that from the necessity of the frequent Assembling of Bishops, ani their concurrence in public Ecclesiastical matters, (as for the consecration of Bishops, the removal of common and general corruptions and abuses, judicial audience, the hearing of the appeals of the inferior Clergy against their Bishops, or when appeals are made from their sentence by any who may consider themselves wronged, &c.) it is indispensably necessary that one Bishop should have a Pre-eminence above the other Bishops to oversway them, without which deliberations and Councils would seldom be forwarded, and Assemblies would constantly be in danger of breaking up with contention. I only mean to infer, that as the Jurisdiction of Primates and Metropolitans cannot be proved to be of Divine Institution, all that can be alleged against the Primacy, and Metropolitan Jurisdiction of Archbishop Parker amounts to nothing; for it is pretty evident that their Jurisdiction arose chiefly by custom upon the division of the Provinces of the Roman Empire, to which those countries in which the Gospel was first preached were principally subject, the dignity and celebrity of Mother-cities being respected in order to determine who should be Higher (or Arch) Bishops, (i. e. Primates and Metropolitans,) and who Inferior Bishops; the civil dignity of the place being considered a sufficient reason why one Bishop should be preferred before another.* Thus it was that Metropolitan Bishops became Provincial Archbishops and Primates,† the Councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, ouly approving of what in this respect they found already practised; and the Kings in the Western Church shortly afterwards followed the same example, giving similar Pre-eminences to Sees, according to the Original Dignity of the Towns, whence the dignity of the See of Canterbury arose, having been first erected by King Ethelbert. The second thing in Episcopal Institution is the Installing or Enthroning the Metropolitan: now it is very evident from Antiquity, (and no one evec questioned it,) that this was always performed by the Bishops of the Province, of which we It was customary with the Romans, when they had subdued Foreign Nations by war, to - make them Provinces, that is, to place Roman Governors over them, who might rule them according to the laws and customs of Rome. To effect this the more easily, they divided the whole country into different Parts, in each of which Parts there was some one city to which those who lived in that Part resorted for justice, &c. Each of these Parts was termed a Diocese, and, strictly speaking, contained Part of a Province; as for example, when Macedonia was subdued, the Roman Governor, by an Order from the Roman Senate, divided it into four Dioceses, viz. Amphipolis, Thessalonica, Pella, and Pelagonia; of these, Thessalonica was the chief, and in it the highest Governor of Macedonia had his seat, on which account the three other Dioceses were in that respect inferior to it, as Daughters to a Mother-city; for this Title of " Mother-city" was not given to every city of justice, but was peculiar to those cities only in which Principal Courts were kept; thus Thessalonica was the "Mother-city" in Macedonia, Ephesus in Asia. and Carthage in Africa, as Justinian affirms; (Just. lib. i. Tit. 27. B. 1. Sect. 1. 2;) and the Governors, Officers, and Inhabitants of those "mother-cities" were called for the sake of distinction, "Metropolites," that is, Mother-city men. (Vide Ep. Cic. ad Attic. lib. v. and Ep. 13. item. I. observ. D. de Officio Proconsulis et Legati.) + See Petrus de Marca, Abp. of Paris, de Concor. Imp. et Saser. have unquestionable proof in the famous decision of the Council of Ephesus, in the case of the Cypriotic Bishops, when, upon the pretension of the Patriarch of Antioch,* the case was examined, and it was found that he had never been accustomed to Ordain Bishops there; and, consequently, the rights of the Bishop of Constantia, the Metropolitan, were confirmed to him by that General Council. Indeed not a single instance can be produced in the first three ages of a Metropolitan coming to be Ordained by a Patriarch, as was afterwards appointed for the sake of Order; which appears more evident from a Canon of the Council of Orleans, by which it was decreed," that in the Ordination of Metropolitans, the ancient custom should be renewed, which was generally neglected and lost; that a Metropolitan being elected by the Bishops of the Province, with the Clergy and the People, should be Ordained by all the Bishops of the Province assembled together;" which decree was made A.D. 558. Thus Bishops, although subject to the Jurisdiction of their Metropolitan, might Ordain him; and, consequently, Archbishop Parker was lawfully consecrated to the See of Canterbury. We may, therefore, infer that the arguments brought by Romanists to prove that the Clergy of the Church of England have lost the Apostolical Succession are weak and groundless. Because it has been proved that Diocesan Episcopacy, (with the three Order's of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon,) was instituted by our blessed Saviour Himself, adopted and practised by His holy Apostles, and uninterruptedly maintained by the whole Catholic Church for a period of fifteen successive centuries, (until in some few places, reluctantly abolished by those whom a painful necessity compelled to substitute in its place a Form of Church Polity originally invented by a branded, notorious, and an interested heretic-Arius,) therefore, it is a very dangerous presumption in any one to separate from a Church, governed by the former Divine and Apostolical Form, and betake himself to the latter unscriptural invention: and because, it has been proved that an Apostolical Succession is essential to the validity of the Ministerial Functions, and that the Clergy of the Church of England are in possession of that Apostolical Succession, therefore, the Ministration of the Clergy of the Church of England ought to be attended not only in preference to, but to the entire exclusion of, the pretended Ministration of all those who can lay no claim to that Apostolical Succession. *Action 7 1+ Can. vii. CHAP. IV. LITURGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. "Hold fast the Form of sound words.—If any man consent not to wholesome words, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh strife, railings, and perverse disputings of men." St. Paul. "A small Church or Sect may do without a Form for a while. But a National Liturgy is that which preserves a relic of the true Faith among the people in a large empire. Woe to the Church which has no Liturgy! Witness the Presbyterians in the Wes: of England, and some other Sects, who are said to have become Arians or Socinians to a man. The Puritans of a former age did not live long enough to see the use of an English Formulary." Buchanan, OBJ." Thirdly, 1 dissent from the Church of England, on account of her stated imposition of a Form of Prayer, not only because I can find no warrant in Scripture for the use of a Form of Public Devotion, but because I consider all Forms both unnecessary and pernicious." Q. 33.-By what arguments do you prove that the Imposition of a Form of Prayer is not unscriptural, nor unnecessary and pernicious? The Kingdom of Satan is shaken by nothing more than by the public devout prayers of the Church of Christ; because, therefore, that Great Enemy of Mankind is well aware that it would be a fruitless stratagem to endeavour to persuade men plainly and directly to condemn prayer itself, he has sought to bring the prayers of the Church into contempt, and thereby to weaken the force of every man's devotion towards them, by filling them with the strange conceit, that to serve God with a set Form of Prayer is "unscriptural, unuecessary, and pernicious." Now it cannot be unscriptural and pernicious to worship God by a Form of Prayer, because God Himself composed the very Form of Words by which the Priests of His Jewish Church were to bless the People,* which He would not have deigned to do, if nothing but extemporaneous Prayers had been acceptable to him: nor would Moses have composed his Hymn of Praise to God for the admirable victory gained by the Israelites over Pharoah, but as a precedent for the composition of Prayers in a certain set Form which might be frequently repeated, although the occasion of their being first composed could never occur again; for this very Hymn of Moses, (together with many others invented since,) afterwards formed a part of the ordinary Jewish Liturgy, which consisted partly of Hymns selected from the Holy Scriptures, and partly of Benedictions, Thanksgivings, and Supplications, (penned by those who at different periods had presided over the Jewish Synagogue,) being arranged in their proper places, either to begin or end the Service of God, or introduced before, between, or after the reading of the Law and the Prophets. To leave the practice of the Jewish Church (which was unquestionably opposed to extemporaneous Prayers) for that of the Church of Christ, in which we are more immediately concerned, we read that the Disciples of John the Baptist, who (having been educated in the bosom of God's Church from their earliest infancy) could not possibly have been so iguorant as not to know how to call upon the name of God, nevertheless received from their Master a Form of Prayer, which was used by none but themselves, so that they were known from others by this particular mark of distinction. The Apostles having observed this, requested their Heavenly Lord and Master to "teach them to pray, even as John taught His Disciples;" in compliance with their request, and, as it were, purposely to prevent the fancy of extemporaneous and voluntary Prayers, He gave them one of His own composition, that it might not only remain as a part of the Liturgy of His Church, but serve also as a pattern by which to frame all other prayers. Now as our blessed Saviour could not have prescribed a Form of Prayer in plainer and more express Terms than by saying (as He did say)" When ye pray, say, Our Father, &c." so we have every reason to believe, (as all Primitive Writers on the subject concur in assuring us) that the Apostles strictly adhered to this Form of Prayer, both in their Public and Private Devotions; not that they by any means confined themselves to this Form only, (for it is evident from their Writings that they used other Forms also,) but that they did use a Form, of which this Prayer of our Lord constituted a part. For example, 66 mention is made in the New Testament, that in certain prescribed Forms of Prayer, the whole Church or Congregation lifted up their voice with one accord," ,"* which Forms must have been generally known to the whole Church, or Congregation, (and, for that reason, not extemporaneous Prayers,) or they could not have "lifted up their voice with one accord;" mention is also made in the New Testament of Psalms and Hymns, as the Song of the Virgin Mary, the Song of Simeon, the Song of Zecharias, &c.; in allusion to which, the Apostle declares that he will "sing and pray with the Spirit," "in Psalms and Hymns making melody unto the Lord;" and Psalms and Hymns are such kinds of Prayer as are not usually extemporaneous, but are composed by previous meditation. Again, St. Paul commanded the Church of Corinth, and, therefore, all Provincial Churches, (for he assigns as a reason for the Church of Corinth to adopt a custom, that " he had so ordained in other Churches,") to take care that in their Religious Worship "all things were done to edifying."S Now it is impossible for any Provincial Church to see that this be effected, unless it prescribe some certain Form for that purpose. But if every Minister of a Parish should be permitted to prescribe what he pleased in his own Congregation, although some perhaps might wisely and prudently observe this Rule, and see that all things in the Worship of God were done to edifying," yet (considering the corruptions of human nature we have great reason to fear that others would not, at all events the Church could not rest secure that all would; and, therefore, she must necessarily appoint some such Form to be used in all her Congregations, by which we may be fully assured, that "all things are done to edifying.", Now although it may be possible (which can never be expected) that all the Clergy in every Province should be as learned and pious as they ought to be, yet it is impossible that every one of them individually should understand what is for the edification of the people, so well as they could collectively. We may, therefore, infer that the only way by which this Apostolical Rule can be observed, of doing "all things to edifying," is for the Governors of every Church, and the whole Clergy, to assemble by their Representatives in a Synod, or Convocation, and there, upon mature deliberation, to agree upon some such Form, as they may judge to be according to the Rule which the Apostle has enjoined them. Now it cannot be doubted even by our Dissenting Brethren, (at least by those of them who are conversant with contemporary writers,) but that the Primitive Christians used certain Liturgical Forms, called by them "Solemn Prayers," "Common Prayers," and "Constituted Prayers;" and as it is exceedingly improbable that at so early a period they should have ventured to introduce Forms of Prayer, if a contrary practice had prevailed during the Apostolical Government of the Church, so 09 *Acts iv. 24. † 1 Cor. xiv. 15; Ephes. v. 19. 1 Cor. xvi. 1. 1 Cor. xiv. 26.1 |