Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

to be the fœderal rites of his new dispensation; he frequented their synagogues, and though he reproved them for overvaluing these rites, he does not condemn the use of them. He declares of the greater precepts, "these things ye ought to have done," and adds, concerning their forms, and 66 not to have left the others undone." 772 (Matt. xxiii. 23.) If then such a liberty be allowed in so limited a religion, it is still more consistent with Christian freedom, that alterations should be made according to the change of times and circumstances. Thus, in warm climates, the ceremony of baptism may be performed by immersion; but in cold countries aspersion may be used with equal efficacy.

(3.) From the changes already made. A kiss of peace, and the order of deaconesses, were the practices of the Apostolic times; yet when the one gave occasion to raillery, and the other to scandal, their discontinuance was not objected to. Now, if Churches may lay aside apostolical practices in matters that are ritual, they are much more justifiable in framing new rules on the subject, since it appears more presumptuous to reject a ceremony authorized by the

a See Potter on Church Government, c. 5. sec. 7.

b It is remarkable, that even in the Jewish religion, the government of which was established by God himself, still cases occurred which did not come within their law; as in the instance of Zelophehad's daughters. (Num. xxvii. 1.)

a

Apostles, than to supply rules in particulars which they left untouched. Such are the habits and postures in public meetings; the times of fasting and prayers; the time and manner of confession, and stated forms for the several acts of religious worship, in all which it appears, that the Apostles had their "customs," as well as "the Churches of God." (1 Cor. xi. 16.)

(4.) From the conduct of the Apostles. We find that the Apostles became all things to all men, and complied in the practice of the abrogated rites of the Jews, in order that they might "save some." (1 Cor. ix. 22.) If then such rites were submitted to by inspired men, it should serve as an example to us to asquiesce in those rules which have been agreed upon by common consent, which are recommended to us by long practice, and are established by those who have the lawful authority over us.

* Notwithstanding Calvin's opinions on the unjustifiableness of introducing ceremonies unless authorized by Scripture, it is remarkable, that, on his return from banishment, he himself established the feast of the Nativity in the Church of Geneva.-See Cal. Epist. et Vit. by Beza. Ep. 118. Ed. Lausanne, 1574.

b Had the Apostles given special directions for the rites to be used in Churches, it is unaccountable that several Churches should all pretend, in the ages immediately following, to derive different customs from the same authority. Of these, Socrates enumerates a vast number.-See Hist. Eccl. 1. 6. c. 22.

2. "The Church hath authority in matters of faith."

A distinction should here be observed between an absolute authority, founded on infallility, and an authority of order. The former our Church disclaims; but maintains her claim to the latter. The justice of this claim is evident, (1.) from analogy. Every individual has a right to search the Scriptures, and form his own opinion as to their doctrines, and if he exercises that right in humility and sincerity, he is justified in expecting the guidance of heaven. When he has thus deduced his faith, he can judge with whom he should hold communion, and from whom he should separate. Now, the same rights attend a body of men. If their deliberations are conducted with diligence, and in prayer, it is reasonable to suppose they will come to just conclusions; and when they have so far examined a point as to settle their opinions about it, they may decree that such is their doctrine; and as they judge it to be more or less important, they may either restrain any other opinion, or may require positive declarations about it, either from all in their communion, or at least from all whom they admit to minister in holy things. When such definitions are made by the body of the pastors in any Church, those within it owe great respect to their decision. If, however, any man entertains conscientious scruples with re

gard to that decision, he is at liberty to separate from their communion, since the authority is not founded on infallibility.

(2) From the example of the Apostles. They met and consulted together on the controversy relating to the subjecting of the Gentiles to the Mosaic law. They ordered the Pastors of the Church to be able to convince gainsayers, and not to reject a man as a heretic, till after a first and second admonition. Thus they shewed that the most probable method of discovering truth was to consult in common on the disputed points; and in this, they serve as an example to the Church of Christ. It may be observed that, in this opinion, as to the decision of national Churches, we agree with Roman Catholics, since

This is surely a strange assertion advanced by Bishop Burnet, when perhaps there is no article of our faith on which we differ more widely from the Roman Catholics. Indeed it appears to me, that our author's account of Church authority is by no means satisfactory. He resolves it merely into a point of respect. Now, respect may imply deference, but authority demands obedience. The question is, supposing a controversy to arise, as to the interpretation of an important text in Scripture, by whom is that controversy to be decided? Certainly by the Church; and those who oppose that decision, she is justified in excluding from her communion. How, then, it will be asked, do we differ from the intolerant spirit of the Roman Church? The difference consists in this: When a man is thus excluded from the pale of our Church, he is not thereby supposed to be excluded from salvation. His person is no longer subject to the laws of our communion; he is at liberty to worship

they place infallibility in the general, not in a particular Church. And as general councils are treated in the following Article, it is evident, that now under consideration only refers to particular communions.

II. The Article defines the limits of this power. "It is not lawful for the Church to ordain any

thing that is contrary to God's word written, "neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another."

[ocr errors]

1. With respect to rites and ceremonies, "it ought not to decree any thing against Holy Writ.” Those who are engaged in framing these rules ought to consider attentively the genius of the Christian religion. They are therefore to avoid any thing that may lead to idolatry, or that is likely to be abused to give false ideas of God. They ought not to overcharge the worship of God with too great a number of them, and should guard against vain pomp and levity. They should also have a regard to the feelings

God as he pleases; and he is protected in the exercise of that liberty by the law of the land. On the contrary, the Roman Catholic Church holds, that, "heretics and schismatics who have separated

from the Church, are still in the power of the Church, as persons "to be called by it, to judgment, punished, and doomed by ana"thema to damnation."-Catec. Rom. p. 78. Ed. 1587.-See also, Delahogue, Tractat. de Eccl. Chris. p. 394. Ed. Dub. 1809. It should be observed, that the former of these authorities is the catechism sanctioned by Pope Pius V., and the latter, the lectures delivered in the College of Maynooth.

« AnteriorContinuar »