The Remains of John Corbet, Part 3
The Third Part: Of Superſtition leſs than Idolatry.
§ 1. Of exceſs in the quantity or meaſure of Religious Obſervances.
ALL Superſtition is an exceſs in Religion. The exceſs in the object thereof, being opened in the Second Part, here it remains that I ſpeak of that which is in the Acts thereof; and 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.
Exceſs in the quantity or meaſure of Religious Obſervances is, when tho the thing in kind were not an exceſs, yet for the quantity it is more than conduceth to the end of Religion, yea is an hindrance thereto; as for Example, Prayer, or Preaching of the word too Prolix, or at an unſeaſonable time; too rigid a preſſing of Religious Exerciſes on the Lords day, or at any other time lawfully ſet apart thereunto, contrary to the works of Mercy, or preſent neceſſity; yea that conveniency to life and converſe, which doth not divert the mind from the things of God; too much care and curioſity about circumſtances of Decency and Order; and too great a heaping up of Rites and Formalities.
§ 2. Of Exceſs in Religious Obſervances, for the kind thereof.
EXceſs in the kind, is when mans preſumption in giving honour to God, gives ſuch ſigns of honour to him, as for kind he would not ſhould be given, but hath forbidden the ſame.
God may forbid the kinds of Religious Obſervances either in particular, as he did ſome heatheniſh rites to his people of old, expreſſing them by name; or elſe in general, viz. by a general rule forbidding all of ſuch a nature and reaſon in common.
Some kind of Religious Obſervances are unlawful in themſelves, or in the nature of the things, as being naturally unfit to be offerrd to the Holy God, namely, ſuch kind of Worſhip as was given to Bacchus, and other like heathen gods, who were ſerved congruenti vitio. And ſuch need not to be forbidden in ſpecie, becauſe they are naught in their common nature, being vices, and 'tis enough to be forbidden in genere.
Some kinds of Religious Worſhip may not be vicious in their nature, nor contrary to Gods holineſs to command or allow: Yet may be forbidden by the general precept of Scripture, or other ſupernatural Revelation.
§ 3. Of the Rule that limits the kinds of Worſhip.
OF Natural Worſhip, the Law of Nature is the limiting Rule for all the kinds thereof. Of poſitive Worſhip, namely, all that which in ſpecie is not neceſſary in nature, but is of free Determination, the kinds thereof are ſuppoſed to be either reſtrained to Divine Inſtitution, or left to humane choice.
That there are Divine Inſtitutions of poſitive Worſhip in ſundry kinds, is acknowledged by all that acknowledg the Scriptures Divine Authority. And that many kinds of poſitive Worſhip have been taken up by humane diſcretion, is known by all that know what is practiced in the World. Now the Queſtion is, Whether theſe kinds that are of humane choice, are lawful or lawfully intermingled in their uſe with Divine Inſtitutions?
That all kinds of poſitive Worſhip ſhould be left to humane choice, ſeems in reaſon repugnant, in regard of mans natural darkneſs in Divine things, and proneneſs at the beſt to miſtake therein, and to deviſe and chuſe that which is incongruous or leſs congruous; much more in regard of mans propenſity to Superſtition, and bold preſumption about Religious Ordinances.
And de facto, we find that God hath not ſo left the matter, but taken care to appoint the Worſhip which he expects from men in all Ages, as beſt knowing what is beſt pleaſing to himſelf.
And in reaſon it muſt needs be, that he hath ſufficiently provided for his honour in the Worſhip that he hath Inſtituted, as much as concerns or belongs to the reaſon and end of thoſe kinds which he hath inſtituted.
And thereupon it is found in reaſon to be a preſuming of our own againſt the Divine Wiſdom, either to change an Ordinance which God hath inſtituted, for another ordinance of our own deviſing, of the ſame reaſon, and to the ſame intent; or to add to the Divine Ordinances by way of ſupplement, Humane Ordinances of the ſame reaſon and intent with the Divine; and that either as neceſſary to Divine Service, or only as profitable, and de bene eſſe. For ſo to do, is plainly to derogate from the Divine Ordinances.
Therefore it muſt be concluded, that there are certain Ordinances of Divine Worſhip which may not be left to mans diſcretion, either to change them, or to make additions to them of others of the ſame reaſon and intent, either as neceſſary or profitable; and in that regard ſupplemental and perfective.
The expreſs Text of Scripture proves this, that ſome additions are forbidden, Deut. 4.2. Deut. 12.32. The prohibition is not meerly of adding to the Rule, but of doing more than the Rule requires; as the precept is not of preſerving the Rule, but obſerving what is commanded in it. It is indeed againſt mingling the heatheniſh obſervations with Divine Inſtitutions. And it is not to be imagined, that it is only a prohibition of the forgery of Divine Oracles.
§ 4. What of divine worſhip may not be deviſed or inſtituted by man.
NOW it is to be conſidered what kind of Religious obſervations God hath reſerved to his own determination, and forbidden to be deviſed or inſtituted by man. And theſe are firſt, Such as are of the ſame reaſon with thoſe Ordinances which God hath inſtituted to be obſerved by the univerſal Church to the Worlds end; as to make an addition of another weekly day to the ſame holy intents for which the Lords day is ſet apart; to inſtitute any Ordinance that is of the ſame reaſon with the Sacraments of the Covenant of Grace.
In vain do ſome ſay, That it is impoſſible for man to make a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace, and conſequently no ordinance deviſed of man ought to be excepted againſt as ſuch. For altho God only can inſtitute a lawful and valid Sacrament of the Covenant; yet man may preſume to inſtitute an ordinance that is of the ſame nature, reaſon, and intent with the Sacrament of divine inſtitution, tho it be unlawful, and of no validity; even as other divine worſhip may be invented by man, which is not right nor effectual.
As touching the efficacy and profitableneſs of an ordinance, here diſtinguiſh between an aptitude to profit in caſe of Gods approba ion; and an actual profitableneſs. No doubt but many things not inſtitut…d of God, have an aptitude to be uſeful; but it follows not that they will be uſeful if ordained by men. For the actual uſefulneſs comes not from the aptitude of the thing, but from Gods inſtitution; but that which is contrary to the will of God, is not bleſſed to ſupernatural ends; yea, that which is not ſanctified of God thereunto, is not ſo bleſſ d.
Tho God can be obliged by a ſeal only of his own annexing to his Covenant, yet it is too poſſible for m…n to p…ſume ſo far as to inſtitute that whereby they fancy God as ſealing and …onveying to them his grace, and indeed that which can mean no leſs.
Mor…ov…r, in a Sacrament of the Covenant, as grace on Gods part is ſe…led, ſo ſelf-dedication on mans part. An… …n ordinance of mans deviſing, that ſeals ſelf-dedication to God upon the terms of the Covenant of Grace, is at leaſt the Moity of a Sacrament.
2. No new integral part of divine worſhip, without which the worſhip of God is ſuppoſed not intire, but deficient in part, may be invented of man. For it were to invent a new part of the Chriſtian Religion, and to augment it beyond the ſtate thereof, as ſetled by the Author and Founder of it.
Here note, that the accidental parts of Religion being varied, or augmented, or diminiſhed, make no variation, addition, or diminution in the Religion, no more than alteration in clothes makes an alteration in the man.
3. No ordinance that is of univerſal and perpetual uſe to the Church of God (if it be at all of uſe) ſo that it may in no place, in no age be omitted, may be deviſed of man. For the deviſing of ſuch an ordinance ſuppoſeth a defect in the divine ordinances of univerſal and perpetual uſe, to be made up by adding other ordinances by way of ſupplement. And it is but a preſuming that thoſe other are requiſite, when they are not. Alſo if the univerſal Lawgiver hath reſerved any thing to his own power, it can be no leſs than the making of ſuch Laws or Ordinances as are of univerſal and perpetual uſe. And ſurely that he hath reſerved ſomething to himſelf, few among us will gainſay.
Howbeit an arbitrary and temporary uſe of a Religious obſervance by particular men for ſuch ends, as equally concern all Chriſtians, may not be unlawful upon this account, becauſe therein Chriſts Legiſlative power is not encroached upon, it being not made a Law to the Church, but only a private arbitrary obſervation.
§ 5. What things of or belonging to Divine Worſhip, may be deviſed or inſtituted by man.
THE things ſet down under the former head as forbidden, are ſuch new ordinances of Worſhip as are co-ordinate with the divine ordinances, and are in proper ſenſe additions, pretending, or in themſelves expreſſing the ſame nature, reaſon, end and uſe, that the divine ordinances have, and conſequently importing an inſufficiency in them.
But there are ſuch inſtitutions of men in ſubordination to the divine inſtitutions, as ſerve for the more convenient modifying and ordering of the ſame. And they are not proper Additions, becauſe they are not of the ſame nature and uſe, and theſe are unlawful.
All ſuch modes of a duty as are neceſſary in genere, and not determined in ſpecie, (as when there muſt be a practice one way or other, but whether this way or that way, is not determined of God) are left free to humane determination.
This humane determination muſt be regulated by the general Rules of Gods word; of which there be theſe two chief; firſt, That all determinations be made for edification, and not for deſtruction. 2ly. That all things be done decently and in order. Theſe two Rules we find expreſly in Scripture, and they are alſo of the Law of Nature.
Theſe things are neither the eſſential nor integral parts of Divine Worſhip; but if any of them be called parts thereof, as being direct expreſſions of honour to God, they are but accidental parts; as the putting off the Hat in Divine Worſhip is a Worſhipping of God ſo far as it is an expreſſion of honour to God.
And as to ſuch matters, the term of accidental Worſhip may be allowed, not as if they had nothing of the Nature of Worſhip in them in any degree, (for Divine Worſhip is a genus, not Univocal, but Analogical, being predicated of all that comes under it, in ſome common notion or nature, but not in the ſame degree; and theſe partake of the nature of Worſhip, but in the loweſt degree), but becauſe they are not eſſential parts of Religion, nor integral; being contradiſtinct to the ſubſtantial and more important parts thereof. And as being circumſtantial expreſſions of giving honour to God, they may be called circumſtantial Worſhip As for example, putting off the Hat is a Worſhip-geſture, and Worſhip only ſo much as geſture comes to.
Theſe accidental parts ordinarily go not alone, but in attendance on other more important parts, even of external Worſhip. Yet it may be here conſidered, whether putting off the Hat, or Bowing, or Kneeling, and the like, may not be Acts of external Worſhip per ſe, or going alone, and not meerly in concomitance with other external Acts therof. As, whether Moſes his putting off his Shooes in the place where the Buſh burned, were an Act of Worſhip per ſe, and not only as a circumſtance or attendance on other Worſhip; and ſo for the ſame or like Act in any other ſymbolical preſence of God. If it be ſo, theſe Acts are even then but of the lower nature of accidental parts or modes of Worſhip.
I conceive the Lords commanding Moſes to put off his Shooes, was not a new precept of Worſhip, but only a directing him to, or minding him of that, which already in that caſe was required, by telling him the occaſion, which he was not aware of.
Whatſoever Nature or Cuſtom hath ſo made decent or reverent, that the negation of it is undecent or irreverent, is doubtleſs commanded of God in his Worſhip, tho not by any particular, yet by general Laws.
And the Inſtitution and Obſervation of ſuch things is no Addition to Gods Law, but meerly an Application of the general Law in particular Caſes, as the Law it ſelf doth warrant.
All theſe are ſuch mutable things, as are not fit to be in particular the matter of an univerſal Law, becauſe they are fit in one place, and at one time, and not another.
Note, that things not determined of God, 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; tho ſometimes the inferior may lawfully obey therein; or to ſpeak more properly, lawfully do the thing to avoid inconvenience, or to teſtifie reſpect to the Superior, tho in that particular he hath no lawful power to command.
Note alſo, that of things neceſſary in genere, the Superior may not lawfully determine for ſuch ſpecies, as, tho 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.
§ 6. Of the lawfulneſs of ſignificant Ceremonies in Divine Worſhip.
BY a Ceremony, I underſtand an external rite in or about the Worſhip of God. By ſignificant Ceremonies, I underſtand rites in Divine Worſhip, ſignifying ſome material point of Religion.
There is no controverſie about thoſe outward actions, that by nature or general cuſtome ſignifie the reverence of the mind, as kneeling, and lifting up our Eyes and Hands to Heaven in token of Devotion to the God of Heaven, and being uncovered in Prayer, &c. But the queſtion is of thoſe that ſignifie meerly by the force of authoritative inſtitution, or private arbitrary intention. Such ſignificant things, tho they may have ſome natural aptitude to ſignifie ſuch and ſuch points of Religion; yet they do not actually ſignifie, but as arbitrarily deſigned thereunto.
It is generally received, that ſignificant Ceremonies in taking an Oath may lawfully be uſed; and that not only ſuch as naturally ſignifie, as lifting up the hand towards Heaven, but ſuch alſo as ſignifie by Inſtitution, as laying the hand on a Book, or kiſſing the Book. Now tho the end of an Oath may be a Civil thing, as the ending? of a controverſie; yet the formale of it is Divine Worſhip. And the aforeſaid ceremonies are expreſſive of the very external part of it; and they actually ſignifie by force of Inſtitution.
Words ſignifie by general cuſtom, and have the ſame ſenſe out of the Worſhip of God, as in it; and therefore the arguing from their lawfulneſs, as ſigns of Worſhip, unto the lawfulneſs of inſtituted ſigns, ſeems liable to exception. Nevertheleſs it may be ſaid, that iniſttuted ſigns ſoon become cuſtomary, and as well underſtood as words.
The Chriſtians heretofore being among Infidels, might lawfully have the figure of the Croſs ſomewhere viſible about them, to ſhew that they were Chriſtians. For the meaning was no more than if they had ſaid, We are Chriſtians. But it may be replied, this was no Act of Divine Worſhip, but an indicant or ſpeaking ſign towards men.
With acknowledgment of my own weakneſs, I expreſs my app…eheſions of this matter. God hath allowed words for ſigns expreſſive of Divine Worſhip; but I find not that he hath allowed words only, and forbidden Geſtures and Actions for ſuch an end. The dumb muſt expreſs their internal Worſhip by geſtures and actions, or they cannot externally Worſhip God at all. If ſigns of Devotion that are of cuſtomary ſignification be lawful, I ſee not why ſuch as are of inſtituted ſignifition ſhould be unlawful, and eſpecially when they become as cuſtomary, as thoſe that have been without inſtitution. And if inſtituted ſigns of devotion in general be lawful, I ſee not why ſigns of ſome ſpecial part of devotion, or myſtery in Religion, ſhould be unlawful.
I am more confident of the warrantableneſs of Rites and Ceremonies of Worſhip that are uſed only inſtead of ſo many words pronounced, than of thoſe that are added to words for their more ſolemn ratification, as ſeals are to a writing, or foederal ſigns to a verbal Contract. Nevertheleſs, the forementioned Ceremonies of Swearing ſeem added to the words of the Oath, for more ſolemn ratification; and it alters not the caſe whether the words be read by him that adminiſters, or pronounced by him that takes the oath; for either way they are his words that takes the oath.
Likewiſe I have more confidence of the warrantableneſs of thoſe ſignificant Ceremonies that are of private arbitrary intention, than of thoſe that are of authoritative inſtitution; alſo of thoſe that are uſed occaſionally, and pro hic & nunc, than of thoſe that are uſed ſtatedly.
Furthermore I apprehend, that ſignificant Ceremonies of Divine Worſhip, are more apt to degenerate into Superſtition; and if they be multiplied, that Religion is therewith loaded as with unprofitable luggage; and that it is a form of Religion rather Moſaical than Evangelical, wherein ſpiritual worſhip is moſt regarded.
I think alſo, that ſignificant Ceremonies are not neceſſary in genere, as thoſe things are which are left to the determination of humane authority, and ſo not to be inſtituted and impoſed in the ordinary Divine Service.
I apprehend, that our Lord Chriſt hath inſtituted all thoſe ſtated Ordinances of poſitive Worſhip, that are neceſſary to the Church Univerſal; and therefore that more of the ſame nature are not to be deviſed by men.
If any ſignificant Ceremonies be indeed neceſſary for ſome parts of the Catholick Church, in reſpect of time and place, there ſeems to me a fairer plea for their inſtitution in thoſe times and places; but the controverted Ceremonies among us ſeem to be neceſſary for the whole Church in every age, if at all neceſſary.
Significant Ceremonies of the ſame nature and reaſon with thoſe perpetual Ordinances that Chriſt hath inſtituted for the Univerſal Church, may not be inſtituted by man, and particularly ſuch as are made Symbols of the Covenant of Grace, and Chriſtianity.
In matters doubted among ſober Chriſtians, Superiors ſhould take heed of ſtrict impoſing, and thereby wreſting the Conſciences of their ſubjects, and overſtraining them to a compliance with them, in derogation to Gods authority in their conſciences.
If Superiors command that which is above their ſphere to command, namely, things not neceſſary in genere; yet if they be not ſimply evil, ſubjects may do thoſe things, unleſs they be evil in their conſequence to a higher degree than the not doing of them would be In this caſe it is not formal obedience, but they are done for the ends ſake, and to avoid evil.
§. 7. Of bowing at the Name of JESƲS.
IT is rationally ſuppoſed, that in this act, not the Name, but the Perſon ſo named, is made the object of adoration; the Name pronounced is only the occaſion of the preſent adoration of the Perſon.
Nothing in Reaſon or Scripture doth evince, that it is ſimply evil to adore Chriſt by incurvation of the body, or other reverent geſture, upon occaſion of the pronouncing of the Name JESUS.
Howbeit, to make ſuch incurvation a ſtated Ordinance of worſhip, may be an exceſs in Religion, that is Superſtition (tho not intolerable) partly, becauſe it too rigidly tyes up Chriſtians to a bodily exerciſe of no neceſſity, nor of great moment; partly, becauſe it makes them attend to an overcurious geſticulation, and verges to externalneſs and formality, hindring the inward life and power of devotion; partly, becauſe it makes a difference where God hath made none; and puts greater honour upon one Name, that of right hath not greater honour than the other, viz. Chriſt, God, Lord, or Jehovah. For tho the Name be not the object worſhipped, yet it hath an honour and preheminence given it above the other names, without ſufficient ground.
But if the ſaid incurvation be ſo ſeverely commanded, that great miſchief would follow the non-obſervance, I judg it may be done, tho not formally, in obedience, yet for avoiding that miſchief; and peradventure it may be expedient in that caſe to bow at the name of Chriſt, God, Lord.
The place, Phil. 2.10. is only a phraſe expreſſing Subjection to Chriſt, and uſed alſo, Rom. 14.11. from Iſa. 45.23. to expreſs Subjection to God.
§ 8. Of kneeling in the Sacrament.
AS for kneeling in the Sacrament, the inquiry is not here of the expediency of it, much leſs of the impoſing of it, but of the bare lawfulneſs of it, againſt which I find no evidence.
The Act of kneeling among us is no adoration of the elements, nor owning of Chriſts corporal preſence; but it is either a geſture of prayer then made, or a ſign of moſt ſubmiſs and reverential receiving thoſe pledges of Divine Grace, or both.
Yet for as much as it was a Table-geſture in which Chriſts Diſciples received it from their Lords hand, a Table-geſture cannot reaſonably be thought leſs ſafe, or leſs decent.
§ 9. Of wearing the Surplice.
AS touching the Surplice, the wearing of a Garment of this or that colour, or of this or that form or ſhape in Divine Worſhip, is neither commanded nor forbidden of God. But tho as to its materiale it may be indifferent, yet as to its formal ſtate, it may not be alſo ſo.
If the Scurplice be made a holy Garment, as the Prieſtly Garments under the Law; if it be uſed to make him that wears it more holy, and the Service more acceptable for obtaining Divine Grace, it is Superſtitious. If it be made a Symbol of ſanctity, it may raiſe a ſcruple. But a diſtinctive habit of a Miniſter, whether uſed as his ordinary garb, or only in ſacred Adminiſtrations, I cannot ſee to be Superſtitious or forbidden. But a habit that is not Superſtitious, may be too gawdy, or too theatrical.
What is the formal ſtate or reaſon of the Surplice, is to be judged by the authoritatively declared meaning of thoſe that injoyn it, touching its end and uſe.
But whatſoever the nature and reaſon of this Garment be, I cannot approve the inforcing of it upon ſuch Miniſters, and in ſuch Congregations, to whom by reaſon of invincible prejudice, it is either odious or ridiculous, yea tho their prejudice be ſuppoſed culpable. Wiſe Rulers give way to the unmoveable averſneſs of Inferiors in things unneceſſary, and of no great moment, tho of good intention. And as I ſhould be loth to wear a fools coat in Divine Service upon the command of a Superior, ſo I ſhould be loth to appear in a Congregation in a habit which I knew would be to them as ridiculous as a fools coat, tho it were their great folly ſo to think.
§ 10. Of the Ring in Matrimony.
FOr as much as the Matrimonical contract and conjunction, tho it be a Divine Ordinance, yet is no part of Divine Worſhip, I no more doubt of the lawfulneſs of the Ring, as a ſign of that contract, than of any other ſign uſed for ratification of humane Contracts.
§ 11. Of the Croſs in Baptiſm.
SOme Nonconformiſts ſay, that they deny not the Civil uſe of the Croſs in Coins and Banners. Others of them ſay, they dare not reprove the Ancient Chriſtians that uſed the ſign of the Croſs meerly as a profeſſing ſignal action to ſhew to the Heathen that they did believe in Chriſt crucified. Indeed that uſage thereof was not an Act of Worſhip, but an informing of men touching their faith.
It ſeems lawful to ſignifie, as by words ſo by other ſigns, that we are Chriſt's, and his devoted Servants. For Words are but a kind of ſigns.
The grounds of ſcrupling the ſign of the Croſs in Baptiſm, are theſe: 1. That it is not a meer circumſtance, but an Ordinance of Worſhip, as important as an external rite can be. 2. That being a ſolemn and ſtated Symbolical ſign of a Divine Myſtery, and deviſed of men, it is of that claſſis or rank of things which are not neceſſary in genere, and ſo not allowed to be determined and impoſed by men, as things neceſſary in genere are allowed. 3. That either the whole nature of a Sacrament, or at leaſt a part thereof, is in it.
That it is a Sacrament, is thus proved It is an outward and viſible ſign of inward and ſpiritual Grace. The outward ſign is the repreſentation of the Croſs, the inſtrument of Chriſts ſufferings; and the inward ſpiritual Grace is fortitude in the Chriſtian warfare, according to the words of the Liturgy.
Here is a ſignification of Grace to be given us of God, and of our duty according to that Grace. Likewiſe this ſign hath aſſigned unto it the moral efficacy of a Sacrament for working Grace, by teaching and exciting us to the ſpiritual warfare, and minding us of Chriſt crucified. Alſo it ſignifies and ſeals our Relation to Chriſt, or the Grace of being a Chriſtian. And the Liturgy ſo ſpeaks, We receive this Child into the Congregation of Chriſts Flock, and ſign him, &c. in token, &c.
The pretence, that no rite can be a Sacrament, but what God hath inſtituted, is anſwered before, Sect. 4. And tho the impoſers thereof, ſay it is not a Sacrament; yet if they ſo declare its meaning, as to be of the formal nature and reaſon of a Sacrament, they make it to be one indeed, tho in word they deny it.
If it were granted that it hath not the compleat or intire nature of a Sacrament, yet there is one eſſential part of a S…crament moſt apparently in it, that is, to be an ingaging ſign on our part in the Covenant. For we uſe it as a token of ingaging our ſelves to Chriſt crucified, as our Captain and Saviour, by his Croſs; and to perform the duties of his Soldiers and Servants to our lives ends. And as Baptiſm dedicates to Chriſt, ſo doth the ſign of the Croſs, according to the expreſs words of the Canon, viz. It is an honourable badg, whereby the party Baptized is dedicated to the Service of him that dyed on the Croſs. So it hath that in it which is eſſential to a Sacrament, and part of the nature thereof at leaſt.
Beſides, it ſeems to be an Ordinance of that nature and kind, which Chriſt our Lawgiver hath reſerved to himſelf from the reaſon in Sections 3, 4, 5.
§ 12. Of Holy-days.
THAT ſome time of every day is to be ſpent in Religious exerciſes, and that whole days of Humiliation and Thankſgiving are to be kept upon ſpecial occaſions, and that there may be an Anniverſary commemoration of great Mercies or Judgments, is little doubted.
I ſee no reaſon why it is not lawful for a Nation or People to inſtitute an Anniverſary Commemoration of ſome eminent perſon ſent of God as a great light among them, as the firſt propagator of the Goſpel, or great Reſtorer of true Religion among them; as of Luther among the Germans, and Calvin among the French Proteſtants. For ſcarce a greater bleſſing doth ariſe to a Nation.
Mr. R B. ſaith, That an Apoſtolical Miniſtry being ſo eminent a mercy, he can ſee no reaſon why the Churches of all ſucceeding Ages may not keep an Anniverſary day for Peter or Paul, &c. but he ſaith alſo, that whether it be lawful to ſeparate an Anniverſary for the commemoration of Chriſts Nativity, Circumciſion, and ſuch like things, &c. which were equally exiſtent in the Apoſtles days, and the reaſons for obſerving them then, equal with the following times, is hard for him to determine, being not able to prove it lawful, and yet not ſeeing a plain prohibition of it. Yet he gives theſe reaſons of doubting their lawfulneſs. Firſt, the occaſions of theſe days were exiſtent in the Apoſtles times; and if God would have had theſe days obſerved, he could as eaſily and fitly have done it by his Apoſtles in the Scripture, as he did other like things. 2. If it were neceſſary, it would be equally neceſſary in all Ages and parts of the Catholick church, and therefore muſt be the matter of an univerſal Law; and God hath made no ſuch Law in Scripture; and therefore to ſay it is neceſſary, is to overthrow the ſufficiency of Scripture, as the Catholick Rule of Faith, and Univerſal Divine obedience. 3. God himſelf hath appointed a day for the ſame purpoſes as theſe are pretended for; the Reſurrection implies all the reſt of the Works of the Redeemer. 4. The Fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue, ſeems to be of ſo high a nature, that man is not to preſume to make the like.
He accounts it plainly unlawful for any Earthly Power to appoint a Weekly day in commemoration of any part of our Redemption, and ſo make another ſtated Weekly Holy-day, becauſe it is the doing of the ſame thing for one day, which God hath done by another; and ſo ſeems an uſurpation of power not given, and an accuſation of Chriſt and the Holy Ghoſt, as if he had not done his Work ſufficiently.
I think it alſo an uſurpation of Power not given for any Human Authority, to make any day or time permanently and unmovably holy, as a perpetual oblation to God, and not only ſanctified by the duties therein performed, but alſo ſanctifying the duties, and making them the more acceptable.
But as to the obſervation, much more to the impoſing of the obſervation of Holy-days of human inſtitution, regard is to be had not only to what is lawful, but alſo to what is expedient. And it is as eaſie to offend by exceſs, as by defect, in the inſtituting of ſet-times and days appropriated to Divine Worſhip.
§ 13. Of a LITƲRGY.
ANY particular form, whether ſtinted or free, is not of the eſſence of prayer, but only its accidental ſhape or mode, and pertains to it not as to a holy action, but as to an action in general. And for that no action can be performed but in ſome particular mode or other, this holy action cannot otherwiſe be performed.
Now neither Scripture, nor the nature of the thing, hath made either a ſtated and ſtinted, or a free and extemporal form in it ſelf neceſſary; and therefore either the one or the other may be uſed, as expedience requires, according to due choice and judgment. As on the one hand they are too weak and ill adviſed that reject all ſet-forms; ſo they on the other hand are too opinionative that reject all immediately conceived; yea, or preconceived forms that are not preſcribed. And both of them ſhew, that they are too much addicted to their Parties.
§ 14. Of Religious Auſterities, as acts or matter of Divine Worſhip.
THere are Auſterities inconvenient in their kind, ſuch as the ſelf cutting and lancing of Baals Prieſts, and ſuch as the Popiſh Whippings, or ſuch as ſome of the Ancients, with pious intention, but ſuperſtitiouſly uſed; as perpetual abiding on the top of a Pillar, never to ſleep but ſtanding, &c. And there are Auſterities inconvenient for meaſure, by exceſs in that which is for kind ſutable and comely, as immoderate Abſtinences and Abaſements; all ſuch being to be rejected, come not into the preſent conſideration: But the query is, Whether allowable Auſterities may be not only adjuncts, but alſo acts or matter of Worſhip?
Humiliation or Proſtration of ſoul in ſelf abaſement before God, is an act of internal Worſhip. And I do not ſee but the Auſterities we now ſpeak of, may be lawfully uſed as direct and immediate ſigns of ſuch humiliation, and conſequently as acts of Worſhip. Whatſoever is directly and immediately expreſſive of internal Worſhip, is external Worſhip. And ſo faſting and other abſtinences may be eſteemed not only as fit adjuncts of Worſhip, and helps therein, but acts thereof.
Vows of the aforeſaid allowable Auſterities, to be continued in for term of life, or notable length of time, are dangerous, and apt to inſnare the Conſciences; and if a ſpecial religious ſtate be placed in them, more than what belongs to Chriſtianity as ſuch, they are Superſtition and Will-worſhip.