the ministers of a reformed Church and they properly maintained, that the conscience ought not to be bound to the observance of human appointments in religion. Things indifferent,' they said, ought not to be made necessary, because then their nature is changed, and we lose our liberty.'-' We ought not to give offence in matters of mere indifference; therefore the Bishops, who are of this opinion, ought not to enforce the habits.'

We are sometimes asked, in relation to this controversy, whether we can shew precise scriptural authority for every circumstance which attends our service; and whether the peculiar mode, and order, and substance, of our praying, singing, and preaching, be set down in so many words in the Old or New Testament. To this it is very easy to give a satisfactory answer. We do not think it necessary either to give for our own service, or to require for another different from ours, chapter and verse for every circumstance; but where the Scriptures provide no specific direction, and afford no clear example, we are left to our liberty, and are not to receive the dictation of men. Let the spirit of this remark be infused into the minds of Religionists, and govern their regulations, and there will be an end of intolerance. In the present state, uniformity of opinion is impracticable; and there is just the same probability that Acts of Parliament, or Royal Proclamations, will bring men to unity of sentiment, as there is of their authority controlling the fury of the winds, or allaying a tempest. A well known circumstance may be worth repeating in this place.

Charles the Vth, finding himself unable to make any two of the clocks and watches, with which he amused himself in his retirement, go exactly alike, after repeated trials, reflected, it is said, with surprise and regret, on his own folly, in having bestowed so much time and labour on the more vain attempt of bringing mankind to a precise uniformity of sentiment in religion.

We present our readers with some specimens of the examinations of the Puritans before the bishops, as detailed by Mr. Brook.

William Axton was a truly pious man, a steady nonconformist, and a learned divine. He was some years rector of Moreton Corbet, in Shropshire; where Sir Robert Corbet, who was his great and worthy friend, protected him some time from the severities of the prelates. Though under the wing of so excellent a patron, he found protection only for a season, and was brought into trouble for nonconformity. About the year 1570, he was cited before Dr. Bentham, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, when he underwent several examinations for refusing the apparel, the cross in baptism, and kneeling at the sacrament. The bishop thus addressed him, in the presence of

the court.

Bishop. Though we allow you, Mr. Axton, to assign your reasons, you shall not be unanswered. Therefore set forth your reasons, and we will consider them.

• Axton. If there be any odds in the disputation, it is on your side. For you are many, and I am but one, and have no equal judge or moderator; but I am content to set down my reasons, and leave them to God and your own consciences. As the priesthood of Christ, or of Aaron, and even their very garments were most honourable; so the priesthood of antichrist, and even the very garments, as the cope and surplice, is most detestable.

B. Then you will condemn as unlawful, whatsoever the papists used in their idolatrous service?

A. Some things have been abused by idolaters, and yet are necessary and profitable in the service of God. Other things they have abused, which are neither necessary nor profitable. The former are to be retained and the latter to be refused. The surplice hath been used by the priests of antichrist, and hath no necessary nor profitable use in the service of God, any more than any other thing used in idolatrous worship; therefore the surplice ought not to be used. 'B. The surplice hath a necessary use.

A. If it have, you sin in omitting it at any time. In this you condemn the reformed churches abroad, for excluding a thing so neces

sary.

B. It is necessary, because the prince hath commanded it.

A. Indeed, it is so necessarily commanded, that without the use of it, a minister must not preach, nor administer the sacraments, however great are his learning, his gifts, and his godliness. This is a most wicked necessity.

B. But it is comely in the church of God.

'A. What comeliness is it for the minister of Christ to wear the rags of antichrist? If this be comely, then the velvet and golden copes, for the same reason, are more comely. But this is not the comeliness of the Gospel

'B. You are not a judge whether the surplice be comely.

A. The Apostle saith to all Christians," Try the spirits, whether "they be of God.' Is it then unlawful for a Christian, and a minister of Christ, to judge of a ceremony of man's invention? The reformed churches have judged the surplice to be uncomely for the ministers of Christ Luther, Calvin, Beza, Peter Martyr, and many others, have disallowed the use of it. And most learned men now in England, who use the surplice, wish, with all their hearts, it were taken away. Yea, I think this is your opinion also. Bishop Ridley said, "it was more fit for a player on the stage, than for a "minister of God in his church. I cannot consent to wear the surplice; it is against my conscience.

Though the bishop, who was a better man than some of his episcopal brethren acknowledged Axton to be a divine of good learning, a strong memory, and well qualified for the pulpit, he was deprived of his living, and driven to seek his bread in a foreign land. "I am "sure," says the learned Dr. Stillingfleet, "it is contrary to the pri "mitive practice, and the moderation then used, to suspend or deprive

"men of their ministerial functions, for not consenting to habits, ges"tures, and the like."' Vol. i. p. 151. Art. Axton.

The examinations were seldom conducted with so much sobriety as appears in the above case, from which we have extracted only a small portion. We give another specimen, in which our readers will remark the insolence and rigour of the interrogations, and the smartness or pertness of the answers.

Francis Merbury was minister at Northampton, and brought into many troubles for nonconformity, being several times cast into prison. November 5, 1578, he was convened before the high commission; when he underwent the following examination before Bishop Aylmer, Sir Owen Hopton, Dr. Lewis, Mr. Recorder, and Archdeacon Mullins, in the consistory of St. Paul's, London.

Bishop. Merbury, where have you been since your last enlarge ment?

Merbury. At Northampton.

B. You were especially forbidden to go to that place, for there you did all the harm.

M. I was not, neither in justice may be, inhibited from that place. Neither have I done harm there, but good.

B. Well, Sir, what have you to say against my Lord of Peterborough, or me?

M. Nothing; but God save you both.

B. Nothing! why you were wont to bark much of dumb dogs. Are you now weary of it?

'M. I came not to accuse, but to defend. Yet, because you urge me for advantage, I say, that the Bishops of London and Peterborough, and all the Bishops in England, are guilty of the death of as many souls, as have perished by the ignorance of the ministers of their making, whom they knew to be unable.

B. Whom such have I made?

"M. I accuse you not particularly, because I know not your state. If you have, you must bear the condemnation.

B. Thy proposition is false. If it were in Cambridge it would be hissed out of the schools.

M. Then you had need hire hissers.

B. If I, finding one well qualified with learning, admit him, and he afterwards play the truant, and become ignorant, and by his ignoTance slay souls, am I guilty of their death?

M This is another question. I distinguish and speak of them which never were able.

B. Distinguish! Thou knowest not a distinction. What is a distinction?

M. It is the severing of things which appear to be the same.
B. Nay, that is differentia.

M. Different, quæ non sunt ambigua; but we distinguish those things only which are ambiguous: as, you differ not from the Bishop of London; but I may distinguish between you and the Bishop of

London, because you were a man though you were without a bishopric.

'B. Here is a tale of a tub. How many predicaments are there? M. I answer you according to your question, if I say there are enow of seven. Why do you ask me questions so impertinent? B. How many predicables be there? Where didst thou learn

logic?

M The last time you spoke of good behaviour; but this is something else. I am no logician.

B. Thou speakest of making ministers. The Bishop of Peterborough was never more overseen in his life, than when he admitted thee to be a preacher in Northampton.

'M. Like enough so, in some sense. I pray God those scales may fall from his eyes.

B. Thou art a very ass; thou art mad; thou art courageous; nay, thou art impudent. By my troth, I think he is mad: he careth for nobody

M. Sir. I take exception against swearing judges. I praise God I am not mad, but sorry to see you so much out of temper.

B. Thou takest upon thee to be a preacher, but there is nothing in thee. Thou art a very a s, an idiot, and a fool.

MI humbly beseech you. Sir, have patience, and give this people a better example. Through the Lord, I am what I am. I submit the trial of my sufficiency to the judgment of the learned. But this wandering speech is not logical

B. This fellow would have a preacher in every parish church!
M. So would St. Paul.

'B. Where wouldst thou have them?

M. In Cambridge, in Oxford, in the Inns of Court, yea, and some in prison, if more were wanted. We doing our part, the Lord would do his.

B. I thought where thou wouldst be. But where is the living for them?

'M. A man might cut a large thong out of your hide, and that of the other prelates, and it would never be missed.

B. Go thou on to contrive. Thou shalt orderly dispose of our livings.

M. That is more than you can do yourselves.

B. Thou art an overthwart, proud, puritan knave. Have him to the Marshalsea.

M. I must go where it pleaseth God. But remember God's judgments. You do me open wrong. I pray God forgive you.'Vol. I. p. 223. Art. Merbury.

The Bishops should have settled some points among themselves before they proceeded in their examinations, since they discover a difference of sentiment on the same subject.

We read,' says Nixson to Bishop Grindal, I Kings, 12. that the King should teach only the word of God!'

6

Bishop. What! should the King teach the word of God? Lie not. Vol. I. p. 137.

"I do not admit the queen," says Axton, "to be a church go

"vernor."

Bishop Bentham. Yes, but she is, and hath full power and authority all manner of ways. Indeed she doth not administer the sacraments and preach, but leaveth those things to us; but if she were a man, as she is a woman, why might she not preach the word, as well as ourselves?' Vol. I. p. 163.

In his examination of Cawdrey, Aylmer makes a comparison, and employs a species of reasoning to enforce the use of the surplice, which, how goodly soever they might appear in the eyes of a bishop, do not seem adapted to produce any effect on the minds of those who were determined to stand fast in the liberty with which Christ had made them free; and who sought to approve themselves, not the servants of men, but the servants of Christ.

• Bishop. Suppose you were able to keep four or six servants in livery, and one or two of them should refuse to wear your livery, would you take it all in good part? Are not we the queen's servants? And is not the surplice the livery which she hath appointed to be worn? And do you think she will be content if we refuse to wear it? Besides, the long prayer which you use before your sermons, is nothing but bibble babble bibble babble. Vol. I. p. 433.

Surely this does not savour very highly of Apostolical magnanimity

If Aylmer and his episcopal brethren professed themselves to be 'the queen's servants,' and clothed themselves in the livery which she appointed to be worn,' she gave them to understand that she was their mistress, and made them sensible of her authority, as the following letter testifies. It was written to the Bishop of Ely, who had offended her by his hesitation in fulfilling her pleasure, relative to the disposal of some land belonging to that see.

Proud Prelate,

I understand you are backward in complying with our agreement; but I would have you know that I, who made you what you are, can unmake you; and if you do not forthwith fulfil your engagement, by God, I will immediately unfrock you.

Yours, as you demean yourself,

ELIZABETH.

Since we find these ecclesiastics so strict in their examinations of a part of the ministers; so tenacious of the surplice, and the cross in baptism, and kneeling at the sacrament; and so severe in punishing nonconformity to these rites and ceremonies; it is very natural to inquire into their conduct in relation to objects of real importance. Were they valiant for the truth, zealous in teaching the people, vigilant, strict in marking the ignorant, the idle, and the profligate of the clergy, and severe in punishing