tend for. We find several rules given for the government and order of the Church. Timothy and Titus were appointed" to ordain, to admomish, and rebuke before all;" and the body of the Christians is required to submit themselves to them and obey them: and though that command of our Saviour, "tell the Church," may perhaps not be so strictly applicable in the primary sense, still the parity of reason may lead us to conclude that they may be extended to all those public offences which are injurious to the whole body, and may now be applied to the Christian Church and its pastors, though they related to the synagogue when they were first spoken.

In pronouncing this sentence of excommunication, however, great caution should be used. It is the last and highest act of Church authority, and should therefore be proceeded in with such care, and upon such grounds, as may justify the rigour of it. Thus a wilful contempt of order carries in it every other irregularity, because it dissolves the union of the body, and destroys that respect by which all the other ends of religion are to be attained; and when therefore this contempt is deliberate, there is no other way left but to cut off those who are so refractory and set so bad an example to others.

If the execution of this power should fall into great disorders, so that many scandalous persons are not censured, and a promiscuous

The occa

multitude is suffered to break in upon the most sacred performances, still this will not justify private persons for withdrawing from the communion of the Church, since the divine precept is, that every man should try and examine himself, and not try and censure others. sion of the irregularities which at present exist on this subject is this: Private Confession in the Church of Rome had quite destroyed Church government, and superseded most of the ancient penitentiary canons, while the few that remained were evaded by artifice. The encroachments which the temporal and spiritual courts were making upon each other occasioned many disputes, which were introduced into the latter, and being conducted by such subtle men as the civilians and canonists, produced considerable disorders in the proceedings of those courts, from which the Christian world have long desired to be free. A thorough revision of them was designed at the beginning of the Reformation, and the draught of it is still extant. But though this alteration has not yet been made, and the tares therefore are allowed to grow up with the wheat, we must let them grow together till a proper harvest may be given to the Church by the providence of God.

a An act passed for this purpose in the 35th year of Henry VIIIth's reign.-See Burnet's Hist, of Ref. v. 1. p. 598. Ed. Oxford, 1816.

ARTICLE XXXIV.

OF THE TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT TRADITION AND CEREMONIES BE IN ALL PLACES ONE OR UTTERLY LIKE, FOR AT ALL TIMES THEY HAVE BEEN DIVERSE, AND MAY BE CHANGED ACCORDING TO THE DIVERSITY OF COUNTRIES AND MEN'S MANNERS, SO THAT NOTHING BE ORDAINED AGAINST GOD'S WORD. WHOSOEVER THROUGH HIS PRIVATE JUDGMENT WILLINGLY AND PURPOSELY DOTH OPENLY BREAK THE TRADITIONS AND CEREMONIES OF THE CHURCH, WHICH BE NOT REPUGNANT TO THE WORD OF GOD, AND BE ORDAINED AND APPROVED BY

COMMON AUTHORITY, OUGHT TO BE REBUKED OPENLY, THAT OTHERS MAY FEAR TO DO THE LIKE AS ONE THAT OFFENDETH AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE Church, AND HURTETH THE AUTHORITY OF THE MAGISTRATE, AND WOUNDETH THE CONSCIENCES OF WEAK BRETHREN.

EVERY PARTICULAR OR NATIONAL CHURCH HATH AUTHORITY TO ORDER, CHANGE, AND ABOLISH CEREMONIES OR RITES OF THE CHURCH, ORDAINED ONLY BY MEN'S AUTHORITY; SO THAT ALL THINGS BE DONE TO EDIFYING.

THIS Article consists of three parts: 2 I. It asserts that the Church has power to appoint such

a See Hooker's Eccles. Pol. 1. 3. and 1. 4. Sec. 13. and Whitgift's Def. tract. 2.

rites and ceremonies as are not repugnant to the word of God; II. That private persons have no right to oppose such ceremonies; and III. That this power is lodged in every national Church.

I. The power of the Church in indifferent matters having been already established in the exposition of the twentieth Article, we shall proceed to prove,

II. That private persons have no right to oppose

such ceremonies. a

In support of this assertion, the Article assigns three reasons: 1. That this opposition violates the unity of the Church; 2. It hurts the authority of the magistrate; and 3. It wounds the consciences of weak brethren.

1. This opposition violates the unity of the Church. There is no precept in Scripture so frequently repeated, or so strongly enforced, as

a Lest any misapprehension should arise on this subject, it may be necessary to remind the reader that there are two kinds of traditions acknowledged as authoritative in the Roman Church; the tradition of doctrine, and the tradition of ceremonies. Now in both these cases the Church of England disclaims the authority of tradition, though in different degrees. With respect to doctrines she requires one test, that they be founded upon Scripture; thereby totally rejecting tradition as a ground of faith. With respect to ceremonies, she requires two tests; negatively, that they be not repugnant to the word of God, and positively, that all things be done to edifying. If any ceremony possesses these qualifications, it is received, whether it be sanctioned by tradition or not.-See Marsh's Compar. View. c. 7.

that which inculcates brotherly love among Christians. Our Saviour has so enlarged the obligation to it, as to make it "a great and new "commandment," by which the world may be able to distinguish his followers from the rest of mankind. In order to the maintaining this mutual love he intended that his disciples should be associated into one body, and therefore he delivered his prayer to them all; he appointed baptism as the mean of receiving men into it, and the Eucharist as a memorial which they were to observe of his death. For this purpose too, he appointed pastors to teach and keep his followers in a body, and in his last prayer to his Father, he repeats this petition, "that they might be one," in five different modes of expression, thereby showing not only the importance of the command, but also evincing, by the earnestness of his intercession, the danger of their departing from it; and the tenderness of this union he further explains by praying that it might be such as existed between the Father and himself. In like manner, we find the Apostles urging this command. They frequently use the figure of a body to express the nature of the union, thus showing the closeness with which the parts should be knit together; and it is remarkable that St. John, who wrote the last, has dwelt more fully upon that duty than upon any other. Now in proportion to the necessity of