were put to death by martial law, who ought to have been tried by the laws of the land; and others by the same martial law were exempted from the punishment, which by law they deserved. Large sums of money were raised by commissions under the great seal, to compound for depopulations, for nuisances in building between high and low water mark, for pretended encroachments on the forests, &c. beside the exorbitant fines of the star-chamber and high commission court; and the extraordinary projects of loans, benevolences, and free gifts. Such was the calamity of the times, that no man could call any thing his own longer than the king pleased; or might speak or write against these proceedings, without the utmost hazard of his liberty and estate.

The church was governed by the like arbitrary and illegal methods; Dr. LAUD, bishop of London, being prime minister, pursued his wild scheme of uniting the two churches of England and Rome, without the least regard to the rights of conscience, or the laws of the land, and very seldom to the canons of the church, bearing down all who opposed him with unrelenting severity and rigor. To make way for this union, the churches were not only to be repaired, but ornamented with pictures, paintings, images, altarpieces, &c. the forms of public worship were to be decorated with a number of pompous rites and ceremonies,

Dr. Grey is much displeased with Mr. Neal for this representation of Laud's views; but, without bringing any direct evidences to refute it, he appeals to the answer of Fisher, and the testimonies of Sir Edward Deering and Limborch to shew, that the archbishop was not a papist. This may be admitted and the proofs of it are also adduced by Dr. Harris, [Life of Charles I. p. 207,] yet it will not be so easy to acquit Laud of a partiality for the church, though not the court, of Rome, according to the distinction May makes in his parliamentary history. It will not be so easy to clear him of the charge of symbolizing with the church of Rome in its two leading features, superstition and intolerance. Under his primacy the church of England, it is plain, assumed a very popish appearance. "Not only the pomps of ceremonies was daily increased, and innovations of great scandal brought into church; but in point of doctrine, many fair approaches made towards Rome." Even Heylin says, "the doctrines are altered in many things; as, for example, the pope not antichrist, pictures, free-will, &c. the thirty-nine 'articles seeming patient, if not ambitious also, of some catholic sense.' May's Parliamentary History, p. 22-3; and Heylin's Life of Laud, p. 252. Ed.

in imitation of the church of Rome; and the puritans, who were the professed enemies of every thing that looked like popery, were to be suppressed or driven out of the land. To accomplish the latter, his lordship presented the king with certain considerations for settling the church, which were soon after published with some little varia. tion, under the title of Instructions to the two Archbishops, concerning certain orders to be observed, and put in execution by the several Bishops.

Here his majesty commands them to see that his declaration for silencing the predestinarian controversy be strictly observed; and that special care be taken of the lectures and afternoon sermons, in their several dioceses, concerning which he is pleased to give the following instructions:* 1. That in all parishes the afternoon sermons be turn'ed into catechising by question and answer, where there is not some great cause to break this ancient and profitable order.

2. "That every lecturer read divine service before lecture in surplice and hood.

3. "That where there are lectures in market-towns, "they be read by grave and orthodox divines; and that "they preach in gowns, and not in cloaks, as too many do 6 use.

4. "That no lecturer be admitted, that is not ready and 'willing to take upon him a living with cure of souls. 5 "That the bishops take order, that the sermons of the 'lecturers be observed.

6. "That none under noblemen, and meu qualified by 'law keep a private chaplain.

7. "That care be taken, that the prayers and catechis'ings be frequented, as well as sermons." Of all which

his majesty requires an account once a year.

By virtue of these instructions, the bishop of London summoned before him all ministers and lecturers in and about the city, and in a solemn speech insisted on their obedience. He also sent letters to his archdeacons, requir

A liberal mind will reprobate these instruetions, as evading argument, preventing discussion and enquiry, breathing the spirit of intol erance and persecution, and indicating timidity. Ed.

VOL. II.

29

1

ing them to send him lists of the several lecturers within their archdeaconries, as well in places exempt as not exempt, with the places where they preached, and their quality or degree; as also the names of such gentlemen, who being not qualified, kept chaplains in their own houses. His lordship required them further, to leave a copy of the king's instructions concerning lecturers with the parson of every parish, and to see that they were duly observed.

These Lecturers were chiefly puritans, who not being satisfied with a full conformity, so as to take upon them a cure of souls, only preached in the afternoons, being chosen and maintained by the people. They were strict Calvinists, warm and affectionate preachers, and distinguished themselves by a religious observance of the Lord's-day, by a bold opposition to popery and the new ceremonies, and by an uncommon severity of life. Their manner of preaching gave the bishop a distaste to sermons, who was already of opinion that they did more harm than good, insomuch that on a fast day for the plague then in London, prayers were ordered to be read in all churches, but not a sermon to be preached, lest the people should wander from their own parishes. The lecturers had very popular talents, and drew great numbers of people after them. Bishop Laud would often say, "They were the most dangerous enemies of the state, because by their prayers and 'sermons they awakened the people's disaffection, and therefore must be suppressed."

Good old archbishop Abbot was of another spirit, but the reins were taken out of his hands. He had a good opinion of the lecturers, as men who had the protestant religion at heart, and would fortify their bearers against the return of popery.* When Mr. Palmer, lecturer of St. Alphage in Canterbury, was commanded to desist from preaching by the archdeacon, because he drew great numbers of factious people after him, and did not wear the surplice, the archbishop authorized him to continue: The like he did by Mr. Udnay, of Ashford, for which he was complained of, as not enforcing the king's instructions, whereby the commissioners (as they say) were made a scorn to the factious, and the archdeacon's jurisdiction inhibited. But

* Prynue's Introd. p. 94, 361, 373.

in the diocese of London, bishop Laud proceeded with the utmost severity. Many lecturers were put down, and such as preached against arminianism or the new ceremonies, were suspended and silenced; among them were the Rev. Mr. John Rogers of Dedham, Mr. Daniel Rogers of Wethersfield, Mr. Hooker of Chelmsford, Mr. White of Knightsbridge, Mr. Archer, Mr. William Martin, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Jones, Mr. Dod, Mr. Hildersham, Mr. Ward, Mr. Saunders, Mr. James Gardiner, Mr. Foxely, and many others.

The Rev. Mr. Bernard, lecturer of St. Sepulchre's, London, having used this expression in his prayer before sermon, Lord open the eyes of the queen's majesty, that she may see Jesus Christ, whom she has pierced with her infidelity, superstition, and idolatry,* was summoned before the high commission January 28th, and upon his humble submission was dismissed; but some time after, in his sermon at St. Mary's in Cambridge, speaking offensive words against arminianism and the new ceremonies, bishop Laud sent for a copy of his sermon, and having cited him before the high commission, required him to make an open recantation of what he had said, which his conscience not suffering him to do, he was suspended from his ministry, excommunicated, fined one thousand pounds, condemned in costs of suit, and committed to New Prison, where he lay sundry months, being cruelly used, and almost starved for want of necessaries, of which he complained to the bishop in sundry letters, but could get no relief unless he would recant. Mr. Bernard offered to confess his sorrow and penitence for any oversights, or unbecoming expressions in his sermons, which would not be accepted; so that in conclusion he was utterly ruined.

Mr. Charles Chauncey, minister of Ware, having said in a sermon,that the preaching of the gospel would be suppressed, and that there was much atheism, popery, arminianism, and heresy crept into the church, was questioned for it in the high commission, and not dismissed till he had made an open recantation, which we shall meet with hereafter.

Mr. Peter Smart, one of the prebendaries of Durham, and minister of that city, was imprisoned by the high com

Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 32, 140. Prynne, p. 365, 367.

mission of York this summer, for a sermon preached from these words, I hate all those that love superstitious vanities, but thy law do I love; in which he took occasion to speak against images and pictures, and the late pompous innovations. He was confined four months before the commissioners exhibited any articles against him, and five more before any proctor was allowed him. From York he was carried up to Lambeth, and from thence back again to York, and at length was deprived of his prebend, degraded excommunicated, fined five hundred pounds, and committed close prisoner, where he continued eleven years, till he was set at liberty by the long parliament in 1640. He was a person of a grave and reverend aspect, but died soon af ter his release: the severity of a long imprisonment having contributed to the impairing his constitution.†

The king's instruction's and the violent measures of the prime minister, brought a great deal of business into the spiritual courts; one or other of the puritan ministers was

*Fuller's Church History, b. ii. p. 173.

"Here the historian," remarks bishop Warburton, "was much at a loss for his confessor's good qualities, while he is forced to take up with his grave and reverend aspect." It might have screened this passage from his lordship's sneer and sarcasm, that these are the words of Fuller, whose history furnished the whole paragraph, and whose description of Mr. Smart goes into no other particulars. His lordship certainly did not wish Mr. Neal to have drawn a character from his own invention. Not to urge that the countenance is the index of the mind. It appears, as Dr. Grey observes, that the proceedings against Smart commenced in the high commission court in Durham. See Wood's Athenæ Oxon, vol. ii. p. 11. The doctor, and Nelson in his Collections, vol. i. p. 518-19, produce some paragraphs from Smart's sermon to shew the strain and spirit of it. There was printed a virulent tract at Durham, 1736, entitled, “An illustration of Mr. Neal's history of the puritans, in the article of Peter Smart, A. M.” It is a detail of the proceedings against Smart, and of subsequent proceedings in parliament against Dr. Cosins upon the complaint of Smart; whom the author aims to represent in a very unfavorable point of view; but without necessity, as the very prosecution of him shews, that he must have been very offensive to those who were admirers of the superstitions and ceremonies against which he inveighed. He was afterwards not only set at liberty, but by the order of the lords, in 1642, was restored to his prebend in Durham, and was presented to the vicarage of Aycliff in in the same diocese. Nelson's Collections, vol. ii. p. 406. The puritans by whom he was esteemed a protomartyr, it is said, raised 4001. a year for him by a subscription. Granger's History of England, vol. ii. p. 177. Ed.