CHAP. XXVI.

The chief divisions in the assembly took place concerning the administration of the sacraments. Private and lay baptism, with the use of sponsors, were rejected. Immersion was forbidden, and sprinkling declared to be sufficient; and a clause to that effect was inserted in the Directory, by the suggestion of Lightfoot. The communion of the Lord's supper was enjoined to be celebrated frequently, but how often was not specified. The time recommended for its administration was immediately after the morning sermon. The altar with rails was to be converted into a table, placed in the middle of the church; about or around which the people were to sit or stand, when they communicated. It was intended by the presbyterians, that the minister should have a power of repelling any unworthy communicant; but Lightfoot and Selden pleaded for an open communion. Their opinion was adopted; and it was resolved, that the minister, without refusing to any participation of the sacred rite, should warn the profane and impenitent not to approach the Lord's table.

Marriage, though not a sacrament, was esteemed a religious ordinance, and was to be celebrated by a lawful minister of the word. The use of the ring in the ceremony was laid aside. Instructions were given in the Directory for the visitation of the sick, but for the burial of the dead no service was appointed. The corpse was to be decently attended to the place of sepulture, and to be interred without further ceremony.

The ancient fasts and festivals of the church were abrogated; for, according to the Directory, "there is no day commanded by Scripture to be

A. D.

1644.

kept holy, but only the Lord's day, which is the Christian sabbath." But the ecclesiastical authorities had a power of appointing both fasts and fes- Charles I. tivals, the strict observance of which was required.

In the scale of religious duties, acts of mortification held a higher rank than acts of charity; and fasting was the fashion of the age. At the commencement of the war, a monthly fast was instituted, to which every festival yielded. The pietists of these times appeared to have forgotten, that a fast might be perverted to promote "strife and debate," as a feast might be abused to the purposes of sensuality and licentiousness.

In the year when the Directory was established, the festival of Christmas happened to fall on the day of the monthly fast; and as both could not be observed, the two houses thought that the fast should take place of the festival. Some of the most eminent divines among the presbyterians and independents thought that the festival should be entirely abolished; and the preacher before the house of lords thus triumphantly anticipated the event: "This day is commonly called Christmasday; a day that has been heretofore much abused to superstition and profaneness. It is not easy to say, whether the superstition or the profaneness has been greater. So great have they been, that there is no other way to reform it, than by dealing with it as Hezekiah did with the brazen serpent. This year, God by his providence has buried the feast in a fast, and I hope it will never rise again *."

* Calamy's Sermon before the House of Lords. VOL. II.

EE

CHAP. XXVII.

CHAPTER XXVII.

Trial and Execution of Laud.-Treaty of Uxbridge.-Army new modelled, and abandoned by the Presbyterian Chaplains.-Ruin of the King's Cause, and Termination of the first Civil War.-King surrenders his Person to the Scottish Army. The Army removes to Newcastle.-Controversy between the King and Alexander Henderson on Episcopacy. -Death of Henderson.

On the day after the Directory was established by an ordinance of the two houses, Laud received sentence of death. More than three years had elapsed since his commitment to the Tower, before he was brought to a trial; and he might have been forgotten, and permitted to die in peace, if the coalition of the English and Scots had not revived his remembrance. The life of Laud was the price which the English freely gave to propitiate the Scots.

It has been alleged that Laud, conscious of guilt, never petitioned for a trial; but it is less surprising that he should not have petitioned for a trial, than that he should have acknowledged the authority of the court which sat in judgment on him. But in all probability he was prompted by many motives to consent that his cause should be brought to a public, if not a fair hearing. He was confident in his legal innocence; he was confident in his own skill in disputation, which might be converted to advantage in a forensic defence.

When he was first committed, he continued to exercise his archiepiscopal functions until he was prohibited by an order from the house of lords; and he incurred the resentment of that house, by refusing to institute their nominee in preference to that of the king. The incensed peers sent a message to the commons to hasten his trial, and a measure, which was perhaps adopted only to intimidate the archbishop, was gladly converted by his enemies to his destruction. A committee was immediately appointed, and Prynne, the ancient enemy of Laud, was its solicitor. To him belonged the task of collecting and arranging the evidence, and he forcibly carried away the private papers, the diary, and even the written defence, of the prisoner. The diary of Laud, garbled and mutilated by Prynne, was published by an order of the house of commons. Although the publication of this document produced the effect intended by the enemies of Laud, yet it will be regarded differently by the impartial judgment of posterity. The worst of the crimes of which he was accused falls infinitely short of the malice and baseness which could thus expose his secret frailties.

A. D.

1644. Charles I.

1643. May 31.

At the expiration of six months, the committee Oct. 23. had added ten articles to those fourteen which had been originally presented; but another four months passed away before both parties were ready for trial.

The house of lords was now reduced to about twenty members, of whom scarcely more than twelve attended; and lord Grey, of Werk, who acted as speaker of the house, presided. The managers, on the part of the commons, were serjeant Wild, Maynard, Brown, Nicholas, and

1644. March 4.

XXVII.

CHAP. Hill; each of whom has been portrayed by Laud in harsh but not distorted features. Of Maynard he has candidly said, “This gentleman pleaded strongly, yet fairly against me." The prisoner was allowed counsel to speak to points of law; but on points of fact he conducted his defence without legal aid. The spirit and ability with which he repelled the accusations urged against him are proved by the testimony of Prynne

March 12.

*

On the first day of the trial, serjeant Wild opened the proceedings, in which he stated the articles of impeachment, and aggravated the crimes of the prisoner. "This man," said Wild, at the conclusion of his long speech, "is like Naaman, the Syrian, a great man, but a leper."

The archbishop replied in a speech which had been previously prepared, and which he read from a paper. He said, that he considered it a heavy grievance to appear in the place where he then stood, and to plead for himself on such an occasion; because he was not only a Christian but a clergyman, and advanced to the highest dignity in the English church. He blessed God that he was neither ashamed to live, nor afraid to die; that he had been a strict observer of the laws of his country; and as to his religion, he had been a steady member of the church as it was established by law.

*« He made as full, as gallant, and as pithy a defence, and spoke as much for himself as it was possible for the wit of man to invent, and that with so much art, sophistry, vivacity, oratory, audacity, and confidence, without the least blush or acknowledgment of guilt in any thing, as argued him rather obstinate than innocent, impudent than penitent, and a far better orator and sophister than protestant and Christian."