Ames and Gouge – general equity, the RPW and holy days?

[CGS]

In the footnote on page 245 of Chad Van Dixhoorn’s Confessing the Faith, regarding the WCF chapter 19.4…Van Dixhoorn states that both William Ames and William Gouge see ‘general equity’ applying to both the ceremonial law and the judicial laws. For example, the existence of Old Testament holy days shows that certain days can be set apart for worship in the new covenant era.

The Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God has this in an appendix:
"Touching Days and Places for Public Worship.

THERE is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord’s day, which is the Christian Sabbath.

Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.

Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for public fasting or thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God’s providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people." (bold for emphasis is mine)

Were Ames and Gouge using ‘general equity’ to argue for the observance of “Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days” (e.g. Christmas, Easter, the church calendar, etc.) or were they only arguing for the day(s) of “public fasting or thanksgiving”?

Is this a valid application of ‘general equity’, and if so, what is its significance for how we apply the regulative principle of worship (RPW)? This application of ‘general equity’ seems to imply that if we can find an example of X in the OT, then X has biblical warrant for worship in the new covenant era. But this would seem to conflict with the more narrow application of the RPW.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Where in Gouge or Ames?

In the footnote on page 245 of Chad Van Dixhoorn’s Confessing the Faith, regarding the WCF chapter 19.4…Van Dixhoorn states that both William Ames and William Gouge see ‘general equity’ applying to both the ceremonial law and the judicial laws. For example, the existence of Old Testament holy days shows that certain days can be set apart for worship in the new covenant era.

The Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God has this in an appendix:
"Touching Days and Places for Public Worship.

THERE is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord’s day, which is the Christian Sabbath.

Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.

Nevertheless, it is lawful and necessary, upon special emergent occasions, to separate a day or days for public fasting or thanksgiving, as the several eminent and extraordinary dispensations of God’s providence shall administer cause and opportunity to his people." (bold for emphasis is mine)

Were Ames and Gouge using ‘general equity’ to argue for the observance of “Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days” (e.g. Christmas, Easter, the church calendar, etc.) or were they only arguing for the day(s) of “public fasting or thanksgiving”?

Is this a valid application of ‘general equity’, and if so, what is its significance for how we apply the regulative principle of worship (RPW)? This application of ‘general equity’ seems to imply that if we can find an example of X in the OT, then X has biblical warrant for worship in the new covenant era. But this would seem to conflict with the more narrow application of the RPW.

 

[CGS]

Where in Gouge or Ames?

From the Van Dixhoorn footnote:
William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity (London, 1642), p. 328
William Gouge, The Saints Sacrifice (London, 1632), p. 243

I have not verified the primary sources, just taking Van Dixhoorn's word for it...

 

[Afterthought]

From the Van Dixhoorn footnote:
William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity (London, 1642), p. 328
William Gouge, The Saints Sacrifice (London, 1632), p. 243

I have not verified the primary sources, just taking Van Dixhoorn's word for it...

"For example, the existence of Old Testament holy days shows that certain days can be set apart for worship in the new covenant era."

This does not follow from what they state. Whatever general equity they see it stricty has to do with the moral law, not with particular worship institutions.

Ames (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A25291.0001.001/1:6.15?rgn=div2;view=fulltext):

12. That which is commanded in the fourth Com∣mandement, is not indeed of a morall nature in the same degree and manner altogether with those things that are commanded, for the most part in all the other Commandements; because it belongs to positive right, whence also it is, that whereas the three former Com∣mandements were propounded negatively, by forbid∣ding those vices unto which we are prone by the pra∣vity of our nature, this fourth Commandement is first propounded affirmatively in declaring and comman∣ding that which in this part pertaines unto our duty, and afterward negatively, by forbidding those things which are repugnant to this duty; which also is in part the reason of that admonition which is specially prefixed before this precept, Remember the Sabbath day, that is, Remember to keepe this day, as it is explained, Deut. 5. 18. Because it may more easily be forgotten, seeing it belongs to positive right, then many other things which are more naturall. Yet this positive right upon which this ordinance is grounded, is Divine right, and in respect of man altogether unchangeable.

13. Those who turne this fourth Commandement into allegories of a cessation from sinnes, and from the troubles of this life, and such like, and thence doe faigne a fourefold, or a fivefold Sabbath, according to their manner, who play with Allegories, they attribute no∣thing at all to this member of the decalogue, which doth not as well, and much more properly agree to many Iewish ceremonies, which are now wholy abro∣gated.

14. But those that would have this precept cere∣moniall (as they would have the second to be also) be∣sides that they are sufficiently refuted, by those things which have beene spoken before, they contradict the expresse testimony of Scripture, which affirmes that ten words, or morall precepts are contained in the decalo∣gue, Exod. 34. 18. Deut. 4. 13. & 10. 4. Where they leave only nine, or rather eight.

15. They who would have that only to be morall in this precept, that some time, or some certaine dayes, should be assigned to Divine worship, doe no more make this ordinance to be morall, then was the building of the Tabernacle and Temple among the Iewes. For by that very thing this was declared to all to be the perpetuall Will of God, that some fit place is alwayes to be appointed for Church meetings, and publick exer∣cises of Divine worship: so that by this reason, there is no more a morall precept given touching some time of worship, then there is given touching the place, and so neither that indeed (which only they leave in the fourth precept.) Thou shalt observe Feast-dayes, ought any more to be put in the Decalogue then this, Thou shalt frequent the Temples.

16. Moreover, the yearely Feasts, new Moones, and the like ordinances, which were meerely ceremoniall, doe containe that generall equity also in them, and doe still teach us that some certaine and fit dayes ought to be appointed for publick worship: finally, by this reason God should by this Commandement command severall men, nothing at all: for seeing the institution of dayes by this opinion is only commanded immediat∣ly, and it is not in the power of private men to or∣daine these or those dayes for publick worship, by this, meanes nothing at all should be commanded but at their will who are in publick office: neither should any thing be commanded them in speciall, but only in ge∣nerall, that they doe according to their wisdome in set∣ting apart dayes to publicke worship, so that if it seeme good to them to appoint one day of twenty or thirty to this use, they cannot be reproved of any sin in this re∣spect, as if they broke this Commandement.


Gouge (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A01981.0001.001/1:77?rgn=div1;view=fulltext):

1 A maine end of praising is to glorifie God. For, saith the Lord himselfe, Who so offereth praise, glorifieth me, (Psal. 50 23.) But there is nothing wherein and whereby we may more glorifie God then by worshipping him. Witnesse the practice, not onely of them who on earth are instructed by the spirit of illumination in the good acceptable, and perfect will of God, but also of them in heaven, who are made per∣fect in all knowledge and understanding thereof.

* 2 Workes of piety, wherein the worship of God consi∣steth, are the workes wherein God most delighteth, and which he best accepteth. The spouse therefore of the Lord, that the King might greatly delight in her, hath this advice given to her, Worship thou him, Psal. 45. 11.

3 By workes of piety all other actions of rejoycing are seasoned, and sanctified. This moved the pious Iewes to be∣gin their weighty affaires with sacrifices, (which were then, as we have heard, principall parts of piety, and of divine worship) and therewith to end the same, compare 1 Sam. 10. 8. with 1 Chro. 16. 1.

* 4 By giving thanks in and by such duties as are prescri∣bed for Gods worship, we shew that our hearts are set on God, and prepared to doe service to him, who hath done kindnesse to us. Yea the duties wherein service is done to God will raise our minds unto God, and fix them the more stedfastly on him. So as this kind of sacrifice is question∣lesse the best and greatest that we can offer up: a perfect ob∣lation in the kind of it. And this will prove an occasion of much confidence to us.

As occasions of thankfulnesse are offered unto us, and as by Gods Spirit we are moved to take those occasions for gi∣uing thanks, let us here learne how to order, how to sancti∣fie, how to make the same acceptable to God. Though the particular ceremony of worshipping God by sacrifices be now abrogated, yet the generall equity of performing due worship to God, doth still, and ever shall remaine in force. Take notice therefore of that manner of worshipping God which now under the Gospell is warrantable. The parts of divine worship are prayer, singing of Psalmes, reading, prea∣ching, hearing the Word, and celebrating the Sacraments. These are as sacrifices of bullocks and calves, goats and kids, sheepe and lambs, turtles, pigeons, spartowes: and all manner of meat and drink-offerings. By a pious, devout, reverend, * and upright manner of performing these, thou testifiest, and sanctifiest thy thanksgiving to God. When these holy duties of piety are performed for gratitude sake, when in, with, and by them thanks is given to God, then are they for substance in a spirituall respect sacrifices of thanksgiving: and the Lord will accept them as sacrifices of thanksgiving.

 

[CGS]

16. Moreover, the yearely Feasts, new Moones, and the like ordinances, which were meerely ceremoniall, doe containe that generall equity also in them, and doe still teach us that some certaine and fit dayes ought to be appointed for publick worship:

But this does seem to support what Van Dixhoorn says in the footnote. Ames is saying that the ceremonial ordinances/laws (and not just the judicial laws) contain general equity which teaches us to appoint some "certain and fit days" for public worship. So...by "days for public worship" is Ames referring to:
1) “Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days” (e.g. Christmas, Easter, the church calendar, etc.), or...
2) "a day or days for public fasting or thanksgiving"

And is the general equity of OT ceremonial law a valid way to determine worship practices (days for public worship) in the new covenant era, and if so, how do we square this with the RPW?

 

[Afterthought]

But this does seem to support what Van Dixhoorn says in the footnote. Ames is saying that the ceremonial ordinances/laws (and not just the judical laws) contain general equity which teaches us to appoint some "certain and fit days" for public worship. So...by days for public worship is he referring to:
1) “Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days” (e.g. Christmas, Easter, the church calendar, etc.), or...
2) "a day or days for public fasting or thanksgiving"

Ames is not referring to particular institutions but to the moral law of God--the light of nature. General equity is referring to moral principles that are behind the giving of various laws, not to positive institutions. Certain and fit days for public worship is something you could gather from the light of nature: we ought to worship God, and we ought to choose a fitting time to do so (e.g., don't hold public worship at 3 am). Which days ought to be appointed and how much of the day is to be appointed and upon what occasions is something the Lord must reveal because we do not know on our own. So Ames' comments would equally suit those who support holy days and those who do not. Ames was against the holy days.

"1. THE most solemne time of worship is now the first day of every week which is called the Lords day, Rev. 1. 10. 1. Cor. 16. 2.

2. And it is called the Lords Day, by the same rea∣son that the holy Supper of the Eucharist is called the Lords Supper. 1. Cor. 11. 20. Namely because it was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, and it must be re∣ferted to the same Lord in the end and use of it.

3. It is necessary that some time be given for the worship of God, by the dictate of naturall reason: for man must needs have time for all, especially his out∣ward actions; neither can he conveniently attend Di∣vine worship, unlesse for that time he cease from other workes.

4. Thus far therefore the time of worship falls upon the same precept with the worship it selfe; for as when God created the whole world, he is said also to have created time together with it; so also when he com∣manded, and ordained religious actions, he did also withall command and ordaine some time or necessary circumstance.

5. That some certaine day is to be ordained for the more solemne worship of God, this is also of morall naturall right, not unknowne to the very heathen, who had alwayes through all ages their set and solemne feast dayes.

6. That this solemne day ought to be one at least in a week or in the compasse of seven; this belongs to positive Law, but yet it is altogether of unchangeable institution: so that in respect of our duty and obliga∣tion, it hath the very same force and reason with those that are of morall and naturall right, and so it is rightly said of the Schoolmen, to belong to morall right; not of nature, but of Discipline."

"49. Contrary to his ordinance of the Lords day are all feast dayes, ordained by men, they being accounted for holy dayes, as the Lords day ought to be accounted.

50. For it is most agreeable with the first institution, and with the writings of the Apostles, that one only day in the week be sanctified.

51. The Iewes had no feast dayes rightly sanctified, but by divine institution.

52. Yet any dayes may be piously turned into occa∣sion of furthering the worship of God.

53. Also when God by his speciall judgements cals to more solemne fasting, those dayes are to be accounted as it were for extraordinary Sabbaths:"

And is the general equity of OT ceremonial law a valid way to determine worship practices (days for public worship) in the new covenant era, and if so, how do we square this with the RPW?

It is not. Worship practices are of positive institution, so we cannot determine them from general equity. We can understand the moral principles behind positive institutions by looking at general equity or arrange the circumstances of worship by looking at it.

 

[CGS]

Ames is not referring to particular institutions but to the moral law of God--the light of nature. General equity is referring to moral principles that are behind the giving of various laws, not to positive institutions. Certain and fit days for public worship is something you could gather from the light of nature: we ought to worship God, and we ought to choose a fitting time to do so (e.g., don't hold public worship at 3 am). Which days ought to be appointed and how much of the day is to be appointed and upon what occasions is something the Lord must reveal because we do not know on our own. So Ames' comments would equally suit those who support holy days and those who do not. Ames was against the holy days.

"1. THE most solemne time of worship is now the first day of every week which is called the Lords day, Rev. 1. 10. 1. Cor. 16. 2.

2. And it is called the Lords Day, by the same rea∣son that the holy Supper of the Eucharist is called the Lords Supper. 1. Cor. 11. 20. Namely because it was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, and it must be re∣ferted to the same Lord in the end and use of it.

3. It is necessary that some time be given for the worship of God, by the dictate of naturall reason: for man must needs have time for all, especially his out∣ward actions; neither can he conveniently attend Di∣vine worship, unlesse for that time he cease from other workes.

4. Thus far therefore the time of worship falls upon the same precept with the worship it selfe; for as when God created the whole world, he is said also to have created time together with it; so also when he com∣manded, and ordained religious actions, he did also withall command and ordaine some time or necessary circumstance.

5. That some certaine day is to be ordained for the more solemne worship of God, this is also of morall naturall right, not unknowne to the very heathen, who had alwayes through all ages their set and solemne feast dayes.

6. That this solemne day ought to be one at least in a week or in the compasse of seven; this belongs to positive Law, but yet it is altogether of unchangeable institution: so that in respect of our duty and obliga∣tion, it hath the very same force and reason with those that are of morall and naturall right, and so it is rightly said of the Schoolmen, to belong to morall right; not of nature, but of Discipline."

"49. Contrary to his ordinance of the Lords day are all feast dayes, ordained by men, they being accounted for holy dayes, as the Lords day ought to be accounted.

50. For it is most agreeable with the first institution, and with the writings of the Apostles, that one only day in the week be sanctified.

51. The Iewes had no feast dayes rightly sanctified, but by divine institution.

52. Yet any dayes may be piously turned into occa∣sion of furthering the worship of God.

53. Also when God by his speciall judgements cals to more solemne fasting, those dayes are to be accounted as it were for extraordinary Sabbaths:"




It is not. Worship practices are of positive institution, so we cannot determine them from general equity. We can understand the moral principles behind positive institutions by looking at general equity or arrange the circumstances of worship by looking at it.

I appreciate your detailed explanation and the quotes from the primary sources. This was very helpful in helping me to better understand this.