Page images
PDF
EPUB

it will by no means establish the authority you claim for your pastors and governors; the orders, decrees, and appointments of those times, being by the common consent and suffrage of the whole church, in which the laity had an equal, if not a far greater share of authority than the clergy. But,

[ocr errors]

2. Your lodging this power in the pastors and governors absolutely, contradicts the articles themselves. For, as the XXth article claims it for the church, so the immediately preceding article (XIX.) expressly defines what it means by the church, viz. "A congregation of faithful "men, where the pure word of God is preached." It is to the whole body of the faithful, then, that this power of decreeing ceremonies, if any such there be belongs. How then do you presume, Sir, to wrest it from them, and to vest it solely in the clergy? And,

66

76

3. When you add, "that, to this right of the pastors, to decree ceremonies, it is the people's duty, ordinarily, to conform theinselves:"---the word ordinarily seems to be brought in with the view of darkening the point, and of preparing a salvo in case the argument should press too hard upon you. What mean you Sir, by ordinarily? How shall the people know when it is, and when it is not their duty to submit to these injunctions of their spiritual governors? Are the people themselves to judge, and always to judge of the fitness and expedience of the enjoined ceremonies, or are they not? If they are not, then they are absolutely to resign themselves to the direction of their governors, which is palpable and gross popery, and leads directly to Rome. But, if they are to judge, the Babel of church authority is at once overthrown; for, then the authority resides no longer in the decrees of the governors, but in

* Vide Examination of the Codex, page 125.

the judgment of the people. It is the judgment they form of them which alone makes them bind-. ing upon them or not. Of their number, whether they are too many, and of their nature, whether they are superstitious, foppish, and vain, you scem sometimes to allow the people are to judge. But, if they have a right to judge, they have a right also to act in consequence of that judgment; and to withdraw from those churches where such ceremonies are enjoined as they think foppish and vain, and to join themselves to others, where they think the worship of God is performed in a more scriptural and proper manner. So that, after all this solemn parade about church authority, you see it turns out to be a mere shadow. It is an authority to command, which no one is under any obligation to obey. This power of making ceremonies, must be either limited or unlimited. If it be not unlimited, (which you seein to disavow,) pray what limits it? what prescribes its bounds, beyond which it shall not pass? If the church has power to ordain five ceremonies, why not ten? And if ten, why not more? Who shall pretend to say how far it may go?

Your illustration "as to the king'sinjunctions," &c,* will not reach the case, because the constitution and laws of England empower the king. to make such injunctions: but you have not yet proved, and I presume never will prove, that the constitution of the christian church empowers its pastors to decree ceremonies and rites.

You ask, "Where does the church pretend "to be alone the proper judge, or where disallow "private christians to judge for themselves in "these matters?" I will tell you, Sir. It is in its XXXIVth article, which decrees, that "Who"soever, through his private judgment, willingly "and purposely, doth openly break the traditi

* Defence, page 14. + Ibid, page 13.

ons and ceremonies of the church, which be "not repugnant to the word of God, and be or"dained by common authority, ought to be re"buked openly, (that others may fear to do the "like,) as he that offendeth against the common "order of the church, and hurteth the authority "of the magistrate." Private judgment, you see, is here forbidden to oppose the common order of the church, and the authority of the magistrate; and, when it presumes to do so, is to be censured and punished for it.

66

[ocr errors]

"The church of France, and the church of "Rome, you acknowledge to be as much pos"sessed of this power as the church of England. "But it does not follow, that, because they have a power to decree rites, they may therefore decree fopperies and superstitions."* But, by what mark, I pray, do you distinguish between rites and fopperies, between ceremonies and superstitions? The consecration of earth in the church of England, is a rite; but the consecration of water, in the church of France, is a foppery. In the church of England,the priest's signing the baptised infant with the sign of the cross, in token that it shall confess a crucified Christ, is a significant rite: but, in the church of Rome, his putting his finger into its ear, in token that it shall hear the word of God; or, salt upon its tongue, in token that its speech shall be seasoned with salt, are intolerable fopperics. The bowings to the altar, bowing at the name of Jesus, kneeling at the communion, sponsors, surplice, hoods, lawn-sleeves, and every thing of this kind, used in the church of England, are edifying and decent ceremonies, " of clear signification and in-. "disputable use." But the slippers and staff, knocking on the breast,elevations, crossings, gesticulations, sprinklings with holy water, &c.

* Defence, page 11.

+ Ibid, page 11.

practised in the church of Rome, are ridiculous superstitions. How happy, to have governors thus spiritually gifted, thus able nicely to distinguish between things that differ!

"My suggestion, that by the mere concessi"ons of your XXth article, thousands of prose"lytes have been gained from you to the church "of Rome, is rash (you say) and groundless. "Nor do you believe I can name one who was "ever gained by it."* I will give you two instances almost equal to a thousand. The first shall be the renowned Chillingworth, who was gained to the church of Rome chiefly by this argument, viz. the necessity of an infallible living judge of controversies; † which is but a different expression for the authority of the church in matters of faith. Now, if this argument was so plausible as to vanquish and lead captive so great a master of reasoning, multitudes of weaker minds. have no doubt fallen by its force. The other shall be King James II. of whom bishop Burnet says, he gave me this account of the change of his religion. "All due care was taken to form "him to a strict adherence to the church. Among "other things, much was said of the authority of "the church, and of the tradition from the Apos"tles, in support of episcopacy. So when he 66 came to observe that there was more reason to "submit to the catholic church, than to one par"ticular church, and that other traditions might "be taken on her word, as well as episcopacy "was received among us;" he thought the step was not great, but that it was very reasonable to go over to the church of Rome." See how dangerous a weapon is this same church-authority, and how capable of being used to the infinite prejudice of the protestant cause!

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

* Defence, page 15. + Vide Life of Chillingworth, page 7.

Burnet's Hiftory of his own Times, 8vo. Edition, Vol. I.

page 94.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"But, granting the authority of the church, "(i. e. of its pastors and governors, its bishops " and clergy) how, you ask, would our reforma❝tion be overthrown by it, which was not car-` "ried on in opposition to authority, but with the "concurrence of all the authority in the nation?"* Strange, Sir, you should so soon forget! Did not I remind you that the reformation under Queen Elizabeth, and the present forms of worship, prescribed in the Common Prayer, were strongly opposed by every bishop in the kingdom; and the convocation then sitting, were so far from having any hand in it, that they presented to the parliament several propositions in favour of popery, directly contrary to the proceedings of the parliament? The civil magistrate, you affirm, "has no power at all nor authority in these matters:"+ it is with the pastors and governors of the church, in whom alone it is lodged. But behold, these pastors and governors were zealous for the old religion! They argued, voted, petitioned, strenuously for it, and against the reformation. The reformation, then, upon your principles, is built upon a wrong bottom; was carried on, not in concurrence with, but in avowed opposition to all the authority of the nation. How justly might I here return your own ungenerous compliment: "It was great rashness, (too great in conscience,) "if, indeed, it was not treachery and playing booty, to set the protestant cause upon so sandy "a foundation!" Your principles, if digested in proper form, will stand thus: "The church "hath power and authority to decree ceremonies "and rites: but, by the church, observe, I un"derstand, not the king and parliament, not the "civil magistrate, who have no power at all relating to these matters, but the bishops only " and clergy, who are appointed and called of + Ibid, page 18.

[ocr errors]

* Defence, page 15.
Ibid, page 19.

« PreviousContinue »