tion." His religious weaknesses were not tempered with the smallest degree of Christian charity. Contemptible trifles he pressed upon the consciences of people with an iron hand. Yet Laud's reputation does not come down to us tainted with the vulgarities of avarice or sensuality. He was liberal and chaste; and, though proud, he was not addicted to luxury or ostentation. Possessed of considerable learning, and remarkable for activity and acuteness of mind; he patronized such studies as accorded with his tastes; and it should not be forgotten that, at Windsor, Reading, and Oxford, there still remain noble and lasting monuments of his beneficence. 2

As one of England's most conspicuous Churchmen, he may be ranked with Dunstan, Becket, and Wolsey; & but he had not the princely bearing, the knowledge of mankind, and the skilful statesmanship of Wolsey-nor did he evince the high-minded spiritual ambition and independence of Becket-nor do we discover in him the mystic tone and artistic taste of Dunstan. But he had the pride, the intolerance, and the superstition of all three. In the middle ages he would have made as to ritualism a good monk, and if severity of discipline be a proof of excellence, by no means a bad abbot.

Henry Rogers.

2 See Bruce's Account of Laud's Berkshire Benefactions.

Mr. Bruce, who has had ample means of judging of Laud's character, observes:-"A winking at a little finesse designed to accomplish some end, supposed to be for the good of the Church, is all that may be brought home to him-his hands were never defiled by the touch of a bribe.-Calendar of State Papers, Dom., 1635. Preface.

Laud and Wolsey were drawn in the pamphlets of the day.-See Harl. Miscell., iv. 462.

I may add that Dunstan and Laud were alike insular men, if that term may be used to distinguish the from Becket and Wolsey, both whom had large intercourse with the Continent. Dunstan and Laud were narrower in their feeling and character than the other two. I have before noticed the resemblance between Dunstan and Laud in point of influence.

3 Overstrained parallels between

It was on the very day of Laud's attainder that Parliament established the Presbyterian Directory, and prohibited the Anglican Prayer Book.' That book, profoundly reverenced by all Anglo-Catholics, and held in scarcely less honour by some doctrinal Puritans, excited only the opposition of the Presbyterians and the other sects. Tracts of the period irreverently represent the liturgy as being the very lethargy of worship; the litany, as not merely "a stump, or a limb of Dagon, but the head of the Mass Book ;" and the surplice, as "a Babylonish garment, spotted with the flesh," and as worse than the "plague-sore clout," which had been sent "to infect Master Pym, and the rest of the House."2 For this coarse abuse, the whole Presbyterian party must not be held responsible; but such abuse indicates the existence of feelings with which leading Presbyterians had to deal on their own side.

Many persons disliked all prescribed forms, and represented them as muzzling the mouths of the saints, and stopping the course of the Spirit of God. "True prayer," they said, "is first in the heart, then in the mouth, but this sort of prayer is in the mouth before it can come into the heart at all: it is an abortive birth which never had a right conception."3 Yet the chief oracles both of Parliament and the Assembly, though advocates for extempore devotion, were not disposed to leave ministers altogether to their own impulses in conducting public devotion. They adopted a middle course, and whilst abandoning particular forms of prayer they provided a General Directory of worship.

Parliament issued an order for that purpose to the

1 Journals of the Lords, January by Dwalphintramis. Southey's Com4th, 1645.

* An Anatomy of the Service Book,

mon-place Book, iii. 40.

3 See Christ on the Throne. 1640.

Assembly, sometime in October, 1643, but the business stood in abeyance until the following May, when the subject came up for discussion in the Jerusalem Chamber. Minor questions arose, such as whether laymen might assist clergymen by reading the Scriptures a question determined in favour of probationers; and whether the Lord's Supper might be received by communicants sitting in pews-a question negatived by a resolution of adherence to Presbyterian usage. But the grand debate of the Assembly at that time related to the suspension of improper communicants. This matter involved principles of Church discipline, which could not be settled without much controversy, and which long perplexed statesmen and divines.

The preface to the Directory, which is a very important part of the book, adverts to the liturgy used in the Church of England, as an offence both to many of the godly at home, and to many of the reformed abroad. The imposition of it had heightened past grievances, and its unprofitable ceremonies had been a burden to the consciences of not a few. By it people had been kept from the Lord's table, and ministers had been driven into poverty and exile. While esteemed by Prelates as if it set forth the only way in which God could be worshipped, Papists had counted its use a concession to themselves, and a compliance with their Church. Moreover, a liturgy, it is said, encouraged an idle ministry. Therefore, it was now to be set aside, not from affectation of novelty, or to the disparagement of the first reformers, but as a further reformation of the Church of Christ, the easing of tender consciences, and the promotion of uniformity in the worship of God. The Directory contains no forms of prayer, but only suggestions as to topics of public supplication.

The Directory, upon being dispatched to Scotland,1 obtained there the sanction of the General Assembly; and on its return, after the book had been endorsed by the English Commons, it was presented to the House of Lords, who gave it their sanction. Presbyterian statesmen are sometimes charged with a rash abolition of old ecclesiastical laws, without the previous or immediate institution of others to occupy their room. It is alleged that these men short-sightedly pulled down the ancient buildings and left them in ruins, and that they were for some time not prepared to raise a new structure on the ancient site. This is an incorrect representation. Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity, it is very true, fell into desuetude from the opening of the Long Parliament; also many Puritans in the Establishment laid aside the Liturgy, and even reviled it. Notwithstanding, no specific law appears against it, until the Directory had been sanctioned by Parliament. The same ordinance which forbids the Liturgy enforces the Directory. In the first place that authority rehearses and repeals the statutes of uniformity, and at the same time declares that the Book of Common Prayer should not remain in any place of worship within the kingdom of England or the dominion of Wales. The same ordinance then goes on to declare that the Directory should be observed in all public religious exercises throughout the realm, and that fair register books of vellum for births, marriages, and burials should be kept by the minister and other officers

A letter by George Gillespie, on the Directory, being forwarded to Scotland, shews the difficulty there was in getting it passed.-Baillie, ii., pp. 505. He says, May 9th, 1645: "I pray you be careful that the Act of the General Assembly, approving the Directory, be not so

altered as to make it a straiter imposition." "Sure Iam, the Directory had never past the Assembly of Divines, if it had not been for the qualifications in the preface. This is only for yourself, except ye hear any controversy about it in your meeting."

of the Church. It is remarkable that no penalty whatever is mentioned for a breach of this ordinance. So far as the terms of it are concerned, it looks as if it might be broken with impunity; and it was so broken. In country parishes where Royalism was predominant, and such parishes were very numerous, parsons and churchwardens set at nought the enactment of the two Houses, and would not acknowledge as law that which had not received the Royal sanction. The Prayer Book was dear to them from associations with the past in their own lives and those of their fathers; and they were resolved still to read its litany and collects. Finding that simple advice and exhortation produced no effect in many quarters, Parliament adopted more stringent measures. It would appear that, as early as the month. of May, 1645, penalties for contempt of the new enactment were under consideration,' but an explicit threatening for disobedience was not uttered until the month of August. Then came an ordinance2 which-after providing for the supply of printed books of the Directory, and commanding that it should be read the Sunday after it was received-proceeded to declare that any person using the Book of Common Prayer in church or chapel should, for the first offence, pay the sum of five pounds, for the second offence the sum of ten pounds, and for the third offence suffer one year's imprisonment. Every minister was to pay forty shillings each time he offended. Those who preached or wrote against the Directory fell under additional liabilities to pay not less than five, and not more than fifty pounds. Thus a new Act of Uniformity succeeded the old one. The High Commission Court had been abolished, but its spirit had migrated into

1 Baillie's Letters, ii. 271.

2 Scobell, 97.