boards of customs and excise. She is as much in its power as any of them; and it can alter, amend, and regulate every thing belonging to the church just as it does in respect to all the others, and has her as much under its dominion and controul.

To such a church I do not choose to belong: I will have no head nor lord in spiritual matters but Jesus Christ. I will cheerfully entrust king, lords, and commons with all my civil concerns, but not with my soul. Here I beg leave to judge for myself. In saying so, I am guilty of no offence against the government of my country. When all the inhabitants of England were enjoined by parliament to live in the communion of the established church, it was a parliamentary duty only. But when the legislature says to me, "if you do not like the church, you may go to the meeting," I am hereby absolved from parliamentary sin, and in their eyes stand rectus in curia, perfectly innocent of the crime of treating them with the slightest disrespect.

I object to the claim in toto which is made in the twentieth article, "that the church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority, in matters of faith." The constitution which Christ has formed, is either complete, or it is not. If it is complete, there is no need of any addition: if it is not complete, let them speak out and say so. Has the church of England a right to make any thing, which is, in its own nature, indifferent, and which Christ has left indifferent, to be not indifferent, but binding on the conscience of her members, and the privilege of communion at her altars, to depend on their compliance with that rite. I beg she would have

the goodness to produce her commission for the exercise of such authority. If there be things which, though of themselves of little importance, yet, from being long abused to purposes of false doctrine and superstition, have appeared to many wise and good men calculated to mislead, and to ensnare, it will be inconceivably difficult for any church to prove that it has a right to enjoin these ceremonies on its ministers and congregations. From the exercise of such a power by the church of England, during the fourscore years succeeding the accession of queen Elizabeth to the throne, hundreds of the most excellent ministers were ejected from her communion, and prevented from the exercise of their ministry, and buried in private life, or driven into foreign lands. Such were the bitter fruits of the churches' power to decree rites and ceremonies.

If the church of England possesses this authority, so does every other church. Her parliamentary origin can give her no peculiar claim to the privilege: it must be in virtue of her being a church. But if this be the ground, can she deny the claims of the church of Rome, which boasts of a more ancient and spiritual descent. If the church of England has a right to enjoin the wearing of surplices and gowns, as she formerly did also hoods, tippets, and many things

A great part of the bishops' office, during these three reigns, appears to have been to hunt out of the church those ministers who could not conform to every ceremony. Scores of worthy men were suspended in many dioceses on this account; and at a time when the country was overrun with ignorance, hundreds of zealous preachers were forbidden to speak to the people in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that they might be saved. One of them applied to a nobleman for his influence with the bishop in his behalf, and received the following answer: "had you been guilty of

more as necessary; so has the church of Rome to appoint all the fantastic wardrobe of her arch-episcopal cathedrals. If the church of England has a right to consecrate earth, and stones, and bricks, and timber; the church of Rome has as good a right to make holy water, holy oil, holy knives. If the church of England has a right to decree that the sign of the cross shall be used in the baptism of every child; has not the church of Rome as good a right to order that the priest shall put his fingers into its ears, as a sign that it shall listen to the word of truth; and salt upon its tongue, as a sign that its conversation shall be always with grace; and to administer milk and honey, in token that it shall love the sincere milk of the word, and keep God's commandments, which shall be sweeter to it than honey from the honeycomb. "But, sir, the church of England decrees nothing which is forbidden in the sacred Scriptures." Well, and who will say that there is any express prohibition of these rites and ceremonies of the church of Rome? My principle is, that every thing should be left indifferent, which Christ has left indifferent: and I will not belong to a church which acts so uncharitably as to make those things necessary for our communion, which Christ has not made necessary for communion in his church.

As to the church's" authority in matters of faith," wherein doth it consist, and how far does it extend? If she has authority to decide what is the true doctrine of Scripture, whom do her decisions bind? The

drunkenness, or grosser immoralities, I could have procured you relief; but if you cannot comply with the ceremonies you are undone. It is a crime in the eyes of the bishop, for which there is no forgiveness."

clergy alone, or the laity too? If the priests are certainly bound, are the laity to have no right of private judgment? However things may appear to their minds, are they to believe only just as the church believes? If they have a right to judge for themselves, all this vaunted authority is nothing. If they have not the right, they may belong to that church who please-I will not.

I ask too, what church has this authority? Can the church of England shew any particular grant from Jesus Christ? If she possesses it merely as being a church, then the church of Scotland must possess it too; but her decisions are different from her elder sister's in the south. The Lutheran church of Sweden must possess it, and her decisions are different from both. The Greek church prefers her claim, and she differs from all the three. The church of Rome too, never backward in pretensions, insists on having the same right, nay, in having the sole right; and pleads in support of her authority in matters of faith what none of the others have ventured to do, namely, her infallibility. Thus arrayed, she condemns and curses all the rest as wicked usurpers and impious heretics, whose perdition is sure. In what a labyrinth are you now involved! Did Christ give authority to any men, or bodies of men, to decree as to the doctrines of Scripture in different, nay, in opposite ways? Will you withdraw your claim? If you are determined to retain it, I shall only add, that it was an unhappy oversight in those who composed the articles, not first, by means of some spiritual Diomed, to have stolen the palladium of infallibility from the shrine of St. Peter's at Rome.

I must likewise profess that I am dissatisfied with the multiplicity of offices and dignities among the clergy of the church of England. In the New Testament I read of bishops or presbyters, and deacons, as the only standing ministers in the church of Christ and their character is delineated for the instruction of the faithful in every age. Persons holding these offices should be found in every Christian society, meeting together for the various acts of worship; for that is the idea of a church in the apostolical writings and we find that they actually were in every church for some hundred years after the commencement of the Christian æra. But in the church of England, I see archbishops, deans, archdeacons, prebends, canons, chancellors, in addition to the stated ministers of a parish; and the bishops extending their authority over hundreds of churches. This multitude of names and titles does not savour of the simplicity of the Gospel.

If it was the design of the laymen who planned the English church, as it is said to have been of Constantine, the first Christian emperor, to form an ecclesiastical constitution, the dignitics of which should bear an analogy to those of the state, and whose ministers should appear with splendor among the most exalted ranks of civil society, their efforts have certainly been crowned with complete success. But I derive my system of religion entirely from the Word of God; and I do not perceive that the institutions of Christ breathe the wisdom of this world, or accord with its spirit. If these various offices be necessary, it is strange that Christ never hinted any thing concerning them. If they be not necessary, it must be an exhibition of groundless pomp, and an