of the Church," and whom she allows to nominate to all vacant Bishoprics in her Communion, and to convoke, prorogue, and dissolve her Spiritual Convocations, &c.

Secondly, I object to the character and authority of certain officers appointed in the Church of England; for she has three orders of Clergy, viz. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, besides Metropolitan and Provincial Archbishops, Deans, Archdeacons, Prebendaries, and other Church officers not mentioned in Scripture, unheard of in the Primitive Church for many centuries, and to be found only in her own and the Romish Communion, to which she was indebted for them. Now I consider Diocesan Episcopacy to be an antichristian, iniquitous, and tyrannical usurpation; for I believe the order of Bishop to have been unknown in the Apostolical age, and to have had its rise in the subsequent corruption of Christianity; because it appears to me to be evident either that the Bishop and Presbyter, (or Elder) mentioned in the New Testament, were the same order, or that the latter was a mere Layman. As for the pre-eminence of the Apostles, nothing, I think, can be learned from that circumstance, because they were extraordinary persons, and therefore their pre-eminence died with them; moreover the only one (St. Paul) who alludes to the office of " Bishop," makes that office merely Parochial and Congregational, and not Diocesan, (as the Church of England pretends) and even then he uses it indiscriminately with that of Presbyter. As for the third order of Ministers in the Church of England, (viz. that of Deacon) it is evident that the Deacons of the Primitive Church were mere Laymen, unordained, appointed by the people, (or congregation,) and confined to the care and relief of the Poor. There is every reason to believe that for many years the Church was governed not Episcopally, but Congregationally, as is evident from St. Jerome and other Ancient Fathers. This Antichristian Form of Church Government by Diocesan Bishops was first introduced into this, as indeed into all other countries, by a Roman Pope; and is manifestly in itself so injurious to piety and religion, that it ought to have been rejected by the Reformers of the Church of England at the Reformation, as it was not only generally on the Continent by all sincere Protestants, but even in the northern part of this very Island. But even if the contrary could be proved, it is nevertheless evident that the Bishops of the Church of England differ exceedingly from the Apostles and Primitive Bishops, in Dignity, Titles, Revenues, and Retinue; but especially in their admission into the House of Lords, which privilege tends to hinder the exercise of their Ministerial Duties, establishes too great a distinction between them and the inferior Clergy, (thereby nourishing pride in the former, discontent in the latter, and disquietness in the whole Church,) and renders the Bishops themselves from gratitude

and expectation of future Preferment, or Translation, dependent upon, and obsequious to the Crown. I moreover object to the system of Private Patronage, adopted in the Church of England, not only because it frequently happens that a Minister is thereby obtruded upon his flock without their consent, and often against their will, but because it gives occasion to the sin of Simony, to Pluralities, and the evils of Nonresidence, all of which are either approved of, or connived at, by the Church of England. To this same System of Patronage is to be attributed the Ordination by the English Bishops of immoral and worldly-minded Ministers, who suffer their pleasures to interfere with their spiritual duties. Finally, on this head, I would add that I can find no warrant in the Word of God for supposing with the Church of England, that an Apostolical Succession is essential to the validity of the Ministerial Functions; and, indeed, even if I could be prevailed upon to alter my opinion, I should think it exceedingly improbable that the suc cession should have continued in the Church of England, or in any other Church amidst the changes of so many nations, and under all the corruptions which have disgraced the christian world; and, particularly, as it affects the Church of England, if (according to her own acknowledgment) the want of an Apostolical Succession invalidate Ordination, her own Clergy are no better ordained thau Dissenting Ministers, (whom she refuses to recognise as Ministers of the Gospel,) because it has been clearly shown by many Romanists, that she lost that Succession in her Secession from their Communion.

Thirdly, I dissent from the Church of England, on account of her stated imposition of a Form of Prayer, not only because I can find no warrant in Scripture for the use of a Form of Public Devotion, but because I consider all Forms both unnecessary and pernicious. Moreover, I think that the Liturgy of the Church of England very closely resembles the Popish Mass Book; I also object to the length of its Services, and to its division into short Collects instead of being one continued Prayer; and I decidedly disapprove of the vain and unnecessary repetition in each Service of the Lord's Prayer, and to its numerous Responses, which are used in no other Protestant Church. I see no reason why the Apocryphal Books should be read publicly in her Churches, nor why the Psalms by a foolish custom should be recited alternately, and every month; and I object to the daily recital of the Nine Canticles, especially because five of them are exceedingly exceptionable; the first, ("Te Deum") because selected verbatim from the Popish Missal, the second, ("Benedicite") because not selected from the Canonical Scriptures, and the remaining three, ("Magnificat," "Nunc Dimittis," and Benedictus") because I consider them too personal for any congre gation to adopt. The English Liturgy also sanctions many unscriptural tepets, which I cannot but condemn; for in her Apostles'

2

Creed, Christ is spoken of as having "descended into Hell," (i. e. the place of torments, for so the compilers meant ;) her Athanasian Creed contains two damnatory clauses, which ought to be expunged; in the Canticle ("Te Deum ") it is declared "When Christ had overcome the sharpness of death, he did open the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers," which countenances the error of those who think that the faithful who departed this life before the coming of our Saviour, were not made partakers of joy until that time, but remained in that place which they term "the Lake of the Fathers." In her Prayer for the High Court of Parliament, every reigning Monarch, however immoral he may be, is inconsistently and improperly called a "most religious King." In her Litany she requires her Members to pray against" sudden death," which (to say the least of it) is a very frivolous petition, because the pious ought always to be prepared to die; the same Litany also contains a very unintelligible and nonsensical clause, viz. "By the mystery of thy incarnation, by thy holy nativity and circumcision, &c. Good Lord deliver us;" it also petitions that "God would be pleased to have mercy upon all men," which is impossible, because some are vessels of wrath, to whom God will never extend his mercy. I would also observe that this Litany is full of vain repetitions, which our Saviour expressly censures, saying "Use not vain repetitions, as the Heathens do;" for the words "We beseech thee to hear us, Good Lord," are repeated in it no less than twenty-one times, and "Good Lord, deliver us," eight times, &c. In the Collect for Sexagesima Sunday, there is a petition "against all adversity," which is improper, because there is no promise in Scripture that we shall be ever free from "adversity," and, therefore, it is no prayer of faith, or of the which we can assure ourselves that we shall obtain it. At the Baptism of Infants, they are all declared to be "regenerate with God's Holy Spirit." and, in the Catechism, they are said to be made at that time, "Members of Christ, Children of God, and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven," which is both · farcical and profane. In the administration of the Eucharist are many exceptionable things; for, first the elements of bread and wine are called "the body and blood of Christ," which expression countenances the impious doctrine of the Church of Rome respecting Transubstantiation; secondly, in delivering the elements, the officiating Minister does not say (as did our Saviour to his Apostles) generally once to all "Take, eat, and drink," but to every one in particular, "Eat thou," and "drink thou," which is according to the Popish form; thirdly, in the administration of the elements the Minister declares to every particular Communicant, whether elected or reprobated, that "the Body of Christ was crucified," and "the blood of Christ was shed" for him, or her; &c. This Sacrament is also administered to the Sick, which is unscriptural,

1

and a great enormity: and it is also improperly required to be administered immediately after marriage. In the Marriage Service, the bridegroom is enjoined to make an Idol of his bride, and to declare in the most extravagant strain of all compliments, that "with his body he worships her." In the service for the "Visitation of the Sick," the Minister declares that "by Christ's authority committed to him, he absolves" the sick person" from all his sins," which is both Popish and blasphemous. In the Service for the 29th of January, God is intreated to grant "those things which for our unworthiness we dare not ask," a petition which argues baseness, servility, abjection of mind, and a Popish fear. The Liturgy of the Church of England contains also a Service called "the Churching of Women," which foolishly requires them to make a public thanksgiving for safe deliverance in child-birth; I call it foolish, because if a solemn and express thanksgiving be publicly made in the Church for every benefit, either greater than, or equal to this, which every particular individual receives, there would be no leisure for preaching, for the administration of the Sacraments, nor for any attention to secular business. It also contains a distinct Form, or "Service for the Burial of the Dead," for which there is no occasion; which Service not only testifies "a sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life," of every individual buried, (however immoral his life may have been,) but also expressly and presumptuously declares that God "has taken their souls to himself," which at all events cannot be true of the wicked. In the Service for the 30th of January, commemorative of the death of Charles the First, the twenty-seventh chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, narrating the crucifixion of our blessed Saviour, is appointed to be read as the Second Lesson, by which an odious and blasphemous comparison is evidently intended to be made between the murder of the former, and the crucifixion of the latter. In the Form of Ordination, appended to the English Liturgy, the word "Priest" is retained, (instead of "Presbyter,") which former term as it necessarily implies a "Sacrificer," and refers exclusively to the Popish Mass, or to the sacrifice of beasts under the Mosiac Law, and by no means to a Minister of the Gospel, must, consequently be offensive to all pious Christians; in the same office, for the Ordination of Priests, the Bishop is required to bid them "Receive the Holy Ghost," but as he cannot give the Holy Ghost, it is folly, not to say blasphemy, to bid any one receive it; and it is equally inconsistent and improper in him to say to each ordained Priest, "whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven," for "who can forgive sins but God?"

Fourthly, I dissent from the Church of England, on account of her pretended right of enjoining unscriptural rites and ceremonies; because I consider that the Scriptures do not only contain all things

necessary for salvation, but also all things simply, and in such a manner, that it is not only unnecessary, but also unlawful and sinful, to do any thing according to any other Law. The ceremonies and rites of the Church of England, against which I chiefly object, are the following: First, I object to her observance of Fasts and Festivals, because I cannot see how one day can excel another, (the Sabbath day alone excepted, which is a divine and not a human institution,) seeing the light of all the days in the year proceeds from one Sun. Secondly, I object to her solemn and pompous consecration of Cathedrals and Churches, which I consider as unnecessary and frivolous; because the presence of a Christian multitude, and the duties of religion performed amongst them, render the place of assembly sufficiently public, even as the presence of the King and his retinue makes the house of any man a court. Thirdly, I object to her giving the names of Saints and Angels to Churches, because it is a superstitious and pernicious custom. Fourthly, I object to her Rite of Confirmation, not only as Unapostolical and decidedly of Popish origin, but as an idle and unprofitable ceremony; indeed even if I could be persuaded that Confirmation was of Apostolical origin, (I mean that the rite alluded to in the Acts of the Apostles, (chap. viii.) was the same as that now practised by the English Prelates under the name of "Confirmation,") yet I cannot see why it should be separated from the Sacrament of Baptism, because it never was in the days of the Apostles; nor can I see any reason why it might not as effectually be administered by every Parish Minister, as by the Bishop; indeed the circumstance of confiuing it to the Episcopal order (as is the case in the Church of England) is a tacit affirmation that the benefit, grace, and dignity of this Rite are greater than either of the Sacraments, because both of these may be administered by the two inferior orders of Clergy. Fifthly, I object to the placing of the Altar at the East end of the Church, and to the superstitious custom of turning towards it at the recital of the Creed. Sixthly, I object to the custom of bowing the head at the name of Jesus, not only as an unprofitable and unscriptural ceremony, but because such an act of outward adoration elevates the Son above the Father and the Holy Ghost. Seventhly, I object to the use of the Surplice and other Sacerdotal vestments, by the Clergy, and the assigning a different habit to the Episcopal order, because I consider the use of them as dangerous and unlawful. Eighthly, I object to that part of the Rubric of the Church of England which requires her Members to stand at the reading of the Gospel, and to sit at the reading of the Epistle, which appears to be (to say the least of it) a very foolish distinction. Ninthly, I consider the Church of England to have been guilty of a dangerous oversight in retaining the sign of the Cross at Baptism, on the forehead of the Baptized Infant, because