Part 49

§. 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.