Ib. p. 337.

As I was proceeding, Bishop Morley interrupted me according to his manner, with vehemency crying out * * The Bishop interrupted me again * * I attempted to speak, and still he interrupted me * * Bishop Morley went on, talking louder than I, &c.

The Bishops appear to have behaved insolently enough.  Safe in their knowledge of Charles’s inclinations, they laughed in their sleeves at his commission.  Their best answer would have been to have pressed the anti-impositionists with their utter forgetfulness of the possible, nay, very probable differences of opinion between the ministers and their congregations.  A vain minister might disgust a sober congregation with his ‘extempore’ prayers, or his open contempt of their kneeling at the Sacrament, and the like.  Yet by what right if he acts only as an individual?  And then what an endless source of disputes and preferences of this minister or of that!

Ib. p. 341.

  The paper offered by Bishop Cosins.

  1.  That the question may be put to the managers of the division,
     Whether there be anything in the doctrine, or discipline, or the
     Common Prayer, or ceremonies, contrary to the word of God; and if
     they can make any such appear; let them be satisfied.

  2.  If not, let them propose what they desire in point of expediency,
     and acknowledge it to be no more.

This was proposed, doubtless, by one of your sensible men; it is so plain, so plausible, shallow, ‘nihili, nauci, pili, flocci-cal’.  Why, the very phrase “contrary to the word of God” would take a month to define, and neither party agree at last.  One party says: 

The Church has power from God’s word to order all matters of order so as shall appear to them to conduce to decency and edification:  but ceremonies respect the orderly performance of divine service:  ergo, the Church has power to ordain ceremonies:  but the Cross in baptizing is a ceremony; ergo, the Church has power to prescribe the crossing in Baptism.  What is rightfully ordered cannot be rightfully withstood:—­but the crossing, &c., is rightfully ordered:—­’ergo’, the crossing cannot be rightfully omitted.

To this, how easily would the other party reply;

1.  That a small number of Bishops could not be called the Church: 

2.  That no one Church had power or pretence from God’s word to prescribe
   concerning mere matters of outward decency and convenience to other
   Churches or assemblies of Christian people: 

3.  That the blending an unnecessary and suspicious, if not
   superstitious, motion of the hand with a necessary and essential act
   doth in no wise respect order or propriety: