham

“…although there is not the least part of Christ’s ordinances that can be neglected without grievous sin, yet the want [lack] or neglect of some of these ordinances of Christ, which concern the discipline of his Church and the outward calling of the ministers is no such sin as can make either the ministers and governors of our Church Antichrists or our Church an Antichristian and false Church [as the separatists claimed].”

1600’s

William Ames

A Second Manuduction for Mr. [John] Robinson. Or a confirmation of the former in an answer to his manumission (Amsterdam, 1615), p. 10

“…the mere want [lack] of performing one part of the charge does not hinder but that a man may well communicate in the other parts which are well undertaken and discharged also.”

[This was in contrast to the Separatists’ claim that for a church lacking one part of worship, it was necessary to separate and join a church where one performed all of Christ’s worship ordinances every week.]

Andrew Willet

A Commentary upon the Fourth Book of Moses, called Numbers (London: 1618), on Num. 28, v. 6, p. 1137

“…these were to be offered continually as a burnt offering upon the altar, which law was not to take place until they came into the [Promised] Land, as we heard before in the like case, [Num.] ch. 15:2, because in the desert they wanted many things necessary, Dt. 12:8, which was a sufficient dispensation for the omitting of them:

For when God does require anything, He gives means to perform it; and did never impute it as a sin unto them when an inevitable necessity did hinder them, and the desire to obey is no less accepted than obedience itself.”

John Ball

An Answer to Two Treatises of Mr. John Can, the Leader of the English Brownists in Amsterdam… (London: R.B., 1642), ch. 1, section 4, p. 51

“‘Ye shall not do’ (says Moses) ‘after all things, which we do here this day, every man, all that is right in his own eyes.’ [Dt. 12:8]…

And the speech of Moses seems to mean the true service of God, which was not yet perfected, neither could be in their travels, as it was after in Canaan, vv. 10-11. Not that they sacrificed after their fancy (says the Geneva notes), but that God would be served more purely in the land of Canaan. [Francis] Junius upon this place notes:

‘Etsi oblationum lex una semper fuit ab initio praescripta a Deo, non potuit tamen usque adeo in ambulatoriis Israelitarum castris observari, ant summo jure ab illis exigi, prout ostendit; antithesis, verse 11; vide Num. 28:6.’

[“Although that one law of the offerings had always been prescribed by God from the beginning, it could not, however, be observed so far in the wandering camps of the Israelites, nor so greatly required due to those exigencies, as it shows.”]

The [Romanist] Douay divines, on the place, give this observation, ‘In the desert they could not observe the ceremonies of the Law, but coming to rest, they were bound to keep all one set form of holy rites.’

The conclusion from this text is that God is pleased to dispense with his people in his own prescribed worship, until, if He has appointed, determined, or appropriated a certain form, time and place, they have opportunity to serve Him at that time, in that place, and after that form.”

William Rathband

A Brief Narration of Some Church Courses Held in Opinion & Practice in the Churches Lately Erected in New England: Collected out of Sundry of their own Printed Papers… (London, 1644), ch. 9, p. 35 Rathband was an English puritan and Westminster divine.

“[An objectionable belief and practice of Separatists and New England congregationalist churches:] 7. That a man that is sui juris [legally his own] may not lawfully stand member of such a church in which he cannot observe and enjoy all God’s ordinances, nor where any corruption in God’s worship or other sin is suffered unreformed, but if he be joined to it, he must separate from it, else he is defiled therewith. Answer to the 32 Questions, pp. 32-33; John Robinson, Justification, pp. 15-16, 197, 200-1; Johns., Plea, p. 245; Barrow, Discovery of the False Church, pp. 26, 29, 34, 38.”

George Gillespie

Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty (London, 1645), A Paraenetic

“It shall be no grief of heart to you afterward that you have pleased others as well as yourselves, and have stretched your principles for an accommodation in Church government as well as in worship, and that for the Church’s peace and edification; and that the ears of our common enemies may tingle (Acts 9:31) when it shall be said, ‘The Churches of Christ… have rest, and are edified, and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the joy of the Holy Ghost are multiplied.’”

[Accommodation often meant leaving out aspects of worship which others could not agree on and practice with. Doing a less amount of good may be for the greater good, rather than doing a greater good, with division in the Church for an overall lesser good.]

Richard Baxter

A Christian Directory... (London: White, 1673), pt. 3, ch. 2, sect. 24, direction 13, pp. 685-86

“Remember that whatever duty you seem obliged to perform, the obligation still supposes that it is not naturally impossible to you, and therefore you are bound to do it as well as you can. And when other men’s force or your natural disability hinders you from doing it as you would, you are not therefore disobliged from doing it at all: but the total omission is worse than the defective performance of it, as the defective performance is worse than doing it more perfectly.ª And in such a case the defects which are utterly involuntary are none of yours imputatively at all, but his that hinders you (unless as some other sin might cause that).

ª See Mr. [Joseph] Truman’s book of Natural and Moral Impotency.

As if I were in a country where I could have liberty to read and pray, but not to preach, or to preach only once a month and no more: It is my duty to do so much as I can do, as being much better than nothing, and not to forbear all because I cannot do all.

Objection: But you must forbear no part of your duty.

Answer: True, but nothing is my duty which is naturally impossible for me to do. Either I can do it, or I cannot: If I can, I must (supposing it a duty in all other respects); but if I cannot, I am not bound to it.

…
Direction 14. Remember that no material duty is formally a duty at all times: that which is a duty in its season is no duty out of season. Affirmative precepts bind not to all times (except only to habits [inward dispositions] or the secret intention of our ultimate end, so far as is sufficient to animate and actuate the means while we are waking and have the use of reason..

Praying and preaching, that are very great duties, may be so unseasonably performed as to be sins: If forbearing a prayer or sermon or sacrament one day or month be rationally like to procure your help or liberty to do it afterward, when that once or few times doing it were like to hinder you from doing it anymore, it would be your duty then to forbear it for that time (unless in some extraordinary case): For even for the life of an ox or an ass, and for mercy to men’s bodies, the rest and holy work of a Sabbath might be interrupted: much more for the souls of many.

Again I warn you, as you must not pretend the interest of the end against a peremptory absolute command of God, so must you not easily conclude a command to be absolute and peremptory to that which certainly contradicts the end: nor easily take that for a duty which certainly is no means to that good which is the end of duty or which is against it. Though yet no seeming aptitude as a means must make that seem a duty which the prohibition of God has made a sin.”

Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen (RBO, 2024), pp. 68-69

“If rulers should command preaching, prayer, etc. to exclude the singing of psalms, that is their sin and not the people’s, who must not (like peevish children at meat) refuse all because they cannot have what they would.”

Thomas Long

The Character of a Separatist, or Sensuality the Ground of
Separation (London: Kettilby, 1677), Preface concerning the Ceremonies of the Church. Long was a conformist.

“For if we should suppose that the rites and ceremonies were as expressly set down in the Gospel to be used or forborne in the public worship of God, as the rites and circumstances concerning sacrifices were in the ceremonial law: yet as the sacrifices themselves, much more the modes of preparing and offering them, might be used or omitted for the performance of moral duties, so doubtless, if things of an external, ceremonial nature had been commanded or forbidden in express terms, they might yet be observed or omitted as the substantial service of God and obedience to his greater commands, for charity and peace, might be best performed.”

Peter van Mastricht

Theoretical-Practical Theology (RHB), bk. 8, ch. 2, sect. 25

“Even after Joseph had died, they observed circumcision (as seems must be gathered from Ex. 4:25), and were also intent upon prayers (Ex. 2:23); they certainly desired sacrifices, but did not sacrifice, being deterred by fear of the Egyptians (Ex. 8:26), yet at the same time when about to flee they sacrificed the Passover in Egypt (Ex. 12). Besides those points, hardly anything is mentioned about their divine worship.”

Church of Scotland

p. 16

“There are three doctrinal mistakes and errors which occasion your division: (1) You think because a thing is a duty, it is to be done at all seasons, and you consider not that a thing may be good on the matter which yet is not to be done at all times.”

p. 19

“Further, if the Church’s need require, She may not only without the magistrate’s call meet, but sit when prohibited; but this should not be without great necessity, nor should it be when the Church is likely to have greater prejudice by it than advantage.

For in reference to affirmative precepts, Christian prudence should ponder and choose the season and circumstances which conduce most for the glory of God and good of the Church. Imprudent rashness and indiscretion, though under the name of zeal in unseasonably doing what is duty on the matter, may do and has done much hurt to the Church.”

1700’s

John Howe

“It is not enough to justify such a choice and practice, that it be in itself or simply best, but that it be best in present circumstances and all things considered that ought to be considered in the present juncture….

The most sacred, external act of duty becomes a sin when it excludes that which is more a duty at that time… How long was sacramental obsignation [by circumcision and the Passover, Josh. 5:1-12] in the wilderness omitted! How much more may attending upon such an institution in what some may think a more eligible manner, if there be a reason that outweighs, when not the substance of the ordinance is wanting, but what is counted (perhaps by you) a fitter modus [mode, or way]?”

2000’s

Travis Fentiman

“Editor’s Extended Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), pp. 155-56

“As to [John Brown of Wamphray’s charge of the partially conforming Scottish ministers] being robbed of the key of discipline, Wamphray, exaggerating, means partially so, so far as the presbyteries were restricted in certain ways by the bishops, and that externally, whereas much of the spiritual discipline of Christ could still be fulfilled through the pastors’ ministries (as our [English puritan] authors below will profoundly show) and presbyteries. All Church order and discipline, be reminded, as to being performed in specific circumstances, is a matter of decency, order and edification, and is limited thereto (1 Cor. 14:26, 40).¹

¹ See ‘How All Church Governing May be Practically Done unto Edification’ and ‘On How Church Discipline is Limited to Edification in its Time & Place, etc.’ at ‘On the Ordinances, Order & Policy of the Church’ (RBO)

In a passage the puritans often commented on to our purpose, Dt. 12:8–11, God’s people were to put off their enjoined, stated worship ordinances while they were in the wilderness (in that broken and declining Church-state) till they came “to the rest and to the inheritance,” when God would give “you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety. Then… shall ye bring all that I command you, your burnt offering, and your sacrifices…” One key factor, the passage says, for legitimately omitting whole swaths of public discipline and worship is ‘that ye dwell in safety.’…
…

Heb. 3:2 says, in a comparison with Christ, “Moses was faithful in all his house.” Yet Moses and the Israelites in Ex. 8:25–26 (in that broken and declining Church-state) were not sacrificing to God in Egypt so as not to scandalize the Egyptians and for their physical safety, for “will they not stone us?” Thus Moses (the prophetic mouthpiece here before Pharoah) reasoned regarding sacrificing animals before their enemies: “It is not meet so to do.” Yet God heard the Israelites’ prayers and accepted their moral obedience unto Him (Ex. 1:21; 2:24; 3:7; 4:31; 6:5; 9:20; 14:13, 31), which they did not transgress even when in danger of their lives (Ex. 1:17), in contrast to omitting public worship ordinances.”

Some Impure Worship may be (and even must be) Lawfully, Personally Performed in Some Circumstances for the Inherent Good in it & for Higher, Good Reasons

Order of Contents

Intro
Bible Verses 7+
Westminster
Articles 3
Quotes 20+

Intro

That some impurities of worship may be lawfully, personally performed may be easily seen in asking whether a minister might ever read from the pulpit as God’s Word the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, etc. all of which have bad translations, mistranslations and wrong readings in them. Further, as hearing the Word to receive instruction in the Christian faith is an act of worship,¹ is it wrong to ever hear the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, etc. read in Church, that is, to believingly receive certain readings as the Word of God which are not the Word of God?

¹ WCF 21.5 “The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear;[r]… and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence;[t]… are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God:[w]

[r] Acts 15:21. Rev. 1:3
[t] James 1:22. Acts 10:33. Matt. 13:19. Heb. 4:2. Isa. 66:2
[w] Matt. 28:19. 1 Cor. 11:23-29. Acts 2:42“

One might respond:

“But (1) we do not receive the reading of these Bible versions as the Word of God itself, perfect and entire, but conditionally (Acts 17:11; 1 Thess. 5:21), so far as it is the Word of God, recognizing it has been fallibly translated; and (2) the translation we read from is the best we have.

If this impure worship is not acceptable, then we would have to not worship at all; and it is better to worship approximately, though defectively, yet in real participation (though in a certain degree) with God’s ordinance, than not at all.”

Now you are gaining understanding.

What if the material for worship is not the best available? What if a church is singing from a psalter which is not ideal, or even poor? Do you join in? If you sang from a better psalter at the same time, you would disturb and scandalize the church, so you don’t. In singing, rather than not singing praise at all, one is fulfilling what is good in God’s ordained worship, in the constraints of the circumstances, though better is available, without approving the impurities as such.

You would change these impurities if you could, which is very different from a person who would not change them if they could. Yet constraints in these matters are not only in minute circumstances, but sometimes are often at a meta-level in denominations (or even in trans-denominational or cultural considerations, and that before a watching world).

There may be reasons why the impure worship is more useful unto the greater good than something more pure. The apostles sometimes quoted Scripture from material equivalent or close to the very impure Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (worse than most Bible translations today), when some of the apostles could have quoted directly, and more accurately, exclusively from the Hebrew. But the Septuagint was common, familiar to and understood amongst the people. It is likely Christ and the apostles used the very impure Aramaic Targums (worse than most Bible versions today) and the Septuagint in worship in the synagogues and early churches.

It ought to be considered that the ill effects of doing what one believes is right may outweigh the good that comes from the action itself, and prevents the capacity for much further good, bringing about a lesser good than an alternative action. Such an alternative might be performing a lesser good in the circumstances for the greater good, including for the good order and peace of the Church.

This is not to say there are no limits on what one may personally perform, especially directly to God: the good order and peace of the Church are of secondary ethical weight. Be reminded of the section above: “One May & Ought to Separate or Abstain from Sinful Acts of Impure Worship” and that ‘A Lesser Evil may Not be Done to Avoid a Greater Evil’. Some things ought never to be done; some things must be done in particular circumstances, and one ought to care more about scandalizing God than men.

How is one to discern whether an act of worship with impurities in it may be personally perfomed, or whether it is so corrupt and against the Law of God that one ought not to do it at all, whatever passive scandal may arise? While there are many factors to take into account (many of which are elucidated below), Richard Baxter elucidates a helpful principle, in approving of giving worship:

“mixed with sin in matter and manner, so it be not sin that is by its evil predominant against the good of the duty, to make the work rejected of God (like poison in our food, which makes the hurt greater than the good)…” Catholic Communion (1684), section 2, pp. 10

Baxter gives another similar analogy. If one cannot eat the best food provided of God before Him, will one turn away diminished, yet nourishing food because one cannot have the best (though they have a right, maybe a divine-right, to the best)?

“This is no better than if you would tell all men they should die rather than eat brown bread, if force take all other [food] from them, because it is unjustly done and they had possession of better.” Ibid., section 5, p. 34

In another place Baxter gives more specific instruction about this:

“§4. So if a pastor call the assembly at an inconvenient hour, or to an inconvenient place, though it be his sin to do so, yet is it their duty to obey. If in the manner of prayer he (tolerably) miscarry, they may not therefore refuse to join with him. If of two translations of Scripture, or two versions of the Psalms, he use the worser (so it be tolerable), they must obey.

§5. Yet if the miscarriage be so great in the ordering even of these circumstances, or in the manner of duties, as shall overthrow the duty itself and be inconsistent with the ends, or bring greater evils upon the Church than our refusing to obey the pastors (in those cases) can do, then… we are not bound to follow him in such a case: but otherwise we are.” Five Disputations on Church Government & Worship (1659), ch. 12, ‘It may be very sinful to command some ceremonies, when yet it may be the subjects’ duty to use them when they are commanded’, p. 461

In reforming Christ’s Church to the Word, there is much that cannot be reformed right away¹ (or might never be reformed in this life, given the sinful nature of man and the higher good).

¹ It was the Brownists, a radical movement of separatists, that argued for the necessity of immediate reformation, contra the presbyterian leader Thomas Cartwright and many others in late-1500’s England.

Hence the reformers at the Reformation, and puritans after that, have a wealth of material on these issues. RBO also has a number of further links relating to this topic. For a few, see:

‘Upholding Impure Standards of Civil Law’ at ‘On Voting’
‘An Extended Introduction’ at ‘On the Ethics of Material Cooperation with, & Associations with Evil’
‘On Reforming Church Ordinances’ at ‘On the Ordinances, Order & Policy of the Church’

For more links relating to the topic, see under Related Pages at the bottom of this webpage.

James 1:19

“Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak…”

Prov. 14:6

“A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth.”

Bible Verses

Old Testament 6

Lev. 14:21-22 “And if he be poor, and cannot get so much; then he shall take one lamb [instead of three] for a trespass offering to be waved, to make an atonement for him, and one tenth deal of fine flour [instead of three] mingled with oil for a meat offering, and a log of oil; and two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, such as he is able to get;”

Num. 9:6-11

“And there were certain men, who were defiled by the dead body of a man, that they could not keep the passover on that day: and they came before Moses and before Aaron on that day: And those men said unto him, ‘We are defiled by the dead body of a man: wherefore are we kept back, that we may not offer an offering of the Lord in his appointed season among the children of Israel?’ And Moses said unto them, ‘Stand still, and I will hear what the Lord will command concerning you.’

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, ‘Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto the Lord. The fourteenth day of the second month at even they shall keep it, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.'”

Dt. 21:15-16 “If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:”

[These verses regulate polygamy, which the reformed understood to be always a sin, yet civilly tolerated of God for the hardness of the people’s hearts, the temptations of the culture and for the greater good of the community, for the time, till it could be further reformed with greater light when Jesus came.]

Dt. 24:1 “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”

[Civil magistrates in Israel, by the command of God, were to uphold and enforce no fault divorce, though this was sinful and against the Lord’s precept of marriage from the beginning, due to the greater good of the health of the society, unto its later reformation (by Jesus), for the hardness of the people’s hearts. See Mt. 19:4-9.]

1 Sam. 2:12-17

Wherefore the sin of the young men was very great before the Lord: for men abhorred the offering of the Lord.”

2 Chron. 30:15:17-20

For a multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim, and Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written.

But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, ‘The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.’ And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.”

Eccl. 7:16 “Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?”

New Testament 3

Mk. 9:21-25 “And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, ‘Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.'”

Acts 16:3 “Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters:”

[See below on Acts 18:21.]

Acts 18:21 “I [Paul] must by all means keep this feast [Passover] that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.”

[The Mosaic rites, while possible to be morally performed by Jewish Christians while the Temple stood, yet were in their nature deficient from Gospel liberty (Rom. 14:4, 14, 20) and were impure in that regard (Gal. 4:3, 10-11; Col. 2:20-21), in contrast to the fuller revelation and way of worship that had come (Gal. 3:24; Col. 2:14, 16-17). Yet Paul performed them, when better was present and available, due to some degree of necessity: “I must by all means keep this feast”. He, of course, as a minister, was fulfilling the good in this deficient worship to God for higher reasons, despite the deficiencies (contrary to Gospel worship) in the material worship or rite itself.

In Acts 16:3 above, about Paul circumcizing Timothy due to the Jews, the necessity for this material action (albeit understood religiously and falsely by others) was for the sake of not unduly scandalizing others, even unbelievers, for the sake of the promotion of the Gospel. Note that Gal. 5:1 calls circumcision “a yoke of bondage” when it is imposed of necessity, and yet Paul was willing to occasionally submit to it for the higher good when he would not submit to it out of principle or always (Gal. 2:5).]

Acts 21:26-27 “Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple…”

[See above on Acts 18:21.]

Acts 28:11 “And after three months we departed in a ship of Alexandria, which had wintered in the isle, whose sign was [of the pagan gods] Castor and Pollux.”

Heb. 10:22 “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”

Westminster

Larger Catechism

“Q. 172. May one who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord’s supper?

Directory for Public Worship

Of the Assembling of the Congregation, and their Behaviour in the Publick Worship of God.

“…the minister… is to begin with prayer:

‘In all reverence and humility acknowledging the incomprehensible greatness and majesty of the Lord, (in whose presence they do then in a special manner appear) and their own vileness and unworthiness to approach so near Him, with their utter inability of themselves to so great a work; and humbly beseeching Him for pardon, assistance, and acceptance, in the whole service then to be performed; and for a blessing on that particular portion of his word then to be read: And all in the name and mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ.'”

Of Public Prayer before the Sermon

“…the minister who is to preach is to… to call upon the Lord to this effect:

‘To acknowledge our great sinfulness, First, by reason of original sin, which… doth defile our best actions…

Of the Celebration of the Communion, or Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper

“Let the prayer, thanksgiving, or blessing of the bread and wine, be to this effect:

‘With humble and hearty acknowledgment of the greatness of our misery, from which neither man nor angel was able to deliver us, and of our great unworthiness of the least of all God’s mercies; to give thanks to God for all his benefits…

and for this sacrament in particular, by which Christ, and all his benefits, are applied and sealed up unto us, which, notwithstanding the denial of them unto others, are in great mercy continued unto us, after so much and long abuse of them all…'”

Articles

1500’s

Beza, Theodore – pp. 21-22 & 24 (1538) of The Life of John Calvin… trans. Henry Beveridge (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1909)

John Sprint: “In Geneva about wafer-bread in the Lord’s Supper: This Church in the reformation thereof used common bread in the Lord’s Supper, and had abolished the use of the wafer-cake, as also their fonts to be baptized in, and all their holy days except the Lord’s day: Now it fell out that the Church of Bern assembling a synod required a restoring of these things unto the Churches of Geneva, Calvin, Coraldus and Farell refusing to consent unto them, or to administer the sacrament in such manner, they were banished thereupon from the city of Geneva, and within three days after their refusal, were deprived of the use of their ministry in that place, the great part commanding over the better.

Now in their absence sundry godly persons were so offended, with this change from common bread to the wafer-cake, as that they thought best for them to abstain from the Lord’s Supper, and to separate from their ministry, rather than use the same with the said wafer-bread: Whereupon Calvin… seriously admonished them that they would not raise contention about this indifferent matter, which is set down in his Epistle 17, fol. 37-40, so (says Beza) the use of the wafer-bread took place and was established; about the which, Calvin after he was restored to his ministry again… did not think it meet to contend, yet not dissembling his mind what otherwise he did mean to approve.” Cassander Anglicanus (1618), p. 159

1600’s

Baxter, Richard – section 5, ‘A Comparison of the Use of a Faulty Translation of the Scripture, & a Faulty Liturgy’ in Catholic Communion Doubly Defended by Dr. Owen’s Vindicator & Richard Baxter… (London: Parkhurst, 1684), pp. 33-35

Baxter (†1691) here demonstrates, through an extended parable of real events in the puritan era, that it may be moral and for the greater good to tolerate receding to a lesser state of past reformation for a time and in the circumstances while the previous and a greater reformation cannot be sustained or made without greater harm than good.

This article has been typed out and cleaned up, and is easier to read above. Read it there.

2000’s

Fentiman, Travis – 2. “Principled Partial Conformity in Worship” in “Editor’s Extended Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), pp. 21-93

“Things less than fully good, or impure, not inherently wrong, may in some circumstances, especially according to the degree of necessity, be personally, materially done, even in worship, public worship and Church government (though they occasion passive scandal in some), for the good in the things
themselves and for attaining higher and weightier goods (in proportion to that degree), while seeking to avoid the greater hurt and scandal, without approving the impurities or what may be deficient in them.” – p. 48

Quotes

Order of

Vermigli
Geneva
Bullinger
Andreae & Beza
Perkins
Sprint
Ames
Dod
Aberdeen & Edinburgh Ministers
Gillespie
Burroughs
Jeanes
Presbyterians & Independents
Crofton
Nye
Baxter
Corbet
London Ministers
Mastricht
Owen
Howe
Tallents
Fentiman

1500’s

Peter Martyr Vermigli

Gorham, Gleanings of a few scattered ears during the period of the Reformation in England (London, 1857), Letter 53, ‘Martyr to Bishop [John] Hooper’, Nov. 4, 1550, pp. 189-90, 92, 94-96

“For although, as I said, I little approve it, yet I see that sometimes in these indifferent matters some things, although they be grievous and burdensome, are to be born so long as it is not permitted by law to deviate from them; lest, if we contend for them more bitterly than we ought, this may be a hindrance to the advancement of the Gospel, and those things which are in their nature indifferent may, by our vehement contention, be represented as ungodly.

Now these things, unless I am deceived, bring with them two most heavy inconveniences. For, if we should first suffer the Gospel both to be spread abroad and to take deep root, men would perhaps be better and more easily persuaded to remove these outward appurtenances. While any one is sick, and is by little and little amending, he takes it very ill that certain slight and trifling things, as well in food as in drink, should be removed from him. But the same person, having recovered his health, rejects those things of his own accord as disagreeable and of little use.

If England were first well and diligently instructed and confirmed in the most necessary heads of religion, she would not, in my opinion, at length take it in ill part that these things, however superfluous, should be removed. But at this time, since a change is being introduced in necessary points of religion, and that with so great difficulty, if we should also speak of those things as ungodly which are indifferent, the minds of almost all men would be so turned away from us, that they would no longer show themselves to be attentive and patient hearers of sound doctrine and necessary sermons…

Do not however gather from hence that I think a minister of the Gospel should never strive to assert the truth of the Scriptures and of doctrines. This I do not affirm: [those] who daily come forward, both in public and private disputations, in the most weighty controversies for religion. But this I say, that these things which are of less moment ought not to be a hindrance through our contention…

Further, if we proceed to oppose these indifferent things as destructive and ungodly, we condemn very many Churches that are not alien from the Gospel, and we too bitterly reprove innumerable Churches which are of old distinguished as most worthy of praise. I do not forget that the authority of Churches, whether present or past, ought not to be of such force, that by them the truth of God’s Word should be overborne: for that ought to remain unshaken and unmoved… But I contend that on account of things indifferent, this ought by no means to come to pass that churches should be condemned, or that we should speak unfavourably of them…”

“But we ought to tolerate things which are of this sort with the understanding that, when they appear less profitable, they be laid aside… for, in truth, I had rather that [they] were set aside: but, since that could not be done, I have resolved to bear it until better times be given”

“I now come to that which you yourself also acknowledge, that all human inventions are not at once to be condemned. For it was clearly a human invention that we communicate [in the Lord’s Supper] in the morning, rather than after dinner: and it was a human invention that the prices of things that were sold in the primitive Church were laid at the apostles’ feet…

I pass over that they who defend these things will be able to put forward some honest and just meaning not alien from the Scripture… But, if by this there is given occasion of error to the weak, let them be advised to regard these things as indifferent; let them be taught by sermons, not to judge the worship of God as placed in these things…

Neither do I think that tyranny is instantly brought in if any indifferent thing be appointed to be done in the Church and be constantly performed by many. At this day we so administer the Eucharist in the morning time, that after dinner we will not have the communion in the sacred assembly [In the New Testament the Eucharist was always administered in the evening]. But who will say, that this, which we all do with the like will and consent is tyrannical? To myself truly, as I have now often mentioned, it would be more agreeable that we should only do what Christ did and delivered to his apostles. But, if any indifferent things have been added, I would not now sharply strive on this account; especially when we see that they by whom the light of the Gospel has been greatly promoted in England, and can be yet more promoted, oppose themselves to us.

I acknowledge indeed with you that ‘whatsoever is not of faith is sin.’ (Rom. 14:23). But what the apostle wrote to Titus seems, above all things, to promote our having a quiet conscience in our actions: ‘Unto the pure all things are pure;” and to Timothy, “Every creature of God is good.” But it is not necessarily required that we should show express mention in holy Scripture of the particular things which we use: this is enough to know by faith, on the whole— that indifferent things cannot defile those who live with a pure and sincere mind and conscience…

but I yet thought that the use of these differences was not in itself or its own nature ungodly or of fatal consequence, provided other things which are prescribed to us by the Word of God remain sound.”

Ministers of Geneva

Letters of John Calvin ed. Jules Bonnet tr. Marcus Gilchrist (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication), vol. 3, Letter 346, ‘To the Brethren of Wezel’ (1554), pp. 30-31. Calvin is speaking to reformed refugees attending Lutheran churches. See the whole letter in general.

We must be on our guard not to scandalize those who are already subject to such infirmities, which we should certainly do by rejecting them from too frivolous motives.

And then it would be for us matter of deep regret, if the French church which might be erected there should be broken up, because we would not accommodate ourselves to some ceremonies that do not affect the substance of the faith. For as we have said, it is perfectly lawful for the children of God to submit to many things of which they do not approve.

Now the main point of consideration is, how far such liberty should extend. Upon this head let us lay it down as a settled point, that we ought to make mutual concessions in all ceremonies, that do not involve any prejudice to the confession of our faith, and for this end that the unity of the church be not destroyed by our excessive rigour or moroseness. No doubt you ought by all honest means to preserve the greatest sobriety possible.

For which purpose it will be proper modestly to require of those who have the power, not to constrain you in every thing and on every occasion, to their peculiar modes. But we are far from advising you to abandon the advantage of having a christian church in that place, from the mere consideration of difference in ceremonies. The important consideration is, that you do not yield to a faulty pliancy in the confession of your faith, and that you make no compromise as to doctrine. No doubt it is your duty to shun contentions, and not only to maintain a modest attitude…”

Institutes, tr. Beveridge (1564; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), bk. 4

ch. 10, section 22, pp. 214-16

“The reservation which immediately follows [in Acts 15:20] is not a new law enacted by the apostles, but a divine and eternal command of God against the violation of charity, which does not detract one iota from that liberty. It only reminds the [Christian] gentiles how they are to accommodate themselves to their brother [Jewish Christians or Jews], and not to abuse their liberty for an occasion of offence…

As in the case where faithful pastors, presiding over churches not yet well constituted, should intimate to their flocks not to eat flesh on Friday until the weak among whom they live become strong, or to work on a holiday, or any other similar things, although, when superstition is laid aside, these matters are in themselves indifferent, still, where offence is given to the brethren, they cannot be done without sin; so there are times when believers cannot set this example before weak brethren without most grievously wounding their consciences. Who but a slanderer would say that a new law is enacted by those who, it is evident, only guard against scandals which their Master has distinctly forbidden?”

ch. 12, section 11, p. 257

“Another special requisite to moderation of discipline is, as Augustine discourses against the Donatists, that private individuals must not, when they see vices less carefully corrected by the council of elders, immediately separate themselves from the Church; nor must pastors themselves, when unable to reform all things which need correction to the extent which they could wish, cast up their ministry, or by unwonted severity throw the whole Church into confusion. What Augustine says is perfectly true:

“Whoever corrects what he can, by rebuking it, or without violating the bond of peace, excludes what he cannot correct, or justly condemns while he patiently tolerates what he is unable to exclude without violating the bond of peace, is free and exempted from the curse.” (Augustine, Contra Parmenianum, bk. 2, ch. 4 [in PL 43:55-56])

He elsewhere gives the reason:

“Every pious reason and mode of ecclesiastical discipline ought always to have regard to the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. This the apostle commands us to keep by bearing mutually with each other. If it is not kept, the medicine of discipline begins to be not only superfluous, but even pernicious, and therefore ceases to be medicine.” (Ibid., bk. 3, ch. 1)

“He who diligently considers these things, neither in the preservation of unity neglects strictness of discipline, nor by intemperate correction bursts the bond of society.” (Ibid., ch. 2)

…he would have that prudence used which our Lord also requires, ‘lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.’ (Mt. 13:29) Hence he infers from Cyprian, “Let a man then mercifully correct what he can; what he cannot correct, let him bear patiently, and in love bewail and lament.'”

The Necessity of Reforming the Church, Presented to the Imperial Diet at Spires, A.D. 1544, in the name of all who want Christ to Reign (1544) in Tracts & Letters relating to the Reformation, tr. & ed. Henry Beveridge, 7 vols. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844), 1.186

“But here again it is objected, that all the corruptions of the Church are not to be corrected by such harsh remedies — that they are not to be cut in to the quick — that not even is medicine to be applied to all, but some are to be treated gently, and others submitted to, if they cannot without difficulty be removed.

I answer that we are not so unacquainted with ordinary life as not to know that the Church always has been, and always will be, liable to some defects which the pious are indeed bound to disapprove, but which are to be born rather than be made a cause of fierce contention.”

Henry Bullinger

The Zurich Letters… ed. Hastings Robinson for the Parker Society, 2nd ed. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1846), Letter 104, Bullinger to L. Humphrey & T. Sampson (1566), pp. 222-23

“9. Whether any constitutions may be tolerated in the church which in their nature indeed are not impious, but do not, nevertheless, tend to edification?

I answer that if those constitutions which the queen’s majesty wishes to impose upon you are free from any impiety, they are rather to be tolerated than that the churches should be deserted. For if the edifying of the church is the chief thing to be regarded in this matter, we shall do the church a greater injury by deserting it than by wearing the habits [garments]. And where there is no impiety, and the conscience is not wounded, it is proper to submit, even if some degree of bondage be imposed.

In the meantime, however, it might be demanded on the other hand, whether the imposition of the habits, as far as it tends to decency and order, may justly come under the denomination of bondage?
…

11, 12. The last two questions come more closely to the point. Whether it is more expedient thus to obey the church, or on account of disobedience to be cast out of the ministry? And, whether good pastors may lawfully be removed from the ministry on account of their non-compliance with such ceremonies?

I answer, if in these ceremonies there is no superstition, no impiety, but yet they are imposed upon godly pastors, who would rather that they should not be imposed upon them, I will certainly allow, and that most fully, that a burden and bondage is imposed upon them; but I will not allow, and this for most just reasons, that their station or ministry is on that account to be deserted and place given to wolves, as was before observed, or to ministers less qualified than themselves: especially, since there remains the liberty of preaching, and care may be taken that no greater bondage shall be imposed; with many other things of this kind, etc.”

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’ Andreae (1528–1590) was a leading Lutheran theologian debating Theodore Beza.

pp. 472-75

Andreae:

“For even if images can be retained [in churches] without offense to God, in which are represented sacred matters and histories, and which are extant throughout holy Scripture, and call to mind for the illiterate the stories of the deeds…

Luther in fact, of pious memory, cleansed Churches in those locations by means of the Word of the Lord alone from the beginning, and through this one instrument of the Holy Spirit dragged away all idols from the hearts of his hearers… before he ever removed even the smallest ones from their eyes. For an idol in the world is nothing, as the apostle testifies, 1 Corinthians 8[:4], but instead they reside in the hearts of people…

Thus Luther for many years [after the Reformation] wore the monastic hood or habit [clothing]…

We experienced the same thing in the Dukedom of Wurttemberg, where in the first year after the light of the Gospel was introduced and lit, and Papal idolatry abrogated, images were removed throughout all the temples before the imagination of their worship was pulled away from the minds of men.

This is why it has come about that very many people were so offended by this unseasonable reformation undertaken with a two-edged sword… that neither listened to evangelical assemblies nor approached their sacraments any longer, but rather clung to their Papist idolatry till their final breath, despising the teaching of the Gospel and the true use of the sacraments. This was the fruit of the unseasonable reformation in which everything was destroyed with no regard given to the weak in faith…

But there is less danger when pure and genuine doctrine is heard, by which all people are called away from idolatry to the true worship of God in daily meetings, should they be retained, than if they should be abolished rashly and unthoughtfully. Because of this, we think that the magistrate of each place sins less, and takes counsel to the advantage of the salvation of souls far better, if they have endured them longer than if they have unseasonably abrogated them… If in fact they are matters of indifference [adiaphora], as is the consensus between us…

Beza:

This whole business can best be described as resting on two points, namely, the prudence of pastors and the consideration of circumstances… The custom was observed in certain places that images of this kind were retained for four years after reformation. But I do not want to fight with anyone about these things or reprove the deeds of other people; let us just be on guard against all opportunities for idolatry, as much as possible.”

p. 497

Andreae:

“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.”

1600’s

William Perkins

Cases of Conscience (d. 1602; Cambridge. 1606), bk. 3, ch. 2, pp. 480-85

“III Rule. Every man must measure himself by his own strength and do nothing beyond his ability. This rule is set down, though expressed in other terms, Rom. 12:3, ‘No man must presume to understand above that which is meet to understand, but ought to be wise according to sobriety as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.’ An example of the transgression of this rule we have in David’s three worthies who break into the host of the Philistines to fetch David the king water from the well of Bethleham, 2 Sam. 23:16, which act of theirs was a rash enterprise and such a one as David himself condemns in that chapter, because they went beyond their strength to encounter with a whole garrison of men, they being themselves but few, namely three in number.

IV Rule. We must distinguish between the necessary works of our callings that pertain to us and other works that are out of our callings and pertain not unto us: and we must do the other though we leave these undone. This rule is propounded in 1 Thess. 4:11, ‘Meddle with your own business.’ That is, do the necessary works of your callings that belong to you though you leave the other for the time undone. The contrary to it is to live or to behave himself inordinately, 2 Thess. 3:7. And we have an example of the transgression hereof in Peter, Jn. 21:21, whom when Christ had commanded to follow Him, he would needs ask Him what John should do; Christ gives him this answer: ‘What is that to thee?’ In which words He teaches that not only Peter, but also every man must attend upon the necessary and proper works of his own vocation and not deal with other men’s business, which, because Peter did, he is by that answer secretly reproved and justly condemned of curiosity in that behalf.
…

VIII Rule. We must give place to the sway of the times wherein we live so far forth as may stand with keeping faith and a good conscience. We may not be temporizers and change our religion with the times, but yet we may and must give place to times as we give place to the stream, so that it be done with keeping of true religion and good conscience. This rule was practiced by Paul, who, living among the heathen (Acts 19:10), was constrained to speak as they; and therefore he says that he departed in a ship to Rome whose badge was [of the heathen gods] Castor and Pollux. (Acts 28:11)

Again, he was three years in Ephesus, an idolatrous place, where the great goddess Diana was worshipped; yet in all that time he contained himself and spake nothing in particular against Diana, but only in general against false gods, saying that ‘they be no gods that are made with hands,’ [ch. 19] v. 26. Nay, Alexander could not charge him with this, that he had in all that while blasphemed their goddess Diana. Paul therefore was feign to yield to the sway of those times that so he might do some good in Ephesus by his ministry. Whereas, if he had spoken against Diana directly, it had not been possible for him to have done that good by preaching which otherwise he did.

Again, in the primitive Church, the apostles for the weakness of the Jews, did yield to the use of circumcision [Acts 16:1-5] and permitted abstinence from blood and that which was strangled, etc. so far forth as it stood with pure religion and good conscience: and if they had not so done they should not have won the Jews to the faith as they did.

IX Rule. If we cannot do the good things that we desire in that exquisite manner that we would, we must content ourselves with the mean; and in things which are good, and to be done, it is the safest course to satisfy ourselves in doing the less, least in venturing to do the more, which cannot be, we grow to the extremity, and so fail or offend in our action. It is a good and wise counsel of the Preacher to this purpose, Eccl. 7:16, ‘Be not just overmuch:’ and his meaning may be this; Be not too strict or curious in effecting that which thou intendest, exactly, when thou canst not; but rest contented in this, that thou hast done thine endeavor; and take to the less when the greater cannot be effected.

In some countries Popish images erected in Churches do stand undefaced. The good desire of the people is that they may be pulled down, but this cannot be brought to pass. What then are they to do in this case? They must not grow to extremity and pull them down themselves, but they must entreat the lawful magistrate for their removal and pray to God that He may be moved so to do; and in the meantime, rest content with that [which] they have done and wait the magistrates’ pleasure.

In the judicial law, by reason of the hardness of the Jews’ hearts, sundry sins could not utterly be taken away, as divorcements, polygamy, usury. Hereupon the Lord makes a law of toleration, without approbation, and did not remove them quite away, for that was not possible in regard of man for the time; but [He] restrained the evil that could not be quite off and abolished otherwise. And herein appeared the great wisdom of God in making a law not to allow of, nor yet utterly to take away, but to moderate the practice of these sins in the Jews, for the hardness of their hearts.

In like manner, in this our land there is the practice of usury, a sin that cannot, nor ever shall be rooted out utterly. For this cause the States of this [English] kingdom have out of their wisdom provided a Law for the toleration thereof after a sort, and that upon special cause. For if the magistrate should have enacted a Law utterly to abolish it, it would before this (in likelihood) have grown to great extremity. The same was the practice of the apostles in their times, who yielded to bear with the use of circumcision for a time when they could not otherwise utterly cut it off. [Acts 16:1-5]”

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’, pp. 88, 90

“[In the Early and Medieval Churches, they taught] To pray towards the East, and that for this cause and signification, because we seek to Paradise, our old and ancient country, and [this] is commended and apostolical, [according to] Basil, Of the Holy Spirit, ch. 27.
…

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.”

[If one lived in this context, where the only church building stood so that persons in the public prayer would pray to the east, and the minister taught, “We pray to the East for this or that spiritual reason,” adding to God’s Word, would you attend public worship and pray according to the public order, holding the direction one is praying to be indifferent (despite the minister’s dictate), though everyone else be superstitious? Does the necessity of the duty override the appearance of scandal, or even scandal taken?]

‘Reformed Practices’

p. 108

“Their old churches idolatrously abused, standing East and West, with the chancel, and in form of a cross, [are] retained everywhere [by the reformed and Lutherans].”

pp. 119-20

“That the Word and sacraments are not administered rightly and exactly, secundum [in Latin], as altogether agreeing with the prescript of the Lord, no not in all the world; yet albeit they be not administred according to that exact rule, and by reason of our frailty cannot be suddenly reformed, yet may they be so performed that they may be pleasing unto God and healthfull to the Church, yet so as the defect should be lamented and acknowledged; which point if it be not granted, there will be no pure or true Church in all the world; Zachary Ursinus, Catechism, pt. 2, to question 84, fol. 620.

That albeit many evil things do go along and be done, yet these things are done by such as hinder reformation, and by the disobedient; not by such as wish and sue for amendment: For ‘blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness,’ Mt. 5:6, (that is) which do desire good things to be done in the Church, which if they be not done it is not their fault: they may in that case retain a good conscience; Ursinus, ibid., fol. 618.”

pp. 121-22

“That there are many things which are not to be approved in the Church, which are not worthy of contention; Calvin, Epistle 51, fol. 100.

That there may and ought many things to be tolerated which yet are not rightly commanded; Beza, Epistle 12, fol. 98. By tolerating them also, we mean practicing; Beza, Epistle 8.

That many things must of us be tolerated which is not in our power to reform; Calvin, Epistle 148, fol. 254.

That albeit men must endeavor to purge the Church of corruptions which sprung up out of superstition, yet this exception must go along, that certain things although they be not to be approved, yet must be born with all; Calvin, Epistle 305, fol. 504, to John Knox.

That some rites and ceremonies, albeit not necessary are yet to be tolerated, or born withall for concord’s sake; Beza, Epistle 8, fol. 70.

That as the maners of doting parents, so the customs of our unadvised country must be endured: yea the servitude which is without impiety, and that in matters of lesser nature (in the Church) must be borne withall; Harmony of Confessions §11, fol. 860; Melancthon, Concil. Thelog., pt. 2, fol. 107; and that there is ever some kind of servitude of the Church, more mild somewhere, somewhere more hard: howbeit more or less, there is ever some; Melanchthon, ibid., fol. 92.

p. 160

“In the Low-countries [Netherlands], about breaking bread of [the] Lord’s Supper:

A certain person was accused to the general synod of the Low-countries, gathered at Middleburg, 1581, that he would not have the bread in [the] Lord’s Supper to be cut (as the manner is of those Churches), but would have it broken out into parts, out of the whole loaves, the which ceremony of breaking is doubtless the more agreeable to the institution of Christ who brake the bread, Mt. 26:26, and to the analogy it had to Christ’s passion, whose body was broken, 1 Cor. 11:24; howbeit, it was demanded of the synod what was to be done and practiced in this case?

It was answered by the synod that they must remain in the received custom of the Belgic Churches, and if any should do against the custom, they must be admonished to desist and leave of that their practice. In actis Syn. inferioris Germ. partic. interrogat. numb. 76. apud Schul. Anachrys. Hierar. l. 9.”

p. 162

“About receiving the Lord’s Supper with inconvenient ceremonies and persons in differing doctrine:

Peter Martyr, when he came into England first, and the opinion of the corporal presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper was in force, and when the ministers, albeit differing from him in judgment, yet did not refuse to admit him with open confession of [the] contrary judgment, he joined with them and received the Lord’s Supper, Non obstantibus illorum ceremonijs sibilicet ipsi molestis, ‘notwithstanding the ceremonies, though very much troubling him.’ This counsel did P. Martyr give to [Zachary] Ursinus and to other Christians in Germany; Ursinus, Exercitat., lib 2, fol. 840.”

pp. 163-65

“Because, where the doctrine itself is sound and pure, and the ceremonies used to a civil honesty and decency, the inconveniences are rather to be passed by in silence than that by occasion of them men should proceed to contentions and more grievous tumults; Calvin, Epistle 303, fol. 497.

Because, albeit these things be not to be approved, yet, sometimes these indifferent things, howsoever offensive and burdensome, are to be born withal, so far forth (quoad aliter non liceat) as conveniently we cannot do otherwise, lest if men contend about them more bitterly then they ought, it be both an hindrance to the progress of the Gospel, and the things which in their own nature are indifferent, be taught by our vehement contention to be plainly wicked; which two points do bring with them most grievous inconveniences; P. Martyr to [John] Hooper, Common Places, folio 1086 [p. 117].

And therefore these things which the pastors cannot change, they should rather bear withal, than by forsaking the Church for that cause they should give occasion for far greater and more dangerous mischiefs unto Satan, who seeks nothing else; Beza, Epistle 12, fol. 99.
…

Because we must give place unto the sway of the times wherein we live, so far forth as may stand with keeping faith and a good conscience, Acts 28:11; 19:10, 26; 15:28-29; Master [William] Perkins, Cases of Conscience, bk. 3, ch. 2, fol. 482-83.

Because if we cannot do the good that most we desire, in such exquisite manner as we would, we must content ourselves with the mean, and in things which are good and to be done, it is the safest course to satisfy ourselves in doing the less, lest in venturing to do the more, which cannot be, we grow to the extremity, and so fail or offend in our action, Eccl. 7:16; read the proofs: Perkins, Cases of Conscience, bk. 3, ch. 2, fol. 483-86.”

pp. 165-68

“Because it may be thought expedient that these things for a time be borne withal; for it may perhaps produce this effect, that these contentions may be avoided, by the which contentions there is great peril, lest greater and far more important benefits be hindered; and lest the minds of men be at the first beginning turned from the Gospel, as we see it come to pass; Martyr. ibid., fol. 1085 [p. 119].

Because, if the parity of doctrine and of faith do remain entire, the pastors may openly teach and press unto their flocks such doctrine as may serve to take away offenses arising by the use of these ceremonies; Beza, Epist. 12, fol. 99.
…

Because if some things in their nature indifferent be imposed it is not meet too eagerly to contend about such matters; especially when as we see those magistrates by whom the light of the Gospel is much furthered in England, and by whose authority it may much more be furthered, to oppose themselves against us; Peter Martyr, ibid., fol. 1085 [p. 120], to Hooper.”

p. 172

“Because there is some burthensome servitude in every Church: in some more mild, in others more hard; and the sorrows of such servitude and burdens should be comforted by the brethren and not increased by their condemnation, so long as the foundation is retained; Melanchthon, Consil. pt. 2, fol. 92.”

pp. 173-74

“4. Zepperus, On the Sacraments, ch. 13, fol. 324-26, 328.

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.”

p. 188

“Calvin: In the English Liturgy as you [the English exiles at Frankfurt] do describe unto me, I spy out many tolerabiles ineptias, ‘tolerable unfit things:’ By which two words I express thus much, that there was not that purity which were to be wished, which errors could not immediately the first day be corrected (Cum nulla subesset manifesta impietas ferenda ad tempus fuisse). Seeing there was therein contained no manifest impiety, these things† should have been born withal for a time; Epistle 200, fol. 336.”

† [Such as responsive readings, unison prayers, saying of a creed, etc. See the modified Frankfurt Liturgy, which John Knox and others did not stick around for, but went to Geneva.]

p. 196

“Zanchi: In things indifferent something is to be yielded to the weaker, and that for a time; namely, until they be taught the truth. For if after that the truth is sufficiently and clearly laide abroad unto them so as being convicted they have nothing more what they may object and yet will notwithstanding stick in doubt; sure their infirmity is not to be nourished by their dissembling with them or winking at them. For this is rather strong obstinacy then weakness; Of Redemption, ch. 17, fol. 493.

Beza in a case of [the threat of] deprivation [of one’s office as minister] advises to conform; yet before they conform he thus counsels them: That both the pastor and the flock sin not against their conscience (presupposing the purity of doctrine to be left entire:) We persuade the pastors that after they have freed their conscience, both before the King’s Majesty and the bishops, by a modest (as it becomes Christians to be free from all tumult and sedition) and yet weighty protestation (according as the greatness of the case requires:) they then do openly press unto their flocks those things which do tend to take away the offence arising from conformity, and do withal discreetly and peaceably give diligent endeavor for the amendment of these abuses, as the Lord shall offer occasion (and so to conform); Epistle 12, fol. 99.”

William Ames

A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship… (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1633), ch. 1, section 17, p. 82

“As if occasional accommodation were all one with imposition, or voluntary joining in [an] action for the good that is in it were always a certain argument of holding that opinion which others do affix unto it.”

John Dod

Ten Sermons, Tending Chiefly to the Fitting of Men for the Worthy Receiving of the Lord’s Supper (1634), The Fourth Sermon of the Lord’s Supper, on 2 Chron. 30:18-20, p. 111

which being ended, Hezekiah, in fear of God’s displeasure and in commiseration of the people that stood in danger of God’s plagues and punishments, falls to prayer for them and is instant with the Lord in that behalf: He saw their great desire to be made partakers of it; the pains that they had taken to come unto Jerusalem for that very purpose; and perceived a strange hand of God inclining their hearts so far, and thereby was he encouraged to become an earnest suiter to God for them: And thus he prayed unto God for them…

p. 112

“Another argument there is taken from them, that ‘they sought the Lord, etc.’ Which seeking of theirs is set out by the manner of it, that they prepared their whole heart to seek Him: Not as if their hearts were so free from sin or so full of grace as they should have been, but that they were true and plain, and sincere: Not such as had no sin, for it is said, ‘they were not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary,’ but that did love no sin: Not such hearts as wanted no grace, or preparation for God’s ordinance: But such as were humbled for the want of grace and of that preparation that they should have made…”

p. 119

Now wherefoever there is such a ready inclination unto goodness, there will be a bringing forth of fruit; though not in all alike, yet every one will do somewhat: and God will acknowledge them for good ground, and honest-hearted Christians, that yield Him but a thirty-fold, as well as those that yield Him sixty-fold,or an hundred-fold: for a less measure of fruitfulness is an argument of truth, as well as a greater measure, and therefore shall be respected and rewarded.”

pp. 120-21

let us use the means whereby our hearts may be made pure and undefiled, namely the Word, sacrament and prayer…”

p. 121

“and make account that we shall not be dissappointed when we come thus affected unto Christ Jesus. And then He will enrich us, that before were poor, and clothe us that before were naked, and enlighten our eyes that before were altogether shut up in blindness and ignorance.”

p. 122

“for undoubtedly the Lord will not send them empty away; their labor shall not be lost, nor their hope be disappointed: but they shall certainly have good success according to their expectation:

I. Because they have done what they could for their part.

2. Hezekiah’s prayer stands in as good force yet still, as it did at that time when it was made…

…and therefore coming thus affected and prepared, they cannot miss of the promised blessing.”

pp. 122-23

(London, 1610), 4th Sermon

pp. 125-28

“This makes for the confutation of their error:

1. That think they have no calling to come to the sacrament because they see more and greater faults in themselves than they can espy, or than, indeed, there are in many other Christians… They find so much hypocrisy, so much pride, so much vain-glory and self-love… that they… begin to fear that God will in no sort accept of them if they should come unto the table of his Son… and therefore [these things] should by no means keep them from the holy sacrament…

Further, [2.] those that by reason of their infirmities will forgoe that ordinance, do greatly dishonor God, and lay an hard imputation upon Him; as who should say that He were such an extreme and rigorous Judge as will accept of none but of those that have attained to a great measure of perfection.

Besides, [3.]… they have a calling to partake of the sacrament, as appears in this text… all such as prepared their whole hearts (that is, did their best endeavor with a true and sincere heart) to seek the Lord.”

p. 129

p. 136

George Gillespie

Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty (London, 1645), A Paraenetic

Jeremiah Burroughs

Gospel Worship... (London: 1647), Sermon 4, p. 59

“If anyone perform a duty of worship in that sincerity and strength that he is able to do it, though he be not prepared as he ought, yet it is better to do it than to neglect it.”

Henry Jeanes

The Want [Lack] of Church-Government [is] No Warrant for a Total Omission of the Lord’s Supper… (London, 1650) Jeanes (1611–1662) was a presbyterian minister in London.

p. 71

“But now if he shall contend that after we have used our utmost endeavor to erect an eldership, and cannot possibly prevail, that we are then by that which is merely the fault of others, disobliged from the receiving the Lord’s Supper:

…for this assertion Mr. [Francis] Fullwood cannot bring so much as any colorable argument.”

p. 62

“…the pollution and profanation of the Lord’s Supper [in this case]… is extrinsic, not in the sacrament itself, but only in the unworthy receiver. And again, we suppose that the minister has used all lawful likely means to prevent it. And therefore it is without his default.”

p. 20

“…the first administration of the Lord’s Supper by our Savior, which was a pattern of all after-administrations, and therefore most exact and perfect in point of essentials. It wanted [lacked] nothing essentially belonging unto the administration of the Lord’s Supper…

But now it was by Christ administred unto a Church which was not presbyterated (if we understand the term in regard of ruling elders). And therefore to have ruling elders in a church is not essential, but accidental unto the administration of the Lord’s Supper. And therefore the mere absence or want of them (especially when it is by the default of others only) is no sufficient bar against administration of the Lord’s Supper…

as because Christ gave the Lord’s Supper only unto men; therefore it follows that it is lawful to administer the Lord’s Supper unto a congregation made up only of men, which is a thing usual in ships at sea and amongst merchants trading in remote parts: even so because Christ gave the Lord’s Supper unto a Church destitute of ruling elders; therefore the administration of it unto a Church that now is destitute of ruling elders is lawful, as being agreeable unto the practice of Christ in the first administration thereof.”

p. 31

“Administration of the Lord’s Supper is a more important and necessary duty than exclusion [from it], etc. or any other part of the exercise of discipline; for it is more properly and immediately the worship of God than the exercise of discipline, as may be seen in the place before quoted out of Ames, Marrow of Theology, bk. 2, ch. 13, n. 17-18. God is more worshipped by the administration of the sacraments than by Church censures. The Sacraments are a principal worship of God: Church censures and the exercise of discipline less principal.

Now it is improbable that a less principal worship of God should be a necessary antecedent to a principal worship…

Now exclusion (and we may say the like of all other acts of discipline) is not before the Lord’s Supper in regard of the order, either of essential dependency, or of essential eminency and perfection. The Lord’s Supper has not an essential dependency upon exclusion, or any other acts of discipline: and it is in ratione cultus of more essential eminency and perfection, as being more immediatly and properly the worship of God. And therefore it is apparent that exclusion is not a necessary antecedent to it.

The omission therefore of exclusion by others without our default is no ground for us to omit that which is a more important and necessary duty, and withal is in our power to perform.”

pp. 32-35

“Discipline and all branches of it are compared to a spiritual rod, 1 Cor. 4:21. The Lord’s Supper is compared to spiritual food or bread; Now it is unlikely that a rod should be a necessary antecedent to food or bread, that is, that children be kept without bread until a rod be provided to whip the dogs and swine… So the commandment for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is more clear, express, and evident than that for the exercise of discipline.”

“Me thinks it is somewhat a strange kind of reasoning, because the rod of discipline is wanting [lacking], the children should be denied bread; yea, but you will say, dogs will eat the children’s bread: Why, will you therefore starve the children because dogs without your default may snatch the children’s portion? Shall the children be debarred (as I may say) their daily bread, because it will become accidentally poison unto dogs?…

As it is better for God’s sheep to feed upon pasture where some weeds grow rather than starve for want [lack] of food: So it is better for God’s shepherds to suffer some weeds to grow in the sheeps’ pastures if they cannot prevent it, than to starve their flocks; yea, and as it is better for the sheep to feed among goats rather than starve, so it is better the shepherds should suffer the goats to feed upon the sheeps’ pasture though it should poison them, than for the sheep to be kept from it;”

p. 61

“Now if a minister give the sacrament [of the Supper] unto known unworthy persons, that are not such juridically [by Church courts], there is not hereby any transgression of the rule of Christ in regard of the sacrament itself, which notwithstanding this may fully and entirely be administred according to the command of Christ. But there will follow a transgression of the rule of Christ hereby, in respect of the effect of the sacrament, and consequently the dispositions and qualifications required in receivers to make the sacrament effectual: but this is not a fault chargeable upon the minister if he do his best to prevent it.”

p. 72

“…if we understand the words [of the opponent] as a prohibition of that worship and ordinance wherein there is any disorder committed: even so they are not generally true; for though we come with disorder and unpreparedness unto the hearing of the Word and public prayers, yet we are not for this disorder to omit public prayers, and hearing of the Word: for this were the way not to prevent, but to multiply our sin; and yet I do not deny, but that this disorder and unpreparednes is a great sin, for which we ought to be humbled.”

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), ‘The Papers’, pp. 96-97

“…we are here so far more conformable and peaceable than you [bishops] as that we would even in God’s worship do some things indecent and disorderly rather than disobey… For example, there is much disorder lies in the [Anglican] Common-Prayer-Book, yet we would obey in it as far as the ends of our calling do require. It would be undecent to come without a [preacher’s] band or other handsome raiment into the assembly: yet rather than not worship God at all, we would obey if that were commanded us; we are as confident that surplices and copes are undecent, and kneeling at the Lord’s Table is disorderly, as you are of the contrary…

There are some things undecent and disorderly in a small and tolerable degree: and some things in a degree intolerable…

When a circumstance is undecent or disorderly, but in a tolerable degree to an inconvenience, obedience or charity or edification may command us to do it, and make it not only lawful, but a duty pro hic et nunc [for here and now], while the preponderating accident prevails.

Christ’s instances go at least as far as this, about the priests in the Temple breaking the Sabbath blamelessly and David’s eating the showbread, which was lawful for none to eat ordinarily but the priests: and the disciples rubbing the ears of corn, ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice’ is a lesson that He sets us to learn: when two duties come together, to prefer the greater if we would escape sin…

It is more orderly to use the better translation of the Scripture than the worse, as the Common-Prayer-Book does; and yet we would have no man cast out for using the worse…”

Zachary Crofton

Reformation, Not Separation, or, Mr. Crofton’s Plea for Communion with the Church… in a Letter, written July 20, 1661… (1662), pp. 23-24 Crofton (1626-1672) was a presbyterian and puritan born and raised in Ireland.

“…it is too evident that many and great corruptions are to our sin and shame retained… but yet they are extrinsic and not of the substance of God’s worship, which for matter, and essential form, remains entire and properly his own (though not so acceptable) under, as well as without them; and will not therefore warrant my separation, or non-communion so far as to lie at home, or loiter in the churchyard, until the Common-Prayer (whereby God is truly, though not orderly, invocated and worshipped; wherein I, as a member of that Church, am interested, and unto which, as it is public, solemn prayer, though in an unsuitable method, my ‘Amen’ is an indispensable duty) being ended.”

Philip Nye

pp. 8-10

“About refraining a moral duty for the evil mixed with it, or in the persons performing it:

1. As we are not to do evil that good may come of it, no more ought we to leave what is morally good undone for the evil that is some way mixed with it. Zeal for good is to be preferred to that which is against evil. The greatest good is better than the greatest evil is bad. Whatever good thing we do tends towards our union with the chiefest Good, the refraining of evil not so immediately.

2. Betwixt things indifferent and what is morally good, you have this difference: If there be any mixture of evil with the one, it becomes wholly evil; there is nothing of good in it to give stop or preponderate; but what is morally good will remain so still, though mixed with evil. We may allay the worth of it, as baser metals mixed with gold, but yet it is gold still, and may be perfectly severed.

3. ‘When I would do good,’ says the apostle, ‘evil is present with me.’ [Rom. 7:21] I cannot hear, or read or pray, and the rest, but with a mixture of sin; yet upon this account I may not cease from or neglect a known duty, not though materially considered the evil accompanying being greater than the good; as in meditation, when blasphemous thoughts arise, etc. To omit a known duty is a sin of wilfulness; the evil from me in it is but infirmity only; The least wilful sin is greater and more provoking than the greatest sin of infirmity.”

pp. 12-13

“Objection 2: There is much error mixed with the few truths they preach, as Popery, Arminianism, etc. There are also invective reflections, yea railings against the people of God.

Answer 1: What is morally good will bear the mixture of a great deal of evil, and yet retain its goodness still: the goodness being from God, who is a greater good than Satan or sin is an evil.

Answer 2: We cannot expect from men of ordinary gifts that truth be preached without the mixture of errors more or less: We know but in part, therefore are to prove all things, and hold fast that which it good, Heb. 5:14. A saint, as other creatures, though weak and newly born, has a raft of what is food suitable and what sincere.

Answer 3: As for those intemperate expressions and reflections on the people of God: I confess it is sad, but were there not such against Paul and his party? (Phil. 1:15) Yet notwithstanding they are to be heard even by the same persons they enveighed against, for the truth’s sake.”

Richard Baxter

Five Disputations on Church Government & Worship (London, 1659)

ch. 2

p. 417

“§50. Yea more, I would not only give men their liberty in this [observing evangelical feast days, which Baxter was not for], but if I lived under a government that peremptorily commanded it, I would observe the outward rest of such a holy day, and I would preach on it, and join with the assemblies in God’s worship on it. Yea I would thus observe the day, rather than offend a weak brother, or hinder any man’s salvation, much more rather than I would make any division in the Church.

I think in as great matters as this did Paul condescend when he circumcised Timothy and resolved to eat no flesh while he lived rather than offend his brother, and to become all things to all men for their good. Where a thing is evil but by accident, the greatest accidents must weigh down the less. I may lawfully obey and use the day, when another does unlawfully command it: And I think this is the true case.”

pp. 423-24

“§66… There is a second thing unlawful also, and that is the misdetermining of those same modes and circumstances which he is authorized to determine. For he is (as is said) to do it by God’s General Rule. Here therefore we must thus conclude:

1. That every misordering of such great affairs is the sin of them that do it.
2. But yet that the subject is not exempted from obedience by every such mistake of the governor: but by some, he is.

§67. If the mischoosing of such circumstances by Church-governors be but an inconvenience and do not destroy the ordinance itself, or frustrate the ends of it, we are to obey: 1. For he is the judge in his own work, and not we: 2. the thing is not sinful, though inconvenient. 3. Obedience is commanded to our lawful governors…

§68. But if a governor so misdetermine but a mode or circumstance as will overthrow the substance and ends of the worship, I would not obey, except some greater evil were likely to follow my not obeying at that particular season than the frustrating of the duty itself would come to. As for example: If a governor make a new sacrament, I will not obey, because his command is null and the thing [is] simply evil.

If he miscommand a circumstance of time or place, or gesture, I will consider the consequents. If he command the solemn assemblies to be held a mile or two or three from the people, I will obey him, if it be but as far as I can go without frustrating the work itself. But if he command us all to go ten miles or twenty miles to worship, I would obey for some time to avoid a greater evil, but ordinarily I would no more obey than if he forbade all Christian assemblies, for it comes all to one. So if he command the assemblies to be at break of day or after sun-setting, I would obey. But if he command that we assemble only at midnight, what should I do then? The thing is not simply unlawful: He does but misdo his own work. And therefore for some times I would obey, if it were necessary to avoid a greater evil. But if he make it the ordinary case, I would not obey: because it destroys the worship itself in a manner, as if he simply forbade it, and this he has no power to do.

An inconvenient gesture I would use in obedience and to avoid a greater evil: But I would not obey him that would command me to stand on my head always in hearing. An unhandsome vesture I would use in obedience to a lawful governor and to avoid a greater evil: But not so ridiculous a vesture as would set all the people on laughing so as to frustrate the work that we assemble for.

§69. In all such cases where governors act not as usurpers in a matter that they have no authority in, but only misdo their own work, it much concerns the subjects to foresee what’s likely to be the consequents of their obeying or disobeying, and accordingly to do that which tends most to the ends of the work: still holding to this rule, that we must obey in all things lawful.

§70. And when we do obey in a case of miscommanding, it is not a doing evil that good may come of it, as some do misconceive: But it is only a submitting to that which is ill commanded, but not evil in him that does submit. It is the determiner that is the cause of the inconvenience, and not the obeyer. Nor is it inconvenient for me to obey, though it be worse perhaps to him that commands. While he sins in commanding, he may make it my duty to obey.”

ch. 12, ‘It may be very sinful to command some ceremonies, when yet it may be the subjects’ duty to use them when they are commanded’, pp. 461-63

§5. Yet if the miscarriage be so great in the ordering even of these circumstances, or in the manner of duties, as shall overthrow the duty itself, and be inconsistent with the ends, or bring greater evils upon the Church than our refusing to obey the pastors (in those cases) can do; then (as I have before showed) we are not bound to follow him in such a case: But otherwise we are.

§6… If none shall obey a magistrate or pastor in the works of their own office, as long as they think he did them not the best way, all government then would be presently overthrown, and obedience denied…

§7. And the things in which the pastor is now supposed to err, are not of themselves unlawful, but only by such an accident, as being overweighed by another accident, shall cease to make them unlawful. For instance: If the pastor appoint a more imperfect version of the Psalms to be sung in the Church (as is commonly done in England), the obeying of him in the use of this will not bring so much hurt to the Church as the disobeying on that account would do: For besides the sin of disobedience itself, the Church would be in a confusion if they forsake his conduct that preserves the union; and some will be for this and some for that, and so the worship itself will be overthrown.

But if the pastor would command a version so corrupt as would overthrow the duty itself, or be as bad as non-performance, the Church is then to seek redress and not obey him. So if he command a time inconvenient, but tolerable (as to meet at sun rising or sun setting) it were better [to] obey than dissolve the Church (if we cannot be otherwise relieved). But if he appoint a time that’s intolerably unfit (as at midnight), I would not obey (except in such necessity as leaves [public worship] to that time or none)…

§9. If I be bound to obey a governor if he set me to pick straws, or to hunt a feather, it follows not that he may lawfully command it. I have heard many pleading for ceremonies say that if the magistrate commanded them, and would not otherwise permit them to preach the Gospel, they would preach in a fool’s coat and a fool’s cap with a feather rather than forbear. But I do not think that any of them would justify that ruler that would make such a law that no man should preach or celebrate the sacraments but in a fool’s coat and cap: such might expect to be judged by Christ, as the scorners of Him and his ordinances.”

The Christian Religion expressed: I, briefly in the Ancient Creeds, the Ten Commandments & the Lord’s Prayer, and, II, more largely in a Profession taken out of the Holy Scriptures, containing 1, the articles of the Christian Belief, 2, our consent to the Gospel Covenant, 3, the Sum of Christian Duty according to the primitive simplicity, purity, and practice, fitted to the right instruction of the ignorant, the promoting of holiness, and the charitable concord of all true believers… (London: 1660), The Agreement of the Associated Pastors

“VIII. Though it be the surest way to peace and concord to take up with these necessary things, and we cannot approve of the narrow dividing principles of those men that will impose things unnecessary, to the excluding of the necessary, yet if our lawful rulers shall command it, or the peace of the Church through the distempers of the brethren shall require it, we shall obey, and consent in things that God has not forbidden; and if we suffer for well-doing, and for obeying God rather than men, we shall endeavor to imitate our Lord, who being reviled, reviled not again, and when he suffered, threatened not; but committed all to Him that judges righteously, 1 Pet. 2:23.”

The Cure of Church Divisions… (London, 1670), pt. 1, Direction 32, p. 186

“In a word, God has bound all his ministers to use all their gifts to the churches’ greatest edification: But to use a more defective form, with liberty to use my best gifts also, and to exercise my ministry publicly to all, is more to the churches’ edification than to use my own gifts only a few days in a corner and then to lie in prison and use them no more.

Though no man must of choice prefer the less congruous before the more congruous, when he is free (which I confess is a sin), yet it is a duty to prefer a less congruous order before none, or before a better for a day with a restraint of that and all our ministry hereafter.”

Sacrilegious Desertion of the Holy Ministry Rebuked & Tolerated Preaching of the Gospel Vindicated (1672), ch. 2, pp. 16-17

“…but [nonconformists] will keep all loving correspondence with them [parish churches], and seasonably sometimes communicate with them to show their principles by their practice.

For the benefit of Christian love and concord, may make it best for certain seasons to join even in defective modes of worship, as Christ did in the synagogues [such as with forms of prayer] and Temple in his time. Though the least defective must be chosen when no such accidental reasons sway the other way. And perhaps some nonconformists’ own administrations may be as defective as the Liturgy…

6. They prefer their own manner of worshipping God, as better than the Liturgy in their opinion, and therefore to be chosen when they may choose; but they account it not the only acceptable worship, but are present with you in spirit, desiring a part in the prayers of all true Christians in the world.”

A Christian Directory... (London: White, 1673), pt. 3

ch. 2, sect. 24, direction 13, pp. 685-86

“Remember that whatever duty you seem obliged to perform, the obligation still supposes that it is not naturally impossible to you, and therefore you are bound to do it as well as you can.

And when other men’s force or your natural disability hinders you from doing it as you would, you are not therefore disobliged from doing it at all: but the total omission is worse than the defective performance of it, as the defective performance is worse than doing it more perfectly.ª

And in such a case the defects which are utterly involuntary are none of yours imputatively at all, but his that hinders you (unless as some other sin might cause that).

ª See Mr. [Joseph] Truman’s book of Natural and Moral Impotency.”

ch. 5, title 2, pp. 703-4

“§16. Rule 5. If I vow that I will do some duty better, I am not thereby disobliged from doing it at all when I am disabled from doing it better. Suppose a magistrate seeing much amiss in Church and commonwealth, does vow a reformation and vow against the abuses which he finds; If now the people’s obstinacy and rebellion disable him to perform that vow, it does not follow that he must lay down his scepter and cease to govern them at all because he cannot do it as he ought, if he were free.

So if the pastors of any Church do vow the reformation of Church abuses, in their places, if they be hindered by their rulers, or by the people, it does not follow that they must lay down their callings and not worship God publicly at all because they cannot do it as they would and ought if they were free, as long as they may worship him without committing any sin.

God’s first obligation on me is to worship Him, and the second for the manner, to do it as near his order as I can: Now if I cannot avoid the imperfections of worship, though I vowed it, I must not therefore avoid the worship itself (as long as corruptions destroy not the very nature of it and I am put myself upon no actual sin). For I was bound to worship God before my vows, and in order of nature before my obligation de modo: And my vow was made with an implied condition, that the thing were possible and lawful: And when that ceases to be possible or lawful which I vowed, I must nevertheless do that which still remains possible and lawful.

To give over God’s solemn worship with the Church is no reformation. To prefer no worship before imperfect worship is a greater deformation and corruption than to prefer imperfect worship before that which is more perfect. And to prefer a worship imperfect in the manner, before no church worship at all, is a greater reformation than to prefer a more perfect manner of worship before a more imperfect and defective. To worship God decently and in order, supposes that He must be worshipped: And he that does not worship at all, does not worship Him decently.

If a physician vow that he will administer a certain effectual antidote to all his patients that have the plague, and that he will not administer a certain less effectual preparation, which some apothecaries through covetousness or carelessness had brought into common use, to the injury of the sick: His vow is to be interpreted with these exceptions, ‘I will do it if I can, without dishonesty or a greater mischief: I will not administer the sophisticated antidote when I can have better: I vow this for my patients benefit and not for their destruction.’

Therefore if the sophisticated antidote is much better than none, and may save men’s lives, and the patients grow wilful and will take no other, or authority forbid the use of any other, the physicion is neither bound to forsake his calling rather than use it, nor to neglect the life of his patients: (If their lives indeed lie upon his care and they may not be in some good hopes without him, and the good of many require him not to neglect a few): But he must do what he can when he cannot do what he would, and only show that he consents not to the sophistication.”

Catholic Communion Doubly Defended by Dr. Owen’s Vindicator & Richard Baxter… (London: Parkhurst, 1684)

section 2, pp. 9-14

11… I know before that I shall have many faults in my own prayer (disorder, dullness, etc.) which I do not own, though herein I am guilty.

19… the faulty methods and words of many men’s extemporate prayers.
…

37… But to say of any congregation that they want [lack] anything essential to Christianity or to make them capable to be loved as Christians, or that their worship of God is idolatry, or so bad as that God accepts it not, the evil of it being greater than the good (as poison in our food), and on this reason to declare that no good Christian should communicate with them, this is to excommunicate such [a] congregation, as far as one Church may excommunicate another, which is but by such renouncing their communion.”

section 5, ‘A comparison of the use of a faulty translation of the Scripture and a faulty liturgy’ See also the whole of this article.

“II… And that it is not we that offer God the worse before the better; it is they that exclude the better, which we protest against, having not our choice.

III. That all worship is so far false as it is faulty; That to forsake all public worship when we cannot have the better translation [of Scripture read publicly] is to be righteous, unrighteously, over much [Eccl. 7:16], and too little [righteous], and to disobey both God and man.
…

I would add a similitude [It was actually a real and common scenario in that era]: Supposing that we had just possession of the public church-places and tithes, and they are taken from us, and we can blame them that did it and say over and over, ‘We had possession;’ and therefore it is unlawful to meet in worse rooms, for God must have the best: will this hold when you cannot keep possession?

Good friends, keep your possession for me, but I own not the famishing of all that are dispossessed. If you do, I do not…

Richard Baxter on Worship & Catholicity against Separatism & John Owen (1684; RBO, 2024)

p. 65

“‘Complying’ also is an ambiguous word: if it mean an approbation of any sin, so no man must comply. If it mean communicating in good where there is a faulty mixture of some evil, so he that will not comply must join with no Church and with no man living.”

p. 68

“That which hinders the Church’s edification by the ruler’s fault, it may be the people’s duty to obey for a greater good. For instance, it is less edifying to use our old singing psalms than a better version. And yet for concord, if the ruler appoint them, the people must use them because concord with that imperfection is better than to sing everyone a several better version or diverse versions at once. So a faulty translation of Scripture, a weak sermon, an inconvenient hour and place, when concord is necessary and cannot be had in the more edifying circumstances, it must be had in the best way we can. If the sheriff appoint an unfit time and place to meet to choose parliament-men, it’s a duty to comply rather than not to meet at all. Every evil so far excludes good, and yet we must not renounce communion in all good where men mix any evil lest we also give over all good ourselves.”

The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (London, 1689), ch. 2, pp. 13-14

“We never held it unlawful to do one of these actions, though it were by mistake unlawfully commanded; e. g. If the rulers prescribe a time, place, metre, tune, etc. unfit, if it be not so bad as to overthrow the ends and use of the worship, the fault of the commander will not disoblige us from the duty of obeying.

And whereas some argue that no man has authority to sin; therefore, we are not bound to obey that which is no act of authority, I answer:

Rulers have authority to command that which is good though not in a faulty manner; and when we cannot do the good without the faulty manner, it is their fault and not ours: e.g. If an inconvenient time, place, text, tune, etc. be chosen, the union and concord which is held by agreeing in those modes is necessary: He that will not join in them cannot join in the worship. So that we obey the ruler or guide as a determiner of the means of concord, which is necessary, and not sub ratione erroris [under the rule of the error], [we do not obey and perform the action formally] as misdetermining, though [we do the action] in that which is [materially] misdetermined.

We never pray without some fault in the manner, and yet must rather do it so than not at all. The mistaken ruler bids us not sin: It’s his sin to choose a mis-circumstance; and it is not his own action that he bids us do, but ours: And it’s to us a lawful circumstance, because [it is] necessary to concord and commanded, though mistakingly.”

John Corbet

“My partaking in any divine worship which is holy and good for the matter, and allowable or passable for the mode in the main, does not involve me in the blame of some sinful defects therein, to which I consent not, and which I cannot redress.

2. I do not acquiesce in this form of worship only, nor do I by my example induce others so to do, seeing in other congregations I both dispense and attend upon the Word and prayer in another form, and judge it necessary for me so to do.

3. It is to me indubitable that this form is so far profitable and edifying, as that merely for the defects found therein, there is no cause of renouncing it or the communion of the Churches for its sake, especially while other prayer and the preaching of the Word is not there by excluded.
…

I would give no occasion to any of disowning or reproaching a form of divine worship which is sound in the substance thereof, and accepted of God from the sincere, though it be less perfect in diverse material points and less convenient for the mode.”

Of Divine Worship… in The Remains of the Reverend & Learned Mr. John Corbet… (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1684), pt. 3 Corbet (d. 1680) was an English, congregationalist puritan.

“Section 5. Note that things not determined of God [for public worship] and left to the determination of men must be such as are necessary in genere, and not things idle and superfluous. A superior may not institute a superfluous thing that is not simply evil, though sometimes the inferior may lawfully obey therein; or to speak more properly, [the inferior may] lawfully do the thing to avoid inconvenience, or to testify respect to the superior, though in that particular he has no lawful power to command.

Section 6. If superiors command that which is above their sphere to command [for public worship], namely, things not necessary in genere [by its kind], yet if they be not simply evil, subjects may¹ do those things, unless they be evil in their consequence to a higher degree than the not doing of them would be.² In this case it is not formal obedience,³ but they are done for the end’s sake and to avoid evil.”

“Section 7. Of Bowing at the Name of Jesus

…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.”

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.’…”

London Ministers

p. 32

“It was the opinion of the presbyterian brethren at the Savoy Conference [1661, which included congregationalist ministers], that not only the hearing, but the reading [of] a defective liturgy was lawful to him that by violence is necessitated to offer up that or none. (Conference at Savoy, p. 12-13; Baxter, Defence of the Cure, [pt. 1, ch. 1] p. 34-35)”

p. 37

“Let men be as scrupulous and fearful of offending against the Christian laws of subjection, peaceableness and charity as they are of worshipping God after an impure manner, and this alone will contribute much to the making up those breaches which threaten sudden ruin to our Church and nation.”

p. 38

“So that before this text [Mal. 1:14] can be opposed to what has been said, it must be proved:

1. That the things in question are corruptions, as much prohibited as the blind and lame under the Law.

2. That they are such as a person does choose, and it is in his power to help, and offers it when he has a male in his flock.

3. That such a corruption as affects not the substance of worship, does yet alter the nature of it, and makes the whole to be a corrupt thing and abominable to God.”

p. 63

“…the last advice given by a reverend person [Robert Porler] to his parishioners, in a farewell sermon in these words:

‘…That there is a difference betwixt directing a worship, prescribing things simply evil and manifestly idolatrous, and directing about worship things doubtfully-good being enjoined, but the unquestionable substance of worship being maintained. This latter does not justify separation.’ (England’s Remembrancer, Sermon 16, p. 454)”

Peter van Mastricht

Theoretical-Practical Theology (1698; RHB), bk. 7, ch. 5, sect. 5

“Yet there was in those rites some manner of difference, not only between the first Passover celebrated in Egypt and the subsequent ones, but also between the primary Passover, which was ordinarily eaten in the month of Nisan on the fourteenth day, and the secondary one, which was celebrated in the second month on the fourteenth day, for the sake of those who were either unclean or absent in the prior month, because in the latter, the communicants were not bound to such an exact purging of all leaven, and also they conducted this feast for not but one day [instead of seven].”

1700’s

Jame Owen

“St. Paul, the apostle of the gentiles, was eminent for occasional conformity. He exhorts the Christians to assert their freedom from the law of ceremonies (Gal. 5:1), lives himself after the manner of the gentiles (Gal. 2:14), and by consequence, in fellowship with them, yet occasionally purified himself in the Temple, according to the Law of Moses. (Acts 21:26) He was a dissenter from the ceremonies of the Law, and yet submits to them to avoid offense [Acts 16:3; 18:21].

He statedly communicated with the gentile Churches, but holds occasional communion with the national Jewish Church. He judged occasional communion lawful, but did not therefore conclude constant communion a duty, nay, it had been sinful to him and all other Christians; for then they must have separated from the fellowship of the Gospel [Acts 15:7-19; Gal. 2:9-21], and renounced Christianity…”

John Howe

Francis Tallents

2000’s

Travis Fentiman

Regarding a minister administering the Lord’s Supper with a deficient frequency: Contextual notes on the work of Henry Jeanes, The Want [Lack] of Church-Government [is] No Warrant for a Total Omission of the Lord’s Supper… (London, 1650)

“In 1650 many ministers in the episcopal Church of England were presbyterian in outlook and sought for reform unto this end. While some progress had been made following the Westminster Assembly, the work was still very incomplete. Oliver Cromwell, the self appointed ‘Protector’ of England, arose to civil power at this time; he was an Independent as far as Church government. Hence, Independent churches were arising all around, sometimes with presbyterian ministers.

The Church of England’s theology was Erastian. It did not have local church membership as we do, nor allowed for ruling elders in the churches, nor for the ecclesiastical ministry to have the right of excommunication from the Lord’s Supper. These conditions made it difficult, if at all possible, for ministers to have adequate oversight of their parish, and to adequately bar (beyond verbal warnings) scandalous, professing Christians from disgracing the Lord’s Supper.

In Independent churches without ruling elders, especially in large congregations, the conditions were similar. A minister, under regular order, does not have, nor should have, of himself, the power of jurisdiction to bar persons from the Lord’s Supper.

Hence, among conscientious presbyterian ministers in these situations, there was a very real question of whether they should administer the Lord’s Supper at all, especially in light of their obligation to maintain the integrity of the Supper and their attendent responsibility, in some respect, to keep persons from scandalously abusing it. Many ministers had determined in the negative, at least for the time, till further presbyterian reform could be made. Such systematic reform never occured thereafter.

Henry Jeanes (1611–1662) was an English presbyterian minister that had administered the Supper, with certain qualifications, in such conditions. A group of presbyterian ministers hence asked him to write out his reasons for this, in the hopes that he might be able to shed more light on the question for them. The article above is Jeanes’s answer. It is excellent. He gives the same answer as Thomas Cartwright, an earlier father of presbyterianism (as seen here).

Answering the question stated in the title of the article, of whether the Supper may be administered without ruling elders or a presbyterian church government, is quite simple: At the end of Acts 2, the apostles, who were ministers, administered the Supper to the large and growing Chuch in Jerusalem from house to house. Commentators, presbyterian included, nearly universally agree that they had no ruling elders, or sessions, or presbyteries. Why an affirmative answer to the question is right, though, is a much trickier thing to explicate.

And this is the primary value of the article: It clearly, carefully and in a balanced fashion, according to right, detailed, classic presbyterian principles shows how these things consist with each other in their right relations, this giving us an exponentially greater understanding of the Lord’s things.

See especially pp. 30-32 & 34 that the Lord’s Supper is more (1) properly and immediately worship, and (2) life-giving, and is therefore of greater import and necessity than having an eldership and exercising a negative discipline so as to exclude the scandalous beyond the verbal guarding of the Table by the minister.

A modern application of the question today is: Whether a minister, presuaded that weekly communion is too frequent for the adequate self-preparation of the people, in how it actually plays out, and for the elders to maintain adequate circumspection of the people’s right partaking of the Supper, and yet this church practice is not going to be reformed anytime soon, whether that minister may yet in good conscience administer the Supper in these conditions for the time? The principles discussed in the article would appear to be for the affirmative.”

Attending Externally Impure Worship may be Better than attending Externally Purer Worship due to Many Circumstances & Reasons

Order of Contents

Quotes 4
Articles 2

Quotes

Order of

Long
Baxter
London Ministers
Fentiman

1600’s

Thomas Long

The Character of a Separatist, or Sensuality the Ground of
Separation (London: Kettilby, 1677), Preface concerning the Ceremonies of the Church. Long was a conformist.

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), ‘Objections Answered’

“If all the people may lawfully join themselves with that Church which has the ablest teacher, then almost all the world must go to a few men and leave the rest. Then Barnabas may be forsaken, if Paul be the chief speaker…

And God has more means than ministerial abilities to increase men’s graces: He that keeps in God’s order under a meaner [less excellent], honest minister, is like to be a more humble, thriving Christian than he that will break that order under pretense of edification. The Lord knows that I speak against my own visible carnal interests in all this…

10. Christians should not first ask, ‘Where may I have the best minister, or company, or purest Ordinances? or where may I receive most good?’ But they must first ask, ‘Where lies my duty? and where may I do most good?’ For God’s work must be done before our own. And the saving of souls and propagation of the Gospel must be preferred before our comforts. Yea let me tell you my observation: The comfort that Christians have in a suffering, self-denying course of doing good is a surer and more stable comfort than that which is drawn from the special advantages of ordinances. That man that lives among a company of poor ignorant souls, and will set himself night and day resolvedly and unweariedly to teach them, persuade them and win them to Christ, till he have bettered the imperfect church where he is, shall usually be a man of solid settled peace. When he that says, ‘These are carnal, heathens, wicked; This is a weak ministry; I will go join myself to such an excellent minister and Church, and let them alone,’ this man will likely be soon sadded with his new comforts, and weary of his precious ordinances, and be as ready to vilify them and turn to some other till in this disorder he have run himself out of breath, if not out of all appearance of grace.”

Catholic Communion Doubly Defended by Dr. Owen’s Vindicator & Richard Baxter… (London: Parkhurst, 1684)

section 2, pp. 9-14

“12. Yet no man should prefer worse before better, if all things [be] set together it be better indeed to the person at that time.
…

26. In most countries of England, many hundred persons to one must have Church communion in the parish churches, or have none at all: And to renounce all Church worship and communion rather than join in the parish churches and with the liturgy, and to persuade all to do so, is almost to draw the land to live like atheists and is so pernicious to souls that no good Christian should favour it. And it is a gross breach of the [Solemn League and] Covenant,¹ which renounces profaneness, schism, and all that is contrary to godliness.

…
28. So great is the peace and comfort of many parishes where the public ministers and all the religious people live together in love and amity that it loudly tells us how much better that is than to study to render each other odious, or vile and excommunicable.

29. Such use of godly public ministers [in the parish churches] may well stand with the best improvement we can make of the private help of others.
…

34. Though we must prefer better before worse, that worse may be best to us at that time and place when we cannot have better without more hurt than benefit to the public or ourselves. Among many ministers, weak and strong, all cannot hear the best, nor must renounce the weaker.

¹ [Baxter does not speak to the case of being under dishonest ministers.]

² [Two kinds of disturbers sometimes disturbed the assemblies of non-conformists: 1. Government officials; 2. The even more extremist sectarians that sought simply to disrupt them.]

section 5, p. 33

“Though we must prefer better before worse, that worse may be best to us at that time and place when we cannot have better without more hurt than benefit to the public or ourselves.

Among many ministers, weak and strong, all cannot hear the best, nor must renounce the weaker. To live under the countenance of government under an honest minister of mean parts in peace and concord, though he use the liturgy, is more to the common advantage of religion and to the profit of most particular souls than to hear an abler man with the distraction of disturbers and to be fined and lie in prison on no better a cause.”

English Nonconformity, ch. 3, p. 14

“We never judged needless affected singularity a duty, but judge it best in lawful things for concord sake to conform to the custom of the churches where we live or come.”

London Ministers

“Thus one [Robert Porler] (in a farewell sermon, speaking of supposed defects in a Church) does advise his auditors:

‘Enlarge your care and pains in your preparations; a right stomach makes good nourishment of an indifferent meal; you may be warm (though in a colder air and room than you have formerly been) if you will put on more clothes before you come: Watch your hearts more narrowly, and speak things to your hearts more than you have done. If the iron be blunt, then must he put to more strength. (Eccl. 10:10)’ (England‘s Remembrancer, Sermon 16, p. 456)”

2000’s

Travis Fentiman

“Extended Editor’s Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025)

p. 88

“If one would participatingly accommodate a measure of indecency in a civil assembly for the good in it and out of respect and submission to public order, how much more ought one to do so in charity for the Church’s public worship, as such common and legitimately applied civil principles do not need a Scripture precedent and “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.” (1 Cor. 14:33)? Often doing something that is inconvenient and less than fully decent or in the best order, given the larger context, is more decent, orderly¹ (1 Cor. 14:40) and conducive to peace,² and less confusing, than not, especially for leaders.

¹ Such as in a person eating the distasteful and questionable food at another’s house so as to prevent offense rather than abstain. How much more in the House of God?

² Zanchi: “Wherefore many things are to be tolerated by the ministers that the peace of churches be not rent and that schisms may be avoided, so that they be not such things or doctrines which do fight with the foundation and do heave at it;” On Philippians, ch. 1, fol. 45, as trans. by Sprint, Cassander Anglicanus, ‘Reformed Practices’, p. 167.

Are not peace, love and mercy weightier matters of the Law (Mt. 23:23; Mk. 12:33; Rom. 14:19; 1 Cor. 13:13)? and external ceremonial observances are
to give way to moral law? (Hos. 6:6; Mk. 12:33) “But if ye had known what this meaneth, ‘I will have mercy, and not sacrifice,’ ye would not have condemned the guiltless.” (Mt. 12:7)”

p. 139

“However, ‘evil’ is an ambiguous term and may stand for miserable or moral evils. One may morally choose to undergo and suffer certain miserable (though not moral) evils in necessity, other alternatives not being available, likely, reasonable or best.

Choosing to eat expired food rather than starve is not wrong, though starving would be. That one must have the best or none at all, is against the greater good; miserable evils often contain a significant degree of good, and we ought not to choose the worst.”

pp. 185-86

“…take heed that you not act like the weak in Rom. 14. Those who were weak in the Christian Faith (v. 1) held excessive religious strictures and scruples, especially in practical matters, however inconvenient (v. 2). Their simplistic beliefs determined their actions, which set them apart from other Christians. They prided themselves in their strict living, self-denial and high standard (v. 2), taking what they thought was righteous grief, offense and scandal at things actually lawful (vv. 20–21), they not thinking them best or godly enough (vv. 4–5).

They spoke ill of their Christian brothers, judged them (vv. 3–4, 16, even Paul implicitly), whom they saw as worldly, licentious and not devoted enough, though their brethren were equally devoted (v. 6) and actually stronger and more understanding in the truth than they (v. 14).

The weak’s distinctives exemplified misplaced priorities, valuing certain external practices they considered to be religiously necessary above their brethren’s fellowship, and hence also above the fundamentals of “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,” in which the kingdom of God consists. (v. 17)

The weak practically valued what they considered to be sanctification, and that in others, above other Christians’ faith and justification (v. 18), that they are accepted with God forever in Christ, and He will make them stand. (v. 4) It was not only the strong, but the weak as well that were deficient in following “after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.” (v. 19) If such a weak person began to teach their distinctives and seek to bind them on others, would not he be sectarian?”

Article

2000’s

Fentiman, Travis

‘An Impure Church may be Better than a Church with Purer External Ordinances’ on the page, ‘On Schism & Separatism’.

2. “Principled Partial Conformity in Worship” in “Editor’s Extended Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), pp. 21-93

On the Need to Reform Impurities of Worship

See ‘On Reforming Church Ordinances’.and generally, ‘On Reforming & Reformation’.

Order of Contents

Bible Verses 28+
Quotes 4

Bible Verses

Old Testament 14

Gen. 17:1 “I am the Almighty God; walk before Me, and be thou perfect.”

Ex. 20:25 “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.”

1 Kings 11:1-12

“But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites: of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.

For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, and went not fully after the Lord, as did David his father.

Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.

And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the Lord commanded.

Wherefore the Lord said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father’s sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son.”

1 Kings 22:42-43 “Jehoshaphat… turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the Lord: nevertheless the high places were not taken away;”

2 Kings 12:2-3 “Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days… But the high places were not taken away…”

2 Kings 17:33-35 “They feared the Lord, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence. Unto this day they do after the former manners: they fear not the Lord, neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the Lord commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel; with whom the Lord had made a covenant…”

2 Chron. 19:9 “And he charged them, saying, ‘Thus shall ye do in the fear of the Lord, faithfully, and with a perfect heart.'”

Ps. 93:5 “Thy testimonies are very sure: holiness becometh thine house, O Lord, for ever.”

Ps. 103:1-2 “Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name. Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:”

Jer. 3:10 “And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto Me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord.”

Isa. 1:22 “Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:”

Lam. 4:1-2 “How is the gold become dim! how is the most fine gold changed!… The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers…”

New Testament 15

Mt. 5:48 “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”

Mt. 6:3-8

“But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.”

Mk. 11:15-17 “…and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple… And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. And He taught, saying unto them, ‘Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.'”

Jn. 2:13-17

“And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, ‘The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.'”

1 Cor. 11:17-22

1 Cor. 11:34 “And the rest will I set in order when I come.”

1 Cor. 12:31 “But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.”

1 Cor. 14:9 “So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.”

1 Cor. 14:20 “Brethren, be not children in understanding:”

1 Cor. 14:32-34 “And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.“

Rev. 2:1-6

Rev. 2:12-16

Rev. 2:18-20

Rev. 3:1-3

Order of Quotes

Calvin
Polhill

1500’s

John Calvin

“The mockery which worships God with nought but external gestures and absurd human fictions, how could we, without sin, allow to pass unrebuked? We know how much He hates hypocrisy, and yet in that fictitious worship, which was everywhere in use, hypocrisy reigned. We hear how bitter the terms in which the Prophets inveigh against all worship fabricated by human rashness.

But a good intention, i.e. an insane licence of daring whatever man pleased, was deemed the perfection of worship. For it is certain that in the whole body of worship which had been estabhshed, there was scarcely a single observance which had an authoritative sanction from the Word of God. We are not in this matter to stand either by our own or by other men’s judgments. We must listen to the voice of God, and hear in what estimation He holds that profanation of worship which is displayed when men, overleaping the boundaries of His Word, run riot in their own inventions.

The reasons which he assigns for punishing the Israelites with blindness, after they had lost the pious and holy discipline of the Church, are two, viz., the prevalence of hypocrisy, and will-worship (ethelothreskeian), meaning thereby a form of worship contrived by man.”

Institutes, tr. Beveridge (1564; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), bk. 4, ch. 10, section 23, pp. 216-17

“Do we think it a small matter that the Lord is deprived of his kingdom which He so strictly claims for Himself? Now, He is deprived of it as often as He is worshipped with laws of human invention, since his will is to be sole legislator of his worship. And lest any one should consider this as of small moment, let us hear how the Lord Himself estimates it.

“…and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among the people, even a marvellous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid” (Isa. 29:13-14).

And in another place, “But in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mt. 15:9)…

pious princes are repeatedly praised (2 Kings 22:1, etc.) for acting according to all his precepts, and not declining either to the right hand or the left. I go further: although there be no open manifestation of impiety in fictitious worship, it is strictly condemned by the Spirit, inasmuch as it is a departure from the command of God… And the more clearly the will of God has been manifested to us, the less excusable is our petulance in attempting anything.”

1600’s

Edward Polhill

A Discourse of Schism… (London: 1694), ch. 3, pp. 66-67

“…the worship under the Old Testament being more shadowy and ritual, and that under the New more pure and simple, an addition to this is less tolerable than to that, because the purer the worship is, the more impure is the addition.”

When Impurities in Worship cannot be Reformed

Quotes

Order of

Baynes
Sprint
Ball
Rathband
Goodwin
Church of Scotland

1600’s

Paul Baynes

Commentary on Ephesians (d. 1617), ch. 2, pp. 297-98

“Let every man walk within the compass of his calling. Whatsoever lies not in us to reform, it shall be our zeal and piety to tolerate, and with patience to forbear, especially in things of this nature, which concern not so much the outward communion with God or man, essentially required in a visible state, as the due ordering of business in the said communion, wherein there be many superfluities and defects, salva tamen Ecclesia; yea, and such a Church notwithstanding, as wherein the best and truest members (circumstances considered) may have more cause to rejoice than to grieve.”

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. 166-67

“Because, whereas the ministers are willing to reform abuses, and the magistrate is peremptory and resolute not to reform for some reasons of policy, the minister in that case is not to leave his ministry, or to trouble the Church, intempestiuis clamoribus, or to contest or contend with the magistrate: The reason is, because this course tends to the overthrow of the Church, and is opposite to that charity which he owes unto Christ and to his church, out of which ground and rule he ought to preach, and to hold on in the course of his ministry. He ought indeed to teach publicly and privately (as the matter requires) what is to be done, but this he must perform without sedition and troubling of the Church, but peaceably and discreetly. Charity will inform the pastor, if he love the Church indeed, how he ought in these cases to behave himself; Zanchi, On Philippians 1, fol. 45. Look also: Musculus, loc. pt. 2, Of Traditions, §6, fol. 31.

…Wherefore many things are to be tolerated by the ministers that the peace of churches be not rent and that schisms may be avoided, so that they be not such things or doctrines which do fight with the foundation and do heave at it; Zanchi, ibid.
…

Because if pastors cannot reform all things which need amendment, according to their desire, they must not therefore cast away their ministry, or trouble the whole Church with an unusual asperity. The reason: Because all godly ground and form of ecclesiastical discipline ought ever to have respect and have reference to the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, which the apostle commanded to be kept by serving one another; and which rule not being kept, the medicine of discipline grows to be superfluous and pernicious. It is confessed that pastors ought with their uttermost endeavors to labor that there remain no corruption in the Church: but they must use that wisdom which our Savior prescribes, lest by plucking up the tares, they hurt the good corn. Wherefore the precept of the apostle of separating the evil (or of mending corruption) must by no means be neglected, cum sine periculo violandae pacis fieri potest, when it may be done without the danger of violation of the Churches’ peace: for else He would not have it done. Calvin, Institutes, bk. 4, ch. 12, §11, 13.”

John Ball

A Friendly Trial of the Grounds tending to Separation... (Cambridge: Daniel, 1640), ch. 9, “It is lawful for a Christian to be present at that service which is read out of a book in some things faulty both for form and matter”, pp. 161-63

“Whatsoever worship is offered up to God by the minister, whether in prayer conceived by himself or devised by others, it is in the name of the congregation: but every phrase, petition or branch of petition is not approved by their presence, silence, or saying ‘Amen’ to the prayers in general… The presence of the people was never deemed interpretatively a consent to every thing that was there done.

The prayers which for matter God disallows we ought to disallow, but as God disallows them, and as He calls us forth to bear witness to his truth. But it is one thing to tolerate, another to approve; one thing to disallow the method or form, another the matter; one thing privately to dislike, another openly to witness against a thing as in no wise to be born withal; one thing to speak when we are called forth, another to thrust ourselves forth unadvisedly.

Some things are to be born with in brethren whereof we are not bound so much as to admonish them, unless we be entirely familiar and of intimate acquaintance: Some things we must bear with though upon admonition they be not amended. The people must bear with some infirmities in their minister, both in preaching and prayer, as he must with some wants in them, without so much as taking notice of them to admonish by way of censure.¹

¹ “Sins are either controvertable or manifest: If controvertable and doubtful, men ought to bear one with another’s different judgment; if they do not, but any for this make a breach of Separation, they sin.” Henry Ainsworth, Against Mr. Bern. Reas. Removed, p. 17

And if upon admonition he cannot be of their minds in everything, they must not reject and cast him off, no more than he is to cut them off because in every point they conform not to his pleasure. If the parties be stubborn, and will not hear admonitions, but rather grow more perverse and desperate, even to rent and tear in pieces such as seek to reclaim them, we are not bound to make known our judgment and profession unto them, unless we be lawfully called of God thereunto.

And if the greater part be in errour and so stiff that they would sooner persecute the better than reform, if it be not in matters fundamental or bordering thereupon, or noxious and pernicious to be concealed, I know not that either that innocent [person] is allowed to separate from the exercises of religion for that cause, or bound to admonish them of their error. He that taught to suffer the tares rather then to pluck up the wheat with them (Mt. 13:29), has showed a reason for this judgement. (See Calvin, Epistle 117) ‘This I do infinitely grieve at’ (said Augustine):

‘that many most wholesome precepts of divine Scripture are little regarded, and in the meantime all is so full of many presumption, that he is more grievously found fault with who during this octaves touches the earth with his naked foot than he that shall bury his soul in drunkenness. And after, I cannot approve them, and I think they are to be cut off wheresoever we have power. Many of these things, for fear of scanda∣lizing many holy persons, or provoking those that are turbulent, I dare not freely disallow.’

That every private Christian should in public manner question the doctrine of his minister or the prayers of the congregation, and declare his dislike in whatsoever is not agreeable to his particular opinion, in such manner as is mentioned, is neither commanded of God, nor consonant to right reason, is not agreeable to order, peace, love, or Christian moderation, and of necessity must fill the church with confusion, disorder, rents and schisms.”

William Rathband

“Publisher, William Rathband, to the Reader” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; 1644; RBO, 2025), p.

“The non-conformist, non-separatist, puritan minister authors of this book: …were examples of holiness, so in this, that they have ever, not only forborne, but steadfastly opposed to their great reproach, damage and danger many ways, the corruptions in our [Anglican] Church government, worship and liturgy, and have been lights and leaders to these latter times therein, yet always in a peaceable and regular way, as not on the one side to subject themselves to suspicious inventions, so on the other, not sinfully to separate from the communion and true worship of churches, accounting it more agreeable to all rules of piety, charity and Christian prudence to tolerate for the time what they could not mend rather than to rent and tear all in pieces to an utter ruin.”

Thomas Goodwin

Works, 12 vols. (d. 1680; Edinburgh: Nichol, 1861), vol. 1, Exposition of Eph. 1 (1681), sermon 36, on 1:22-23, pp. 558-59

“…it is a great consideration also: I know that Jesus Christ has given his people light in matters of this nature by degrees. Thousands of good souls that have been bred up and born in our assemblies, and enjoy the ordinances of God, and have done it comfortably, cannot suddenly take in other principles, you must wait upon Christ to do it.

In this case, men are not to be wrought off by falsehoods [in exaggerations and extreme speaking and positions], God has no need of them. No, rather till men do take in light, you should give them all that is comfortable in the condition they are in; we should acknowledge every good thing in every man, in every church, in every thing, and that is a way to work upon men, and to prevail with them; as it is Philemon, verse 6:

‘That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledgment of every good thing, which is in you in Christ Jesus.’

It is that which builds men up, by acknowledgment of every good thing that is in them.”

Church of Scotland

“Whereas judicious casuists do recommend it that they who would attain unity and peace where divisions are, should forbear one another in love, and as the apostle directs, wherein they are agreed, walk by the same rule.

They also tell us that those who have the truth on their side may be the sinful cause of division when they too peremptorily press their light on others in things not fundamental or necessary, contrary to Rom. 14:22. See Durham On Scandal, [pt. 4, ch. 2] pp. 286 & [ch. 11] 358. He presses this mutual forbearance in things controverted and that seeing the great scope of bringing forth any truth is the edification of the Church, therefore where the bringing it forth does destroy more than edify, it is to be forborne.

Further, that it is not enough that the thing preached for is truth and the thing they condemn is error, which he proves from 1 Cor. 10:23 and different reasons. And that this is not inconsistent with a minister’s fidelity in revealing the whole counsel of God for that is all that was necessary and profitable for them, Acts 20:20. For no minister can bring forth every truth at all times; yea, may be some may die and not preach all truth all their life.”

2 Chron. 15:15-18

“Jehoshaphat… turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the Lord: nevertheless the high places were not taken away;”

1 Kings 22:42-43

“…but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my Word.”

Isa. 66:2

Related Pages

Worship

On the Ethics of Material Cooperation with, & Associations with Evil

Of Fundamental, Secondary & Tertiary Matters of Christianity, of Errors Therein & of Communion, Discipline & Separation Thereabout

On the Definition of Worship

On the Simplicity & Spirituality of Worship

Internal & External Worship