he saw, after the accession of Elizabeth, that a retrograde course was taken, and a yoke of ceremonies, more grievous than that which the most sincere protestants {105} had formerly complained of, was imposed and enforced by arbitrary statutes, he judged it necessary to speak in a tone of more decided and severe reprehension. Among other things which he censured in the English ecclesiastical establishment, were the continuing to employ a great number of ignorant and insufficient priests, who had been accustomed to nothing but saying mass and singing the litany; the general substitution of the reading of homilies, the mumbling of prayers, or the chanting of matins and even‑song, in the place of preaching; the formal celebration of the sacraments, unaccompanied with instruction to the people; the scandalous prevalence of pluralities; and the total want of ecclesiastical discipline. He was of opinion, that the clergy ought not to be entangled, and diverted from the duties of their office, by holding civil places; that the bishops should lay aside their secular titles and dignities; that the bishoprics should be divided, so that in every city or large town there might be placed a godly and learned man, with others joined with him, for the management of ecclesiastical matters; and that schools for the education of youth should be universally erected through the nation.[158] Nor did the principal persons who were active in effecting the English reformation differ widely from Knox in these sentiments, although they might not {106} have the same conviction of their importance, and of the expediency of reducing them to practice. We should mistake exceedingly, if we supposed that they were men of the same principles and temper with many who succeeded to their places, or that they were satisfied with the pitch to which they had carried the reformation of the English church, and regarded it as a paragon and perfect pattern to other churches. They were strangers to those extravagant and illiberal notions which were afterwards adopted by the fond admirers of the hierarchy and liturgy. They would have laughed at the man who seriously asserted, that the ecclesiastical ceremonies constituted any part of “the beauty of holiness,” or that the imposition of the hands of a bishop was essential to the validity of ordination; and they would not have owned that person as a protestant who would have ventured to insinuate, that where these were wanting, there was no Christian ministry, no ordinances, no church, and perhaps――no salvation. Many things which their successors have applauded, they barely tolerated; and they would have been happy if the circumstances of their time would have permitted them to introduce alterations, which have since been cried down as puritanical innovations. Strange as it may appear to some, I am not afraid of exceeding the truth when I say, that if the English reformers, including the protestant