{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_54295/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_54295","id":"gutenberg_54295","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54295","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church of England -- Apologetic works"],"text":"Transcribed from the 1826 J. Chilcott edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org\n\n                        [Picture: Pamphlet cover]\n\n                                No. XXXI.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                     Church of England Tract Society,\n                       Instituted in BRISTOL, 1811.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n\n                              SHORT REASONS\n                              FOR COMMUNION\n                      _With the Church of England_;\n\n\n                                   OR,\n                 THE CHURCHMAN\u2019S ANSWER TO THE QUESTION,\n\n                       \u201cWHY ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THE\n                           ESTABLISHED CHURCH?\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n    \u201cEndeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of\n    peace.\u201d\u2014_Ephes._ iv. 3.\n\n    \u201cBeseeching Thee to inspire continually the universal Church with the\n    spirit of truth, unity, and concord; and grant that all they that do\n    confess Thy holy name, may agree in the truth of Thy holy word, and\n    live in unity and godly love.\u201d\n\n                                                           _Com. Service_.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n            Sold at the DEPOSITORY, 6, Clare Street, BRISTOL;\n            And by SEELEY and SON, 169, Fleet Street, LONDON.\n          _Price_ 1\u00bc_d._ _each_, _or_ 6_s._ 8_d._ _per Hundred_.\n  [Picture: Hand with finger pointing right] An Allowance to Subscribers\n                             and Booksellers.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n             J. Chilcott, Printer, 30, Wine Street, Bristol.\n                                  1826.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n    \u201c_O ALMIGHTY God_, _who hast built Thy Church upon the foundation of\n    the Apostles and Prophets_, _Jesus Christ Himself being the head\n    corner-stone_; _grant us so to be joined together in unity of spirit\n    by their doctrine_, _that we may be made a holy temple acceptable\n    unto Thee_, _through Jesus Christ our Lord_.  _Amen_.\u201d\n\n                                   COLLECT\n                      For St. Simon and St. Jude\u2019s Day.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nSHORT REASONS FOR COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, &c.\n\n\nREASON I.\n\n\n_I maintain communion with the Church of England_, _not_ MERELY _because\nmy parents and forefathers were members of her community_.\n\nTHE connexion which my parents and forefathers held with the Church of\nEngland I consider to be a sufficient reason why I should continue in\ncommunion with her, if there be nothing contrary to the law of God in\nsuch a connexion.  For the fifth commandment peremptorily requires me to\n\u201chonour my father and mother;\u201d and, assuredly, this duty implies\nreverence to their example, if that example be not inconsistent with the\nrule of God\u2019s holy word.\n\nBut as a man\u2019s parents and forefathers may have been members of a\ncommunion, a continuance in which would be manifestly contrary to the\nword of God (as, for instance, if a man were born of Popish or Socinian\nparents;) I therefore say, that \u201cI maintain communion with the Church of\nEngland, not MERELY because my parents and forefathers were members of\nher community.\u201d\n\n\n\nREASON II.\n\n\n_I maintain communion with the Church of England_, _not_ MERELY_ because\nshe is ancient and venerable_.\n\nHER antiquity is a sufficient reason to justify my continuance in her\ncommunion, if it can be shown that nothing materially differing from the\nprimitive and apostolic Church, in doctrine or discipline, has, in the\nlong course of her existence, been introduced into her constitution.  For\nthe more ancient any Church can prove to be, the nearer is the approach\nto the source of Divine authority and sanction.  Now the Church of\nEngland existed long before her corruption by popery; and the labours and\nsufferings of her Martyrs in the sixteenth century were employed, not in\nplanting a new Church, but in correcting gross abuses in one which had\nbeen long established.  They are therefore called _Reformers_.  The\nChurch of England, as is highly probable, was planted by St. Paul; and we\nknow from credible history, that there was a church in Britain during the\napostolic age, and that there were bishops who presided in it soon after\nthat period.\n\nBut as that which is ancient may have been corrupted, antiquity alone\nwould not fully justify my continuance in any visible Church, though it\nstrongly enforces the necessity of earnestness and diligence in inquiring\nabout the reality and nature of the supposed corruption, before I venture\nto quit the Church of which I have been made by baptism a member.\n\n\n\nREASON III.\n\n\n_I maintain communion with the Church of England_, _not_ MERELY_ because\nshe is established by law_.\n\nTHIS, like the two former reasons, is a sufficient one to enforce my\ncontinuance in communion with the Church of England, unless she be found,\nafter _due_ inquiry, to be contrary, in her constitution or doctrines, to\nthe word of God.  For I am required to \u201csubmit myself to every ordinance\nof man for the Lord\u2019s sake.\u201d  Nothing can justify my departure from a\nchurch so established, but the well-known decision in cases where the law\nof God and the law of man are in opposition to each other.  In any such\ncase the duty is clear to \u201cobey God rather than man.\u201d\n\nSuch an opposition may exist between human laws and the law of God; and\ntherefore \u201cI maintain communion with the Church of England, not MERELY\nbecause she is established by law.\u201d\n\n\n\nREASON IV.\n\n\n_But I maintain communion with the Church of England_, _because her\ngovernment is episcopal_, _i.e. by Bishops_; _this being the mode of\nChurch government which existed in the primitive Church_, _and was\nfounded by the Apostles of our Lord_.\n\nIN stating reasons for conformity which are to be comprised within a few\npages, it is impossible to enter at large into the proof of the fact here\nasserted, viz. that the primitive church as founded by the Apostles of\nour Lord, was episcopal; or, in other words, that the power of ordination\nand government in the church was vested by the Apostles in officers\nsuperior to the order of Presbyters, and who are now called by the name\nof Bishops.  I must therefore only state a few circumstances, which are\ncapable of being clearly proved, without producing the evidence on which\nmy belief of them is built.\n\n1.  Episcopal government, as established in the Church of England, has\nall the authority in its favour which prescription or long usage can give\nit.  The most learned of its adversaries have never been able to fix on\nany period in the Christian Church, from the time of the Apostles to the\nReformation, in which the ordination of men to the ministry of the gospel\nwas considered to be vested in any other minister or ministers than a\nBishop.\n\n2.  All the instances of ordination, recorded in the New Testament, are\nin favour of Episcopacy.  For there is no single instance of ordination,\non record there, performed by presbyters, or at least without the\npresence and co-operation of some officer superior to presbyters.\n\n3.  All the directions concerning ordination, given in the New Testament,\nare addressed to persons superior to presbyters.  Such, confessedly, were\nTimothy and Titus; and to them only are any such directions given.\n\n4.  The Apostles, at their decease, left the government of the several\nchurches which they had planted, and the ordination of their ministers,\nin the hands of fixed Bishops.\n\nIt may be granted that, during the life-time of the Apostles, the title\nBishops, was common to all presbyters, and that this name was not\nconfined to an officer superior to presbyters till after their decease.\nFor it is not the name but the office about which I am inquiring.\u2014It\nmoreover appears that, during the life of the Apostles, some churches had\neach its settled Bishop, as the seven churches of Asia, who are addressed\nin their several epistles through the medium of an individual; (Rev. ii.\n3.) and that of Crete, where Titus was left by St. Paul. (Titus i. 2.)\nOther churches however had none as yet settled among them, being under\nthe immediate government of the Apostles, who frequently visited or sent\nto them, and either themselves, or by other superior officers, ordained\nministers for them.\n\nBut immediately after the death of the Apostles there was, in every\nchurch, an officer superior to presbyters, who was called by way of\ndistinction a Bishop.  This we learn from express testimonies in the\nremaining writings of men who lived in the time of the Apostles; such as\nClemens Romanus, mentioned in Phil. iv. 3.\u2014Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch,\nwho suffered martyrdom in the year 107; and Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna,\nwho was burned in the year 167, aged one hundred years or more.  These\nexcellent apostolic men have expressly spoken in their epistles of\nBishops, Priests, and Deacons, as the stated officers of the Christian\nChurches, assigning to the former the prerogatives or rights of\ngovernment and ordination in their several districts.  Besides this,\nancient historians of the church have given lists of successive Bishops,\nthat is, of individual presidents, in several of the more important\nchurches, reaching up to the very time of the Apostles.\n\nNow it is not to be supposed that, immediately after the death of the\nApostles, any innovation or change, so important and invidious as that of\nepiscopal government, would or could have been introduced; or that,\nsupposing it to be destitute of apostolic sanction, its introduction\nshould produce no opposition.  Much less is it to be supposed that such\nmen as Clemens, Ignatius, and Polycarp, the disciples and friends of the\nApostles, would have suffered such an innovation to be introduced, and\nhave mentioned it in the highest terms of approbation.  But the truth is,\nthat they speak of the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, in\nthe Christian Church as conformed to the three ranks of ministers in the\nJewish Church, the High Priests, the common Priests, and the Levites,\n{8}\u2014as ordained by Christ himself, and as existing even during His own\nministry, He himself acting as the great Bishop, His Apostles as His\nPresbyters, and the seventy disciples as His Deacons: and as at length\nestablished in the universal Church by apostolic authority and usage.\n\nOn this ground then I justify my continuance in the Church of England,\nviz. its conformity in this important branch of its constitution to the\nprimitive and apostolic church.  But I wish it to be understood that I\nassign my reasons for such a continuance, not with a view to the\nconversion of those to my sentiments who are not members of our church;\nbut merely for the purpose of showing that I do not act without reason,\nand of confirming those who are members of our own church, but have not\nhad an opportunity of obtaining information on the subject under\nconsideration,\u2014of confirming them in their attachment to that church,\nwhich I consider to be \u201cbuilt,\u201d in its constitution as well as its\ndoctrines, \u201con the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ\nHimself being the chief corner-stone.\u201d  From HIM all authority descends;\nfor in HIM, as \u201cthe head of His body the church,\u201d it is all vested by\nDivine appointment.  \u201cAll power is given unto me in heaven and upon\nearth.\u2014Go ye _therefore_ and teach (or make disciples of) all nations,\nbaptising them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.\u201d\nThus He handed down the authority He had received to His Apostles; they\ntransmitted it to their immediate successors; and so it has descended to\nthe Bishops or chief pastors of the church in our own day.  Without\nwishing to interfere with the right of private judgment which belongs to\nevery man, and for the exercise of which he is accountable to God only; I\nown that I cannot see how the Christian Church as a visible society,\ncould have been continued in the world without such a communication of\nDivine authority.\n\n\n\nREASON V.\n\n\n_I maintain communion with the Church of England_, _because her doctrines\nare fixed by articles of Religion_, _which appear to me to be derived\nfrom and perfectly conformable to the Scriptures of Truth_.\n\nI AM fully aware that some among the ministers of the church to which I\nbelong, may have entered into her service without understanding or fully\napproving the articles to which they subscribed their assent and consent,\nand consequently may preach doctrines differing from those of the church\nwhose ministers they are.  The possibility of the supposed case appears\nfrom the painful necessity, under which a late Bishop of London was laid,\nof depriving an unsound clergyman of his office.  But such ministers\ncannot do this without exposing their own ignorance or hypocrisy; nor can\ntheir own unbelief make the faith of the church of no effect.  These\narticles I consider to be the bulwark of orthodoxy or true doctrine in\nour church,\u2014the means of her preservation from apostacy in the lowest\nstate of spiritual life to which she has been or may be reduced, and of\nproviding for her recovery from such a state whenever God is pleased to\nbreathe upon her.  A declaration or subscription to the truth of the\nBible would afford no security, as all who bear the Christian name,\nhowever heretical or unsound in opinion, pretend to derive their creed\nfrom the word of God.  I conceive therefore that it is of high importance\nto have the principal articles of the Christian faith embodied in such a\nway, that no heretic can, without manifest dishonesty, subscribe to them.\nIf the incumbent or minister of any parish be thus dishonest, having\nsubscribed to what he never cordially believed, and preaching doctrines\ncontrary to the articles he has subscribed, when his incumbency or\nministry in that parish ceases by death or any other cause, the articles\nof the church remain in full force.  But if no such test existed, and if\nthe election to church preferment were vested in the people, a single\nincumbency might so corrupt the opinions of the congregation as to\nperpetuate heresy from generation to generation.\n\nI continue therefore in the communion of the Church of England, because\nshe has fixed principles, and those principles are, in my judgment,\nscriptural and \u201caccording to godliness.\u201d\n\n\n\nREASON VI.\n\n\n_I maintain communion with the Church of England_, _because her mode of\nworship is primitive and scriptural_, _and in my judgment best calculated\nto promote general and individual edification_.\n\n\u201cMr. Wheatly has proved (referring us to the testimonies of Josephus,\nPhilo, Paul Fagius, &c.) that the ancient Jews did always worship God in\npublic by precomposed forms.  Dr. Lightfoot not only affirms the same\nthing, but sets down both the order and method of their hymns and\nsupplications.  Now it appears from the general tenour of the four\nGospels, and particularly from Luke iv. 16. that our Saviour habitually\nattended at the service of the Temple, or of the Synagogue, on every\nSabbath-day. {12a}  He therefore, by this act, from week to week, gave a\npublic sanction to all the Jewish forms of Divine worship.  And had it\nbeen otherwise, the Scribes and Pharisees, His implacable foes and\npersecutors, would not have failed to load Him with their severest\nreproaches, as an open enemy to all godliness.  He lived and died a\nmember of the Jewish Church.  He moreover gave a set form of prayer to\nHis Apostles, which has ever since been used in the Christian Church.\nAnd it is evident from many passages in the book of their acts, that they\nalso, in conformity to His Divine example, did attend on the service both\nof the Temple and Synagogue; and it is expressly said, (Acts xvii. 2.)\nthat it was \u2018_the manner_\u2019 of Paul so to do.  The apostolic practice is\ntherefore another sanction to the same religious institution.\n\n\u201cMr. Wheatly has also shown, by sundry appeals to ancient Christian\nwriters, that the three first centuries joined in the use of precomposed\nset forms of prayer, besides the Lord\u2019s prayer and Psalms; and that these\nwere styled by so early a writer as Justin Martyr, who died in the year\nof our Lord 163, \u2018_Common Prayers_;\u2019 by Origen, \u2018_Constituted Prayers_;\u2019\nand by Cyprian, \u2018_Solemn Prayers_.\u2019\u2014From hence the inference is fairly\ndrawn, that a liturgy composed for public use, is warranted by the\npractice of our Saviour, of His Apostles, and of the primitive\nChristians.\u201d {12b}\n\n\n\nREASON VII.\n\n\n_I maintain communion with the Church of England_, _because her Liturgy\nis scriptural in its doctrine_, _plain in its style_, _comprehensive in\nits addresses to the throne of mercy_, _and therefore adapted to general\nuse_.\n\nIN confirmation of this reason, I shall content myself with the\ndeclaration of one, whose testimony may have the more weight in\nconsequence of his being unconnected with the Church whose liturgy he has\nextolled, the eloquent and candid Robert Hall.  At the Leicester Bible\nSociety he spoke thus of our Liturgy.  \u201cI believe that the evangelical\npurity of its sentiments, the chastised fervour of its devotion, and the\nmajestic simplicity of its language, have placed it in the very first\nrank of uninspired compositions.\u201d\n\n\n\nREASON VIII.\n\n\n_I maintain communion with the Church of England_, _because a separation\nfrom her_, _without a sufficient reason_, _would_, _in my opinion_, _be a\ngreat sin_.\n\n\u201cTHERE is, undeniably, such a sin as _schism_, against which we are\nprecautioned in the New Testament, as being one proof of carnality in a\nreligious professor, (1 Cor. iii. 3.) and as being diametrically opposite\nto the duty of \u2018endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond\nof peace\u2019.\u201d\n\n\u201cBy _schism_ we are to understand a _causeless_ secession from our\nChurch, into the communion of which we have been solemnly admitted by\nbaptism.  And that such a secession would be causeless on our part, is\nevident from this simple consideration, that our Church neither proposes\nto our faith any doctrine which is not evidently contained in the\nScripture; nor obtrudes on us any practice which the Scriptures forbids,\nnor restrains us from the observation of any rule which the Scripture\nenjoins.\u201d {14}\n\nIt is not, in my humble opinion, a sufficient reason for a separation\nfrom the general Church to which I belong, that the gospel is not\npreached from the pulpit of the particular place in which I live.  To\nadmit for argument sake, the worst case that can occur, viz. that a\nSocinian clergyman had, through his own hypocrisy in subscription, got\npossession of the pulpit of my parish; my removal from that parish to\nanother, if I could find no other way of remedying the calamity, would be\na less evil than the act of separation, and the encouragement of a spirit\nof division in the Church of Christ.  The word of God prohibits my making\nsuch a division; but it no where forbids me to make any sacrifice of\ntemporal emolument or accommodation for the benefit of my own soul, or\nthe souls of my family.\n\n\n\nREASON IX.\n\n\n_I maintain communion with the Church of England_, _because I have\ndiscovered no sufficient reason for a separation from her_.\n\nI WISH it to be distinctly understood that I judge no man, however his\nviews of this subject may differ from my own.  Every man must act\naccording to the guidance of his own conscience, after having seriously\nand diligently used all the means within his reach, by reading and\nprayer, to obtain information and direction.  It is not to those who\nconscientiously dissent from our communion that I address my reasons; but\nto those of my own Church.  And if any of these should be confirmed in\ntheir attachment to her by reading my short statement of the grounds on\nwhich my own conduct is built, I shall have attained the only end I have\nhad in view, and rejoice in my success.\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\n\nLET not my brother churchman, however, satisfy himself with being a\nmember of the visible Church; but let him examine himself whether he be a\nliving branch in the true vine, united to Christ by faith, and bringing\nforth the fruits of righteousness by virtue of union with Him.  Let him\ninquire whether he have ever experienced conversion to God,\u2014whether his\nheart have been humbled, spiritualized, and comforted by those doctrines\nwhich he professes to believe as derived from Scripture, and by that\nworship in which he professes to join as being primitive and \u201caccording\nto godliness.\u201d  Let him remember the solemn words of Him, who is the\nFounder, Head, and Judge of the Christian Church.  At the close of His\nawful parable of the ten virgins, He represents the foolish virgins, who\nhad lamps without oil, as coming to the door of the guest-chamber, and\nsaying \u201cLord, Lord, open to us.\u201d  But the Bridegroom answers, \u201cVerily, I\nsay unto you, I know you not.\u201d  Let him also remember the sentence passed\non the guest at the marriage feast in the gospel who had not on the\nwedding garment. (Matt. xxii. 1, &c.)\n\n\u201cI am therefore to consider that all are not Israel that are of Israel;\nall were not Jews that were circumcised; all are not Christians that have\nbeen brought by baptism into the Church; for many are called but few are\nchosen.  Under the present state of things, bad and good are together at\nthe marriage feast of the gospel; and many of those that are now _called_\nto be among the rest will not be _chosen_ at the last as fit for the\nkingdom of God.  I am therefore not to depend upon any privileges I have\nat present, unless I use them right; and must give all diligence to _make\nmy calling and election sure_.\u201d {16}\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                 _FINIS_.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHURCH OF ENGLAND TRACT SOCIETY HAS PUBLISHED\n\n\nTwo Dialogues between Thomas Steady and William Candid about going to\nChurch.\u2014Extracts from the Epistle of St. Clements to the\nCorinthians.\u2014Arguments in favour of Infant Baptism; with Extracts from\nBishop Bradford\u2019s Sermon on Baptismal and Spiritual Regeneration.\u2014The\nChurchman Instructed in the Book of Common Prayer.\u2014The Churchman\u2019s\nDirectory in the Study of the Holy Scriptures; or Helps in reading and\nhearing the daily Lessons, the Psalms, and the Epistles and Gospels in\nthe Church Service, &c. &c.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n             J. Chilcott, Printer, 30, Wine Street, Bristol.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES.\n\n\n{8}  The government of every synagogue seems to have borne some\nresemblance of the general ecclesiastical establishment in the Jewish\nChurch.  For there were fixed ministers to take care of the religious\nduties to be performed therein; and these were by imposition of hands\nsolemnly admitted to their office.  He who presided is called in the New\nTestament Archysynagogus, or the ruler of the Synagogue.  This word is\nsometimes used in a larger sense, for any one of the officers who had\npower in the affairs of the synagogue.  Thus, (Acts xiii. 15.) we read of\nthe rulers of one synagogue, as we also read (Luke iii. 2.) that Annas\nand Caiaphas were contemporary High Priests, though we know that in a\nstrict sense there could be but one who bore that office.  But generally\nand properly the word Archysynagogus describes the president, or chief of\nthe officers of the synagogue; as Luke xiii. 14. and Acts xviii. 8, 17.\n\nNext to the Archysynagogus were the Elders or presbyters of the\nSynagogue.  The person whose office it was to offer up public prayer to\nGod for the whole congregation, was probably one of these.  He was called\n_Sheliac Zibbor_, that is, the Angel of the Church, because as their\nmessenger, he spoke to God for them.  Hence the pastors of the seven\nchurches of Asia, in the book of the Revelation, are called by a name\nborrowed from the Synagogue, \u201cAngels of the Churches.\u201d\n\nUnder these were inferior officers in every Synagogue, called in Hebrew\n_Chezanim_, who were also fixed ministers, and under the rulers of the\nSynagogue, had the charge and oversight of all things in it.  The deacon\nis mentioned in Luke iv. 20.\n\nIn every instance, so far as I have observed, our Lord adopted the\ninstitutions of the Jewish Church, unless they were inapplicable to His\nnew dispensation.  \u201cTo the end we may understand apostolical tradition to\nhave been taken from the Old Testament; that which Aaron, and his sons,\nand the Levites were in the Temple, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in\nthe Church may lawfully challenge to themselves.\u201d\u2014_St. Hierom_, _Ep._ 85.\n\n{12a}  The liturgy of the Jewish Church, in which our Lord and His\nApostles joined may be found in _Prideaux\u2019s Connection of the Old and New\nTestament_.\n\n{12b}  Hart\u2019s Answer to Gill\u2019s Reasons.\n\n{14}  Hart\u2019s Answer to Gill\u2019s Reasons.\n\n{16}  Rev. William Jones\u2019s Works, vol. xi.","title":"Short Reasons for Communion with the Church of England: Or, The Churchman's answer to the question, \"Why are you a Member of the Established Church?\"","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":4065}