5. Dividing Principles
Chapter Five Dividing Principles T he first, There can be no Agreement without Uniformity.
This principle has long caused much division in the Church.
Understanding where its weakness and falseness lie will help much to bring peace and join us sweetly together.
In the substantials of worship, unity is necessary; there, all are bound to go by the same rule and to do, to the utmost they are able, the same thing.
But the circumstantials of worship have a two-fold consideration: They are either such that, though merely circumstances to some other worship, yet have also in themselves some divine worship, some spiritual efficacy, something in them to commend our service unto God, or to cause some presence of God with us, or to work us nearer to God by an efficacy beyond what they have in them of their own natures. For instance, time is a circumstance, but the Lord's day has a worship in it commending our service to God and an efficacy to bring God to us and raise us to God; this is not from any natural efficacy of the time but from God's institution. Now, in such circumstances as these, there ought to be uniformity; for these have
institutions for their rule and are not at man's liberty to be altered as he thinks best in prudence.
But there are other circumstances that are only natural or civil, subservient to worship in a natural or civil way. They are conversant about worship but have nothing of worship in them and are merely natural or civil helps to it. When we worship God, we do something as men as well as worshippers; hence we need some natural or civil helps. For instance, when we meet to worship God, being men as well as Christians, we must have a convenient place to keep us from the weather and know where to resort; and a time to know when.
There must be order: Many cannot speak at once for edification; modest and grave carriage is required of us as a society of men meeting about matters of weight. In these circumstances and others of like nature, there is no worship at all; there is no spiritual efficacy; there are only natural or civil helps to us while we are worshipping. Therefore, for these circumstances, human prudence is sufficient to order them.
The right understanding of this takes away a great prejudice that many have against those who desire to keep to Divine Institutions not only in substantials but in the circumstantials of worship. They think it unreasonable that Divine Institution should be required for every circumstance in worship; this has bred a great quarrel in the Church. And well may it be thought unreasonable if we required institutions for circumstances in worship that are merely natural or civil helps and have no worship at all in them, for that indeed would be endless and mere vanity.
Certainly, institutions are to be required only in things that are raised beyond what is in them naturally, in tendering my respects to God by them or expecting to draw my heart nearer to God or God nearer to me in their
use. The contention about uniformity is much increased for want of a right understanding of this difference in the circumstantials of worship; did we understand one another in this, we might soon have peace concerning this matter.
In these latter sorts of circumstances, we must also distinguish. There are some that must necessarily be determined, such as time and place; it is therefore necessary that there should be uniformity in these among all members of every society respectively so that they agree to meet in the same place at the same time; natural necessity requires this. But natural necessity does not require binding several churches to uniformity in things of this kind. The urging of uniformity beyond the rule in such things has caused woeful divisions in the Church throughout all ages. Eusebius tells of Victor, Bishop of Rome, about two hundred years after Christ, who broke off communion from all the Churches of Asia for not keeping Easter at the same time he did. The controversy was not about Easter but only about uniformity in the time. Never have there been greater breaches of unity in the Church than by violently urging uniformity.
Furthermore, there are other natural civil circumstances that need not be determined at all; though there is liberty and variety in them, order and edification are not hindered. For instance, in hearing the Word, one stands as Constantine was wont constantly to do; another sits; one is uncovered; another is covered; one has one kind of garment; another has another; yet no rules of modesty or gravity are broken. Now if any power should violently urge uniformity in such circumstances and not leave them as Christ has done, they make the necessity of uniformity a dividing principle upon these four grounds:
1. This restricts men's natural liberties without satisfying their reason.2.
This has been the inlet to almost all superstitions in the Church; first, the plea has been for decency and order, then there has been stamped a human institution to raise things higher.3. The urging of such things when there is no reason seen in their nature why this rather than that makes men fear there is some religious respect put upon them already.4. Here is a stretching of the power of authority beyond its limits, which man naturally is very impatient of, not knowing how far it may yet further be extended.
As for the practice of Church Governors or civil authorities going beyond their bounds, we shall speak to this in the third head.
I have read of Solyman the Great Turk who, when advised by a Mufti to compel those of diverse religions in his dominions to Mahumetism, looked out of his window into his garden where there was great variety of flowers and herbs and said: "As the variety of flowers and herbs seems very delightful, so the diversity of religions in my kingdom is rather useful than burdensome, so long as those who profess them live peaceably." I am not of his mind regarding the variety of several religions—of which more will be said shortly—yet certainly in the variety of practices among brethren in such matters as we are discussing, tuned with brotherly love towards one another, there will be a sweet harmony when violent urging uniformity in such things will cause harsh discord in the Churches.
When the aforementioned Victor of Rome, along with those who joined him, caused woeful divisions in the Church by insisting on uniformity and claiming there could be no peace without it, they broke the peace of the Church. Irenaeus and others at the same time advocated for the peace of the Church, suggesting it could be achieved by allowing differences in practice in such matters. In the name of all the brethren in France under his charge,
he wrote to Victor and those who joined him, reminding them of the variety of practices among diverse brethren in times before them, which were very near the Apostles' times, who yet were united with one another.
He noted that the bishops before Soter, of that See which Victor now governed—such as Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Sixtus—were at unity with those of other churches, despite their varied observations.
Polycarp, being in Rome during Anicetus's time, differed in various practices from him. Although Polycarp had received his practices from John, the disciple of our Lord with whom he conversed, he did not persuade
Anicetus to adopt the same practices but left him to follow the way of his own church. They communicated lovingly with one another and parted in a brotherly manner.
Can people not walk peaceably on a broad path, even if they do not step exactly in each other's footsteps? Even if there is some distance in their walk—one towards one side and the other towards the opposite side of the path—must they necessarily fall out because they are not on the same path when the way is broad enough? Indeed, if they were crossing a narrow bridge, they must not take the liberty to walk abreast; if they do not keep close to each other's steps, they may fall into the river. Thus, in matters of divine worship, we must ensure we walk exactly in the same steps; if we presume to take liberty there, we may soon fall. But in circumstances of a lesser nature, there can be differences without division. We must not presume to be wiser than Christ.
Melanchthon, in an epistle to some brethren of differing minds (cited by Gersom Bucerus), persuades unity thus: "Seeing," he says, "we agree on the principal articles of faith, let us embrace one another with mutual love. The
dissimilarity and variety of rites and ceremonies (I will add," says Bucerus) "and of ecclesiastical government ought not to disjoin our minds."