A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

We still keep, and esteem, not only those ceremonies which we are sure were delivered us from the apostles, but some others too besides, which we thought might be suffered without hurt to the Church of God; for that we had a desire that all things in the holy congregation might, as St. Paul commandeth, be done with comeliness, and in good order. But as for all those things which we saw were either very superstitious, or utterly unprofitable, or noisome, or mockeries, or contrary to the Holy Scriptures, or else unseemly for sober and discreet people, whereof there be infinite numbers now-a-days, where the Roman religion is used; these, I say, we have utterly refused without all manner of exception, because we would not have the right worshipping of God to be defiled any longer with such follies.—Bp. Jewell.

Wise Christians sit down in the mean now under the gospel, avoiding a careless and parsimonious neglect on the one side, and a superstitious slovenliness on the other: the painted looks and lascivious gaudiness of the Church upon the hills, and the careless, neglected dress of some Churches in the valley.—Bp. Hall.

Far be it from me to be a patron of idolatry or superstition in the least degree, yet I am afraid lest we, who have reformed the worship of God from that pollution, (and blessed be his name therefor!) by bending the crooked stick too much the other way, have run too far into the other extreme.—Mede.

It may be objected, that my superior may enjoin me such a law, as my conscience tells me is scandalous to my brother, not convenient, not edifying, &c.; what shall I do in this condition? If I conform, I sin against my conscience (Rom. xiv. 23); if I do not, I sin against his authority. Answer, that text of Rom. xiv. 23, hath only reference to things not only indifferent in their own nature, but left free from any superior command interposing, and therefore the text is not ad idem; for though such laws may be of things indifferent, yet being commanded by just authority, the indifference by that command determineth, and they become necessary.—L’Estrange.

The Reformation gave such a turn to weak heads, that had not weight enough to poise themselves between the extremes of Popery and fanaticism, that everything older than yesterday was looked upon to be Popish and anti-Christian. The meanest of the people aspired to the priesthood, and were readier to frame new laws for the Church, than obey the old.—Sherlock.

It is a rule in prudence, not to remove an ill custom when it is well settled, unless it bring great prejudices, and then it is better to give one account why we have taken it away, than to be always making excuses why we do it not. Needless alteration doth diminish the venerable esteem of religion, and lessen the credit of ancient truths. Break ice in one place, and it will crack in more.—Archbishop Bramhall.

Our Saviour and his apostles did use indifferent things, which were not prescribed in Divine worship. Thus he joined in the synagogue worship, (John xviii. 20, &c.,) though (if the place itself were at all prescribed) the manner of that service was not so much as hinted at. Thus he used the cup of charity in the Passover, though it was not instituted. (Luke xxii. 17.) The feast of dedication was a human institution, yet he vouchsafed to be present at it. Nay, he complied with the Jews in the very posture of the Passover, which they changed to sitting, though God had prescribed standing. The apostles also observed the hours of prayer, which were of human institution. (Acts iii. 1.) Now if Christ and his apostles did thus under the Jewish law, which was so exact in prescribing outward ceremonies, certainly we may do the same under the gospel. I may add, that the primitive Christians not only complied with the Jews in such rites as were not forbidden, but also had some ritual observations taken up by themselves. Thus they washed the disciples’ feet in imitation of Christ, and used love-feasts, till they thought it convenient to lay them aside. From whence it appears, that prescription is not necessary to make a rite lawful; it is enough if it be not forbidden.—Bennet.

Calvin, in his book of the True Way of Reformation, saith, he would not contend about ceremonies, not only those which are for decency, but those that are symbolical. Œcolampadius looked on the gesture at the sacrament as indifferent. Bucer thought the use of the sign of the cross after baptism neither indecent nor unprofitable. Crocius says, that the nature of ceremonies is to be taken from the doctrine which goes along with them; if the doctrine be good, the rites are so, or, at least, are tolerable; if it be false, then they are troublesome, and not to be borne; if it be impure, and lead to idolatry, then the ceremonies are tainted with the poison of it.—Stillingfleet.

No abuse of any gesture, though it be in the most manifest idolatry, doth render that gesture simply evil, and for ever after unlawful to be used in the worship of God upon that account. For the abuse of a thing supposes the lawful use of it; and if anything otherwise lawful becomes sinful by an abuse of it, then it is plain that it is not in its own nature sinful, but by accident, and with respect to somewhat else. This is clear from Scripture; for if rites and ceremonies, after they have been abused by idolaters, become absolutely evil, and unlawful to be used at all, then the Jews sinned in offering sacrifices—erecting altars—burning incense to the God of heaven—bowing down themselves before him—wearing a linen garment in the time of Divine worship—and observing other things and rites which the heathens observe in the worship of false gods. Kneeling at prayers, and standing, and sitting, and lifting up the hands and eyes to heaven, and bowing of the body, together with prayer, and praise, and singing, have been all notoriously abused to idolatry, and are so to this day.—Bennet. Nay, this principle would render Christianity impracticable; because there is no circumstance, no instrument, no ministry in worship, but may have been in some way or other abused by Pagan or Romish idolatries.—Bennet.

Bucer, in a letter to Johannes a Lasco, says, “If you will not admit such liberty and use of vesture to this pure and holy Church, because they have no commandment of the Lord, nor no example for it, I do not see how you can grant to any Church, that it may celebrate the Lord’s supper in the morning, &c.; for we have received for these things no commandment of the Lord, nor any example; yea, rather, the Lord gave a contrary example.”