God to be its pastors and governors. But re-.. "member, my countrymen, the Common P Prayer "and forms of worship, now established and used.. "among you, were introduced into this church,.. "not by the authority, no, nor yet by the consent.. "of the pastors and governors whom, God hath "set over you, but in direct opposition to them... "It was a change brought about entirely by the "civil magistrate, who had no authority to effect, "it. It was, therefore, really no other than an "ecclesiastical rebellion, an unjustifiable revolt "from the only rightful rulers and governors of "the church in its spiritual concerns.

This Sir, is the plain language and tendency of your principles, though I know you have been so wise as to contradict them again, hy allowing, "That, if church governors will not, come into "such reformation, as is according to God's "word, but obstinately persevere in maintaining "their sinful errors and corruptions, the people may reform themselves."* But this conceSH, sion overthrows your whole scheme of church, authority, makes the people the supreme and ultimate judges as to points of faith and rights of worship, brings down the decrees of the most numerous and most holy councils, convocations, and synods, to stand at the bar of every man's, private judgment, and vests him with authority to receive or reject them, as to himself shall fit. So powerful is truth, which will prevail

seem

But your positions, as to the civil magistrate deserve a more distinct and accurate considera tion. "He has no power at all to decree Sarites. " in divine worship. This power is not in the king and parliament; for, in this very article, "(XX.) which, together with the rest, is con"firmed by act of parliament, (13 Eliz. c., 12,).

66

and thereby inade a part of our ecclesiastical constitution, they have plainly owned it to be “in the church, and nobody imagines, that, by “the church, they meant themselves. The king “and parliament then have plainly disowned any such power in themselves, and have recognized "it to be in the church."* This, Sir, is a doctrine" of dangerous and important consequence, and quite contrary to fact. For,

f. "As it was the queen and parliament alone, without, yea, in opposition to the bishops and convocation, which decreed the present form and worship of your church, so to their authority alone it owes its very being, birth, and support. By affirming that they had no power nor authority of this nature, you demolish the church of England at once, and lay it prostrate in the dust. And,

2. That the king and parliament, by acknowledging this power to be in the church, have not disclaimed it, nor put it out of their own hands,' will appear from hence, that they have at the same time expressly told you what they mean by the church; not the bishops and clergy, but the congregation of the faithful, of which congregation themselves are not only a part, but the principal and ruling part. And, accordingly, our laws and constitution have vested the supreme' power of prescribing ceremonies and rites only in them. I ask you, by what authority do the rubrics of the Common Prayer bind the clergy to obedience? or, whence is it they are obliged to observe the rites and forms prescribed in that book! Is it not entirely by the authority of parhament? As for the pastors and governors to whom you appropriate this authority (the bishops and clergy,) they have no power, by our constiJution, to make one single law, to decree one rite,

*Defence, page 17.

or to prescribe one ceremony. When assembled in convocation, they are absolutely under the controul and direction of the civil power. "Even "the very subjects of their enquiry and debate, "as well as the extent of their ordinances in point of obligation, are prescribed by statute"law; that they cannot so much as attempt any canons or constitutions without a royal licence, "and that none of their ordinances are binding, even against the private customs of a single parish." How is it then you affirm, "The king and parliament to have disowned any "such power in themselves, and to have recog"nised it to be in the church?" But,

66

3. The point is, if possible, still rendered more clear from the XXXIVth article above cited; which says, "If any man through his private

judgment, openly breaks the ceremonies of the "church, ordained by common authority, he "shall be openly rebuked, as one that offendeth "against the common order of the church, and "hurteth the authority of the magistrate." The authority of the magistrate then, is indisputably concerned in ordaining these ceremonies: and your church, Sir, however lothe you are to hear it, is undoubtedly a parliamentary and civil constitution, made, formed, and supported, entirely. by the civil magistrate; and, by him alone is it capable of being thrown into a new form.

But you ask, Are not the dissenting churches "in the same sense parliamentary? Do they not "depend entirely upon an act of parliament, the "Act of Toleration?" No, by no means! The dissenting churches were formed, subsisted, and grew, without and before any parliamentary authority. We are thankful to the excellent and good government under which we live, for the

Examination of the Codex, P. 114. + Defence, p. 21.

Act of Toleration; but would humbly beg leave Sto say, we derive not our power to assemble for divine worship, nor our ministers theirs to offielate in such assemblies, from any human law, but from our natural right as men, and from the anthority of Christ. The Act of Toleration only protects us in the enjoyment of this right.

-46

a

"But, above all things, you marvel, that, "whilst I was making this push at the church "of England, I did not reflect how much I laid myself open; for, if there was ever upon earth church which could properly be called parliamentary, it was the presbyterian, in the time "of the grand rebellion."* What you call the grand rebellion, Sir, a British house of Commons, since the restoration, call a vindication of their just liberties; and brought one of their members, Lenthal, upon his knees at the bar, and there. sharply reprimanded him for presuming to reflect upon it in the manner you have done.+ Besides, if it were a grand rebellion, the shame and reproach of it falls chiefly upon the church of England; the parliament, who began it, consisting almost entirely of members of that coinmunion, as Lord Clarendon himself owns. But, what if the presbyterian church, established afterward by them, were truly parliamentary, how Jhuve laid myself open? Had I said or suggested any thing at all relating to that church, or the proceedings of those times? Not a single word! but, for aught I had said, it appears not but I as much condemn that establishment as yourself. How then have I laid myself open! Are you, Sir, the man that reproves me for ram-blings?

46

You put the case, "That any of our dissenting churches, or the church of Scotland, should, by an act of the general assembly, ordain, that

* Defence, p. 20.

+ Journal of the 12th of May, 1660.

66

66

"a decent bason, with clean water, should-be provided, and placed near the pulpit, that so "the minister, taking the child in his arms, may "conveniently pour, or sprinkle water upon its "face, in the name of the Father, &c.---Here "are several rites ordained, which Christ, in his wisdom, did not think proper to ordain, and "one of them at least, as exceptionable as any excepted against in our church, sprinkling. "What will this gentleman say to such an ap"pointment?" I will say, Sir, that, if compliance with this injunction be made a necessary term of receiving baptism in that church, (as the cross and sponsors are made necessary in yours,) so as that no child shall be baptised that is not - sprinkled from such bason; and the parent that desires to have his child dipt, (believing that to be the only way in which christian baptism ought to be administered) shall not have it done; in that case, Sir, I will say the church acts a tyrannical, unjust, schismatical part; and, if I could have my child baptised in any other church, constituted upon a more catholic and scriptural plan, I should think it my duty to apply to it on that occasion. The spirit of ceremony making and church tyranny, is of a restless and incroaching nature, and ought by a timely effort to be crushed. It was from such little beginnings the mass of Romish fopperies grew up to its present enormous and oppressive height.

"The natural rights you represent some of our "fellow-subjects, as submitting to be deprived of "by disqualifying laws, without going about to "turn the world upside down for their repeal,"+ are much 100 trivial to be compared with those

* Defence, page 23, 24.

Viz. That no attorney, or proctor, can act as a justice of the peace, &c. Defence, p. 6, 7.