Obrazy na stronie
[ocr errors]

terms of communion in the church of Christ, is vested, you affirm, 1.“ That it is not in the civil

magistrate : he has no such power at all."* But, 2.“ It is in the pastors and governors of the “ church.”+ Now,

First, if it be not in the civil magistrate, (and he has, as you affirm, no such power at all,) the consequence is inevitable, that then the present established church of England is illegally, unjustly, tyrannically, established: that it is an usurpation upon the rights of Christians, and upon the civil liberties of mankind; and that the very basis on which it stands, with its whole frame and constitution, are fundamentally, essentially, and notoriously wrong. For, that the present church of England was constituted, formed, and established, by the civil magistrate, and only by him, viz. by Queen Elizabeth and her parliament, every gentleman, not a perfect stranger to our history and constitution, indisputably knows. When we talk of the church established by law, by what law, I pray, do we mean established ? Is it not by a law enacted by the crown and parliament, and enacted by no authority, or power, but theirs ? Is not the Act of Uniformity the grand pillar, or foundation, on which the church of England rests? Was it not that alone which established its present liturgy, with all its ceremonies and forms? But by whom was that law made? Was it not by the civil magistrate, and made by him alone, the bishops in the house of lords, and clergy in the convocation, labouring earnestly against it? To say then, as you do, that the civil magistrate has no power to decree ceremonies and forms of worship, is to say that the Act of Uniformity was a tyrannical, unrighteous act: that it was enacted by those who had no power at all to do it: consequently, that the

1. Defence, p. 18, 19.

+ Ibid, p. 10.

church established by that law was an unwarrantable establishment, a spurious, illegal thing. This is the destructive tendency, Sir, of your principles and scheme. You root up foundations, overthrow our constitution, and totally demolish the very church you seem zealous to defend; so that you never spoke, perhaps, a truer word, than when you were pleased to describe yourself as a very sorry advocate for the church.*

But you ask, “Why are we to regard only the “ establishment of queen Elizabeth? Why is “ king Edward's reforination overlooked?”+ Not for any advantage which you can possibly get by it: for, in the reformation under that prince also, “ The majority of the bishops and inferior “ clergy, (directly contrary to what you assert)

were on the side of popery." And it was the parliament alone, without the convocation, which then established the reformed liturgy and service book.

But at queen Elizabeth's reformation, when the present church was formed, erected, and established, you allege, Though the bishops “ did, indeed, in some of her first years, oppose “ the reformation, which they had before ape

• Defence, page 128. Your learned Waburton, in his Alli. ance, &c. honourably and frankly owns, “ That the church hath resigned her independency, and made the magistrate her su.

preme head, without whose approbation and allowance, she can direct, order, and decree nothing, (page 87.)-And that the clergy are now under the magistrate's direction. (page

66 74.)"

Accordingly, an act in the ad parliament of Charles II. in Scotland, to which all the bishops concurred, and none of the laity protested against it, enacts, “ That the discipline of the “ external government and polity of the church is in his Ma" jesty, and his successors, as an inherent right of the crown; « and that they may settle, enact, and limit, such constitu. “ tions, acts, and orders, concerning the administration of the “ external government of the church, and the persons employ" ed in the same, and concerning all ecclesiastical meetings, " and matters to be proposed and determined therein, as they ", in their royal wisdom shall think fit."

+ II. Defence, p. 140.
* Neal's Hist. Purit. Vol. I. p. 45, 51.

proved, yet they did not long stand out. That the majority of the bishops did either before approve, or afterward comply, is, I believe, quite contrary to fact;t but whether true or not, is not at all to the point: for, when the reformation was actually accomplished, and the church, with its liturgies and forms, was established, their afterwards standing in or out, for a longer or shorter time, will be of no weight in your argument. The work was done without them; this is all I ask; and this you are forced to grant. The bishops then had no hand, no share at all, in making and establishing the present church of England, but opposed it with all their might. It was done by the civil magistrate, (who had no power, you say, to do it,) and done by him alone. " At her majesty's accession, and even after reli

gion was restored to the same state as under

king Edward, the universities were so entirely “ lost, that there were scarcely two of the same “ opinion with the reformers. As to the bishops “ and clergy, (bishop Cox adds, they were una“ nimous for popery, firm as a rock."I

“ But if the reformation was carried on, it was “not (say you) perfected without the bishops." True, because it was never perfected at all. That glorious work remains to immortalise, perhaps, the names of its present governors. But, to whatever perfection it hath been at all brought

• Defence, p. 140. + Only one bishop conformed himself to the queen's commands, and was continued in his place, viz. Kitchen of Llandaff. Fuller's Ch. Hist. Book ix. p. 59, and Book vii. P 414.

† Neal's Review, p. 58. Vide also Fuller's Ch. Hist. Baok ix. p. 50.

§ II. Defence, p. 139.

since its first establishment, it was brought only and entirely by the authority of the crown and parliament, our excellent constitution acknowledging no legislative power, or authority, but theirs. *

“ And, as for the XXXIX articles, these (you allege) were some years after passed in a con

vocation of the bishops and clergy.”+ Whether they were passed in a convocation or not, with regard to their authority, is of no moment at all : their unanimous assent adding not the least grain to their obligation on the subject, nor their most zealous dissent in the least detracting from it. But did not your heart smite you, Sir, at the very mention of these articles, the XXXIV th of which declares expressly against you, “ That

your church ceremonies were ordained by the “ authority of the civil magistrate." The same also your XXXth canon. You have several times subscribed the truth of this article, and sworn to this canon. With what countenance then, durst you thus publicly oppugn and contradict it, and in open defiance of our articles and sta

Synods and convocations have, in all ages of the church. seldom done good; often much hurt ; have generally obstructed, not promoted reformation, which has mostly been carried on by lay councils and hands. The sentiments of a learned fa. ther, who had seen much of these church proceedings, may not be unworthy to be here remembered. Sic sentio, si verum, scribendum est, &c. My opinion is this, if I may be allowed to speak the truth, that all conventions of bishops are to be avoid. ed; for, I never saw any good come of any synod ; nor that it did not much more mischief than it hindered. For, truth, in such assemblies, is generally borne down by a spirit of strife and. vain glory. Greg. Nazian. Epist. ad Procop.

+ II. Defence, page 140. I“ We hold it the part of every private man, both minister, and other, reverently to retain the use of the ceremonies pre. scribed by public authority; considering that things of themselves indifferent, do in some sort, alter their natures, when they : are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful magistrate, and, may not be omitted at every man's pleasure contrary to the law:"-* Canon XXX.

[ocr errors]

tutes, our constitutions and canons, and your own repeated subscriptions, presumptuously declare, « 'That the civil magistrate has no power nor " authority to decree ceremonies in religion ?"? Do you solemnly subscribe one thing, and publicly teach another! Where is the consistency or the integrity of such a conduct? But let us see where you lodge this power.

Secondly. They are the chureh's pastors and governors, whom you are pleased to invest with it:* that is, I suppose, you mean (for you are extremely shy of explications). its bishops and clergy. But you have not deigned to shew me one text of seripture, nor one statute, or act of parliament, which vests them with this power. I have shewn you several of both, which expressly divest them of it, and utterly deny them any such jurisdiction or authority.

But, were we to grant you, " That these pas"tors and governors have authority from God

to make new ceremonies and rites, and to or" dain in Christ's church new terms of communion;" will you

tel whether this power is vested solely in the bishops; or, must their deans and chapters act in concert with them? Has every bishop, within his diocese, this power from God to enjoin new ceremonies and rites; or may his archbishop controul him? This latier I suppose not: for archbishops, you own, not to be of apostolic, but of modern institution ; whereas bishops, it should seem, are the lineal successors and representatives of the Apostles; in them, therefore, the apostolic power of governing the churches rests. This, then, which is of divine, ought not to be controuled by that which is but of late and human institution; therefore the bi. shop of every diocese, as its pastor and governora


* I. Defence, p. 10..

« PoprzedniaDalej »