VIII. 1630. In parliament, the Commons were, as usual, much more inclined to discuss theolo→ gical points, and to present accusations against the existing state of religion, than to fulfil the purpose of their being called together, by making grants of money to the Crown. Such being their temper, the King speedily dissolved them, and imprisoned several of their leading members: resolving, that, since his parliament only clogged the wheels of government, when convened for the purpose of supplying them with oil, he would conduct the machine, so long as should be practicable, independently of such pretended assistance.

IX. As the venerable ceremonies, approved of by the early reformers, were now treated with general disrespect, Laud determined, not only to retain them, but to draw a stronger line between the church and the complainants, by introducing every where scriptural paintings, as altar-pieces, and increasing the solemnity of public worship. Hence discontent obtained a new ground of que rulousness; and the suspicious deemed themselves amply justified in their belief, that Popery was about to be reintroduced. That this surmise was unjust, with reference to Laud, appears from his having replied to the offer of a cardinal's hat, at this time made to him by the Pope, that "something dwelt within him which would not suffer his compliance, till Rome should be different

from what it then was." Nevertheless, because he demanded a respect for the sacerdotal charac ter, exacted obedience to the dictates of early councils, and considered ceremonies as useful in promoting devotion, the most sarcastic reflections were cast upon him by his enemies. A daughter of the Earl of Devonshire having embraced the Catholic faith, and being interrogated by Laud as to the reason of her apostacy, replied, that she was unwilling to travel in a crowd; and since his lord+ ship and others were plainly journeying to Rome, she had, for the sake of convenience, only set out a little before them. Altar-pieces were termed paintings over the face of the old whore of Babylon; and Laud obtained the name of Master of Ceremonies. His scrupulous attention in these matters was ridiculous enough; as appears from the pompous re-opening of the church of St. Catherine Cree, in London, which Hume and Neale have minutely described. Some regard, however, to the internal decoration of churches was requi site, as the negligence of Abbot had suffered many to fall out of repair, and even to be grossly profaned.

X. Amongst other regulations respecting cere monies, Laud directed the removal of communiontables from the middle of each church to the eastern end of the chancel, where they were led to by a step or two of ascent, and stood surround

ed with a railing. When it is remembered that the Puritans were warm admirers of the Presbyterian forms, by which ceremonies were altogether exploded, and the blessed sacrament received in the familiar attitude in which people dine and sup, candour will, perhaps, indulge the zealous fears of the prelate, lest the most important and solemn of all ordinances should be profaned; and lest, by making any concessions to the religious malcontents, he should occasion the downfal of the whole ecclesiastical establishment.

Trivial, however, as this substitution may appear, it excited the most violent ferment throughout the country: and a few years afterwards, when it was more generally insisted on, books were written in condemnation and defence of it, with all the animosity which would distinguish a controversy on the most important doctrine of religion. The table, as it now stood, was termed an altar and as the minister who officiated retained the name of priest, the ordinance was conceived to imply the sacrifice of the mass. Laud, however, replied to these calumnies, that his intention was to effect the more reverend conducting of the service, by some distinction between a common table, and that of the Lord. The ascent on which the priest stood gave honour to whom honour is due; and placed the people in a more convenient posture for hearing his words and receiving the

elements. The removal of the table would accommodate the congregation with ampler space in the body of the church; and to surround it with a railing, was to fence it from common business and profanation. It was further meet for the uniformity of discipline, that the parish-churches should imitate the custom, which had ever prevailed in all the old cathedrals *.

Another custom introduced at the same time by Laud, was that of bowing to the altar on entering and leaving the church. This, too, was conceived to refer to the real presence; but Bishop Morton observed, that, as we are accustomed to bow even when the eucharist is not present, it is to the Lord of the table, and not the table of the Lord, that we pay our decent reverence. The altar of Canterbury was furnished and consecrated

* Bishop Williams, in his book, entitled, The Holy Table, Name and Thing, stood forth as the chief opponent of this measure. He was answered in a learned treatise by Dr. Heylin. Lord Clarendon allows that "Laud prosecuted this affair more passionately than was fit for the season; and had prejudice against those, who out of fear or foresight, or not understanding the thing, had not the same warmth to promote it: so that, from that unimportant subject, proceeded a schism among the bishops themselves, and a great deal of uncharitableness in the learned and moderate clergy, to one another." On the other hand, however, the treatment of the Puritans on this occasion, led them into highly intemperate conduct towards the establishment. See Hacket's Life of Williams.

after a model given by Bishop Andrews, in a manner unquestionably too Romish *.

These changes occasioned much animosity. Some considered gestures as the suburbs of superstition; others thought that "the moiety of man, yea, all of him that is visible, should not be exempted from God's service, unless a writ of ease could be produced from Scripture." Both parties, in a word, sacrificed their mutual charity on the altar in disputing where it should stand.

Some time afterwards a few alterations were made in the Liturgy, which, trifling as they were, fomented the discontents, and increased the clamours of the Puritans. The passage, "In the name of Jesus every knee should bow," had been now translated, "Ar the name of Jesus”—a change complained of as part of the Popish system. Laud maintained, in his general answer to the objectors, that AT the name of Jesus was no innovation, since it was found in the liturgy of Geneva, printed in 1567. He added, that bowing to the altar

* Davenant, Bishop of Salisbury, was at this time brought into trouble for preaching the doctrine of predestination; not that his opinions were deemed objectionable, but that the King had forbidden such questions to be touched at all. Davenant had declared for universal redemption at Dort; and the cogni zance taken of his sermon, shows the impartiality as well as the prudence of the King and Laud, in wishing neither Calvinists nor Arminians to discuss so delicate a question before the people.