The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 26
Sect. 26. Having thus dispatched all the Pleas for Separation, which relate to the Constitution of our Church, I come to those which concern the Terms of Communion with us; wh… are said to be unlawfull.
One of the chief Pleas alledged for Separation, by Dr. O. and Mr. A. is, Mischief of Impositi…ns, p. 41.that many things in the constant total Communion of Parochial Churches are imposed on the Consciences and Practices of men, which are not according to the mind of Christ. These are very general words; but Dr. O. reckons up the particulars, which (setting aside those already considered) are, the use of the Aëreal sign of the Cross,Vindic. of Non-conf. p. 13. kneeling at the Communion, the Religious observation of Holy-days; and the constant use of the Liturgy in all the publick Offices of the Church. As to this last, I shall say nothing, it being lately so very well defended by a learned Divine of our Church.Dr. Falkner's Vindication of Liturgies, 1680. To the other, Mr. B. adds, the use of Godfathers and Godmothers; and now I am to examine what weight there is in these things, to make men seriously think Communion with our Church unlawfull.
When I found our Church thus charged with prescribing unlawfull terms of Communion, I expected a particular and distinct proof of such a charge, because the main weight of the Cause depended upon it. And this is the method we use in dealing with the Church of Rome. We do not run upon general charges of unscriptural Impositions, and things imposed on mens Consciences against the mind of Christ; but we close with them upon the particulars of the charge, as Worship of Images, Invocation of Saints, Adoration of the Host, and we offer to prove by plain Scripture, that these are forbidden and therefore unlawfull. But I find no such method taken or pursued by our Brethren; onelyonly we are told over and over, that they judge, they think, they esteem them unlawfull; and they cannot be satisfied about them; but for particular arguments to prove them unlawfull I find none; which makes the whole charge look very suspiciously. For men do not use to remain in generals, when they have any assurance of the Goodness of their Cause. Yet, to let the Reader see that I decline nothing that looks like argument in this matter, I shall pick up every thing I can find, which seems to prove these terms of our Communion to be unlawfull, or to justify their Separation.
In the Epistle before my Sermon I had used this Argument against the present Separation, that if it be lawfull to separate on a pretence of greater purity, where there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship, as is acknowledged in our Case; then a bare difference of opinion, as to some circumstantials of Worship and the best Constitution of Churches will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches; which, considering the great variety of mens fancies about these matters, is to make an infinite Divisibility in Churches, without any possible stop to further Separation.
This Argument others were willing to pass over, but Mr. A. in his Preface, undertakes to answer it in all the parts of it; which being so material to our business, I shall now distinctly consider: and like an able Disputant he allows nothing at all in this Argument; for he denies the Supposition, viz. that there is any such agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship; he denies the first consequence; and as though that were not sufficient, he denies the remoter consequence too. And what Argument can stand before a man of such prowesse in disputing?
1. He denies an Agreement in Doctrine, which I have already shewed was allowed by all Dissenters before him, from the days of R. Brown to Mr. A. But we must not mistake him, for as fierce as he seems to be at first, yet let him but have scope to shew some tricks of Wit, and trials of his skill in fencing; and he is as tame and yielding as you would wish him; for at last he confesses they generally agree with the Doctrine contained in the 39 Articles; and but for meer shame, he would have said all; for I never heard of one before him made any scruple of it. And this is the Doctrine established in this Church; and if there be an Agreement in this, then this Supposition is granted.
2. As to substantial parts of Worship; he denies an Agreement in this too:Vindication, p. 22. although Dr. O. saith, we are agreed in the substantial parts of Religion; and I hope the parts of Worship are allowed to be some of them. But he pretends not to know what we mean by the difference between the parts of Worship, making some substantial, and others circumstantial; and then he offers to prove that our Church appoints new substantial parts of Worship, and therefore he must know one from the other; and after he hath spent some leaves in the proof of that, at last he fairly concludes, that there is a difference at least in a circumstantial part of Worship.
But because this is a weighty charge against our Church, I shall take the more pains to consider it, because the main objection against our Ceremonies lies under it, and that which most sticks with the more sober Nonconformists.
Mr. A.'s charge about a substantial part of Worship being appointed by our Church, is thus drawn up. An outward visible sign of an inward invisible grace, whereby a person is dedicated to the profession of, and subjection to the Redeemer, is a substantial part of Worship. Now this he chargeth our Church with, but gives no instance; but the sign of the Cross after baptism,Answ. p. 49. is that which he means: which Mr. B. calls the transient dedicating Image of the Cross. For the clearing of this, it will be necessary to shew,
1. What we mean by a substantial part of Worship.
2. How it appears that the sign of the Cross is made no substantial part of Worship by our Church.
1. What we mean…y a substantial part of divine Worship. For I have observed, that the want of a clear and distinct notion of this, hath been one of the greatest occasions of the Scruples of the most conscientious Non-conformists. For being afraid of displeasing God, by using any other parts of Worship, than himself hath appointed; and looking on our Ceremonies, as real parts of divine Worship, upon this reason they have thought themselves obliged in conscience, at least to forbear the use of them. The great principle they went upon was this, that whatever was any ways intended or designed for the Worship of God, was a real and substantial part of his Worship; and when their Adversaries told them that Divine Institution was necessary to make a part of Worship; their answer was, that Divine Institution did not make that a part of Worship which was none, but that to be a part of true Worship, which otherwise would be a part of false Worship. In the mean time, they did not deny the lawfulness of the application of common circumstances to Acts of Religious Worship, as Time and Place, &c. but the annexing any other Rites, or Ceremonies to proper Acts of Religious Worship (as the sign of the Cross to Baptism) they supposed to be the making new substantial parts of Divine Worship; and therefore forbidden by all those places of Scripture, which imply the Scripture it self to be a perfect Rule of Worship. This as far as I can gather is the strongest Plea of the Non-conformists side, which I have represented with its full advantage, because my design is, if possible, not so much to confute, as to convince our Dissenting Brethren.
Let us then seriously consider this matter, and if we can find out a plain discernible difference between substantial parts of Divine Worship and mere accidental appendices, this discovery may tend more to disentangle scrupulous minds, than the multiplying of arguments to prove the lawfulness of our Ceremonies. And that we may better understand where the difficulty lies, these following things are agreed on both sides.
1. That besides proper Acts of Worship there are some Circumstances which may be differently used, without setting up new parts of Worship. As for instance, Adoration is a substantial and proper Act of Divine Worship; but whether that Adoration be performed by prostration, or by bowing, or by kneeling, is in it self indifferent; and no man will say, that he that makes his adoration kneeling makes another new part of Worship, from what he doth who performs it standing or falling on his face. And so, if the Ancient Eastern Church did at certain times forbid kneeling in acts of Adoration; this doth not prove that they differ'd in point of Adoration from the Western Church which requires kneeling in the same Offices of Divine Worship; because they agreed in the act of Adoration, but onelyonly differ'd in the manner of expressing it.
2. That Divine Institution makes those to be necessary parts of Worship which of themselves are not so. As is plain in the Sacraments of the New Testament; which of themselves are no necessary substantial parts of the worship of God; but onelyonly become so, by being appointed by Christ. So under the Law, many things meerly ritual and ceremonial in themselves, yet by vertue of Divine appointment became substantial parts of Divine Worship.
3. That for men to make new Parts of Divine Worship is unlawfull. For that is to suppose the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Worship; and that Superstition is no fault; and consequently that our Saviour, without cause, found fault with the Scribes and Pharisees for their Traditions.
4. That there are many things which may be done in the Worship of God; which are not forbidden to be done unless they be Parts of Divine Worship. For, if the supposed reason of their prohibition, be their being made Parts of Divine Worship, if it be made appear, that they are not so, then it follows they are not forbidden.
5. That what is neither forbidden directly, nor by consequence is lawfull and may be practised in the Worship of God. For although Mr. A. quarrels with me, for saying, they require express Commands to make things lawfull in the Worship of God; Mischief of Impos. p. 29.yet he allows, that what is not required either directly or by consequence is unlawfull; and by parity of Reason, what is not forbidden in the same manner must be lawfull.