The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 32
Sect. 32. But Mr. A. hath a farther blow at our Church, Mischief of Imposit. Preface.for allowing worshipping towards the Altar, the East, and at the sound of the word Iesus; which, he saith, are made the Motive of Worship, if not something else. The lawfulness of these things, so far, as they are required by our Church, I had formerly defended against the Papists, and now Mr. A. borrows their Weapons from them; although he doth not manage them with that skill and dexterity which T. G. used. I had said, that bowing at the name of Iesus, was no more than going to Church at the Toll of a Bell, the Worship being not given to the Name, but to Christ at the sound of his Name. Why may not, saith he, an Image give warning to the Eye, when to worship God, as well as a Bell to the Ear? I will tell him, since he needs it, because an Image is a mighty disparagement to an infinite and invisible Being; it is directly contrary to his Law to worship him by an Image; it is against the sense of the Christian Church in its best and purest Ages; this one would have thought I had proved so much against the Papists, that I had little reason to expect such a question from a Protestant. But such men do too much discover, whose part they are willing to take against the Church of England. He grants the Papists go too far in preferring an Image higher than to be Motivum Cultûs, but the Question is, whether they do not sin in applying it to this lower use, to make it an ordinary stated Motive to Worship. When I read this, I began to pity the man, being in some fear lest something had a little disordered his fancy. For where do we ever allow such an use of Images in our Church? If he had written against Mr. B. who allows a Crucifix to be Medium excitans, he had some reason to have answered him, but I have none. But he brings it home to us; for, saith he, If men do sin who make an Image an ordinary stated motive of Worship, then how shall we excuse our own adorations? What doth the man mean? I am yet afraid, all things are not right somewhere. We acknowledge no adorations, but what are due to the Divine Majesty; and do these need to be excused? And what consequence is there from the unlawfulness of the Worship of Images, against our worshipping of God? Let him first prove, that we give adoration to any besides the Divine Majesty, before we shall go about to excuse our adorations. But if men do not sin in making an Image a stated Motive of Worship(whoever said they did not? I am sure, not our Church. But let this pass, what follows?) then, saith he, why do we not introduce Images into our Churches? Ask Mr. B. that Question, and not us of the Church of England. If we allowed the Worship of Images to be lawfull, this were a pertinent Question; but since we deny it, what makes all this against us? which if our Church-men shall venture upon; I pray stay till they do, before you charge us with it. Are not these men hugely to seek for Arguments against our Church that talk at this rate? But, he saith, they may doe it with equal reason. Here is something now fit to be proved. We utterly deny that we may worship Images on the same Reason, that we perform external adoration to God by bowing the Body; or to Iesus at the mention of his name. Hold now to this, and prove it. Instead of that, he shews the difference between going to Church at the sound of a Bell, and bowing at the name of Iesus; viz. That the Bell tolls out of Worship to bring them to it; but the sound of the word Iesus is in the middle of Worship, when mens minds should be intent on devotion, and not sit listening and watching, as Whittington's Cat watcht the Mouse, (there 'tis for you, viz. what he hath laboured for all this while) for the casual starting of a word, and the dropping of two syllables. But the Question is not about the seasonableness of doing this when we are in other Acts of Devotion and immediate Application to God, which no body contends for, that I know of, but about the lawfulness of doing it in the time of Divine Service, when we hear the name of Iesus repeated in the Lessons, or the Creed; and the Canon which requires it refers to the former Custom, and in the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, the Lessons and Sermons are mentioned particularly; and although it be said, or otherwise in the Church pronounced, yet by the manner of shewing this Reverence, viz. with lowness of courtesie and uncovering of heads of mankind; it supposeth them at that time not to be imployed in any other Act of Devotion. And so it gives no interruption to the intention of it; nor obliges men to lie at the catch for the coming of the word, as though all our Worship consisted in it; but since our Church approves it as a laudable Ceremony, we ought not to refuse it at seasonable times; unless it can be proved unlawfull in it self. Which I say, can never be done, as long as the Worship is directed to a true object, viz. the Person of Christ; and the mention of his name, onelyonly expresses the time, as the tolling the Bell doth of going to Church. Neither doth it signifie any thing to this purpose, whether Persons be in the Church or out of it, when the Bell rings; for in the same page he mentions the Mass-bell; which sounds to the People in the Church as well as out of it; and if the Object of their Worship were true, as it is false, that would make him better understand the parallel.
But, saith he, if it be a duty to give external Reverence to God, when ever the word Iesus is mentioned, there is more need of it in our ordinary converses, and the secular affairs of the world; and so, he addes, this word might do the service of the Mass-bell going about the streets, at which all are bound to fall down and worship. Now, what a strange piece of crosness is this, to dispute the lawfulness of doing it at Church, because we do it not at the Market-place? My business is to defend what our Church requires, if he will allow that, and thinks it convenient to do it likewise in common conversation, let him defend his own new invented wayes of Reverence; as for us, we think there are proper seasons for Divine Worship, and that it is not enough to do what is lawful, unless it be done at its convenient time, but there are some men, who know no mean between doing nothing, and over-doing. But is this becoming a Protestant Divine to parallel the Worship we give to the Eternal Son of God, as our Church declares, Can. 18. and that which the Papists give to the Host, when it is carried up and down the streets? At last, he commends the moderation of the Canon, 1640. about bowing towards the East or Altar, that they which use this Rite, despise not them who use it not; and they who use it not, condemn not those that use it: but he would fain know why the same moderation should not be used in other Rites, as the sign of the Cr…s…, and kneeling at the Lords Supper? It had been much more to his purpose to have proved any thing unlawful which had been required by our Church. But the case was not the same as to those things which were required by our Church, ever since the Reformation▪ and as to some customes, which although in themselves lawful, yet were never strictly enjoyned, but left indifferent. And therefore the moderation used in the Canon, 1640, was very suitable to the principles of our Church; but how doth it follow, that because some things are left at liberty, therefore nothing should be determin'd; or being determin'd ought not to be obeyed? It was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary (as to practice) than were made so at the settlement of our Reformation; but whether there be sufficient Reason to alter those terms of Communion which were then settled, for the sake of such whose scruples are groundless and endless, I do not take upon me here to determine. But as far as I can perceive by Mr. A. he thinks the Apostles Rule of forbearance, Rom. 14. to be of equal force in all ages, and as to all things, about which Christians have different apprehensions; and then the Papists come in for an equal share in such a toleration. And so those who do not worship the Host, or Images, or use Auricular Confession, must not censure those that do, unless he will say, that the Papists have no scruple of Conscience, as to such things; but if notwithstanding these scruples, our Laws put a just restraint upon them, then the Rule of Forbearance, Rom. 14. is no obligatory Law to Christians in all Ages; and consequently, notwithstanding that, our Church may justly require the observation of some things, though it leaves others undetermin'd.
But he saith, these Customes though left indifferent, are still observed among us, and practised by all the leading Church-men. And what then? are they lawful, or are they not? If not, why are they not proved to be unlawful? And if that were proved, what is all this to the point of Separation, unless they were enjoyned to all People, and made terms of Communion; i. e. that persons were not allowed to joyn in all Acts of Communion with us, unless they did them. However, he thinks this will prove(What, that they differ from us in any substantial part of Worship? No, he dares not say that: but what then?) that we differ in more than a circumstance, even at least in a circumstantial part of Worship, yet we must be supposed to be agreed. To convince the Reader, what an admirable faculty of proving this man hath, let him but look on the thing he undertook to prove. I had said, that we were agreed in the substantial parts of Worship; this he undertakes to disprove, for two or three leaves together, and the conclusion is, that at least we differ in a circumstantial part of Worship, and his consequence must be, therefore we differ in a substantial, or else it is idle and impertinent talk. T. G. would have been ashamed to have argued after this fashion: but they are to be pittied, they both do as well, as their Cause will bear.
Yet Mr. A. cannot give over, for he hath a very good will at proving something against our Church, although he hath very ill luck in the doing of it. My argument was, If it be lawful to separate upon pretence of greater purity, where there is an agreement in doctrine, and the substantial parts of Worship, then a bare difference in opinion, as to some circumstantials in Worship and the best constitution of Churches will be a sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches. Hitherto we have considered his denial of the Antecedent; and the charge he hath brought against our Church, about new substantial parts of Worship; we now come to his denying the Consequence, viz. that although it be granted that there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship, yet he will not allow it to follow that a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches. To understand the consequence we must suppose, 1. An agreement in the substantial parts of Worship. 2. A Separation, for greater parity of Worship. And what then can justifie this Separation, but a difference of Opinion as to some circumstantials in Worship? Hold, saith he, the consequence is not good, for there are certain middle things, between substantial parts of worship and bare circumstances, about which it will be lawful to divide, though otherwise we agree in doctrine, and the substantial parts of Worship. So that here a Separation is justified (1.) on the account of such things, which are confessed to be neither substantial nor circumstantial parts of Worship, (2.) Although there be an agreement in the substantial parts of Worship; and consequently, although these middle kind of things be not made substantial parts of worship. For that he charged us with in the Antecedent; and now allowing the Antecedent and denying the Consequence, he must grant, that it is lawful to separate on the account of Ceremonies, although they be made no parts of worship at all. For if they be neither substantial nor circumstantial parts of worship, they can be none at all; and yet he saith, it is lawful to divide about them. And which is more pleasant, when he goes about to prove the lawfulness of separating for the sake of these things, he doth it by undertaking to shew, that they are made substantial parts of Worship. For thus he argues, The Church of England hath exalted these things, i. e. Ceremonies, to a high preferment in worship, to signifie the same things with the Sacramental Elements, to make them necessary to salvation as far as man can make them; and therefore they conclude them sinful. If their preferment in Worship makes them sinful, then they must be either substantial, or circumstantial parts of Worship, and their separation is not upon the account of their being Ceremonies, but those Ceremonies are supposed to be made Parts of Worship, which I have answered already.