to concede somewhat to their infirmity. They professed to be agitated by doubts and scruples, which they could not remove in charity therefore she should have afforded them relief; and by refusing to do so, she certainly perpetuated the offence, although she did not cause it ;-and became responsible, in some degree at least, for the mischiefs which ensued.

As however the object which the Church of England proposed to herself was the preservation of unity, it became her to consider, not the benefit of a few only, but the edification of all. Before therefore the concessions, which some required for their private satisfaction, could have been safely granted, it was necessary to ascertain that others would not have been offended by them. For it could not otherwise be expected, that ceremonies and forms, decent and significant in themselves, hallowed in the eyes of the generality of her members by long use, and strictly con

B

n Such was the reason given for not acceding to the proposed alterations in the Liturgy. See Account of all the Proceedings-Copy of Papers, p. 13.

formable to the practices of the purest ages of Christianity, should be abolished, to please the wayward fancies, or remove the unreasonable scruples of a few indi viduals, who doubted their expediency. Ven

It is to be remembered also, that these individuals were by profession teachers of religious truth; that they were not sup plicating indulgences for the uninstructed, but for themselves: and it is notorious, that, although to suit their immediate pur+ pose they pleaded infirmity of conscience and want of information, at other times they claimed to be considered as the pious, the godly, and the orthodox; and their sufficiency for their sacred office was declared by their adherents to be so undoubted, as to make their ejectment an irreparable loss to the Church, From these persons all the objections had originated; by them all the doubts and scru ples felt by their disciples had been first suggested; and though they complained of being weak in these respects, it was ap parent from their general character and assumptions, that they did not regard

themselves as babes in Christ." Instead of allowing that they needed themselves to be “ fed with milk," they asserted that they were fully able to feed others; nay, far more able than those of their bre-f thren, whom, for this particular purpose, they chose to represent as stronger than themselves. To them then it might have been well objected, (and their own conduct, when vested with power, shewed that they admitted the validity of the argument,) that unity in the Church can only be preserved, by supporting the authority by which it may be enforced. But if the strong are to yield to the weak, the very foundations of this authority will be removed the simple will claim a right to dictate to the learned; and he who is fully instructed in the doctrine of Christ, must submit to be directed in his spiritual office by the most ignorant of his flock.'

Where therefore infirmity, thus ostentatiously professed, instead of teaching men submission, and filling them with an anxious desire of improvement, prompts them

to contend with those who are above them, and to resist the authority which interferes. with their prejudices and misconceptions it will be no breach of charity to suspect the sincerity of such persons, and to be on our guard against Pavoluntary humi "lity," too frequently assumed by those, who are vainly puffed up by their fleshly "minds," and think to “shew their wis"dom by will worship." St. Paul indeed enjoins the Romans to receive Ahim "that is weak into the faith;" he exhorts them not “to put a stumblingblock or an ❝ occasion of falling in their brother's 66 way;" and, above all, to "follow after "things which make for peace, and things ❝wherewith one may edify another.?'' But these rules seem to have little reference to the case before us. Christian charity, it is true, forbids individuals to despise a brother, or to exclude him from their inter course, because his private judgment does not coincide with theirs in things indifferent. Such a brother it will be our duty to receive, as one who is "weak in the faith," p Col. ii. 18, 23.

蟹

9 Rom. xiv. i. 13, 19.

but may become strong and that no difficulties, or obstacles to his improvement in knowledge, may be laid in his way, we should avoid all" doubtful disputations" with him; knowing that they may tend rather to engender strife," than $ godly 66 edifying," which is in Jesus Christ.Jil V But we are no where taught, that the injunctions of public authority are to yield to the private scruples of such a person; the Apostle no where says, that the Church is not to ordain any rites or ceremonies, until she is certain that the disaffected can suggest no doubts of their expediency to

of

the minds such weak and uninstructed

brethren; or that she is to alter those, which she has already appointed, even in deference to any, who may presume upon their own peculiar sanctity or knowledge. On the contrary, the very directions of the Apostle, which have been sometimes quoted in favour of such positions, are immediately preceded by an exhortation to submit to all lawful authority, as a point of

r2 Tim. ii. 23.

s 1 Tim. i. 4.