rubric in the common-prayer-book, and was never practised in parish-churches till of late, though used in some cathedrals, where the rubric enjoins the communion to be administered every Sunday in the year, which being omitted, the second service at the table was left to supply it. The Lord's table was ordained only to administer the sacrament, but the epistle and gospel, which are the chief parts of the second service, are appointed to be read with the two lessons in the reading pew.§

As for copes, neither the common-prayer-book, nor book of ordination, nor homilies confirmed by parliament, nor Queen Elizabeth's injunctions in her first year, make any mention of them, though they are evidently derived from the popish wardrobe, and the last common-prayer-book of King Edward VI, expressly prohibits them.* The 24th canon of 1603, enjoins only the chief minister to wear a cope at the administration of the sacrament, whereas the archbishop prescribed them to be worn by others besides the chief minister, and as well when the sacrament was not administered as when it was. But, as we observed before, those canons not being confirmed by parliament, expired with King James, and therefore can be no warrant for their present use. Nor is the use of music in churches, or chaunting of prayers, of any great antiquity, being first introduced by pope Vitalian, A. D. 666, and encouraged only by popish prelates.

And though the archbishop pleads, that the statutes of Oxford are agreeable to ancient custom and usage, we affirm they contain sundry innovations, not only with regard to the liberty of the subject, but with regard to religion, for Latin prayers were formerly said on Ash- Wednesdays before the bachelors of arts, whereas now none others are to be said throughout all Lent; the statute for singing in solemn processions was made in time of popery, and renewed in these statutes to keep up the practice of such superstitious perambulations; and though the archbishop with his wonted assurance wonders what these things have to do with treason, we apprehend, that if they appear so many proofs of a design to subvert the established religion of the Ibid. p. 65.

S Prynne, p. 492.

* Ibid. p. 64, 479, 480.

church of England, they will be judged so in the highest degree.t

Further they charged the archbishop with advising the king "to publish his declaration for the use of sports on the Lord's day, in order to suppress afternoon sermons; with obliging the clergy of his diocese to read it in their 'pulpits, and punishing those that refused."||

The archbishop answered, that he had the king's warrant for printing the book of sports; that there is no proof that it was by his procurement, nor that it was done on purpose to take away afternoon sermons, since these recreations are not allowed till they are over; besides, the declaration allows only lawful recreations, which is no more than is practised at Geneva, though for his own part he always observed strictly the Lord's day. What he enjoined the reading the declaration was by his majesty's command, and he did not punish above three or four for not reading it.‡

The commons replied, that it was evident. by the archbishop's letter to the bishop of Bath and Wells, that the declaration was printed by his procurement, the warrant for printing it being written all with his own hand, and without date, and therefore might probably be obtained afterwards; moreover, some of the recreations mentioned in it are unlawful on the Lord's day, according to the opin

Mrs. Macauly thinks, that to the charge of endeavoring to subvert the established religion, and to set up popish superstition and idolatry, the archbishop was particularly strong in his defence, and the allegations to support the charge were particularly vague and trifling "The truth is," as that author observes, "those superstitious ceremonies which he with so much blind zeal had endeavored to revive, and which were so justly ridiculed and abhorred by the more enlightened 'protestants, were the discipline of the first reformers in this country, and had the sanction both of the civil and ecclesiastical power: refor"mation had begun in England at the wrong end; it was first adopted and modelled by government, instead of being forced upon govern'ment by the general sense of the people; and thus, to further the ambitious views of the monarch, and to gratify the pride of the prelacy, a great part of the mystery of popery was retained in the doctrine, and a great part of the puppet-shews of the papists in the discipline, of the church of England." History of England, vol. iv. p. 135. Ed. Ibid. p. 128, 154, 382.

† Prynne, p. 478.

‡ Laud's History, p. 343, 344.

S Prynne, p. 505,

ion of fathers, councils, and imperial laws; and though Calvin differs from our protestant writers about the morality of the sabbath, yet he expressly condemns dancing and pastimes on that day. As for his grace's own strict observation of the Lord's day, it is an averment without truth, for he sat constantly at the council-table on that day; and it was his ordinary practice to go to bowls in the summer time, and use other recreations upon it; nor is it probable, that the archbishop would have punished conscientious ministers for not reading the book of sports, if the thing had been disagreeable to his practice, especially when there is no warrant at all in the declaration that ministers should publish it, or be punished for refusing it; and that he punished no more, was not owing to his clemency, who gave command to suspend all that refused, but to the clergy's compliance; for so zealous was this archbishop and some of his brethren in this affair, that it was inserted as an article of enquiry in their visitations, whether the king's declaration for sports has been read and published by the minister? And defaulters were to be presented upon oath. Now we appeal to the whole christian world, whether ever it has been known, that any who have been called fathers of the church, have taken so much pains to have the Lord's day prophaned, as first to advise the king to publish a declaration to warrant it, then to enjoin the clergy to read it in their pulpits, and to suspend, sequester, and deprive, all whose consciences would not allow them to comply, and this not only contrary to the laws of God, but to the laws of the land.

The reader will, no doubt, remark upon this part of the archbishop's trial, that those rites and ceremonies which have bred such ill blood, and been contended for with so much fierceness, as to disturb the peace of the church, and divide its communion, have no foundation in scripture, or primitive antiquity, taking their rise for the most part in the darkest and most corrupt times of the papacy. Ispeak not here of such rites as are established by law, as the cross in baptism, and kneeling at the communion, &c. because the commons could not charge these on the archbishop as criminal. And it will be observed further, that

when men claim a right to introduce ceremonies for decency of worship, and impose them upon the people, there can be no bounds to a fruitful invention. Archbishop Laud would, no doubt, by degrees, have introduced all the follies of the Roman church; and admitting his authority to impose rites and ceremonies not mentioned in scripture, it is not easy to give a reason why fifty should not be enjoined as well as five.

The managers went on next to the second branch of their charge, to prove the archbishop's design to subvert the protestant religion, by countenancing and encouraging sundry doctrinal errors in favor of arminianisms and popery.

And here they charged him, first, "with being the great patron of that part of the clergy who had declared themselves in favor of these errors, and with procuring their advancement to the highest stations in the church, even though they were under censure of parliament, as Dr. Manwaring, Montague, &c. They averred, that the best 'preferments in his majesty's gift, ever since the archbish'op's administration in 1627, had by his advice been bestowed on persons of the same principles; and that he had advised the king to publish a declaration, prohibit'ing the clergy to preach on the five controverted points,

The reader has seen, in the preceeding part of this reign, and in that of James I. how arminianism became connected with the politics of the time. There is no natural, or necessary union betwen arminianism and despotism. And at the same time that the court in England protected and patronised the Arminians, and in return received from them a sanction to its arbitrary views; the reverse took place in Holland : where the Arminians, favored by the magistrates of the states, opposed the aspiring designs of the stadtholdher Maurice; and the Calvinists, on the contrary, who were there called Gomorists, espoused his interest, and seconded his ambitious and arbitrary measures against the liberty of their country. These have continued the dominant party to this day and the most violent of them have not only the sway in the church, but their favor is courted by the prince, who finds his interest advanced by a connexion with them. In this instance the Dutch ealvinists, while they maintain all the rigor of his theological system, have greatly and ignominously deviated from the political principles of their illustrious founder; whose character as a legislator, more than as a divine, displayed the strength of his genius; and whose wise ediets were dictated by genuine patriotism and the spirit of liberty. Appendix to the xiith vol. of the Monthly Review enlarged, p. 528, and Rosseau's Social Compact, p. 113, note. Ed.

by virtue of which the mouths of the orthodox preachers were stopped, and some that ventured to transgress the king's declaration were punished in the high commission, when their adversaries were left at large to spread their ' opinions at their pleasure."

The archbishop answered, that he had not defended any points of arminianism, though he heartily wished, for the peace of christendom, that these differences were not pursued with such heat and animosity.* He confessed that he had been taxed in a declaration of the house of commons as a favorer of arminians, but without proof, and he took it as a very great slander. Nor had he, to the best of his remembrance, advanced any such to ecclesiastical livings; if they proved so afterwards it was more than he could foresee; but he had preferred divers orthodox ministers, against whom there was no exception. He denied that he had any hand in the preferment of Dr. Manwaring or Montague, who were under censure of parliament, nor is the pocket book a sufficient proof of it; he was of opinion, that Neal, Lindsey, Wren, Bancroft, Curle, and others mentioned in the charge, were worthy men, and every way qualified for their preferments, though it does not appear he had any hand in bestowing them. As for the king's declaration prohibiting the clergy to preach the five points, it was his majesty's own, and not his; and since the publishing of it he had endeavored to carry it with an equal hand, and to punish the transgressors of it on one side as well as the other.‡

The commons replied that they wondered at the archbishop's assurance in denying his endeavors to promote arminianism in the church: that the remonstrance of the commons was a sufficient evidence of his guilt, being confirmed by many proofs, though his answer to it proved so full of bitterness and sauciness, as throwing scandal on the whole representative body of the nation.‡

As to the particulars, they say, that his preferring Mr. Downham and Taylor, orthodox men, to some benefices, was only a blind to cover his advancing so many popishly affected clergymen. It is known to all the world that Mon

*Land's Hist. p. 352. Prynne, p. 529. Prynne, p. 508.

† Prynne, p. 529.