Page images
PDF
EPUB

or at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and manners," (Art. 34.)"In these our doings, we condemn no other nations, nor prescribe any thing but to our own people only;" and thus Cyprian and the African Church acted, "Judging none, nor removing any from the right of communion, if they differ from us in some things." In those days, almost every church had different rites and ceremonies, and even liturgies, yet catholic communion was strictly preserved. "When I come to Rome (says Ambrose,) I fast on Saturday, when I am at Milan I do not fast; and so when thou goest to any church, observe its customs, if thou wouldst neither give just cause of offence, nor take offence without cause." And Austin lays down this general rule, " As to things in which the scripture defines nothing certain one way or the other, the custom of the church and the decrees of superiors are to be held for laws."

[ocr errors]

It is objected that, "for the same reason the church may impose some ceremonies, she may impose more; and who knows where the impositions may end. And that hence sprung that enormous mass of profane and foolish rites, which now grievously oppress both the Greek and the Romish churches." I answer, it is no argument against compliance in any particular case, that we cannot fix the bounds of it, any more than it is against the practice of any other christian virtue; for instance, it is hard to determine exactly what proportion of my estate I am obliged to bestow in alms, therefore I am not obliged to bestow any part of it; and, on this principle, subjects and servants may refuse obedience to the most harmless commands of their masters and princes. In truth, this is the dangerous fallacy of arguing against lawful power, from the abuse of it in those who are in possession of it; if those in whom power is vested will abuse it with insolent impositions (as the Papists do,) they must be answerable for it to their superiors on earth; or, if they be supreme, to the Great God in heaven. But our church has professed most solemnly against the multiplication of ceremonies, in the preface of the common prayer; and it is observable, that even at the restoration (1660,) when it was much more in the will and power of churchmen than ever it is likely to be again, there was not one single ceremony added to the church worship; which observation is sufficient to silence this mighty fear about ceremonies. But the true way of arguing against compliance is, to prove that the particular instances in which we are called to comply, are such as it is unlawful for a christian to comply with, either for their number or quality; and nothing

but this can take off our obligation to the great duty of compliance; and therefore the objection I am considering is of no force for that purpose.

It is objected again, that to require compliance to our peculiar forms of divine worship, is making new terms of communion which Christ never commanded, and therefore an encroachment on his authority. If this rule be pursued, and if we are not to comply with the innocent rites of particular churches, then we must refuse communion with all churches on earth. For, can a man be admitted to the communion even of Dissenters without submitting to their discipline and church administrations? Their communion is liable to the most terrible of those objections which have been urged with the greatest zeal against the church. For let us suppose that the major part of a congregation agree upon the use of a liturgy, organ, prayer before sermon, &c. is not this as plainly an encroachment on, and confinement of what Christ has made common to all, and does not this as effectually exclude the scrupulous from communicating in that congregation, in which they have as great a right as their neighbours, as what is complained of in the church? To say that the scrupulous may go to another congregation more to their mind, does not remove the present difficulty; for, according to these principles, they have a right to be admitted into this very congregation upon the naked terms of Christ himself. And why should they either put themselves to great inconveniences by hunting after other congregations more agreeable to them; or, by giving up their own. right, encourage an imposing spirit, and ecclesiastical tyranny in those who have no authority for what they do? But, should their scruples be removed with respect to the lawfulness of the liturgy agreed upon, they are still obliged, by these principles, not to comply so far as to use constantly the form agreed on by others. For how do they know how many other impositions may be brought in at this rate? How can they answer the giving countenance to the least additions to Christ's institutions? Their compliance would be an acknowledgment of authority in the major part of the congregation to make such an agreement; and how could they acknowledge this without giving up all right in themselves to be admitted upon other terms? Shall they give up this right for the sake of peace?-No. Such compliance tends to slavery, and the encouragement of tyranny; and peace is not to be procured at so dear a price.

Thus might this cause be argued upon these principles, and the same objections brought against compliance with this scheme as has been

brought against compliance with the church; and so a perpetual foundation laid of quarrels and animosities amongst neighbours. We must conclude then, that there cannot be any particular scheme invented, which will be wholly free from what are called unscriptural additions; or that, until such a scheme be found, we may very well adhere to the church. But perhaps it may be replied, "since human institutions must be used in divine worship, they ought to be left to our liberty, to use them or not." But would not this introduce the utmost confusion into church assemblies, where some would be for using, and some for omitting, such rites and customs as others would think necessary? And in what a ridiculous manner must the public service of God be everywhere performed, if every ignorant or conceited person were at liberty to break in upon the stated rules of divine worship, so contrary to the apostolic injunctions. For this reason, all churches in the world (and even the assemblies of those who use these objections,) have always taken upon them to determine their own rules of order and decency, and have exacted conformity to them of all the members of their own communion.

No. II*.

IT has already been proved, that there were certain powers, exercised by Bishops in the primitive church, which were of divine institution, and never subject to any change or alteration. The principal of these powers (besides those which they had in common with Presbyters, as preaching and administring the sacraments,) were Ordination, Government (in which I include the inflicting of ecclesiastical censures,) and Confirmation. Besides these parts of their office which they exercised by divine appointment, there were others derived from the customs or constitutions of the church within herself, of which the principal were:

1. That they frequently met in Synods to consult concerning the common faith, and to agree upon measures for the preservation of peace and unity in their respective churches.-2. That every Bishop had the management of the public revenue, to distribute from thence the weekly and monthly portions to the clergy, and to relieve the poor and indigent part of "the household of faith;" and,-3. That they appointed to churches their particular Bishops and Pastors. Such was, as to its principal parts, the nature of the Episcopal and ministerial offices, as long as they continued without any support or countenance from the civil power: But afterwards (about the year A. D. 325.) when the Roman Emperors became christians, there was formed throughout the Empire a coalition or union between the spiritual and temporal states; and this union seems plainly to have been formed on these foundations:-1. That all powers exercised by Bishops and other officers of the church, by virtue of divine institution, were in their full

* See Dr Brett's Independency of the Church on the State, Lond. 1717. The Independency of the Church not Romish, but Primitive, &c. 1716. Leslie's Case of the Regale and Pontificate; an excellent treatise on this subject, and which may be read as an antidote against certain strange tenets advanced in Dr Wake's Book on the Regal Supremacy, Bishop Warburton's Alliance, &c. The late Mr Jones with great reason expressed his surprise at "the sublime praises be-* stowed by Bishop Hurd on the Alliance, and other works of that fanciful but very ingenious projector of unfounded theories," and was persuaded that neither religion or learning will ever derive much benefit, nor the christian world any considerable edification from the works of that writer." Life of Bishop Horne 1799. p. 44. Gray's Bampton Lectures, 1796. p. 100.

extent to be continued to them.-2. That all other matters, which were not fixed by a divine law, but were necessary for the maintenance of good order and government, were to be settled by the direction and approbation of the civil power. That the interference of the civil power in church affairs is not unlawful, we have authority from the holy scriptures. In the Old Testament, the kings of Israel and Judah exercised, in things circumstantial, an orderly controul over the Priesthood for the good of the church. And of the christian church it was prophecied, (Isai. Ixix. 23.) that “kings should be its nursing fathers and queens its nursing mothers;" and that they "should bow down to it with their face towards the earth," i. e. that kings and queens should protect and defend the church from all outward injury and violence; and should bow down before the guides and governors of it, to receive the word and sacraments at their hands. Moreover, that “the kingdoms of this world should become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ: and he shall reign for ever and ever," (Rev. xi. 15.) and that "the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls; and their kings shall minister unto thee.” (Isai. Ixix. 10. 16. 11. 12.)

In this manner, a friendly union was formed between the spiritual and temporal powers in most christian states, and was tolerably well preserved till the time of the papal usurpation. However (says Dr Brett,) the Pope, the grand corrupter of christianity, taking upon him, under pretence of maintaining the independence of the church, to exempt some causes and persons from all civil jurisdiction to the princes, gave the princes a just occasion to reject this usurped power. And at the Reformation divers princes and states, and ours among the rest, not able to bear these usurpations and encroachments, found it necessary to shake off the papal yoke; and because the Pope had strained the matter too high on the church's side, this made our princes judge it necessary, to secure themselves from those invasions, and might have carried them (in establishing our Reformed Church,) a little too far into the opposite extreme, of raising the civil power too high.

For at the beginning of the Reformation in Great Britain, a new and before unheard-of title was invented for the civil magistrate, that of Supreme Head in earth of the Church of England, which Henry VIII. forced all persons by his acts of Parliament, under the severest penalties to acknowledge was due to him. But indeed, if the king had a just right to this title, it might imply that the church cannot be in any respect independent of him. For if he be the only Supreme Head in earth of the Church of England, as the statute (but God be praised

« PreviousContinue »