" and clergy, (bishop Cox adds,) they were una"nimous for popery, firm as a rock."*

"But, if the reformation was carried on, it was "not (say you) perfected without the bishops."† True, because it was never perfected at all. That glorious work remains to immortalise, perhaps, the names of its present governors. But, to

whatever perfection it hath been at all brought since its first establishment, it was brought only and entirely by the authority of the crown and parliament, our excellent constitution acknowledging no legislative power, or authority, but theirs.

"And, as for the XXXIX articles, these (you allege) were some years after passed in a con“vocation of the bishops and clergy." Whether they were passed in a convocation or not, with regard to their authority, is of no moment at all, their unanimous assent adding not the least grain to their obligation on the subject, nor their most zealous dissent in the least detracting from it. But did not your heart smite you, Sir, at the very mention of these articles? the XXXIVth of which declares expressly against you, "That your church ceremonies were ordained by the authority of the civil magistrate." The same

* Neal's Review, p. 58. Vide alfo Fuller's Ch. Hift. Book ix. p. 56.

+ II. Defence, p. 139.

Synods and convocations have, in all ages of the church, feldom done good; often much hurt; have generally obftructed, not promoted reformation, which hath moftly been carried on by lay councils and hands. The fentiments of a learned father, who had feen much of thefe church proceedings, may not be unworthy to be here remembered. Sic fentio, fi verum, fcribendum eft, &c. My opinion is this, if I may be allowed to speak the truth, that all conventions of bishops are to be avoided: for, I never faw any good come of any fynod; nor that it did not much more mifchief than it bindered. For, truth in such assemblies, is generalla Lorne down by a spirit of strife and vain glory. Greg. Nazian. Epift. ad Procop.

§ II. Defence, page 140.

also your XXXth canon.* You have several times subscribed the truth of this article, and sworn to this canon. With what countenance then darst you thus publicly oppugn and contradict it? and in open defiance of our articles and statutes, our constitutions and canons, and your own repeated subscriptions, presumptuously declare, "That the civil magistrate has no power nor "authority to decree ceremonies in religion?" Do you solemnly subscribe one thing, and publicly teach another! Where is the consistency or the integrity of such a conduct? But let us see where you lodge this power.

Secondly. They are the church's pastors and governors, whom you are pleased to invest with it: that is, I suppose, you mean (for, you are extremely shy of explications) its bishops and clergy. But you have not deigned to shew me one text of Scripture, nor one statute, or act of parliament, which vests them with this power. I have shewn you several of both, which expressly divest them of it, and utterly deny them any such jurisdiction or authority.

66

But, were we to grant you, "That these pastors and governors have authority from God "to make new ceremonies and rites, and to or"dain, in Christ's church, new terms of commu"nion;" will you tell me whether this power is vested solely in the bishops; or, must their deans and chapters act in concert with them? Has every bishop, within his diocese, this power from God to enjoin new ceremonies and rites; or, may his archbishop controul him? This latter I sup

"We hold it the part of every private man, both minister and other, reverently to retain the use of the ceremonies prefcribed by public authority; confidering, that things of themfelves indifferent, do in some fort, alter their natures, when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful magiftrate, and may not be omitted at every man's pleasure contrary to the law." Canon xxx.

1. Defence, page 10.

pose not: for, archbishops, you own, not to be of apostolic, but of modern institution; whereas bishops, it should seem, are the lineal successors and representatives of the Apostles; in them, therefore, the apostolic power of governing the churches rests. This, then, which is of divine, ought not to be controuled by that which is but of late and human institution; therefore the bishop of every diocese, as its pastor and governor, has authority from God to decree in his church what ceremonies and rites, and to make what terms of communion, he thinks edifying and fit. Nor has any neighbouring bishop, no, nor any power upon earth, authority to controul him. For, as the Apostles were all equal, their successors, the bishops, must also be equal: and, as the former were not accountable to any temporal prince, for their jurisdiction in the church of Christ, the same exemption may their descendants and representatives also claim. How excellent a scheme of government and holy discipline is this! With what beauty and uniformity, unity and peace, is it calculated to bless the church! as we shall presently see.

But,

Thirdly. Acknowledging this high power to be really vested in the church's bishops, as governors and pastors of it, I again ask, how far does it extend? Is it limited or unlimited? May they enjoin whatever rites they think decent and ornamental, and decree whatever ceremonies or new terms of communion they judge to be conducive to the edification of the church? As they have now in the church of England, decreed, we will say, only four ceremonies to give additional beauty and splendour to its public worship, may they not, if they think it farther conducive to this worthy end, decree four, or even forty more? Yes, and make that forty, four hundred, if they should suppose them to be useful, and calculated to promote decency and order in the worship of

their respective flocks. But do you not plainly see, Sir, how dangerous a power this is? a power which, in all ages, hath proved the bane of the christian church! A floodgate which hath let in a dreadful deluge of animosities, corruptions, and superstitions upon it! Hence sprung that enormous mass of profane and foolish rites which, to the scandal of the christian name, now grievously oppresses both the Greek and the Romish churches. One bishop, or perhaps a junto of bishops, fancying that there ought to be a trine immersion in baptism, another the signation of the cross, another an unction with oil, another milk and honey, and the imposition of hands immediately after it; another insufflation, or breathing upon the person's face, to exorcise the devil; another washing of hands before prayers;---hence, also praying towards the East, sponsors in baptism, kneeling at the Lord's supper; first the veneration, then the adoration of relics and of images, which, though they were at first erected only as memorials of some saints, soon after became the objects of religious worship. Thus, I say, that inundation of abominable corruptions, which at present overwhelms the Greek and Roman churches, gradually came in at this very breach you are now zealously maintaining, namely, the bishop's power to decree rites and ceremonies in the church.

It is a most dangerous and important power, not fit to be trusted, and therefore we may be assured, never was trusted, with any fallible uninspired men. Jesus Christ, surely the supreme bishop and only head of his church, well knew what institutions were most for its edification, and what ceremonies and rites would best promote the order and decency of its worship; and, either by himself, or by his inspired Apostles, has left a perfect plan of both. For any weak and uninspired men therefore, to rise up in after ages

and fancy that they can improve the scheme of worship which Christ hath left,---that they can add greatly to its beauty, its splendour, and perfection, by some ceremonies of their own,---is certainly a rude invasion of Christ's throne, which every sober christian ought highly to detest.

But with great acuteness, you observe, "That "though those church governors have power to "decree ceremonies and rites, yet not fopperies "and superstitions." This is extremely pleasant! But, when I ask you by what criterion I am to distinguish rites from fopperies, and ceremonies from superstitions, you will not satisfy my curiosity;---and no wonder; for I defy all the common sense and ingenuity of the nation (to borrow one of your own expressions) to shew the consecration of earth, to cover the body when dead, to be an edifying and decent rite, but the consecration of water to sprinkle it when living, to be a ridiculous and foolish foppery. I defy any man to say, why spittle and salt, in baptism, are not ceremonies as instructive as the sign of the cross; and, why a bishop may not now continue the absurd antient custom of exorcising the devil before baptism, as well as the laying on of hands after it, so as thereby to impart the graces of the Holy Spirit, which, you say, he does in confirmation.

Superstition, Sir, is ever restless, insatiable, incroaching. Every zealous bishop will be ambitious of adding some rite or ceremony of his own, to beautify divine worship, and render it more brilliant. Thus, when your holy bishop Laud was governor of this church, you had lighted candles upon its altars, copes for the priests with crucifixes and images of the Trinity upon them, consecrated knives to cut the sacramental bread, incense-pots, canisters for wafers lined with cambric lace, with a deal of other furniture, all soN