THE FIFTH ARGUMENT AGAINST THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES TAKEN FROM THE
MYSTICAL AND SIGNIFICANT NATURE OF THEM.
_Sect._ 1. That mystical significations are placed in the controverted
ceremonies, and that they are ordained to be sacred signs of spiritual
mysteries, to teach Christians their duties, and to express such holy and
heavenly affections, dispositions, motions and desires, as are and should
be in them,—it is confessed and avouched by our opposites. Saravia
holdeth,(784) that by the sign of the cross we profess ourselves to be
Christians; Bishop Mortoune calleth(785) the cross a sign of constant
profession of Christianity; Hooker calleth(786) it “Christ’s mark applied
unto that part where bashfulness appeareth, in token that they which are
Christians should be at no time ashamed of his ignominy;” Dr Burges(787)
maintaineth the using of the surplice to signify the pureness that ought
to be in the minister of God; Paybody(788) will have kneeling at the
Lord’s supper to be a signification of the humble and grateful
acknowledging of the benefits of Christ. The prayer which the English
service book appointeth bishops to use after the confirming of children by
the imposition of hands, avoucheth that ceremony of confirmation for a
sign whereby those children are certified of God’s favour and good-will
towards them. In the general, our opposites defend(789) that the church
hath power to ordain such ceremonies, as by admonishing men of their duty,
and by expressing such spiritual and heavenly affections, dispositions,
motions, or desires, as should be in men, do thereby stir them up to
greater fervour and devotion.
_Sect._ 2. But against the lawfulness of such mystical and significant
ceremonies, thus we dispute: First, A chief part of the nature of
sacraments is given unto those ceremonies when they are in this manner
appointed to teach by their signification. This reason being alleged by
the _Abridgement of the Lincoln ministers_, Paybody answereth,(790) that
it is not a bare signification that makes a thing participate of the
sacrament’s nature, but such a signification as is sacramental, both in
what is signified and how. _Ans._ 1. This is but to beg the question; for
what other thing is alleged by us, but that a sacramental signification is
placed in those ceremonies we speak of? 2. What calls he a sacramental
signification, if a mystical resemblance and representation of some
spiritual grace which God hath promised in his word be not it? and that
such a signification as this is placed in the ceremonies, I have already
made it plain, from the testimonies of our opposites. This, sure, makes
those ceremonies so to encroach upon the confines and precincts of the
nature and quality of sacraments, that they usurp something more than any
rites which are not appointed by God himself can rightly do. And if they
be not sacraments, yet, saith Hooker,(791) they are as sacraments. But in
Augustine’s dialect, they are not only as sacraments, but they themselves
are sacraments. _Signa_ (saith the father) _cum ad res divinas pertinent,
sacramenta appellantur_; which testimony doth so master Dr Burges, that he
breaketh out into this witless answer,(792) That the meaning of Augustine
was to show that the name of sacraments belongeth properly to divine
things, and not to all signs of holy things. I take he would have said,
“belongeth properly to the signs of divine things.”
And here, beside that which Ames hath said against him, I add these two
things: 1. That this distinction cannot be conceived which the Doctor
maketh betwixt the signs of divine things and the signs of holy things. 2.
That his other distinction can as little be conceived, which importeth
that the name of sacraments belongeth to divine things properly, and to
all signs of holy things improperly.
Lastly, If we call to mind that which hath been evinced before, namely,
that the ceremonies are not only thought to be mystically significant for
setting forth and expressing certain spiritual graces, but also operative
and available to the begetting of those graces in us, if not by the work
wrought, at least by the work of the worker; for example, that the sign of
the cross is not only thought by our opposites to signify that at no time
we should be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ, but is also esteemed(793)
to be a means to work our preservation from shame, and a most effectual
teacher to avoid that which may deservedly procure shame; and that
bishopping is not only thought to be a sign for certifying young children
of God’s favour and good-will towards them, but also an exhibitive
sign,(794) whereby they receive strength against sin and tentation, and
are assisted in all virtue.
If these things, I say, we call to mind, it will be more manifest that the
ceremonies are given out for sacred signs of the very same nature that
sacraments are of. For the sacraments are called by divines commemorative,
representative and exhibitive signs; and such signs are also the
ceremonies we have spoken of, in the opinion of Formalists.
_Sect._ 3. Mystical and significant ceremonies (to proceed to a second
reason), ordained by men, can be no other than mere delusions, and serve
only to feed men’s minds with vain conceits. For to what other purpose do
_signa instituta_ serve, if it be not in the power of him who gives them
institution to give or to work that which is signified by them?
Now, it is not in the power of prelates, nor of any man living, to give us
these graces, or to work them in us, which they will have to be signified
by their mystical and symbolical ceremonies. Wherefore Beza saith(795)
well of such human rites as are thought to be significant: _Quum nulla res
signis illis subsit, propterea quod unius Dei est promittere, et suis
promissionibus sigillum suum opponere; consequitur omnia illa commenta,
inanes esse larvas, __ et vana opinione miseros homines illis propositis
signis deludi._ Dr Fulk thinks(796) he hath alleged enough against the
significative and commemorative use of the sign of the cross, when he hath
said that it is not ordained of Christ, nor taught by his apostles; from
which sort of reasoning it followeth, that all significant signs which are
not ordained of Christ, nor taught by his apostles, must be vain, false,
and superstitious.
_Sect._ 4. Thirdly, To introduce significant sacred ceremonies into the
New Testament other than the holy sacraments of God’s own institution,
were to reduce Judaism, and to impose upon us again the yoke of a
ceremonial law, which Christ hath taken off.
Upon this ground doth Amandus Polanus reprehend the popish clergy,(797)
for that they would be distinguished from laics by their priestly apparel
in their holy actions, especially in the mass: _Illa vestium sacerdotalium
distinctio et varietas, erat in veteri Testamento typica; veritate autem
exhibita, quid amplius typos requirunt?_
Upon this ground also doth Perkins(798) condemn all human significant
ceremonies. “Ceremonies (saith he) are either of figure and signification,
or of order. The first are abrogated at the coming of Christ,” &c.
Upon the same ground doth Chemnitius condemn them,(799) _Quod vero
praetenditur_, &c. “But, whereas (saith he) it is pretended that by those
rites of men’s addition, many things are probably signified, admonished
and taught,—hereto it may be answered, that figures do properly belong to
the Old Testament, but those things which Christ would have to be taught
in the New Testament, he would have them delivered and propounded, not by
shadows, but by the light of the word; and we have a promise of the
efficacy of the word, but not of figures invented by men.”
Upon the same ground Junius(800) findeth fault with ceremonies used for
signification: _Istis elementis mundi (ut vocantur Col. ii.) Dominus et
servator noluit nec docuit, ecclesiam suam informari_.
Lastly, We will consider the purpose of Christ whilst he said to the
Pharisees,(801) “The law and the prophets were until John: from that time
the kingdom of God is preached.” He had in the parable of the unjust
steward, and in the application of the same, spoken somewhat contemptibly
of riches, which, when the Pharisees heard, they derided him, and that for
this pretended reason (as is evident from the answer which is returned
unto them), because the law promises the world’s goods as rewards and
blessings to the people of God, that by the temporal things which are set
forth for types and shadows of eternal things, they might be instructed,
helped, and led, as it were by the hand, to the contemplation, desire and
expectation, of those heavenly and eternal things which are not seen. Now
Christ did not only rip up the hypocrisy of their hearts, ver. 15, but
also gave a formal answer to their pretended reason, by showing how the
law is by him perfected, ver. 16, yet not destroyed, ver. 17. Then will we
observe how he teacheth that the law and the prophets are perfected, and
so our point shall be plain. “The law and the prophets were until John,”
_i.e._, they did typify and prophesy concerning the things of the kingdom
until John; for before that time the faithful only saw those things afar
off, and by types, shadows, and figures, and the rudiments of the world,
were taught to know them. “But from that time the kingdom of God is
preached,” _i.e._, the people of God are no longer to be instructed
concerning the things of the kingdom of God by outward signs, or visible
shadows and figures, but only by the plain word of the gospel; for now the
kingdom of God ἐυαγγελιζεται is not typified as before, but plainly
preached, as a thing exhibited to us, and present with us. Thus we see
that to us, in the days of the gospel, the word only is appointed to teach
the things belonging to the kingdom of God.
_Sect._ 5. If any man reply, that though after the coming of Christ we are
liberate from the Jewish and typical significant ceremonies, yet ought we
to embrace those ceremonies wherein the church of the New Testament
placeth some spiritual signification:
I answer, 1. That which hath been said in this argument holdeth good
against significant ceremonies in general. Otherwise, when we read of the
abrogation of the ceremonial law, we should only understand the abrogation
of those particular ordinances which Moses delivered to the Jews
concerning the ceremonies that were to endure to the coming of Christ, and
so, notwithstanding all this, the church should still have power to set up
new ceremonial laws instead of the old, even which and how many she
listeth.
2. What can be answered to that which the _Abridgement_ propoundeth(802)
touching this matter? “It is much less lawful (say those ministers) for
man to bring significant ceremonies into God’s worship now than it was
under the law. For God hath abrogated his own (not only such as prefigured
Christ, but such also as served by their signification to teach moral
duties), so as now (without great sin) none of them can be continued in
the church, no, not for signification.” Whereupon they infer: “If those
ceremonies which God himself ordained to teach his church by their
signification may not now be used, much less may those which man hath
devised.”
_Sect._ 6. Fourthly, Sacred significant ceremonies devised by man are to
be reckoned among those images forbidden in the second commandment.
Polanus saith,(803) that _omnis figura illicita_ is forbidden in the
second commandment. The Professors(804) of Leyden call it _imaginem
quamlibet, sive mente conceptam, sive manu effictam_.
I have showed elsewhere,(805) that both in the writings of the fathers,
and of Formalists themselves, sacraments get the name of images; and why,
then, are not all significant and holy ceremonies to be accounted images?
Now, the second commandment forbiddeth images made by the lust of man
(that I may use Dr Burges’s phrase(806)), therefore it forbiddeth also all
religious similitudes, which are homogeneal unto them. This is the
inference of the _Abridgement_, whereat Paybody starteth,(807) and
replieth, that the gestures which the people of God used in circumcision
and baptism, the rending of the garment used in humiliation and prayer,
Ezra ix. 5; 2 Kings xxii. 19, Jer. xxxvi. 24, lifting up the hands,
kneeling with the knees, uncovering the head in the sacrament, standing
and sitting at the sacrament, were, and are, significant in worshipping,
yet are not forbidden by the second commandment.
_Ans._ There are three sorts of signs here to be distinguished. 1. Natural
signs: so smoke is a sign of fire, and the dawning of the day a sign of
the rising of the sun. 2. Customable signs; and so the uncovering of the
head, which of old was a sign of preeminence, hath, through custom, become
a sign of subjection. 3. Voluntary signs, which are called _signa
instituta_; these are either sacred or civil. To appoint sacred signs of
heavenly mysteries or spiritual graces is God’s own peculiar, and of this
kind are the holy sacraments. Civil signs for civil and moral uses may be,
and are, commendably appointed by men, both in church and commonwealth;
and thus the tolling of a bell is a sign given for assembling, and hath
the same signification both in ecclesiastical and secular assemblings.
Now, besides the sacred signs of God’s own institution, we know that
natural signs have also place in divine worship; thus kneeling in time of
prayer signifieth the submission of our hearts and minds, the lifting up
of our eyes and hands signifieth the elevation of our affections; the
rending of the garments signified the rending of the heart by sorrow;
standing with a religious suspect to that which is before us signifieth
veneration or reverence; sitting at table signifieth familiarity and
fellowship. “For which of you (saith our Master), Luke xvii. 7, having a
servant ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he
is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?” All these signs have
their significations from nature. And if it be said that howbeit sitting
at our common tables be a sign natural to signify familiarity amongst us,
yet nature hath not given such a signification to sitting at the Lord’s
table,—I answer, that sitting is a natural sign of familiarity, at what
table soever it be used. At the heavenly table in the kingdom of glory,
familiarity is expressed and signified by sitting: “Many shall come from
the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham,” &c., Matt. xviii. 11.
Much more, then, at the spiritual table in the kingdom of grace.
The difference betwixt other common tables and the Lord’s table can infer
no more, but that with great humility we ought to address ourselves unto
it; yet still we are to make use of our familiarity with Christ _ut
tanquam in eodem toro accumbentes_, as saith Chrysostom.(808) Wherefore we
do not there so look to Christ in his princely throne and glorious
majesty, exalted far above all principalities and powers, as to forget
that he is our loving and kind banqueter, who hath admitted us to that
familiar fellowship with him which is signified by our sitting at his
table.
Secondly, Customable signs have likewise place in divine service; for so a
man coming into one of our churches in time of public worship, if he see
the hearers covered, he knows by this customable sign that sermon is
begun.
Thirdly, Civil or moral signs instituted by men for that common order and
decency which is respect both in civil and sacred actions, have also place
in the acts of God’s worship. Thus a bason and a laver set before a pulpit
are signs of baptism to be ministered; but common decency teacheth us to
make the same use of a bason and a laver in civility which a minister
maketh of them in the action of baptising. All our question is about
sacred mystical signs. Every sign of this kind which is not ordained of
God we refer to the imagery forbidden in the second commandment; so that
in the tossing of this argument Paybody is twice naught, neither hath he
said aught for evincing the lawfulness of sacred significant ceremonies
ordained of men, which we impugn.
_Sect._ 7. Fifthly, The significancy and teaching office of mystical
ceremonies invented by men, must be drawn under those doctrines of men
condemned in the gospel. Wherefore was it that the divers washings of the
Pharisees were rejected by Christ as a vain worship? Was it not because
they were appointed for doctrines? “In vain (saith he) do they worship me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” Mark vii. 7.
The divers washings commanded in the law were fore-signifying to the
people, and for teaching them what true and inward holiness God required
of them. Now, the Pharisees, when they multiplied their washings of hands,
of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables, had the same respect of
significancy before their eyes. _Neque enim alio spectabant_ (that I may
use the words of a Formalist(809)) _quam ut se sanctitatis __ studiosos
hoc externu ritu probarent_. Neither have we any warrant to think that
they had another respect than this. But the error was in their addition to
the law, and in that they made their own ceremonial washings, which were
only the commandments of men, to serve for doctrines, instructions and
significations. For those washings, as they were significant, and taught
what holiness or cleanness should be among the people of God, they are
called by the name of worship; and as they were such significant
ceremonies as were only commanded by men, they are reckoned for vain
worship.
And further, I demand why are the Colossians, Col. ii. 20-22, rebuked for
subjecting themselves to those ordinances,—“Touch not, taste not, handle
not?” We see that those ordinances were not bare commandments, but
commandments under the colour of doctrines, to wit, as law commanded a
difference of meats, for signifying that holiness which God would have his
people formed unto; so these false teachers would have the same to be
signified and taught by that difference of meats and abstinence which they
of themselves, and without the commandment of God, had ordained.
Moreover, if we consider how that the word of God is given unto us “for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good
works,” 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17, it cannot but be evident how superfluously,
how superstitiously, the office of sacred teaching and mystical
signification is given to dumb and lifeless ceremonies ordained of men,
and, consequently, how justly they are taxed as vain worship. We hold,
therefore, with the worthiest of our divines,(810) _nullam doctrinam,
nullum sacram signum debere inter pios admitti, nisi a Deo profecta esse
constet_.
_Sect._ 8. To these reasons which I have put in order against men’s
significant ceremonies, I will add a pretty history before I go further.
When the Superior of the Abbey of St. Andrews(811) was disputing with John
Knox about the lawfulness of the ceremonies devised by the church, to
decore the sacraments and other service of God, Knox answered: “The church
ought to do nothing but in faith, and ought not to go before, but is bound
to follow the voice of the true Pastor.” The Superior replied, that “every
one of the ceremonies hath a godly signification, and therefore they both
proceed from faith, and are done in faith.” Knox replieth: “It is not
enough that man invent a ceremony, and then give it a signification
according to his pleasure; for so might the ceremonies of the Gentiles,
and this day the ceremonies of Mahomet be maintained. But if that anything
proceed from faith it must have the word of God for the assurance,” &c.
The Superior answereth: “Will ye bind us so strait that we may do nothing
without the express word of God? What, and I ask drink? think ye that I
sin? and yet I have not God’s word for me.”
Knox here telleth him, first, that if he should either eat or drink
without the assurance of God’s word, he sinned; “for saith not the
Apostle, speaking even of meat and drink, that the creatures are
sanctified unto men by the word and prayer? The word is this: all things
are clean to the clean: Now let me hear thus much of your ceremonies, and
I shall give you the argument?”
But secondly, He tells him that he compared indiscreetly together profane
things with holy; and that the question was not of meat and drink, wherein
the kingdom of God consisteth not, but of matters of religion, and that we
may not take the same freedom in the using of Christ’s sacraments that we
may do in eating and drinking, because Moses commanded, “All that the Lord
thy God commanded thee to do, that do thou to the Lord thy God; add
nothing to it, diminish nothing from it.” The Superior now saith that he
was dry, and thereupon desireth the grey friar Arbugkill to follow the
argument; but he was so pressed with the same that he was confounded in
himself, and the Superior ashamed of him:—
Dicite Io Pæan, et Io bis dicite Pæan.
_Sect._ 9. As for the examples alleged by our opposites out of Scripture
for justifying their significant ceremonies, they have been our propugners
of evangelical simplicity so often and so fully answered, that here I need
do no more but point at them. Of the days of Purim and feast of dedication
I am to speak afterward. In the meanwhile, our opposites cannot, by these
examples, strengthen themselves in this present argument, except they
could prove that the feast of dedication was lawfully instituted, and that
the days of Purim were appointed for a religious festivity, and that upon
no such extraordinary warrant as the church hath not ever and always. The
rite which Abraham commanded his servant to use when he sware to him,
namely, the putting of his hand under his thigh, Gen. xxiv. 2, maketh them
as little help; for it was but a moral sign of that civil subjection,
reverence and fidelity which inferiors owe unto superiors, according to
the judgment of Calvin, Junius, Pareus, and Tremellius, all upon that
place. That altar which was built by the Reubenites, Gadites, and half
tribe of Manasseh, Josh. xxii., had (as some think) not a religious, but a
moral use, and was not a sacred, but a civil sign, to witness that those
two tribes and the half were of the stock and lineage of Israel; which, if
it were once called in question, then their fear (deducing the connection
of causes and consequents) led them in the end to forecast this issue: “In
time to come your children might speak unto our children, saying, What
have you to do with the Lord God of Israel? for the Lord hath made Jordan
a border betwixt us and you,” &c. Therefore, to prevent all apparent
occasions of such doleful events, they erected the pattern of the Lord’s
altar, _ut vinculum sit fraternæ conjunctionis._(812)
And besides all this, there is nothing which can urge us to say that the
two tribes and the half did commendably in the erecting of this
altar.(813) Calvin finds two faults in their proceeding. 1. In that they
attempted such a notable and important innovation without advising with
their brethren of the other tribes, and especially without inquiring the
will of God by the high priest. 2. Whereas the law of God commanded only
to make one altar, forasmuch as God would be worshipped only in one place,
they did inordinately, scandalously, and with appearance of evil, erect
another altar; for every one who should look upon it could not but
presently think that they had forsaken the law, and were setting up a
strange and degenerate rite. Whether also that altar which they set up for
a pattern of the Lord’s altar, was one of the images forbidden in the
second commandment, I leave it to the judicious reader to ruminate upon.
But if one would gather from ver. 33, that the priest, and the princes,
and the children of Israel, did allow of that which the two tribes and the
half had done, because it is said, “The thing pleased the children of
Israel, and the children of Israel blessed God, and did not intend to go
up against them in battle:”
I answer, the Hebrew text hath it thus: “And the word was good in the eyes
of the children of Israel,” &c.; that is, the children of Israel blessed
God for the word which Phinehas and the ten princes brought to them,
because thereby they understood that the two tribes and the half had not
turned away from following the Lord, nor made them an altar for
burnt-offerings or sacrifice; which was enough to make them (the nine
tribes and a half) desist from their purpose of going up to war against
their brethren, to shed their blood. Again, when Phinehas and the ten
princes say to the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh,
This day we perceive that the Lord is among us, “because ye have not
committed this trespass against the Lord,” they do not exempt them from
all prevarication; only they say _signanter_, “this trespass,” to wit, of
turning away from the Lord, and building an altar for sacrifice, whereof
they were accused. Thus we see that no approbation of that which the two
tribes and the half did, in erecting the altar, can be drawn from the
text.
_Sect._ 10. But to proceed, our opposites allege for another example
against us, a new altar built by Solomon, 1 Kings viii. 64. In which place
there is no such thing to be found as a new altar built by Solomon; but
only that he sanctified the pavement of the inner court, that the whole
court might be as an altar, necessity so requiring, because the brazen
altar of the Lord was not able to contain so many sacrifices as then were
offered. The building of synagogues can make as little against us.
For, 1. After the tribes were settled in the land of promise, synagogues
were built, in the case of an urgent necessity, because all Israel could
not come every Sabbath day to the reading and expounding of the law in the
place which God had chosen that his name might dwell there. What hath that
case to do with the addition of our unnecessary ceremonies?
2. If Formalists will make any advantage of the building of synagogues,
they must prove that they were founded, not upon the extraordinary warrant
of prophets, but upon that ordinary power which the church retaineth
still. As for the love-feasts used in the primitive church, 1. They had no
religious state in divine worship, but were used only as moral signs of
mutual charity. The Rhemists(814) will have them to be called _caenas
dominicas_. But what saith Cartwright against them? “We grant that there
were such feasts used in times past, but they were called by the name of
ἀγάπαι or love-feasts, not by the name of the Lord’s supper; neither could
one without sacrilege give so holy a name to a common feast, which never
had ground out of the word, and which after, for just cause, was thrust
out by the word of God.” 2. If it be thought that they were used as sacred
signs of Christian charity because they were eaten in the church, I
answer, the eating of them in the church is forbidden by the Apostle.
“What! (saith he) have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye
the church of God?” _Aperte vetat_ (saith Pareus),(815) _commessationes in
ecclesia, quocunque fuco pingantur. Vocabant ἀγάπας charitates; sod nihil
winus erant. Erant schismatum fomenta. Singulae enim sectae suas
instituebant._ And a little after: _Aliquae ecclesiae obtemperasse
videntur. Nam Justini temporibus Romana ecclesia ἀγάπας non habuit._
Concerning the kiss of charity used in those times, 2 Cor. xiii. 22, we
say in like manner that it was but a moral sign of that reconciliation,
friendship and amity, which showed itself as well at holy assemblies as
other meetings in that kind and courtesy, but with all chaste salutation,
which was then in use.
_Sect._ 11. As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women
covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the
public and common prayer), or prophesying (that is, singing, 1 Sam. x. 10;
1 Chron. xxv. 1), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a
garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human
institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly
distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their
meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency
and comeliness in their common behaviour and conversation, the Apostle
will have them, for the same decency and comeliness, still to retain in
their holy assemblies. And further, the Apostle showeth that it is also a
natural sign, and that nature itself teacheth it; therefore he urgeth it
both by the inferiority or subjection of the woman, ver. 3, 8, 9 (for
covering was then a sign of subjection), and by the long hair which nature
gives to a woman, ver. 25; where he would have the artificial covering to
be fashioned in imitation of the natural. What need we any more? Let us
see nature’s institution, or the Apostle’s recommendation, for the
controverted ceremonies (as we have seen them for women’s veils), and we
yield the argument.
Last of all, the sign of imposition of hands helpeth not the cause of our
opposites, because it has the example of Christ and the apostles, and
their disciples, which our ceremonies have not; yet we think not
imposition of hands to be any sacred or mystical sign, but only a moral,
for designation of a person: let them who think more highly or honourably
of it look to their warrants.
Thus have I thought it enough to take a passing view of these objected
instances, without marking narrowly all the impertinencies and falsehoods
which here we find in the reasoning of our opposites. One word more, and
so an end. Dr Burges would comprehend the significancy of sacred
ecclesiastical ceremonies, for stirring men up to the remembrance of some
mystery of piety or duty to God, under that edification which is required
in things that concern order and decency by all divines.
Alas! what a sorry conceit is this? Divines, indeed, do rightly require
that those alterable circumstances of divine worship which are left to the
determination of the church be so ordered and disposed as they may be
profitable to this edification. But this edification they speak of is no
other than that which is common to all our actions and speeches. Are we
not required to do all things unto edifying, yea, to speak as that our
speech may be profitable unto edifying? Now, such significations as we
have showed to be given to the ceremonies in question, as, namely, to
certify a child of God’s favour and goodwill towards him,—to betoken that
at no time Christians should be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ,—to
signify the pureness that ought to be in the minister of God,—to express
the humble and grateful acknowledgments of the benefits of Christ,
&c.,—belong not to that edification which divines require in things
prescribed by the church concerning order and decency, except of every
private and ordinary action, in the whole course of our conversation, we
either deny that it should be done unto edifying, or else affirm that it
is a sacred significant ceremony.