The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 37
Mr. A. hath one thing yet more to say against the terms of our Churches Communion,§. 37. viz. Mischief of Impos. p. 85, 86, 87.that upon the same Reason these are imposed, the Church may impose some use of Images, Circumcision, and the Paschal Lamb. To which I answer,
(1.) That our Question is about Separation from the Communion of our Church on the account of the terms that are imposed; and is this a reasonable pretence for men not to do what is required, because they do not know what may be required on the same grounds? A Father charges his Son to stand with his Hat off before him, or else he shall not stay in his House; at first the Son demurrs upon putting off his Hat to his Father, because he hath some scruples, whether putting off the Hat be a lawful ceremony or not; not meerly on the account of its significancy, but because it seems to him to be giving worship to a Creature. This he thinks so weighty a scruple, that he charges his Father with Tyranny over his Conscience for imposing such a condition, on his continuing in his house, and thinks himself sufficiently justified by it in his disobedience and forsaking his Fathers House, and drawing away as many of his servants from him, as he can infuse this scruple into. But let us suppose him brought to understand the difference between Civil and Religious Worship, yet he may upon Mr. A.'s grounds still justifie his disobedience. For faith he to his Father, Why do you require me to put off my Hat in your Presence, and to make this the condition of my staying in your House? Is it not enough that I own my self to be your Son, and ask you blessing Morning and Evening, and am very willing to sit at your Table, and depend upon you for my subsistence? Are not these sufficient Testimonies that I am your Son, but you must expect my obedience in such a trifling Ceremony as putting off my Hat? You say, it is a token of respect; I say for that reason I ought not to do it. For, how do I know when you will have done with your tokens of respect? It is true, you require no more now, but I consider what you may do, and for all that I know, the next thing you may require me will be to put off my Shoos before you, for that is a token of respect in some Countries; next you may require me to kiss your Toe, for that is a token of respect used some where; and who knows what you may come to at last; and therefore I am resolved to stop at first, and will rather leave your House, than be bound to put off my Hat in your Presence. Let any one judge whether this be a reasonable ground for such an obstinate disobedience to the Command of his Father. Or suppose a Law were made to distinguish the several Companies in London from each other, that they should have some Badge upon their Livery Gowns, that may represent the Trade and Company they are of; would this be thought a just excuse for any mans refusing it, to say, What do I know how far this imposing Power may go at last; it is true, the matter is small at present, but I consider, it is a Badge, it is a moral significant ceremony, a dangerous teeming thing, no man knows what it may bring forth at last; for how can I or any man living tell, but at last I may be required to wear a Fools Coat. Would such an unreasonable jealousie as this justifie such a mans refractoriness, in rather choosing to lose the priviledge of his Company, than submitting to wear the Badge of it? So that the fears of what may be required is no ground for actual disobedience to what is required. (2.) There can be no reasonable suspicion that our Church should impose any other Ceremonies, than what it hath already done, supposing that it might do it, on the same ground: Because the Church hath rather retrench…d than increased Ceremonies; as will appear to any one that compares the first and second Liturgies of Edw. 6. And since that time no one new Ceremony hath been required, as a condition of Commmunion. But besides, our Church gives a particular reason against the multiplying of Ceremonies: because the very number of them, … to the ….supposing them lawful is a burden; of which S. Augustin complained in his time, and others had much more cause since; and therefore for that cause many were taken away, And withall, it is declared that Christs Gospel was not to be a Ceremonial Law. So that for these reasons there can be no just fears that our Church should contradict her own doctrine, which it must do, if it increased our Cermonies, so as to make a new argument against them, from the number of them. (3.) There is not the same Reason for introducing the things mentioned by Mr. A. as for the Ceremonies in Vse among us. For, (1.) As to the Vse of Images, our Church hath fully declared against any Religious Vse of them, in the Homilies about the Peril of Idolatry; and that from such reasons, as cannot extend to our Ceremonies: viz. from the express Law of God, and the general sense of the Primitive Church; which allowed and practised the sign of the Cross, at the same time when it disputed most vehemently against Images. (2.) For Circumcision, which he tells us, may be used as signifying the circumcision of the heart. He knows very well that our Church joins significancy and decency together in the matter of Ceremonies; and no man can imagine that such a kind of significancy as that he mentions, should be sufficient to introduce such a practice which is so repugnant to Decency among us. Besides that S. Paul makes it so great a badge of the obligation to the Law, that he saith, If ye be circumcised, Christ profiteth you nothing: which was never said of any of our Ceremonies. And whereas he saith, it is observed in Abassia as a mystical Ceremony; he is much mistaken, if their Emperour Claudius say true;Confe…o Fid…i Claudii Regis Aethiopiae. for he saith, it is only a National Custom without any respect to Religion, like the cutting of the face in some parts of Aethiopia and Nubia, and boreing the ear among the Indians. And Ludolphus proves it to be no other, because it is done by a woman in private, without any witnesses. (3.) As to his Paschal Lamb in memory of Christ our Passeover that is sacrificed for us; We owe greater Reverence to Gods own Institutions that were intended to typifie Christ to come, than to presume to turn them quite another way to represent what is past. Especially since Christ is become the great Sacrifice for the sins of mankind. And he might as well have mentioned the Scape-Goat and the Red Heifer as the Paschal Lamb; since they were all Types of the great Sacrifice of Propitiation. But why are things never used by the Primitive Church (for as to his story of Innocent 2. be it true or false, it is nothing to us) brought to parallel our Ceremonies, when the great Reason of our Churches retaining any Ceremonies was declared from the beginning of the Reformation to be out of Reverence to the Ancient Church, which observed the same kind of Ceremonies?