ters, is lodged chiefly in lay hands in the king and parliament, the clergy being obliged to act in all things under their direction and controul. The king and parliament are, in truth, the real fathers, governors, or bishops of this church: these only have power to make or to unmake forms and rites of worship, and to authoritatively intrust and prescribe to the clergy what they are to believe, ---in what manner, and to whom, the sacraments are to be given,---what prayers they are to offer up,--what doctrines to preach,--who are to be admitted to the episcopate, or priesthood, and who to be refused;--by what ceremonies, and prayers, and exhortations, they are to be set apart, and consecrated to their office.---These, with every other circumstance relating to religion and the worship of GoD, which is authoritatively prescribed or enjoined in your Church, you know Sir, not the bishops and clergy, but the king with his parliament are the only persons who have authoritatively enjoined and prescribed them.

"The Clergy of the whole land, in convoca"tion assembled, cannot so much as attempt any canons or constitutions without the king's licence. If the King and Clergy make a canon, though it binds the Clergy in re ecclesiastica, "yet it does not bind laymen."*

Yea, so far Sir,were the Bishops and Clergy from having any hand in the first forming our present

* Vide Examination of the Codex, &c. page 114, 148. "By "the 25th of Henry VIII. chap. 19. it is a præmunire for the "convocation to meet without the King's writ; and when they "are met to do any thing without the King's licence; and "then no refolution of their's to have the force of a canon, un"lefs the King confirm it. Nor is it then valid ifit be contra"rient or regugnant to the laws, ftatutes, and cuftoms of this "realm, or be to the damage or hurt of the King's prerogative "royal.-And of this the courts of Westminster-hall must "judge." Hale in his Analyfis, p. 12, fays, "If ecclefias"tical laws are not confirmed by Parliament, the King may "revoke and annul them at his will and pleasure." Vide notes on an Answer to the Examination of the Bishop of London's Codex.

established Church, or in ordering its rites and articles of faith, that it was done not only without, but in actual opposition to them. "For, in "the first of Queen Eliz. the parliament alone "established the Queen's supremacy and the "common prayer book, in spite of all opposition "from the Bishops in the house of Lords; and "the convocation, then sitting, were so far from having any hand in those church acts for re"formation, that they presented to the parlia"ment several propositions in behalf of the te"nets of Popery, directly contrary to the pro"ceedings of the Parliament."*

66

Hence, then Sir, I think you must be compelled to own (what I know gentlemen of your robe do not care to hear) viz. That the Church of England is really a parliamentary church; that it is not properly an ally, but a mere creature of the state. It depends entirely upon the acts and authority of parliament for its very essence and frame. The qualifications of its ministers, their power to officiate, the manner in which they are to administer the sacraments, are all limited and prescribed by authority of parliament; and this authority, which at first made can alone alter and new make it; can abolish or add to its articles or rites, according to its pleasure, even though the whole body of Bishops and Clergy should ever so much dislike or protest earnestly against it.

It is a point therefore incontestible, that the Church, which your article declares to have this authority and power, is no other than the King and Parliament of these realms. But,

THIRDLY. The grand difficulty which yet remains, and which, without your assistance, I shall never get over, is, how came the civil magistrate bythis authorityin the church of CHRIST?

* Vide Prieftcraft in Perfection, preface, p. 4.

Who gave him this power to decree rites in Christian worship, which CHRIST never decreed, and to make articles of faith which CHRIST never made? Neither CHRIST, nor the Apostles, ever gave him this authority: from whom then is it derived?

The subjection to higher powers, and obedience to magistrates, which the Scriptures enjoin upon Christians, relates only to civil, not at all to ieligious matters; for this obvious reason, that the magistrate at that time was every where Pagan. The apostles therefore, instead of paying, or exhorting Christians to pay, any subjection to him in religious affairs, strenuously exhorted them to renounce and disavow it,---to come out from among them and be separate. They were every where,you know Sir, Dissenters from the established Church.

Christianity is so far from enjoining, that it actually forbids obedience to civil governors in things of a religious nature. It commands us to call no man upon earth father or master,* i. e. to acknowledge no authority or jurisdiction of any,in matters of religion; but to remember that ONE, one only is our master and law-giver, even CHRIST; and all Christians are brethren, i. e. stand upon an equal footing, having no dominion over one another. Though the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they who are great exercise authority upon them, yet it shall not, our Lord says, be so amongst you. Nay, your Church replies in this its XXth article, but it shall be so amongst us.

-There are some who have authority over others in matters of faith.There are other masters besides CHRIST.- -Thus the article and the scriptures manifestly clash. Will you be so good. Sir, as to adjust the controversy between them, and tell me which I am to follow?

The Church is CHRIST's kingdom: a kingdom

:

not of this world. For his voluntary humiliation and suffering of death he is advanced to the high honour of being sole Law-giver, Judge, and Sovereign, in religious matters. He only hath authority to fix the terms of communion for his followers or church and whoever shall presume to alter or new make the terms of communion which he himself has fixed, is guilty of the greatest arrogance, as he thereby invades his authority and throne. But this, we apprehend, is what you have done. YOU will not now receive a person to public baptism, or the LORD's supper, upon the terms on which CHRIST and his apostles would have received him. Neither CHRIST nor his apostles ever made the sign of the cross, or other sponsors besides the parents, necessary to a child's baptism; nor did they ever make kneeling a necessary term of receiving the sacramental supper; but both those YOU make necessary.* Thus you have taken upon you to new model the Church of CHRIST, to change and set aside his laws, and to make others in their room.

Now give me leave to ask you Sir, by what authority do you presume to reject those from your Church, whom in your conscience, you believe CHRIST and his apostles would have received into theirs? Are you wiser than they? Or is your Church better framed, and more perfect than theirs? If an honest and sincere christian now brings his child to you to be publicly baptised, desiring it may be done without the sign of the cross, and that himself may stand forth as surety for its education, would you not refuse him? Or, if he desired to be admitted to the communion of Christians, in the other sacrament of the LORD'S

* The XXVIIth canon requires the minister never wittingly to administer the communion to any but to fuch as kneel. The XXIXth canon requires that no parent fhall be urged to be prefent at his child's baptifm, nor be admitted to aufwer as godfa ther for his own child.

supper, but that he might not take it kneeling, would you not reject him? But, if the same person had come to JESUS CHRIST or the apostles, offering himself and his child upon the same terms, would they not have received him? But, how is it Sir, that you take upon you to reject from CHRIST's family and Church those whom you believe he himself would have received! Is not this lording it over GoD's heritage, and usurping CHRIST's throne? Is it not setting yourselves for law-makers and rulers in his kingdom,claiming homage from his subjects? And are not his faithful subjects, by the allegiance they owe him, obliged to enter their protest against such usurpation, and to stand fast in the liberty wherewith CHRIST hath set them free?

up

Where then, let me appeal to your own sober judgment, does the guilt of schism lie? Upon you or upon us? Upon us, who offer ourselves to communion in your Church upon the terms which CHRIST appointed, and are ready to do every thing which CHRIST has commanded? Or upon you, who absolutely reject us, unless, besides what CHRIST hath ordered, we will submit also to some orders and devices of your own? We come as the LORD's servants, and desire to eat at the LORD's table, with reverent submission to all his appointments. Nay, but say you, you shall not come to the LORD's table unless you will kneel; i. e. unless you will come in that posture, which though CHRIST in his wisdom did not think proper, yet which we in our wisdom have thought proper to ordain; in other words, unless besides being CHRIST's servants, you will also be ours, and pay subjection to our institution and autho rity in this religious rite.

This, Sir, is the true state of the controversy betweenus. Judge now, I pray you, with the impartiality of a christian, who makes the schism,

C