: enumerated in the preceding extracts. We, without attempting to defend all his practices, unhesitatingly reply there is no foundation whatever and in this instance, as in many others, the author, instead of being an impartial historian, is a mean slanderer of an individual whose views were as enlightened as those of his countrymen at the same period. In this very volume the author confutes his own statements; for, alluding to one charge, and that the most grievous, the charge of Popery, he most inconsistently admits that it was but partially true. His own words are: "Yet an impartial investigation of the case proves that the charge was but partially true." p. 48. Still, after this admission-an admission most reluctantly wrung from an unwilling witness the author proceeds to repeat the charge, which he himself had asserted to be unproved! After such a specimen of dishonesty and gross inconsistency, the impartial reader will scarcely expect to meet with any fair and honest account of men or things, where Dr. Price's peculiar views are concerned. Laud This charge of Popery admits of a ready refutation. The canons of 1640, those canons which were alleged against him at his trial, disprove it. The third canon is thus entitled: "For suppressing the growth of Popery." In this canon certain means are enjoined with a view to suppress Popery throughout the country. Similar means are never resorted to by Dissenters, and yet Laud is condemned as a Papist! It is well known that the illustrious Chillingworth was brought back from Popery to Protestantism through the instrumentality of the Archbishop. might have escaped to the continent and thus have evaded his enemies; what, however, was his determination? He resolved not to fly, but to remain and abide by the consequences. His words are remarkable, and ought to make an impression even on Dr. Price. After stating, in a letter, that he would not quit England, he adds: "And whither should I fly? Should I go into France or any other Popish country, it would be to give some seeming ground to that charge of Popery they have endeavoured with so much industry and so little reason to fasten upon me. No, I am resolved not to think of flight: but, continuing where I am, patiently to expect and bear what a good and a wise Providence hath provided for me, of what kind soever it shall be."* Is this the language of a man inclined to Popery? Yet the charge is repeated century after century by partial and party historians. We are informed by Evelyn, who was at Rome when the intelligence of his execution was brought to that city, that the English Fathers read the speech which he had delivered on the * Twell's Life of Pocock. p. 85. scaffold, "and commented upon it with no small satisfaction and content; and looked upon him as one that was a great enemy to them, and stood in their way: while one of the blackest crimes imputed to him was his being popishly affected." In replying to that part of the charge which attributed to him an intention of introducing Popery, he thus remarks at his trial: "If I had a purpose to blast the true religion established in the Church of England, and to introduce Popery, sure I took a wrong way to it. For, my Lords, I have staid more from going to Rome, and reduced more that were already gone, than I believe any bishop or divine in this kingdom hath done: and some of them men of great abilities, and some persons of great place. And is this the way to introduce Popery? My Lords, if I have blemished the true Protestant religion, how could I have brought these men to it? And if I had promised to introduce Popery, I would never have reduced these men from it." Still the charge of Popery is repeated. With far greater propriety might the same charge be advanced against Dr. Price and his brethren, who hesitate not, on many occasions, to do what Laud never did, namely, unite with Papists against their Protestant brethren. The truth is that the charge of Popery was alleged by the Puritans against all those who were zealous in complying with the ceremonies of the Church. It is readily admitted that some questionable rites were revived, that others were made of more importance than they deserved, and that Laud was over-zealous in imposing them upon the clergy. But it must be remembered that the Puritans, on the other hand, were disposed to reject all those ceremonies which were enjoined by the Rubric, and to the observance of which they had solemnly pledged themselves. If Laud went to one extreme, the Puritans went to the opposite; and as the latter were aiming at the establishment of Presbytery and the ruin of the English Church, it was perfectly natural that Laud, and those who acted with him, should feel it to be their duty to stand up in defence of the system, which not only rested, as they contended, on the practice of the apostolic age, but was established by the law of the land. These considerations must be permitted to have their due weight with all those who wish to form an impartial estimate of the history of those eventful days. But admitting Laud's zeal for the ceremonies, can the charge of Popery be fairly alleged against him? Some excuse may be offered for the Puritans in their hostility, since party spirit was high at the period, and opprobrious epithets were common on both sides; but for Dr. Price's conduct, sitting in the repose of his study, to bring a charge, which he knows and even admits to be false, no palliation can be offered. Such conduct merits the severest reprobation, and the man who is guilty of it must be deemed unworthy of credit as a historian. Wilson, who always leans towards the Puritans, clears Laud from the imputation of Popery: "He never could bring his neck under the Roman yoke, though he might stick for the grandeur of the clergy.' MAY, the parliamentary historian, admits: "The archbishop was much against the court of Rome, though not against that church in so high a kind.”† His work against Fisher, the jesuit, was printed several times. This production alone ought to satisfy reasonable minds that the charge was unfounded. Even Andrew Marvel asserts: "If for nothing else, yet for his learned work against Fisher, he deserved far another fate than he met with, and ought not now to be mentioned without due honour." And in opposition to Dr. Price, who cannot even lament his cruel death, Mr. Hallam remarks of his murderers: "The most unjustifiable act of these zealots was the death of Laud."§ Burnet's testimony must, we imagine, though he was a bishop, be deemed, at all events, impartial even by Dr. Price: "He was learned, sincere, and zealous, regular in his own life, and humble in his private deportment, but hot and indiscreet, eagerly pursuing some things inconsiderable or mischievous." || As to the charge of cruelty, we need only refer our readers to the history of the period, to show that he was neither more cruel nor less tolerant than his opponents; and this truth is admitted by Dr. Price himself in the volume before us. We presume that the censure of Laud's Diary is grounded on those passages in which he records his feelings relative to dreams and certain impressions, or what were usually termed omens. In that age, however, all men were under the influence of the same feelings. The belief in witchcraft, for instance, was general; and whatever may have been the views of Laud, they were not peculiar to him, but common to the times. Let Dr. Price read some of the works of "Richard Baxter," and especially "Cotton Mather's History of New England!" He will find passages in both these authors, with which that portion of the Diary to which he alludes will bear no comparison. The fact is, that the belief in dreams, omens, witchcraft, and Satanic influence, at that time, was almost general. Why, then, should Laud be charged with * Wilson's Annals of James I. Rehearsal Transposed. p. 281. superstition, in a matter in which he acted in conformity with the universally received opinions of the age. Dr. Price himself must have known that the charge of suppressing the works of Fox and Jewel was unfounded. He must have known that it was not insisted on by the managers at his trial, who would not have relinquished it, unless it had been false. It was denied by the Archbishop: yet, for the purpose of blackening his memory, it is again brought forward by Dr. Price. Laud challenged his enemies to the proof: but no proof could be adduced. It is, indeed, difficult to ascertain how this charge originated: but of one thing we may be certain, namely, that it was utterly false, or his great enemy, William Prynne, would not have permitted it to be withdrawn at the trial. We beg the attention of our readers to the following passage, reminding them that it proceeds from the pen of one who has assumed the sacred office of a minister of the Gospel : "Darkness may cover the earth, and gross darkness the people, while the forms of an establishment are multiplied, and its worship rendered more gorgeous; but the light of truth must ultimately penetrate, when the false reputation of state priests will fade like a passing cloud, and their virtues be despised as the growth of superstition, and the agents of spiritual delusion and death." p. 61. The man who could dictate and commit to the press this passage, would, had he lived in the time of the Puritans, have disgraced himself by using those gross and uncharitable expressions which abound in the foul libels of that unhappy period. Nothing of the spirit of Christ, the spirit by which a Christian minister ought certainly to be actuated, can be traced in the preceding quotation. Similar passages are to be found in various portions of the work. To say nothing of the arrogance which the extract displays, its utter uncharitableness is sufficient to destroy the author's reputation as a historian. Who could depend on the statements of a man who can write in such a spirit? It will not, therefore, excite the surprise of our readers to find this gentleman setting forth his own inferences as historical truths. Speaking of the Book of Sports, in the time of Charles I., he remarks, "On the whole, it may safely be inferred, that some hundreds were excluded from the service of the Church, and subjected to various indignities and sufferings for their fidelity on this account." p. 85. The publication of the Book of Sports we should censure as strongly as Dr. Price. It was one of the worst acts of Charles's reign; and one is surprised at the rashness that could recommend and carry such an obnoxious measure into effect. Still the truth must be regarded by the historian. We ask, then, whether a writer who is anxious to state only the truth would, in the absence of evidence on the subject, put forth inferences of his own, and palm them on the public as historical facts! Is it the way to write history to say that such and such things may be inferred? Now it is a fact, and this gentleman knows it, that very few were deprived of their livings on this account: many were undoubtedly censured by some of the bishops, but the suspensions even do not appear to have been numerous, and the deprivations must consequently have been still fewer. It is stated by Fuller that three only were silenced in Laud's own diocese, and that in them "there was a concurrence of other nonconformities." Dr. Price may censure the Book of Sports itself as strongly as he pleases, and no one would attempt to justify it: but he must not be permitted to publish his own fancies for undoubted verities. Let him state factsand not infer that hundreds were deprived, when it is evident that the number even of suspensions was not large. He also forgets that some of the bishops were as anxious to oppose as others were to enforce the obnoxious book; and, consequently, in some dioceses none of the clergy were even silenced, being supported in their refusal to comply by the countenance of their diocesans. Dr. Price gives it as his opinion that in consequence of Laud's proceedings there was a danger of the increase of Popery, p. 102. The danger was, however, far greater in the time of James II.: and yet at the latter period the Dissenters acted, as we have already remarked, a most questionable part, fraternizing with the Papists themselves for the purpose of opposing the Church of England. How will our author speak of the conduct of the Dissenters of that day, when he proceeds to write his modern history of Nonconformity. The conduct of the present race of Dissenters is so strikingly similar to that of their brethren in the reign of the SECOND JAMES, that we cannot refrain from pointing out some circumstances illustrative of the actions of the party at both periods. We have already alluded to the treacherous Declaration of Indulgence issued by James II., under cover of which he intended to introduce Popery. Had there been no opposition, his efforts must have been crowned with success. That opposition proceeded from the clergy of the Established Church. Had the clergy acted the same part with the Dissenters, the Revolution would never have taken place. Let Dr. Price disprove our assertion if he is able. The measures of the court were approved by many of the Dissenters: some of them even counselled the court on the occasion. Their conduct extorted the |