rejected by _Christians_, because they are to seek the _Honour that
comes from above_, and not the _Honour_ that is from _below_: But
these Honours are not that Honour that comes from above, but are from
below. For we know well enough what Industry, and what Pains Men are
at to get these Things, and what Part it is that seeks after them, to
wit, the _proud, insolent, haughty, aspiring Mind_. [Sidenote: _The
proud Mind loves Titles._] For judge, Is it the _meek_ and _innocent
Spirit of Christ_ that covets that Honour? Is it that Spirit that must
be of _no Reputation in this World_, that has its [154]_Conversation
in Heaven_, that comes to have _Fellowship with the Sons of God_? Is
it that Spirit, I say, that loves that Honour, that seeks after that
Honour, that pleads for the Upholding of that Honour, that frets, and
rages, and fumes, when it is denied that Honour? [Sidenote: _Lucifer’s
Spirit._] Or is it not rather the lordly insulting Spirit of _Lucifer_,
the _Prince of this World_, he that of old affected and sought after
this Honour, and loved not to abide in the submissive low Place? And
so all his Children are possessed with the same ambitious proud Mind,
seeking and covering _Titles_ of _Honour_, which indeed belong not
to them. For let us examine, [155]_Who they are that are honourable
indeed?_ [156]Is it not the _righteous Man_? Is it not the _holy Man_?
Is it not the _humble-hearted Man_, the _meek-spirited Man_? And are
not such those that ought to be _honoured_ among _Christians_? Now of
these, may there not be poor Men, Labourers, silly Fishermen? And if
so, how comes it that the _Titles_ of _Honour_ are not bestowed upon
such? But who are they that generally receive and look for this Honour?
Are they not the rich Ones, such as have abundance of the Earth, as be
like the rich Glutton, such as are proud and ambitious, such as are
Oppressors of the Poor, such as swell with Lust and Vanity, and all
_Superfluity of Naughtiness_, who are the very Abomination and Plague
of the Nations? Are not these they that are accounted honourable,
that require and receive the Titles of Honour, proud _Hamans_? Now
whether is this the Honour that comes from God, or the Honour from
below? Doth God honour such as daily dishonour him, and disobey him?
And if this be not the Honour that comes from God, but the Honour of
this World, which the Children of this World give and receive one from
another; how can the Children of God, such as are Christians indeed,
give or receive that Honour among themselves, without coming under
the Reproof of Christ, who saith, That _such as do cannot believe_?
But further, If we respect the Cause that most frequently procures to
Men these _Titles_ of _Honour_, there is not one of a Thousand that
shall be found to be because of any Christian Virtue; but rather for
Things to be discommended among _Christians_: As by the Favour of
_Princes_, procured by flattering, and often by worse Means. Yea, the
most frequent, and accounted among Men most honourable, is _Fighting_,
or some great _martial Exploit_, which can add nothing to a Christian’s
Worth: Since, sure it is, it were desirable there were no _Fightings_
among Christians at all; and in so far as there are, it shews they are
not right Christians. And _James_ tells us, That _Fighting proceeds
from the Lusts_. So that it were fitter for Christians, by the _Sword
of God’s Spirit_, to fight against their Lusts, than by the Prevalency
of their Lusts to destroy one another. Whatever Honour any might have
attained of old under the _Law_ this Way, we find under the _Gospel_
Christians commended for _Suffering_, not for _Fighting_; neither
did any of Christ’s Disciples, save one, offer outward Violence by
the Sword, in cutting off _Malchus_’s Ear; for which he received no
Title of Honour, but a just Reproof. Finally, if we look either to the
_Nature_ of this _Honour_, the _Cause_ of it, the _Way_ it is conveyed,
the _Terms_ in which it is delivered, it cannot be used by such as
desire to be _Christians_ in good Earnest.
[154] Phil. 3. 20.
[155] _Jerome_, in his Epistle to _Celant_, admonisheth her, That she
was to be preferred to none for her _Nobility_, for the Christian
Religion admits not of Respect of Persons; neither are Men to be
esteemed because of their outward Condition, but according to the
Disposition of the Mind, to be esteemed either noble or base; he that
obeyeth not Sin, is free; who is strong in Virtue, is noble, _Let the
Epistle of _James_ be read_.
[156] 1 Sam. 2. 30.
§. IV. Now besides these general _Titles_ of _Honour_, what gross
Abuses are crept in among such as are called _Christians_ in the Use
of _Compliments_, wherein not Servants to Masters, or others, with
Respect to any such Kind of Relations, but others, who have no such
Relation do say and write to one another at every Turn, _Your humble
Servant_, _Your most obedient Servant_, &c. Such wicked Customs have,
to the great Prejudice of Souls, accustomed Christians to lie; and to
use Lying is now come to be accounted Civility. O horrid Apostasy! for
it is notoriously known, that the Use of these _Compliments_ imports
not any Design of Service, neither are any such Fools to think so; for
if we should put them to it that say so, they would no doubt think we
abused them; and would soon let us know they gave us Words in Course,
and no more. It is strange, That such as pretend to _Scripture_ as
their Rule should not be ashamed to use such Things; since _Elihu_, who
had not the Scriptures, could by the _Light within him_ (which these
Men think insufficient) say, _Job._ xxxii. 21, 22. _Let me not accept
any Man’s Person, neither let me give flattering Titles unto Men. For
I know not to give flattering Titles; in so doing my Maker would soon
take me away._ A certain ancient devout Man, in the primitive Time,
subscribed himself to a Bishop, _Your humble Servant_; wherein I doubt
not but he was more real than our usual _Complimenters_; and yet he was
sharply reproved for it.[157]
[157] This History is reported by _Casaubonus_, in his Book of
_Manners_ and _Customs_, P. 160. “In this last Age he is esteemed an
uncivil Man, who will not either to his Inferior or Equal subscribe
himself _Servant_. But _Sulpitius Severus_ was heretofore sharply
reproved by _Paulinus_, Bishop of _Nola_, because in his Epistle he
had subscribed himself his Servant, saying, _Beware thou subscribe not
thyself his _Servant_, who is _thy Brother_; for Flattery is sinful,
not a Testimony of Humility to give these Honours to Men, which are
only due to the One Lord, Master, and GOD_.”
But they usually object, to defend themselves, _That_ Luke _saith, Most
Excellent_ Theophilus; _and_ Paul, _Most Noble_ Festus.
I _answer_, Since _Luke_ wrote that by the Dictates of the _Infallible
Spirit of God_, I think it will not be doubted but _Theophilus_ did
deserve it, as being really endued with that Virtue: In which Case we
shall not condemn those that do it by the same Rule. But it is not
proved that _Luke_ gave _Theophilus_ this Title, as that which was
derived to him, either from his Father, or by any Patent _Theophilus_
had obtained from any of the Princes of the Earth? or that he would
have given it him, in Case he had not been truly _excellent_: And
unless this be proved (which never can) there can nothing hence be
deduced against us. [Sidenote: _Concerning the Title _Paul_ gave to
_Festus.] The like may be said of that of _Paul_ to _Festus_, whom he
would not have called such, if he had not been truly _noble_; as indeed
he was, in that he suffered him to be heard in his own Cause, and
would not give Way to the Fury of the _Jews_ against him; it was not
because of any outward Title bestowed upon _Festus_, that he so called
him, else he would have given the same Appellation to his Predecessor
_Felix_, who had the same Office; but being a covetous Man, we find he
gives him no such _Stile_.
§. V. [Sidenote: _The _Singular Number_ to one Person used in the
_Latin.] It will not be unfit in this Place to say something
concerning the Using of the _Singular Number_ to one Person; of this
there is no Controversy in the _Latin_. For when we speak to one, we
always use the _Pronoun_ [TU,] and he that would do otherwise, would
break the Rules of _Grammar_. For what Boy, learning his Rudiments, is
ignorant, that it is incongruous to say [_vos amas_, _vos legis_,] that
is [_you lovest_, _you readest_] speaking to one? But the Pride of Man,
that hath corrupted many Things, refuses also to use this _Simplicity_
of speaking in the vulgar Languages. For being puffed up with a vain
Opinion of themselves, as if the _Singular Number_ were not sufficient
for them, they will have others to speak to them in the _Plural_. Hence
_Luther_, in his _Plays_, reproves and mocks this Manner of speaking,
saying, _Magister, vos es iratus_: Which Corruption _Erasmus_
sufficiently refutes in his Book of _Writing Epistles_: Concerning
which likewise _James Howel_, in his Epistle to the _Nobility_ of
_England_, before the _French_ and _English Dictionary_, takes Notice,
“That both in _France_, and in other Nations, the Word [THOU] was
used in speaking to one; but by Succession of Time, [Sidenote: _How
the Word _You_ came to be used to a single Person._] when the _Roman_
Commonwealth grew into an Empire, the Courtiers began to magnify
the Emperor, (as being furnished with Power to confer Dignities and
Offices) using the Word [_You_,] yea, and deifying him with more
remarkable Titles;” Concerning which Matter, we read in the Epistles
of _Symmachus_ to the Emperors _Theodosius_ and _Valentinianus_, where
he useth these Forms of Speaking, “_Vestra Æternitas_, Your Eternity;
_Vestrum Numen_, Your Godhead; _Vestra Serenitas_, Your Serenity;
_Vestra Clementia_, Your Clemency. So that the Word [_You_] in the
Plural Number, together with the other Titles and Compellations of
Honour, seem to have taken their Rise from _Monarchical Government_;
which afterwards, by Degrees, came to be derived to private Persons.”
The same is witnessed by _John Maresius_, of the _French Academy_;
in the Preface of his _Clovis_: “Let none wonder (saith he) that the
Word [_Thou_] is used in this Work to _Princes_ and _Princesses_; for
we use the same to God: And of old the same was used to _Alexanders_,
_Cæsars_, _Queens_ and _Empresses_. The Use of the Word [_You_,] when
one Person is spoken to, was only introduced by these base Flatteries
of Men of latter Ages, to whom it seemed good to use the Plural Number
to one Person, that he may imagine himself alone to be equal to many
others in Dignity and Worth; from whence at last it came to Persons of
lower Quality.”
To the same Purpose speaketh also _M. Godeau_, in his Preface to the
_New Testament Translation_: “I had rather (saith he) faithfully keep
to the express Words of _Paul_, than exactly follow the polished Stile
of our Tongue; therefore I always use that Form of calling God in the
_Singular Number_, not in the _Plural_; and therefore I say rather
[_Thou_] than [_You_.] I confess indeed, That the Civility and Custom
of this World requires him to be honoured after that Manner; but it
is likewise on the contrary true, that the original Tongue of the New
Testament hath nothing common with such Manners and Civility; so that
not one of these many old Versions we have doth observe it. Let not Men
believe, That we give not Respect enough to God, in that we call him by
the Word [_Thou_] which is nevertheless far otherwise; [Sidenote: _The
Word _Thou_, a greater Honour to One than _You.] for I seem to myself
(may be by the Effect of Custom) more to honour his Divine Majesty,
in calling him after this Manner, than if I should call him after the
Manner of Men, who are so delicate in their Forms of Speech.”
See how clearly and evidently these Men witness, That this Form of
Speaking, and these profane Titles, derive their Origin from the
base Flattery of these last Ages, and from the delicate Haughtiness
of _worldly Men_, who have invented these _Novelties_, that thereby
they might honour one another, under I know not what Pretence of
_Civility_ and _Respect_. From whence many of the present _Christians_
(so accounted) are become so perverse, in commending most wicked Men,
and wicked Customs, that the _Simplicity_ of the _Gospel_ is wholly
lost; so that the giving of Men and Things their own Names is not only
worn out of Custom, but the doing thereof is accounted absurd and rude
by such Kind of _delicate Parasites_, who desire to ascribe to this
Flattery, and abuse the Name of _Civility_. Moreover, that this Way of
speaking proceeds from an high and proud Mind, hence appears, because
that Men commonly use the _Singular Number_ to _Beggars_, and to their
_Servants_; yea, and in their _Prayers to God_. Thus the _Superior_
will speak to his _Inferior_, who yet will not bear that the _Inferior_
so speak to him, as judging it a Kind of Reproach unto him. So hath
the Pride of Men placed _God_ and the _Beggar_ in the same _Category_.
I think I need not use Arguments to prove to such as know congruous
Language, That we ought to use the _Singular Number_ speaking to one;
which is the common Dialect of the whole Scripture, as also the most
Interpreters do translate it. Seeing therefore it is manifest to us,
that this Form of speaking to Men in the _Plural Number_ doth proceed
from _Pride_, as well as that it is in itself a _Lie_, we found a
Necessity upon us to testify against this Corruption, by using the
_Singular_ equally unto _all_. And although no Reason can be given why
we should be persecuted upon this Account, especially by _Christians_,
who profess to follow the Rule of Scripture, whose Dialect this is;
[Sidenote: _Scripture Dialect the plain Language_.] yet it would
perhaps seem incredible if I should relate how much we have suffered
for this Thing, and how these proud Ones have _fumed_, _fretted_, and
_gnashed_ their _Teeth_, frequently _beating_ and _striking_ us, when
we have spoken to them thus in the _Singular Number_: Whereby we are
the more confirmed in our Judgment, as seeing that this _Testimony of
Truth_, which God hath given us to bear in all Things, doth so vex the
serpentine Nature in the _Children of Darkness_.
§. VI. [Sidenote: _Bowing to Men_, &c.] _Secondly_, Next unto this of
_Titles_, the other Part of _Honour_ used among _Christians_ is the
_Kneeling_, _Bowing_, and _Uncovering of the Head_ to one another. I
know nothing our Adversaries have to plead for them in this Matter,
save some few Instances of the _Old Testament_, and the _Custom_ of the
Country.
The first are, Such as _Abraham’s bowing himself to the Children of
_Heth_, and _Lot_ to the two Angels_, &c.
But the Practice of these _Patriarchs_, related as Matter of Fact, is
not to be a Rule to _Christians_ now; neither are we to imitate them
in every Practice, which has not a particular Reproof added to it: For
we find not _Abraham_ reproved for taking _Hagar_, &c. And indeed to
say all Things were lawful for us which they practised, would produce
great Inconveniences obvious enough to all. [Sidenote: _The Custom
of the Nations no Rule to Christians._] And as to the _Customs of
the Nations_, it is a very ill Argument for a Christian’s Practice:
We should have a better Rule to walk by than the _Custom_ of the
_Gentiles_; the Apostles desire us not to be [158]_conformed to this
World_, &c. We see how little they have to say for themselves in this
Matter. Let it be observed then, Whether our Reasons for laying aside
these Things be not considerable and weighty enough to uphold us in so
doing.
[158] Rom. 12. 2.
_First_, We say, _That God, who is the Creator of Man, and he to
whom he oweth the Dedication both of Soul and Body, is over all
to be worshipped and adored, and that not only by the Spirit, but
also with the Prostration of Body_. Now, _Kneeling_, _Bowing_, and
_Uncovering of the Head_, is the alone outward Signification of our
_Adoration_ towards _God_, _and therefore it is not lawful to give it
unto Man_. [Sidenote: _Bowing is adoring, and is only due to God._]
He that kneeleth, or prostrates himself to Man, what doth he more to
God? He that boweth, and uncovereth his Head to the _Creature_, what
hath he reserved to the _Creator_? Now the Apostle shews us, That
the _Uncovering of the Head_ is that which God requires of us in our
worshipping of him, 1 _Cor._ xi. 14. But if we make our Address to Men
in the same Manner, where lieth the Difference? Not in the outward
_Signification_, but merely in the _Intention_; which opens a Door
for the _Popish Veneration_ of _Images_, which hereby is necessarily
excluded.
Secondly, _Men being alike by Creation_ (though their being stated
under their several Relations requires from them mutual Services
according to those respective Relations) _owe not Worship one to
another, but all equally are to return it to God: Because it is to him,
and his Name alone, that every Knee must bow, and before whose Throne
the four-and-twenty Elders prostrate themselves_. Therefore for Men to
take this one from another, is to rob God of his Glory: Since all the
Duties of Relations may be performed one to another without these Kind
of Bowings, which therefore are no essential Part of our Duty to Man,
but to God. All Men, by an inward instinct, in all Nations have been
led to prostrate and bow themselves to God. And it is plain that this
Bowing to Men took Place from a _slavish Fear_ possessing some, which
led them to set up others as Gods; when also an ambitious proud Spirit
got up in those others, to usurp the Place of God over their Brethren.
Thirdly, _We see that _Peter_ refused it from _Cornelius_, saying, He
was a Man_. Are then the _Popes_ more, or more excellent than _Peter_,
who suffer Men daily to fall down at their Feet, and kiss them?
[Sidenote: Peter _and the_ Angel _refused Bowing._] This Reproof of
_Peter_ to _Cornelius_ doth abundantly shew, that such Manners were
not to be admitted among Christians. Yea, we see, that the _Angel_
twice refused this Kind of _Bowing_ from _John_, Rev. xix. 10. and
xxii. 9. for this Reason, _Because I am thy Fellow-servant, and of
thy Brethren_; abundantly intimating that it is _not lawful for
Fellow-servants_ thus to prostrate themselves one to another: And in
this Respect all Men are _Fellow-servants_.
[Sidenote: Object.] If it be said, John _intended here a Religious
Worship, and not a Civil_;
[Sidenote: _Answ._] I _answer_, This is to say, not to prove: Neither
can we suppose _John_, at that Time of the Day, so ill-instructed as
not to know it was unlawful to worship _Angels_; only it should seem,
because of those great and mysterious Things revealed to him by that
_Angel_, he was willing to signify some more than ordinary Testimony of
Respect, for which he was reproved. These Things being thus considered,
it is remitted to the Judgment of such as are desirous to be found
_Christians_ indeed, whether we are worthy of Blame for waving it to
Men. Let those then that will blame us consider whether they might
not as well accuse _Mordecai_ of Incivility, who was no less singular
than we in this Matter. [Sidenote: _To forbear_ Bowing _to Men is no
Incivility, nor Pride, nor Rudeness_.] And forasmuch as they accuse
us herein of _Rudeness_ and _Pride_, though the Testimony of our
Consciences in the Sight of God be a sufficient Guard against such
Calumnies, yet there are of us known to be Men of such Education, as
forbear not these Things for want of that they call _good Breeding_;
and we should be very void of Reason, to purchase that _Pride_ at so
dear a Rate, as many have done the Exercise of their Conscience in
this Matter; many of us having been _sorely beaten_ and _buffeted_,
yea, and several Months _imprisoned_, for no other Reason but because
we could not so satisfy the _proud unreasonable Humours of proud Men_,
as to _uncover our Heads_, and _bow our Bodies_. Nor doth our innocent
Practice, in standing still, though upright, not putting off our
_Hats_, any more than our _Shoes_, the one being the Covering of our
_Heads_, as well as the other of our _Feet_, shew so much Rudeness, as
their beating and knocking us, _&c._ because we cannot _Bow_ to them,
contrary to our Consciences: Which certainly shews less _Meekness_
and _Humility_ upon their Part, than it doth of _Rudeness_ or _Pride_
upon ours. Now suppose it were our Weakness, and we really under a
Mistake in this Thing, since it is not alleged to be the Breach of
any _Christian Precept_, are we not to be indulged, as the Apostle
commanded should be done to such as scrupled to _eat Flesh_? And doth
not persecuting and reviling us upon this Account shew them to be more
like unto proud _Haman_, than the Disciples or Followers of the _meek,
self-denying Jesus_? And this I can say boldly, in the Sight of God,
from my own Experience, and that of many Thousands more, that however
small or foolish this may seem, yet we behoved to choose Death rather
than do it, and that for Conscience Sake: And that in its being so
contrary to our natural Spirits, there are many of us, to whom the
Forsaking of these Bowings and Ceremonies was as Death itself; which
we could never have left, if we could have enjoyed our Peace with
God in the Use of them. _Though it be far from us to judge all those
to whom God hath not shewn the Evil of them, under the like Hazard_;
yet nevertheless we doubt not but to such as would prove _faithful
Witnesses_ to _Christ’s Divine Light_ in their _Consciences_, God will
also shew the Evil of these Things.
§. VII. [Sidenote: Apparel _in its Vanity and Superfluity disallowed._]
The _Third_ Thing to be treated of, is the _Vanity and Superfluity
of Apparel_. In which, _First_, Two Things are to be considered, the
_Condition of the Person_, and the _Country he lives in_. We shall not
say that all Persons are to be clothed alike, because it will perhaps
neither suit their Bodies nor their Estates. And if a Man be clothed
_soberly_, and without _Superfluity_, though they may be _finer_ than
that which his Servant is clothed with, we shall not blame him for it:
The abstaining from _Superfluities_, which his Condition and Education
have accustomed him to, may be in him a greater Act of Mortification
than the abstaining from _finer Clothes_ in the Servant, who never was
accustomed to them. As to the _Country_, what it naturally produces
may be no Vanity to the Inhabitants to use, or what is commonly
imparted to them by Way of Exchange, seeing it is without Doubt that
the Creation is for the Use of Man. So where _Silk_ abounds, it may be
worn as well as _Wool_; and were we in those Countries, or near unto
them, where _Gold_ or _Silver_ were as common as _Iron_ or _Brass_, the
one might be used as well as the other. The Iniquity lies then here,
_First_, When from a Lust of Vanity, and a Desire to adorn themselves,
Men and Women, not content with what their Condition can bear, or their
Country easily affords, do stretch to have Things, that from their
Rarity, and the Price that is put upon them, seem to be precious, and
so feed their Lust the more; and this all sober Men of all Sorts will
readily grant to be Evil.
_Secondly_, When Men are not content to make a true Use of the
Creation, whether the Things be _fine_ or _coarse_, and do not
satisfy themselves with what Need and Conveniency call for, but add
thereunto Things merely _superfluous_, such as is the Use of _Ribbands_
and _Lace_, and much more of that Kind of Stuff, as _painting the
Face, and plaiting the Hair_, which are the Fruits of the _fallen_,
_lustful_, and _corrupt Nature_, and not of the _New Creation_, as
all will acknowledge. And though _sober Men_ among all Sorts will
say, That it were better these Things were not, yet will they not
reckon them unlawful, and therefore do admit the Use of them among
their Church-members: But we do account them altogether unlawful, and
unsuitable to _Christians_, and that for these Reasons:
[Sidenote: _The proper Use of Clothes._] First, _The Use of Clothes
came originally from the Fall_. If Man had not fallen, it appears
he would not have needed them; but this miserable State made them
necessary in two Respects: 1. _To cover his Nakedness_; 2. _To keep
him from the Cold_; which are both the proper and principal Use of
them. Now for Man to delight himself in that which is the Fruit of
his Iniquity, and the Consequence of his Sin, can be no Ways lawful
for him: So to extend Things beyond their real Use, or to superadd
Things wholly superfluous, is a manifest Abuse of the _Creation_, and
therefore not lawful to Christians.
_Secondly_, Those that will needs so adorn themselves in the Use of
their Clothes, as to beset them with Things having no real Use or
Necessity, but merely for Ornament Sake, do openly declare, [Sidenote:
_Not to please their Lusts_.] That the End of it is either to please
their _Lust_ (for which End these Things are chiefly invented and
contrived) or otherwise to gratify a _vain, proud, and ostentatious
Mind_; and it is obvious these are their general Ends in so doing. Yea,
we see how easily Men are puffed up with their Garments, and how proud
and vain they are, when adorned to their Mind. Now how far these Things
are below a true _Christian_, and how unsuitable, needs very little
Proof. Hereby those who love to be _gaudy_ and _superfluous_ in their
Clothes, shew they concern themselves little with _Mortification_ and
_Self-denial_, and that they study to beautify their Bodies more than
their Souls; which proves they think little upon _Mortality_, and so
certainly are more _nominal_ than _real_ Christians.