The Puritan Thomas Manton once wrote,
“Doct. That when God’s people are divided in opinion, all lenity and mutual forbearance should be used to prevent things from coming to an open rupture.
So sweet and mild was the discipline in the apostle’s days, that he would not compel men to do whatever he or others did conceive to be good, or to forbear what they did conceive to be evil, but, without force, leave them to God’s direction and illumination.
[1.] There may be, and often are, differences of opinion about lesser things in the church; partly because of the different degrees of light. All barks that sail to heaven draw not a like depth of water. And partly because of the remainders of corruption in all. Inordinate self-love is not in all alike broken and mortified, and so their particular interests have an influence upon their opinions. And partly because of the accidental prejudices of education and converse, &c.
[2.] When these differences arise, we should take care they come not to a rupture and open breach. This is the course the apostle taketh here; he doth not by and by despair of the dissenters, and reject them as heretics, but beareth with them, hoping in charity God will at length reveal their error to them by the ministry of his servants, through the powerful operation of his Spirit, and not suffer them to run on in dividing courses from the rest of his people. So should we do in like cases. Partly because when these differences of opinion breed division and separations, the church is destroyed”
Later in that same work he says,
“The one sort of Christians is for imposing on their brethren all things that have gotten the vogue and the favour of authority, and that not only on their practice, but their judgments too; and this in matters not fundamental or destructive to faith or worship, but in things controversial or doubtful among godly and peaceable men. But if it should not go so high, contending about every difference of opinion, and urging our brethren with everything we conceive to be right, is a breach of Christian love, and destroyeth the use of those differing gifts which Christ hath given to the church, and crosseth his mind in the frame of the scriptures, which are clear in soul-saving matters; in other things, especially matters of discipline and order, more dark and obscure. It is also contrary to the mild and gentle government of the apostles, who press in lesser matters a forbearance; as Paul, Rom. xiv. 1, ‘The weak in faith receive, but not to doubtful disputations;’ receive him, own him, but do not cast him out ‘of the church, nor trouble him for doubtful things, but let him come to himself, for men will sooner be led than drawn.”
And,
“In such cases of damnable heresy, the law of Christian lenity holdeth not; but if we agree in the principal articles of faith, let us embrace one another with mutual love, though we differ from one another in variety of rites and ceremonies and discipline ecclesiastical. If we agree in the substantial of worship, let us go by the same rule, do the same thing: though in circumstantials there be a difference, these are matters of lesser moment than separation, or the other division of the church.”
Westminster divine, Jeremiah Burroughs wrote,
“First, this contending about every difference of opinion, and urging our bretheren with what we conceive right, in matters of controversy, crosseth the end of Christ in his administration on differing gifts to his church, and human society, and his revieling of truths in different ways, some more darkly some more clearly; Christ could easily have given such gifts to all, or revealed all truths so clearly, so that every man should have been able to have seen every truth. Surely Christ did not disperse gifts, and reveal truths so differently, to that end that there might be continual matter of strife and contention in his church, and in human society. Not so there should be provocation to the exercise of cruelty upon one another, but rather that there might be excercice of love, charity, forbearance, meekness, longsuffering of one towards another. Christ bids us, charges us to be at peace amongst ourselves. If we should say, O Lord Jesus, wouldst thou have us to be at peace with one another? But there are many things in thy word, that we and our Bretheren have different apprehensions of; for though (blessed be thy Name) the great necessary things of salvation be clearly revealed, yet many other things are dark for us, that through our weakness we cannot all see the same thing. Now is it thy mind O Savior, that one man, who conceives himself to understand the truth, (and that it may be rightly) compel another to his judgment? And doest thou also require , that we must not bring our judgment to our brethren till thy light brings them? How then is it possible that we should be at peace with one another?
Do not all divines say, There are some things in Scripture wherein the Elephant may swim, some things where the lamb may wade? Matters of discipline are acknowledged by all, not to be revealed with much clearness, but that truly conscientious, upright, diligent men may not be able in many things to see the mind of Christ in them. And to what end hath Christ done this think you.”
The Puritan John Howe also wrote,
“There is still a further appearance of great carnality in such cases, when any do adventure to judge of the consciences and states of them whom they oppose, or from whom they differ: when they ascend the tribunal, usurp the throne, pass sentence upon them, as men of no conscience, or of no sincerity, or uprightness of heart with God. As if theirs were to be the universal conscience, the measure of all consciences; and he that cannot be governed by their conscience must have none at all : or he be stark blind towards truth, towards God, and towards himself, that sees not everything they see, or fancy themselves to see. This is a most high usurpation upon divine prerogative; and how can any insensibly slide into such an evil as this, in the face of so plain and so awful a text of Scripture, that so severely animadverts upon it? That 14th. to the Romans, in sundry verses of it. With what reverence and dread should it strike a man’s soul in such a case! When we have the rights of the Redeemer asserted in those whom he hath bought with his blood? What shall be thought of any such protestants, that without any color or shadow of a ground, besides differing from them in some very disputable and unimportant opinions, shall presume to judge of other men’s consciences, (and consequently of their states God-ward) which such a one as he thought it so presumptuous wickedness to attempt to over-rule or govern?
Brother, please rest assured that I take the commands of God quite seriously. I’m just trying to explain what I see the scripture to be saying, and what the Reformed faith before us has taught. Martin Luther said,
” Of course Paul does not mean that physically there is no Jew and Greek, no man and woman. He means, as related to the subject he is handling. But of what is he speaking? Not of the natural body, but of faith, justification and Christ how, through faith, we become children of God in Christ, a change effected in the soul, in man’s conscience; not in his flesh and blood, not through his members, but through the Word of the Gospel. In this sense there is no difference in persons, whether they be Jews or Greeks, bond or free, male or female. According to the customs of men, physically the Jew is bound by a different law and a different manner of life from the Greek; the bond from the free; the male from the female. The Jew is circumcised, the Greek is not; the male covers not his hair, but the female wears a veil. Then, too, everyman serves God in his own way; hence the saying, “Many countries, many customs.” These customs, however, as well as all things external and not of faith, are powerless to render one righteous and pious before God. Neither do they hinder justification. Faith may exist equally well with all classes of persons, differing not with any custom and distinctions.” (Sermons Vol. 6 pg. 242)
John Calvin opens his sermon on 1 Cor. 4 by stating
“Let us observe that St. Paul has only taken exception to something that was not appropriate and fitting according to the usage of the land. For (as we have shown) we are not to take those countries and measure them by our custom(s).”
and comments on verse 16 that,
“Now, if this rule must be observed in small things which hardly seem to be of any importance, how about when it comes to doctrine? St. Paul says that if we find an accepted custom in a people—in a church—then we must conform; each one may not do his own thing: rather we must demonstrate our desire to nurture peace.”
Calvin also remarks in the Institutes,
“But we give the name of decency to that which, suited to the reverence of sacred mysteries, forms a fit exercise for piety, or at least gives an ornament adapted to the action, and is not without fruit, but reminds believers of the great modesty, seriousness, and reverence, with which sacred things ought to be treated. Moreover, ceremonies, in order to be exercises of piety, must lead us directly to Christ. In like manner, we shall not make order consist in that nugatory pomp which gives nothing but evanescent splendor, but in that arrangement which removes all confusion, barbarism, contumacy, all turbulence and dissension. Of the former class we have examples (1 Cor. 11:5, 21), where Paul says, that profane entertainments must not be intermingled with the sacred Supper of the Lord; that women must not appear in public uncovered. And there are many other things which we have in daily practice, such as praying on our knees, and with our head uncovered, administering the sacraments of the Lord, not sordidly, but with some degree of dignity; employing some degree of solemnity in the burial of our dead, and so forth.
But because he [God] did not will in outward discipline and ceremonies to prescribe in detail what we ought to do (because he foresaw that this depended upon the state of the times, and he did not deem one form suitable for all ages), here we must take refuge in those general rules which he has given, that whatever the necessity of the church will require for order and decorum should be tested against these. Lastly, because he [God] has taught nothing specifically, and because these things are not necessary to salvation, and for the upbuilding of the church ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age, it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones.”
The Augsburg Confession, to which both Calvin and Luther subscribes states,
“What, then, are we to think of the Sunday and like rites in the house of God? To this we answer that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the Church, not that thereby we should merit grace or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services, and to think that it is a sin to break them without offense to others. So Paul ordains,1 Cor. 11:5 , that women should cover their heads in the congregation, 1 Cor. 14:30, that interpreters be heard in order in the church, etc.”
Theodore Beza, who oversaw the production of the Geneva Bible, comments on 1 Cor. 11:4,
“Hereof he gathereth that if men do either pray or preach in
public assemblies having their heads covered (which was then a sign of subjection) they did as it were spoil themselves of their dignity, against God’s ordinance. It appeareth that this was a political law serving only for the circumstances of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly, is a sign of subjection. 11:5 And in like sort he concludeth, that women which show themselves in public and ecclesiastical assemblies without the sign and token of their subjection, that is to say, uncovered, shame themselves.”
The Dutch Annotations on the Bible (commissioned to be written by the Synod of Dort, and written by Theodore Haak) notes,
“he dishonors his own head (namely, forasmuch as the uncovering of the head was then a sign of power and dominion, as on the contrary now at this day those that have power over others, will keep their heads covered, and they that are under others will uncover their heads before them. But in all these things, we must always have respect to the use of diverse times and countries, and what is honorable and edifying therein, 1 Cor. 14:40; Phil. 4:8).”
