power and privilege, in the 7th of Henry VIII., it was determined by all the judges of the land, in presence of the king, that his Majesty might hold his Parliament without calling the bishops at all. It appears, therefore, from hence, that the bishops never were accounted a third estate of the realm, in such a sense as to make them an essential branch of the legislature. Nor are they the representatives of the clergy, because then the clergy would be twice represented in the Houses of Parliament. Besides, none can be properly called representatives of others, but such as are chosen by them; the bishops not being chosen for this purpose, cannot, therefore, properly be the representatives of the clergy in Parliament. They sit there, not in their spiritual character, but by virtue of the baronies annexed to their bishoprics, and if the King, with consent of Parliament, should annex baronies to the courts of justice in Westminster hall, or to the supreme magistracy of the city of London, the Judges and Lord Mayor for the time being, would have the same right of peerage.

"Cuncta priùs tentanda; sed immedicabile vulnus

Ense recidendum est, ne pars sincera trahatur."

The ambition of prelates will not let them see how inconsistent two contrary functions are, in one and the same person.

315

CHAP. XXIX.

THE REDUCTION OF EPISCOPACY, AND OF THE PRESENT LITURGY, NECESSARY FOR A REFORMED CHURCH, CONTINUED.

By the law of England, the church establishment may always be reformed by the civil magistrate, without the concurrence of the prelates or the people. But when princes or magistrates are negligent of their duty, God may stir up the subject to perform this work. If otherwise, what reformation can be expected in France, in Spain, or in Rome itself, for it is not to be imagined, that the pope or prelates will consent to their own ruin. The Reformation of Henry VIII. was very defective in the essentials of doctrine, worship, and government; it proceeded with a Laodicean lukewarmness. The supremacy was transferred from one wrong head to another, and the limbs of the anti-christian hierarchy were visible in the body. The imperfection of the English Reformation has been the complaint of every judicious and wise Christian. It has occasioned, from its defects, more schism

and separation than ever was known to the other reformed churches of the Continent. Episcopacy cannot make out its claim to apostolical appointment. When the apostles were living, there was no difference between a bishop and presbyter; no inequality in power or degree, but an exact parity in every branch of their character. We have already shewn that there is no mention in scripture of a bishop being superior to other pastors.

An attempt to support the government of the Church, from its practice subsequent to the third century, or from the writings of the Fathers, is fallacious or uncertain. Some there are who unite the word of God and antiquity, while others make the scriptures the only rule, but antiquity the authentic interpreter. The latter fall into a greater error than the former; for the papists bring tradition no farther than to an equality of authority with the inspired writings; but the former make antiquity the very ground of their belief of the sense of scripture, and by that means exalt it above the scripture, for the interpretation of the Fathers is made the very formal reason why they believe the scriptures in such a sense. Thus, contrary to the apostle's doctrine, their faith must stand in the wisdom of man, and not in the power of God. But the law and the testimony must be the only rule. Indeed, the practice of the primitive Church, in many things, cannot certainly be known. Even in the apostles' time, Diotrephes

moved for the pre-eminence, and the mystery of iniquity began to work; after which, ambition and weakness quickly made way for a change in Church government.

No man of discretion will deny the lawfulness of the ministry, and the due administration of the sacraments in those reformed Churches abroad, where there are no diocesan bishops; for it is evident from scripture, as well as confessed by many champions for episcopacy, that presbyters may ordain presbyters;* and it is clear that his Majesty is not bound by his coronation oath to support episcopacy; for, as relates to the Church, when the formal reasons of an oath ceases, the obligation is discharged. When an oath has a special regard to the benefit of those to whom the engagement is made, if the parties interested relax upon the point, dispense with the promise, and give up their advantage, the obligation is at an end. Thus, when the Parliament agrees to the repealing of a law, the king's conscience is not tied against assenting to the bill; if it were, the altering of any law would be impracticable. It is certain that the English Reformation has not perfectly purged out the Roman leaven, but has rather depraved the discipline of the Church, by conforming to the civil polity, and adding many supplemental offices to those instituted by the Son of God.

*See 1 Tim. iv. 14.

We are told, by Strype, that the pious scholar, Clarke, in a sermon before the Heads, at St. Mary's, Cambridge, boldly declared that the hierarchical orders of Archbishops, Patriarchs, Metropolitans, and so on, were introduced into the Church by Satan. What Christian can sanction and support the temporal dignities and baronies annexed to the office of English bishops? Who can admire their engaging in secular employments and trusts, tending to exalt them above their brethren, and being incompatible with their characters as ministers of Christ, and inconsistent with the due discharge of their spiritual functions? What man, who is a believer in the New Testament dispensation, can uphold the titles and offices of archdeacons, deans, chapters, and other officials belonging to cathedrals, which have no foundation in scripture, or in the first ages of the Christian Church?

The non-conformists, under Archbishop Parker, bitterly complained of the exorbitant power and jurisdiction of the bishops, and their chancellors in their spiritual courts, as derived from the common law of the pope, and not from the word of God, or the statute law of the land. It was said by the Rev. T. Cartwright, B.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Lady Margaret's Professor, of whom the great and celebrated Beza declares that he thought "there was not a more learned man under the sun," that the names and functions of archbishops and archdeacons ought to be abo