encouragement was given to other men of the fame

< for true religion can never be eftablished by confent, but by debate. What can be the reafon why the clergy fhould fall upon this method of articleing with their noviciates? Should fetters be clapt upon the mind? or fhould it be free to pursue its own conclufions? Are religion and truth two different things, that if truth fhould come out, religion muft fail? And how fhall truth appear, but by difquifition, parley, and difpute? What matter to them on which fide fhe is found?-be the but found.-Are not all mankind as • much concerned in her as they? Why then these ⚫ hedges and inclosures, where every man has right of • common? Such practices not only hinder the propagation of truth, but are the causes of vile prevarications and hypocrify.-Men that come into the church, unlefs their fentiments are conformable to those of the articles, which, by the writings of the clergy, and the ❝ turn of the age, feem to be very few in number, must be guilty of fuch difhonefty, as a man of probity would blufh to mention.-Are all the men of fenfe and learning, among the clergy, Athanafians? and who but fuch can honestly put their hands to the firft, fecond, fifth, and eighth articles ?-Or, are the clergy now-a-days of Calviniftical principles, according to the meaning of the feventeenth article? Yet they own these as truths.-What can the laity think, but that thefe perfons (who, with fo much eafe and quietness, (y) Diffuafolemnly profefs propofitions true, which they are con- five from vinced are falfe, meerly for the fake of the preferment holy orders, of the church) would, for the fake of greater gains, in the Corfubfcribe to any other thirty-nine propofitions you can dial for Low bring them (y)?' This is honeftly and boldly spoken! Spirits, vol. A time, one would hope, muft come, in which truth 323. See will be heard and regarded by thofe who are in autho- fome excelrity. Quickly may it come! that the minds of good and virtuous men may no longer be made uneafy under the jet in Hartgalling yoke of fubfcription to articles, drawn up by ley's obfermen who comparatively underftood little of the doc- vations on

trinal

entering into

iii. p. 319,

lent remarks

on this fub

man, vol. ii.

P. 35, 354.

fame stamp, whilst their adversaries met with a very different treatment. These innovations in doctrine were attended with a great variety of fuperftitious (PP) practices; fuch

trinal parts of religion, and were quite unacquainted with the rights of conscience.

(PP) A great variety of fuperftitious practices, &c.] Charles, I have before obferved, was naturally fuperftitious, and therefore it is not to be wondered at that new fuperftitions were introduced and cherished by him. For when once men leave the road of common sense, and think themselves capable of adding to the directions given by Jefus Chrift, with relation to the worship and fervice of Almighty God, they know not where to ftop: one thing is comely in their eyes, another fignificant, another edifying; till at length religion becomes a meer hotch-potch of trumperies, fooleries, fhews, and every thing but what it should be. In the reign of Charles a multitude of odd things were introduced into the church, and a variety of practices, for which no good reafon could be given. A rich large crucifix, embroidered with gold and filver, in a 'fair peece of arras, was hung up in his majeftie's chappel, over the altar (z);' to which the chaplains were ordered to make their best bows, Laud himself setting the example at his ingreffe, egreffe, (a lane being made for him to fee the altar, and do his reverence to it) and at all his approaches towards or to the altar.' Pictures were fet up in churches, confecrations were made use of after the Romish manner, though without sense or meaning; the communion-table was turned altar-wife in churches and colleges; and a great stress was laid on the garments wherein the public teachers officiated. In the year 1634, being the first year after bifhop Laud's tranflation from London to Canterbury, great offence was taken at his setting up of pictures in the church-windows at his chappel at Lambeth and Croyden, the portraiture of them being made accord

I

⚫ing

fuch as bowings to the altar, confecrations.

.

of

ii. p. 273

⚫ing to the Roman miffal, and bowing towards the table or altar, ufing of copes at the facrament, whereupon the people made a great clamour, that the archbishop ⚫endeavoured to fubvert God's true religion, by law • established in this realm, and, inftead thereof, to fet up popish fuperftition and idolatry (a).' Laud made (a) Rufhbut a very lame defence-he acknowledged the facts; worth, vol. but infifted on it, that what he had done, had been done before him; that he had followed the pattern of bishop Andrews; and that he knew not that the pictures he had fet up were the same with those in the Romish misfal. The latter part of this plea was undoubtedly falfe: for the miffal, with which they agreed, was found in his study at Lambeth, and produced before the lords, marked in a variety of places with his own hand. And as to his other pleas, he was told, that bowing to or towards the altar, was never prescribed by our ftatutes, articles, homilies, common-prayer-book, injunctions, canons, never practised by any till of late, but fome few popish 'court-doctors, and cathedralifts; never ufed by his ⚫ predeceffor or his chaplains; introduced only by papifts at the first, in honor and adoration of their breaden god upon the altar; and enjoined only by the Roman • miffal, ceremonial, and popifh canonists (b).'—This (b) Id. p. bowing towards the altar, I think, is yet practifed by our 280. cathedralifts. I remember a man of letters was used to tell his acquaintance, that he fometimes dropped into St. Paul's, to have the pleasure of feeing Dr. Hare [dean of that church] make his bow to the altar.-But to go on. -In the year 1640, we find fome of these trifles enjoined by a canon of the then convocation. • The

6

fynod declares, that the standing of the communion<table fideways, under the eaft window of the chancel or chappel, is in its own nature indifferent; but forafmuch as queen Elizabeth's injunctions order it to be placed where the altar was, we therefore judge it proper, that all churches and chappels do conform themfelves to the cathedral or mother-churches. And we

• declare

of churches, and the ornamenting them

with

declare this fituation of the holy table does not imply that it is, or ought to be, efteemed a true and proper altar, whereon Chrift is again facrificed; but it may be called an altar in the fenfe of the primitive church: and because it has been obferved, that fome people in time of divine fervice have irreverently leaned, caft their hats, or fet upon or under the communion-table, therefore the fynod thinks meet, that the table be railed round. It is further recommended to all good people, that they do reverence at their entring in and going out of the church; and that all communicants do approach the holy table, to receive the communion at the rails, which has heretofore been unfitly carried up and down by the minifter, unless the bishop shall dispense with (c) Nalfon, it (c).'

P. 545 ; apud Neale's

Lond. 1733.

6

And the ftrefs which was laid on these matters will history of appear from the following narrative of fir Edward Derthe puritans, ing, in a committee of the house of commons, Nov. 23, vol. ii. p. 1640. Mr. Wilkinson, fays he, a batchelor in divi350, 8vo. nity, and a man in whofe character doe concur learning, piety, induftry, modefty,-prefented himself to receive orders; and that was thus. The bishop of Oxford's chaplaine [M. Fulham], being the examiner < (for bifhops now doe fcorne to doe bifhops work: it belongs to himselfe), he propoundeth four queftions to M. Wilkinfon, not taken out of the depth of divinity, but fitly chofen to discover how affections doe stand to be novelized by the mutability of the prefent times. The questions were these :

1. Whether hath the church authority in matters of faith?

2. May the king's book of fports, (fo fome impious bifhops have abused our pious king, to call their contrivance his majeftie's booke) may this be read in the church without offence?

3. Is bowing to or before the altar lawful?

4.

Is bowing at the name of Jefus lawful?

• As

with pictures, after the manner of the catholics,

As foon as M. Wilkinson heard thefe queftions, lupum auribus, he had a wolfe by the ears; and because unto these captious interrogatories he could not. make a pe• remptory answer, M. Fulham would not present him to the bishop for ordination (d).' These were rare (d) Dering's queftions to be propofed on fuch an occafion! and the collection of man, who could not anfwer them in the affirmative, muft fpeeches, P. be very unworthy of the epifcopal approbation!

43.

In defence of fuperftition, it is usually afked by igno< rant devotees,-what harm is there in it?-If we have a mind to turn towards the eaft, why may we not turn that way as well as any other? That God is equally ⚫ in all places, is a fundamental maxim; and which way ever we happen to face in our addreffes to him, it is a thing in its own nature perfectly indifferent: but then ' we should confider it only as fuch, act accordingly, and ⚫ not make a formal ftated ceremony of it; for he must be but a forry cafuift who does not know, that things by nature indifferent, may by law be made otherwife: and 6 as the conftitution of our church has left no ceremony 'indifferent, but all are either commanded or forbidden; and this turning towards the east is no where ordered, ⚫ whenever we make a ceremony of it (pardon me the expreffion), it is a turn too much.-But fome one perhaps will fay,-what would I have men do, for in'stance, when they say their Creed? Would I have them turn no way, but ftand just as they did before? My anfwer is, why not? What occafion for all this fhuffling backwards and forwards, when the time is come for us to fay what religion we are of? If we defire to let the world know that we are Chriftians, why do we not declare it in the face of the world? As to the ⚫ making the declaration before God, he is every where ; why then should we turn, to be never the nearer? For ⚫ once to affume myself the air of a profound rationalift; when we profefs our faith, what more proper (e) Afplin's than to ftand our ground (e)?' This is very juft. All Alkibla, I fhall add is, that we ought to be on our guard against

ought

part ii. p. 124, 8vo. fuper- Lond. 1730.