ARTICLE XX.

OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.

THE CHURCH HATH POWER TO DECREE RITES AND CEREMONIES, AND AUTHORITY IN MATTERS OF FAITH. 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.

WHEREFORE, ALTHOUGH THE CHURCH BE

A WITNESS AND KEEPER OF HOLY WRIT, YET AS IT
OUGHT NOT TO DECREE ANY THING AGAINST THE
SAME, SO BESIDES THE SAME OUGHT IT NOT TO EN-
FORCE ANY THING TO BE BELIEVED FOR NECESSITY
OF SALVATION.

THIS Article consists of two parts: I. It declares the power of the Church; and, II. It defines the limits of that power.

I. It declares the power of the Church.

This power is claimed in two particulars : 1. In rites and ceremonies: and, 2. In matters of faith.

1. The Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies.

On this subject our doctrine is opposed by some persons, who deny all Church power, and hold that Churches should be limited in points

of discipline by the rules expressed in the Scriptures. The principal arguments on which they found this opinion are, 1st, that the appointing new ceremonies seems to reproach the Apostles, as if their institutions had been so defective, that they required to be improved by the inventions of men ; and, 2nd, that the corruptions of Popery began by adopting some rites, apparently innocent, but which were afterwards abused to superstition and idolatry.c

This is the opinion of dissenters in general.-See The Admonition to Parliament, &c. and T. C.'s Reply to Whitgift.

b When it is objected, that all rites are unlawful, unless commanded in Scripture, it may he asked, whether those commands must be general or special. If general, we reply, that our rites are authorized by the words" let all things be done decently, and in order." If it be said that there must be a special commandment for each particular ceremony, we answer, that the objectors cannot produce such commandments for the rites they themselves use. most sects celebrate the feast of the Nativity, yet there is no special command on the subject.-See Mason on the Author. of the Church, p. 32. Ed. Oxf. 1634; Hooker's Eccl. Pol. 1. 3. sec. 2; and Whitgift's Ans. to the Admonition, p. 45. Ed. Lond. 1573.

с

purposes.

Thus,

It is absurd to object, that because a rite has heen used for idolatrous purposes, it therefore cannot be retained for religious The early Christians might thus be accused of favouring idolatry when they turned heathen temples into Christian Churches. But, perhaps there is no subject on which our Reformers observed such admirable moderation. Thus, the use of the sign of the cross, in common life, was prevented, because it was calculated to nourish superstition. The cross was also rejected from the sacrament for the same reason. But it was retained in baptism, because a declaration was added, to show its signification, and thereby prevent its abuse.

The truth of our doctrine, however, appears from the following considerations: (1.) From the omission of ritual rules in the New Testament. It is evident, that in the Gospels and Epistles, few rules are given on this subject: The only intimations we find are general ones: "Let all things be done to edification, to order, and to

66

peace," (Rom. xiv. 19. and 1 Cor. xiv. 40,) and, "lay hands suddenly on no man ;" (1.Tim. v. 22 ;) precepts, which would require many distinctions, in order to apply them to particular cases.

But further: the state of man varies in different climates and ages, so that the rules which would be considered grave in one society, may, in another age, tend to distract men's thoughts. Now, it is certain, that some method in these things, is necessary to maintain order and decency. The silence of Scripture, then, on this point, implies a power in the Church to decree

them.

(2.) From the example of our Saviour. The Jews, confessedly, had a limited number of ritual laws, delivered to them by God; yet they had many rites in use among them in our Saviour's time, which are not mentioned in the Old Testament. Such were the service and officers of the synagogues; the rite of baptism, and the addition of several ceremonies to the Paschal service. Our Saviour, however, rebuked them for none of these; he hallowed some of them

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, not to have left the others undone." and " (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.b Thus, in warm

"a

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

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.)

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.

a 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.