By the constitution in church and state, then, "of which we often hear even in speeches and "addresses from and to the throne," can be meant nothing else than that order or form of government, respecting all persons and things, which is established by the laws and customs of this realm. A constitution, by which the king or queen, as the supreme head of the church, is the fountain of all power and jurisdiction therein; authorised to instruct, over-rule, and controul, all the archbishops, bishops, and priests, in this kingdom, in all their most spiritual and ecclesiastical concerns: ---a constitution, by which a lady, when such fills the throne, is impowered to compose public prayers for the church, to stop all preaching therein, to fill vacant bishoprics with what persons she pleases, or not to fill them at all;* to direct all ecclesiastics what they shall or shall not preach; and, even in the most abstruse and metaphysical points, to be the final judge of heresy; whose judgment must stand as to what shall or shall

"concerning the Administration of God's word for the cure of "fouls, as concerning the miniftration of things of political and "civil governance. In both these ministrations they muft "have fundry minifters under them to fupply that which is "appointed to their feveral offices.

The civil ministers, under the king's majesty, in this realm, "be those whom it shall please his Highness, for the time, to "put in authority under him; as for example, the lord-chan"cellor, lord-treasurer, lord-admiral, &c.

"The minifters of God's word, under his majesty, be the bi"fhops, parfons, vicars, and fuch other priests as be appointed by his highness to that miniftration; as, for example, the "bishop of Canterbury, the bishop of Winchester, the parfon of "Coynwick, &c.

"All the faid officers and minifters, as well of the one fort as "of the other, be appointed, affigned, and elected, in every "place, by the laws and orders of kings and princes." Vide an extract from Abp. Cranmer's M. S. Stilling. Iren. Part II. Ch. viii. page 391.

Any of the bishoprics may be kept vacant by the princes of ngland, as thofe of Ely and Oxford were by Queen Elizabeth: the latter had no bishop for 22 years. The parliament diffolved the rich bishopric of Durham in King Edward VI's. reign; and gave the profits to the crown. And it had remained so to this day, probably, had not Popish Queen Mary restored it.

not, be deemed heresy in this church, even though it happen to contradict that of all her learned clergy in convocation convened.

Thus that renowned lady, Queen Elizabeth, in the fulness of her ecclesiastical power, herself composed a prayer, Archdeacon Eachard * informs us, for the use of a great number of her nobility and gentry, as well as her soldiers and sailors, in the expedition against Cadiz, directing it to be used daily in every ship. And, by virtue of her supremacy, she might, I presume, if she had pleased, (as any future Queen may,) compose prayers for the use of the archbishops, bishops, and all the clergy of the land; and enjoin their solemn use every Sunday in the church; and the use of such devout feminine compositions, no bishop nor priest can, agreeably to our constitution, in any wise refuse.

The same royal lady, by virtue of her procla mation only, put an entire stop to all preaching of ministers and others, throughout the kingdom; and the people were charged to hear no other preaching or doctrine but the epistle and gospel of the day and the ten commandments, without any exposition, or paraphrase, thereon. And, should any future queen think proper to do the same, I humbly apprehend that all her bishops and clergy are, by our constitution in church and state, obliged to obey.

By the same constitution, King Charles I. put forth a proclamation, (if a woman had worn the crown, she also might have done it, as any future Queen may,) commanding the clergy not to preach or dispute about Arminianism. The learned bishop Davenport, presuming to preach upon the doctrine of predestination, was forced to appear upon his knees before the council;

and, being severely reprimanded, hardly so escaped, though he alledged he had preached nothing but the XVIIth article of the church of England. The king, not only in his superior, but supreme ecclesiastic wisdom, told him, "The doctrine "of predestination was too big for the people's un"derstandings, and that he was resolved not to permit that controversy to be discussed in the pulpit."*

66

What authority our constitution gives queens to judge in points of heresy, (the most deep and mysterious points,) and to controul the proceedings of the most venerable and holy synod which the clergy of this kingdom can possibly compose, has been observed in the case of Mr. Whiston, whom Queen Anne,by her sole authority,screened from the heavy censure of her learned convocation. Her single judgment, in the balance of our apostolic and excellently constituted church, being of far greater weight than that of the united bishops and clergy of the whole land. This account you attempt to invalidate by calling it a misrepresentation: but the truth of it is not to be disputed: it is attested by two of your own learned and reverend historians, Burnet and Tindal, in their accounts of the year 1711.

Again, by our present constitution, the king alone, or at least by consent of parliament, can undoubtedly divide the twenty-six bishoprics, into which this kingdom is at present cantoned, into as many hundreds; and thus render them more like the bishoprics of the first ages, when every christian bishop took the oversight of no more than he could personally know, and than could communicate at one table. He can also new

* Vide Fuller's Church Hift. Book IX. p. 138.

The fame bleffed martyr, by his royal mandate only, without any trial, fequeftered and fufpended, from the execution of his office, good Archbishop Abbot, for refufing his licence and approbation to a moft vile and fcandalous fermon of Sibthorp.

frame the whole order of public worship, can abolish its present articles, ceremonies, and forms, and substitute new ones in their stead. By the same power he may dispose of that part of the public treasure by which the clergy are maintained in a juster and more equitable manner. He may reduce the shameful exorbitance by which some members of that great, and in itself venerable and useful body, wanton in vast affluence, indolence, and sloth, (which is perhaps what you call snugness,) whilst others, equally virtuous and learned, but much more laborious, wear away their lives in obscurity and want.-. This, Sir, without question, is our present constitution in church and state.

SECT. IV.

Of SPONSORS in BAPTISM. YOUR defence of sponsors in baptism comes

next to be considered. Here you affirm, “That "I represent the use of sponsors as a very mys"terious point, as an unaccountable, inexplica"ble, absurd, and unlawful thing;"* an assertion which escaped from you in the ardour of your zeal, but which has really no foundation. The use of sponsors, in all cases of the parents incapacity, I entirely approve; and expressly told you, that in such cases, the Dissenters also use them.† You could not, without extreme inattention, but see that it was "The setting aside the parents, "the forbidding them to stand forth and engage solemnly for the religious education of the child,

66

* II. Defence, page 24.

+ Letter II,

" and the receiving the child to baptism upon ac"count of its own faith and its own promise expressed by its sureties," that I thus represented as unlawful and absurd. And though I have the pleasure now to find you tacitly giving up, though not honourably retracting that precipitant expression, "That godfathers are not an useful "only, but even a necessary institution," yet scarcely without pain can I see you so grievously embarrassed in accounting for the answers made at the font. These, you still insist, are not the sureties, but the child's answers. But your attempts to explain how a child who cannot believe does yet profess faith,----how the infant, who in no sense can promise or engage, does yet really and in good sense vow and engage,---how the babe, who has no thought, no purposes, nor desires, may yet express these by the mouth of its sureties; and how these expressions of what it hath not, and cannot possibly have, are accepted by the church as a proper token that it hath them, and as a solid ground of baptism:--this is still to me, and I believe to all the world, as inexplicable and mysterious as it was before you undertook to unveil and explain it.

Ob

Nay, the mystery grows upon you by attempting to unfold it; for, you declare "That the "ground and foundation of infants being re"ceived to baptism, in your church, is the pro"mise of God to believers and their seed."* serve, then, it is the faith of the parent that entitles the child to baptism; but, if the ground of its being received to this christian sacrament be the faith of its parent only, why do you receive it as if upon account of its own faith? Why interrogate the poor babe?---Dost thou believe? Wilt thou be baptised? Again, if the parent's faith be that which entitles his child to baptism,

* II. Defence, page 28.