mandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven."* Is not the man contained in the citizen; and when justice overtakes the one will the other escape? Christianity is a perfect Law; it admits of no compromise, no subterfuge, no exemption, no respect of persons;† its charge is universal, "Woe to that man by whom the offence cometh :" accordingly Magistrates and Subjects must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.§ As, therefore, Christianity equally concerns all, so every individual is equally bound to examine it for himself; and neither to receive any thing relating to it on trust, nor authoritatively to impose his mode of practising it on others. The Law of Reason and the Law of God combining to shew that every man is ultimately responsible for himself to God alone, his actions must necessarily be governed by the knowledge he has acquired; hence his inalienable right of deciding for himself in what manner he will publicly worship his Maker and Redeemer; and hence, too, in accordance with the precedents in the New Testament, every true Church of Christ is composed of voluntary members offering a reasonable service. A National Church, which includes in its pale the willing and the unwilling, and professes to tolerate Christians worshipping in another manner from her own, but still challenging such as amenable to her, cannot be considered a Scriptural Church; for, from the nature of its composition, those whom its pale thus embraces are not of one heart and of one soul.* ** A true Church of Christ cannot be a legislative body, because its code is complete ;†† it will not reproach its great Lawgiver with leaving his work unfinished, and changeable at the mere pleasure of any who may choose to profess themselves his servants, arrogating a Divine commission by a prętended uninterrupted succession. With regard to the practice of the Apostles, and the application of it to ourselves, writes PALEY, the case seems to be this, "that we are always bound not "A Church I take to be a voluntary society of men joining themselves together of their own accord, in order to the public worshipping of God, in such manner as they judge acceptable to him, and effectual to the salvation of their souls." Letter concerning Toleration. 1765. 4to. p. 37. Rom. xii. 1. LOCKE's First **Acts iv. 32. "Men ought not indeed, as Mr. Baxter speaks, to be forced into a temple not consenting, for then it is a prison, and they are not a Church."-A Discourse about Church Unity. By a Presbyter of the Church of England. 1681. 8vo. chap. v. p. 253. "Imo dico ego nec leges ferre potest in domo Dei, alioqui WHITTAKERUs. De Auth. Sacr. Scrip. advers. Stapleton. tt Coloss. ii. 10. Scriptura esset imperfecta." cap. ix. p. 436. to go beyond the precedent, though, for want of the same authority, we may not always advance up to it. It surely at least becomes us to be cautious of proceeding, where they, in the plenitude of their Commission, thought proper to stop." "There is no insecurity," wrote another Dignitary of the same Church, in ending there where the Apostles ended, in building where they built, in resting where they left us." The true Church of Christ is a chaste virgin, espoused to one husband, and, consequently, is incapable of polluting herself by any secular ALLIANCE under the plausible pretext of receiving decoration, protection, and support.§ It is interesting to witness the difficulties with which the advocates of Establishments are embarrassed: One combating another on either the origin or the extent of the connexion between the Church and the State. Thus the preliminary questions are not agreed on by themselves, while nearly three centuries have already rolled away in polemical contention. When, if ever they be, the preliminaries shall be finally adjusted, Dissenters will cease to look on with feelings of compassion, or of emotions still stronger; though, from the nature of the case, they can never exercise any sympathy. Archdeacon POTT "Of HOOKER'S Work what was remarked of Barrow might have says, been as truly said, That he left nothing for others to supply. And so stood the matter, until men grew weary of walking in one track, and until one eminent Divine of our own Church, who would never tread in any man's steps, professed to give a model of his own."¶ PALEY, in contradiction to both Hooker and Warburton, says, making of the Church an Engine, or even an Ally of the State; converting it into the means of strengthening or diffusing influence; or regarding it as a support of regal in opposition to popular forms of Government, have served only to debase the institution, and to introduce into it numerous corruptions and abuses.”** Dispersi jactamur gurgite vasto. Ipse diem noctemque negat discernere cœlo, Nec meminisse viæ media PALINURUS in unda.†† Defence of the "Considerations," &c. p. 321. ut sup. 2 Cor. xi. 2. "The "The great preliminary and fundamental article of Alliance is this, That the Church shall apply its utmost influence in the service of the State; and that the State shall support and protect the Church."-WARB. All. Book II. chap. iii. p. 90. pleading for the decorations of Society."-Ibid. Ded. p. 10. p. "I am || An. 1547. "In the reign of Edward VI. it was that this Alliance between the Protestant Church of England and the S ate was made: on the natural dissolution of the Alliance between the Popish Church and it."-All. Book II. chap. iv. 141. Page 17. ubi sup. "It is a shrewd presumption, that a system is ill-founded when its most intelligent friends are so much divided about it; and in order to account for it recur to hypotheses so contradictory."-Dr. CAMPBELL's Lect. on Eccl. Hist. 1815. 8vo. Vol. I. lect. vii. p. 242. ** Moral Phil. Book VI. chap. x. ++ Virg. Æn. Lib. iii. v. 197-201. If we pass from remarking on the nature of the connexion between the Church and the State, to what regards the Constitution of the Hierarchy, we find the same want of agreement, as Warburton thus witnesses; "As for the mischiefs arising from Synodical Assemblies, by their heats, quarrels and divisions, it is owned they are great.... These quarrels have all arisen from not having had their Original and End, under an Establishment, precisely determined: as appears from the constant subject of their quarrels; which have always been about the Power and Extent of their privileges and jurisdictions."* The truth of the matter, as the impartial Mosheim writes, is plainly this, "That the Ecclesiastical Polity in England has never acquired a stable and consistent form, nor been reduced to clear and certain principles." Therefore, on the whole, to accommodate the language of the doughty champion in another field of combat, already alluded to, This disagreement of the Roman [read English] Doctors about the nature and extent of Papal [read Anglo-Hierarchical] Authority, is a shrewd prejudice against it. If a man should sue for a piece of land, and his advocates (the notablest could be had and well paid) could not find where it lieth, how it is butted and bounded, from whom it was conveyed to him, one would be very apt to suspect his Title. If GOD had instituted such an Office, it is highly probable, we might satisfactorily know what the nature and use of it were: the patents and charters for it would declare it.‡ The Twentieth Article of the Church of England is correctly represented to be a grand hinge upon which the whole controversy between her and the Dissenters turns. We shall now avail ourselves of the irrefragable arguments of a powerful advocate against this Article: "The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and Authority in Controversies of Faith."§ All. Book II. chap. iii. p. 136. Eccl. Hist. Cent. xvi. Sect. iii. Part II. chap. ii. sect. 31. Maclaine's edit. A Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy. By Isaac Barrow, D. D. 1680. 4to. p. 2. § "The people of England must have been profoundly ignorant in Queen Elizabeth's time, when a forged clause added to the Twentieth Article of the English creed passed unnoticed till about forty years ago [1724]. In the Act xiiith Eliz. an. 1571, confirming the Thirty-nine Articles, these Articles are not engrossed, but referred to as comprised in a printed book, entitled, Articles agreed to by the whole Clergy, in the Convocation holden at London 1562. That clause, The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and Authority in Controversies of Faith,' is not in the Articles referred to; nor the slightest hint of any Authority with respect to matters of Faith. In the same year 1571, the Articles were printed both in Latin and English, precisely as in the year 1562: but soon after came out spurious editions, in which the clause was foisted into the Twentieth Article, and continues so to this day. A Forgery so impudent would not pass at present." Sketches of the History of Man. By the Honourable HENRY HOME, of Kames, 1774, Book I. sk. 4. § 1. "It is certain that it never was composed by, or exhibited in manuscript to, a Convocation. Such a power might not have been authoritatively claimed by the Church, lest offence should be taken at a time of general irritation on the subject of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction."-The Christian Remembrancer; or, the Churchman's Bibl., Eccles., and Lit. Miscellany. April, 1829, p. 227. Now, if the Church of England have really this Power and Authority, have not those of France, Spain, Rome, the very same powers? If so, all the fopperies and superstitions of the Romish Church that cannot be proved to be contrary to the Word of God are to be reverently submitted to by all the members of those Churches, and to be cordially received! Then, does not this Power evidently oppose the principles of the Reformation itself, and subvert the very foundation of the Church of England? For till it can be shewn why that Church is possessed of this Power, but not the Church of Rome; a body of acknowledged fallible men in Britain, but not a body of pretended infallible men at Trent; and how England became thus spiritually gifted and endowed beyond all its neighbouring kingdoms; separation from the Church of Rome is incapable of a just and solid defence. Again the Article says, “And yet 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." Whatever Ceremony or Rite cannot be shewn to be Contrary to God's Word, the Church of England, and on the same principles the Church of Rome, has full Authority to enjoin: consequently, as the Church of England by virtue of this Authority, has enjoined the Cross in baptism, it has full Power also to require its members to cross themselves when they enter their places of Worship, say prayers, look towards the east, touch the Bible, sit at meat; to enjoin the use of salt and spittle in baptism, chrism, extreme unction, and a hundred other things which are no more Contrary to God's Word than the Cross in baptism: as it now consecrates ground, it has as much Power to consecrate the other elements, and to make holy water as well as holy earth, and to order it to be decently sprinkled on its members (for all things are to be done decently and in order!*) in token that they shall keep themselves pure from sin. It has Power to consecrate holy knives to cut the sacramental bread; holy basons and ewers for the priest to wash in before the Sacrament; holy vestments and robes, and a great variety of holy utensils ; lighted tapers for the altar, &c.; (all which was done by LAUD;) knocking on the breast, bowing towards the east, prostration before the altar; these, and innumerable other Ceremonies the Church of England claims Power and Authority to enjoin, for none of these can "What is to be done in the Assemblies of Christians for the salvation of souls, is sufficiently prescribed in Scripture: but since the circumstances of the actions are so various, and might in several countries and ages have different appearances; as that appears decent in one country which is quite contrary in another; concerning them there could be no other rule given than what is, namely, decently,' 'in order,' and 'to edification;' and in avoiding indecencies, and not adding any new Ceremonies, how decent soever, this rule consists."-Locke's Third Let. conc. Tol. p. 128. be shewn to be more Contrary to the Word of God, or to be any more superstitious, ridiculous, or absurd, than crossing at baptism, or the solemn consecration of churches and churchyards. The limitation, or guard, which the Twentieth Article seems to put on the assumed or arrogated Power, is really of no force, and is in fact no limitation at all. For of Repugnance and Contrariety, the Church alone, and not every private person, is by her allowed to be the judge: otherwise the Article is absurd; it actually overthrows itself, and takes away with one hand what it gives with the other. If every private person has Authority to judge of the Church's decisions, and to reject them, if they appear to him Repugnant to Scripture, then the Church's Authority in points of Faith is entirely destroyed. It is an Authority to decree where no one is bound to submit. But the Article does claim for the Church some real Authority to settle points of Faith; consequently private Christians are required reverently to submit, even though to their own judgments they appear Repugnant to the Word of God. This is the real meaning and intent of the Article, notwithstanding the restrictive clause: accordingly, the Church has authoritatively decreed Thirty-nine Articles of Faith for avoiding of Diversities of Opinions, and for the establishing of Consent touching true Religion. But if the Church of England has really this Authority and right, the Church of Rome had it before her; and as the elder and mother Church, ought to have been obeyed. The Reformation, therefore, as we are accustomed to call it, was a rebellion against Superiors, a disobedience to the Authority vested in the Church, and ought, as such, to be renounced by returning to the Church of Rome. Besides, after all, this Power is not at all lodged in the Church, but entirely in the King and Parliament of these Realms! If, however, it were in the Spiritual Governors, how shall the People know when it is, and when it is not their duty to submit to these injunctions? Are the People always to judge of the fitness of the enjoined Ceremonies, or are they not? If not, then they are absolutely to resign themselves to the direction of their Governors, which is palpable and gross Popery. 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 the judgment of the People. Private judgment is disallowed by the Thirty-fourth Article.* Yet "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 other may fear to do the like) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren." Art. xxxiv. "We are informed, that the Church deprives no man of his right of private judgment: she cannot, she hangs, however, a dead-weight upon it."-Archd. PALEY. Def. of the Consid. p. 318. In the |