OF UNIFORMITY IN RELIGION,
WORSHIP OF GOD, AND CHURCH GOVERNMENT
by George Gillespie,
Scottish Commissioner
To the Assembly of Divines At Westminster.
The
word uniformity is become as odious to divers who plead for liberty and
toleration, as the word conformity was in the prelates' times. Hence proceeded
Mr Dell's book against uniformity, and Mr Burton's book, entitled, Conformity's
Deformity. I confess my love and desire of uniformity hath not made me any whit
to depart from my former principles against the prelatical conformity, or the
astricting of men's consciences (at least in point of practice and observation)
to certain rites, whether unlawful or indifferent in their own nature, under
pain of censure. Yet I must needs justify (as not only lawful, but laudable)
what the solemn league and covenant of the three kingdoms obligeth us unto,
namely, to endeavour to bring the churches of God in the three kingdoms to the
nearest conjunction and uniformity in one confession of faith, one directory of
worship, one form of church government and catechism.
It is always to be
remembered, that good things, yea the best things, may be dangerously abused by
the corruptions of men, especially when the times are generally corrupted.
Luther had reason in his time, and as the case stood then, to decline a general
synod of Protestants for unity in ceremonies (which some moved for), before the
doctrine of faith and the substance of the gospel was settled. He said the name
of synods and councils was almost as much suspected with him as the name of
freewill, and that he would have the churches freely and voluntarily to comply
and conform in external rites, by following the best examples in these things,
but by no means to be compelled to it, or snares prepared for the consciences
of the weak. (See Melchior Adamus, in Vit. Lutheri, p. 128,129.) But if Luther
had found as good opportunity and as much possibility of attaining a right
uniformity in church government and worship as God vouchsafeth us in this age,
I do not doubt but he had been more zealous for it than any of us now are; or,
if he had been in Calvin's stead, I make no question he had done in this
business as Calvin did. So that we ought to impute it rather to the times and
places in which they lived, than to the difference of their spirits, that
Luther's zeal was wholly spent upon the doctrine of free grace. Calvin's zeal
did also extend itself to discipline, about which Luther was unwilling to make
any business at all. But for further satisfaction to truly tender consciences,
and that they may not fear we are leading them back again to Egypt, I desire
that these particular differences between the prelatical conformity and the
presbyterial uniformity, according to the covenant, may be well observed.
1. They did, after the heathenish and popish manner, affect ceremonies, and
a pompous external splendour and respectability, and made the kingdom of God
come with observation.1 We desire to retain only the ancient apostolical
simplicity and singleness, and, we conceive, the fewer ceremonies the better,
knowing that the minds of people are thereby inveigled and distracted from the
spiritual and inward duties.
2. Much of the prelatical conformity consisted
in such things as were in themselves, and in their own nature, unlawful and
contrary to the word. Show us the like in any part of our uniformity, then let
that thing never more be heard of. Uniformity in any thing which is unlawful is
a great aggravation of the sin.
3. They conformed to the Papists, we to the
example of the best reformed churches, which differeth as much from their way,
as she that is dressed like other honest women differeth from her that is
dressed like a whore.
4. The prelatical conformity was, for the most part,
made up of sacred ceremonies, which had been grossly and notoriously abused
either to idolatry or superstition, and therefore being things of no necessary
use, ought not to have been continued, but abolished, as the brazen serpent was
by Hezekiah. But in our uniformity now excepted against, I know no such thing
(and I am confident no man can give instance of any such thing in it) as a
sacred religious rite or thing, which hath neither from Scripture nor nature
any necessary use, and hath been notoriously abused to idolatry or
superstition: if any such thing can be found, I shall confess it ought not to
be continued.
5. They imposed upon others, and practised themselves,
ceremonies (acknowledged by themselves to be in their own nature not merely
indifferent, but looked upon by many thousands of godly people as unlawful and
contrary to the word) to the great scandal and offence of their brethren. Our
principle is, that things indifferent ought not to be practised with the
scandal and offence of the godly.
6. Their way was destructive to true
Christian liberty both of conscience and practice, compelling, the practice,
and conscience itself, by the mere will and authority of the law-makers.
Obedite pr?positis was the great argument with them to satisfy consciences: Sic
volo, sit jubeo, sic pro ratione voluntas. We say that no canons nor
constitutions of the church can bind the conscience nisi per et propter verbum
Dei, i.e., except in so far as they are grounded upon and warrantable by the
word of God, at least by consequence, and by the general rules thereof; and
that canons concerning things indifferent bind not extra casum scandali et
contemptus, i.e., when they may be omitted without giving scandal, or showing
any contempt of the ecclesiastical authority.
7. The prelatical ordinances
were "after the commandments and doctrines of men," as the Apostle speaks, Col.
2.22. Compare Matt. 15.9, "But in vain do they worship me, teaching, for
doctrines, the commandments of men." Where doctrines may fitly express the
nature of significant mysterious ceremonies, such as was the Pharisaical
washing of hands, cups, tables, &c., to teach and signify holiness. All
sacred significant ceremonies of man's devising we condemn as an addition to
the word of God, which is forbidden no less than a diminution from it. Let many
of those who object against our uniformity, examine whether their own way hath
not somewhat in it which is a sacred significant ceremony of human invention,
and without the word; for instance, the anointing of the sick in these days
when the miracle is ceased, the church covenant, &c. For our part, except
it be a circumstance such as be-longeth to the decency and order which ought to
appear in all human societies and actions, whether civil or sacred, we hold
that the church hath not power to determine or enjoin anything belonging to
religion; and even of these circumstances we say, that although they be so
numerous and so various that all circumstances belonging to all times and
places could not be particularly determined in Scripture, yet the church ought
to order them so, and hath no power to order them otherwise, as may best agree
with the general rules of the word. Now, setting aside the circumstantials,
there is not any substantial part of the uniformity according to the covenant
which is not either expressly grounded upon the word of God, or by necessary
consequence drawn from it, and so no commandment of men, but of God.
Other
differences I might add, but these may abundantly suffice to show that the
prelatical conformity and the presbyterian uniformity are no less contrary one
to another than darkness and light, black and white, bitter and sweet, bad and
good.
And now having thus cleared the true nature and notion of
uniformity?that it is altogether another thing from that which its opposers
apprehend it to be?the work of arguing for it may be the shorter and easier. Mr
Dell, in his discourse against uniformity, argueth against it, both from nature
and from Scripture. I confess if one will transire de genere in genus, as he
doth, it is easy to find a disconformity between one thing and another, either
in the works of creation or in the things recorded in Scripture. But if one
will look after uniformity in uno et eodem genere, in one and the same kind of
things (which is the uniformity we plead for), then both nature and Scripture
giveth us precedents not against uniformity, but for it. It is a maxim in
natural philosophy, that motus c?li est semper uniformis velocitate ?the
heavens do not move sometime more slowly, sometime more swiftly, but ever
uniformly. God himself tells us of the sweet influences of Pleiades, of the
bands of Orion, of the bringing forth of Mazzaroth in his season, and of the
other ordinances of heaven, which all the power on earth cannot alter nor put
out of course, Job 38.31-33; of the sea which is shut up within the decreed
place, and within the doors and bars which it cannot pass, ver. 10,11; and
generally, all the great works which God doth there discourse of, each of them
in its own kind is uniform to itself: so likewise, Psalm 104. Hath not God
said, that "while the earth remaineth, seed-time and harvest, and cold and
heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease"? Gen. 8.22. If
there were not an uniformity in nature, how could fair weather be known by a
red sky in the evening, or foul weather by a red and lowring sky in the
morning? Matt. 16.2,3. If there be not an uniformity in nature, why saith
Solomon, "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which
is done, is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun"?
Eccl. 1.9. Is it not an uniformity in nature that "the stork in the heaven
know-eth her appointed times; and the turtle, and the crane, and the swallow,
observe the time of their coming"? Jer. 8.7. Is not that an uniformity in
nature, John 4.35, "There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest"? As the
Apostle saith of the members of the body which we think to be less honourable,
"upon these we bestow more abundant honour," 1 Cor. 12.23; so I may say of
those things in nature which may perhaps seem to have least uniformity in them
(such as the waxing, and waning of the moon, the ebbing and flowing of the sea,
and the like), even in these a very great uniformity may be observed.
As
for Scripture precedents, there was in the Old Testament a marvelously great
uniformity both in the substantials and rituals of the worship and service of
God. For instance, Num. 9.3, it is said of the passover, "Ye shall keep it in
his appointed season: according to all the rites of it, and according to all
the ceremonies thereof, shall ye keep it." Exod. 12.49, "One law shall be to
him that is home-born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you."
Another instance see in the sacrifices, first seven chapters of Leviticus.
Another instance, Acts 15.21, "For Moses of old time hath in every city them
that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day." A fourth
instance, in the courses and services of the priests and Levites, 1
Chron.
23.26; Luke 1.8,9. The like in other instances.
Of the church of the New
Testament it was prophesied, that God would give them one way as well as one
heart, Jer. 32.39; that there shall not only be one Lord, but his name one,
Zech. 14.9. We are exhorted to walk by the same rule, so far as we have
attained; that is, to study uniformity, not diversity, in those things which
are agreed upon to be good and right, Phil. 3.16. Doth not the Apostle plainly
intimate and commend an uniformity in the worship of God, 1 Cor. 14.27, "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;" ver. 33, "For God is not the author of
confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints;" ver. 40, "Let all
things be done decently, and in order"? He limiteth the prophets to that same
number of two or three, even as he limiteth those that had the gift of tongues,
ver. 29. And was it not a great uniformity, that he would have every man who
prayed or prophesied to have his head uncovered, and every woman covered, 1
Cor. 11? Doth not the same Apostle, besides the doctrine of faith and practical
duties of a Christian life, deliver several canons to be observed in the
ordination and admission of elders and deacons, concerning widows, concerning
ccusations, admonitions, censures, and other things belonging to church policy,
as appeareth especially from the epistles to Timothy and Titus? And, 1 Cor.
16.1,2, he will have an uniformity between the churches of Galatia and of
Corinth in the very day of putting forth their charity, "Now, concerning the
collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia,
even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him
in store," &c. In the ancient church, although there was not an uniformity
in all particulars among all the churches,?for instance, in the point of
fasting, some fasting on the Sabbath, some not; some taking the Lord's supper
fasting, some after meals (which differences in fasting gave occasion to the
old rule, Dissonantia jejunii non dissolvit consonantiam fidei); although,
likewise, there was a great difference between the custom of one church and
another in the time and manner of celebrating the Lord's supper, and in other
particulars, as Augustine, Socrates, and the author of the Tripartite history
record unto us,?yet the Centurists, and other ecclesiastical historians, show
us in every century a great uniformity in those ancient times, even in very
many things belonging to church government and form of worship. Neither can any
man doubt of the great uniformity in the ancient church. Who is a stranger to
the canons of the ancient councils? And although Iren?us and others justly
blamed Victor, bishop of Rome, for excommunicating the churches of Asia, and
the Quartodecimans, because of their disconformity in keeping of Easter, yet
the endeavouring of the nearest uniformity in that particular was so far from
being blamed, that it was one cause (though neither the sole nor principal) of
the calling and convening of the Council of Nice; which council did not leave
it arbitrary to every one to follow their own opinion concerning Easter, but by
their canon determined that it should not be kept upon the same day with the
Jews, that is, upon the fourteenth day of the month.