mined, therefore, to give it a death-blow. This was attempted in the following manner. Conjointly with Harsnet, Archbishop of York, he induced the king to issue certain "Instructions to the most Reverend Father in God, George, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, containing certain orders to be observed and put in execution by the several bishops in his province."* These instructions were, in part, to the fol

lowing effect :

1. That in all parishes the afternoon sermons be turned into catechizing 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 his surplice and hood.

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

4. That no lecturer, though appointed by a corporation, be permitted to preach, 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 men qualified by law, keep a private chaplain.

7. That care be taken, that the prayers and catechizings be frequented, as well as sermons.

These instructions were necessarily forwarded to the bishops, and an annual return was required. Archbishop Abbot was reluctant to enforce the man

* In the same mandate the bishops were cautioned against 66 wasting the woods" on their episcopal domains, with the significant addition, "where any are left!"

date, and even ventured to restore some who had been suspended by its operation; and the bishops generally were tardy in their compliance, on account of the disaffection it was likely to produce, and the other matters mixed up with it bearing hard as they thought upon themselves. But Laud and the court bishops acted upon it immediately, and with all strictness. Many lecturers were suspended, and not a few of the more regular ministers were deprived. The puritan and independent party remonstrated in vain. The reign of persecution had again set in. Resolved to do "his duty," Laud was unrelenting, and in the prosecution of his "holy purposes" overlooked every humane consideration.‡

In connexion with the system of lecturing, another and supplementary plan, for providing evangelical and zealous lecturers, had for some years been followed by the leaders of the puritan party. So far back as the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, the puritans had complained that the tithes which should have gone to the maintenance of a godly clergy, were in many instances paid to laymen for no service whatever, under the name of "lay impropriations ;" and they had petitioned that a "seventh part" of these

* Heylin's Life of Laud, p. 201.

† Neal mentions the name of some of the principal (i. 541).

Heylin, p. 202. Hume's Hist. of England, An. 1630. The two phrases quoted in the text are from the above-mentioned authors respectively. The continuator of Mackintosh's Hist. of England, besides being inaccurate, seems to have lost scent here. Hobbes, Hume, and Clarendon, appear to be his choice authorities for the puritan character. Alas, for the historian who has no principles-or the wrong ones. See Carlyle's Cromwell, vol. i.

tithes, at least, might be devoted to the support of ministers in districts that were destitute of spiritual instruction. The petition having been refused, in the course of time it occurred to some of the puritan leaders that, by the purchase of these lay impropriations, they might attain their object without any interference with the supposed rights of the laymen in whose hands they then were. Dr. Preston, a "famous man " in those days, Dr. Gouge, Dr. Sibbs, and Dr. Offspring, together with some wealthy merchants, chiefly in London, took the matter up with spirit, and funds of large and increasing extent were subscribed for the purpose. The consequence was, that many parts of the country were supplied with devoted and enterprizing ministers, whose labours were universally acceptable, and in many instances highly successful.* The scheme, however, was looked upon by the court clergy as irregular, and inimical to their despotic aims; and proceedings which pended for some years, were instituted against the trustees, at the instigation of Laud. Although the law finally declared against them, the plan was too popular to be entirely given up.+ Cromwell's letter to Mr. Storie is not only a proof of this, but expresses the sentiments of those who embarked in this laudable enterprise. "Building of hos

* The market-towns were chiefly selected for these Home Missionary labours. The parties to whose care the funds were entrusted were termed feoffees.

† Dr. Price says (Hist. of Nonconformity, ii. 60), "The design of the feoffees, however excellent and Christian-like, was uncanonical and alarming." We prefer Carlyle's view of the matter: "How would the public take it now, if,-we say not the gate of heaven, but the gate of the opposition hustings were suddenly shut against mankind,—if our opposition newspapers, and their morning prophesyings were suppressed!" Letters and Speeches, i. 70.

pitals," writes this remarkable man, in 1635, " provides for men's bodies; to build material temples is judged a work of piety; but they that procure spiritual food, they that build up spiritual temples, they are the men truly charitable, truly pious. Such a work as this was your erecting the Lecture in our country; in the which you placed Dr. Wells, a man of goodness and industry, and ability to do good every way; not short of any I know in England: and I am persuaded that, since his coming, the Lord hath by him wrought much good among us. It only remains now that He who first moved you to this, put you forward in the continuance thereof: it was the Lord; and therefore to him lift we up our hearts that he would perfect it. And surely, Mr. Storie, it were a piteous thing to see a Lecture fall, in the hands of so many able and godly men, as I am persuaded the founders of this are; in these times, wherein we see they are suppressed, with too much haste and violence, by the enemies of God's truth."*

It was becoming more and more evident every day, that the difference between the puritan and the court clergy was not one of mere form and ceremony, as some superficial historians have asserted, but involved matters of the highest moment. The spiritual heroes of that day staked their all upon the belief and maintenance of Christ's gospel, as it lay before them in the written Word. It was to them a revelation from heaven, which no earthly considerations might set aside or impair. Hence, however willing to concede to the utmost in things indifferent, they were immoveable in respect to every point which they considered settled by the Word of God; and the

* Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, i. 116, 117.

more popish the forms introduced by the court clergy, and the more severe the measures adopted by Laud against the nonconformists, the more firmly were they banded together in stern resistance. The battle was between life and death. Those who affect to lead the popular mind in the present day affirm, that the "complaint" of these men was "greatly, if not irrationally, disproportionate to the provocation," and sneer at the "sacrifices" endured in order to maintain the consistency and spirituality of a religion held so dear. They represent the controversy as a trifling one, namely, whether Divine service should be "read by a minister with or without a surplice," and whether a sermon should be "preached by one in a short cloak or a gown.' Such views, however, are happily on the wane, and as the spirit of puritanism revives in this country and elsewhere, will gradually die out. The kind of religion Laud and his party were endeavouring to establish and extend, may be seen in the following specimen, offered on occasion

* Mackintosh's England, continuation, vol. v. pp. 138, 139. In seeing Mackintosh's name attached to this history-continuation and all-who does not feel the injustice of the association! He would have better appreciated the puritan heroism. "For indisputably," writes Thomas Carlyle, "this too was a heroism ; and the soul of it remains part of the eternal soul of things! Here, of our own land and lineage, in practical English shape, were heroes on the earth once more. Who knew in every fibre, and with heroic daring laid to heart, that an Almighty Justice does verily rule this world; that it is good to fight on God's side, and bad to fight on the devil's side. Perhaps it was among the nobler and noblest human heroisms, this puritanism of ours: but English Dryasdust (that is, Mackintosh's Continuator, and others of like stamp) could not discern it for a heroism at all." Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, i. 14.