without precedent in the history of this country. It did not, indeed, extend to a toleration of the Catholic worship, nor to the open use of the Episcopal Liturgy. The doctrines of Socinus also were described as blasphemy, and their early advocates in this country, Fry and Biddle, were subject to prosecutions; the former being excluded from his place in Parliament, the latter imprisoned. Nor were the magistrates to forget, that on them it devolved to check and punish all sorts of immorality and profaneness. But, with these exceptions, no man was to be molested on account of his religion." (p. 489).

Glorious days, truly! A parallel may, however, be found in the present day, which must be highly satisfactory to Dr. Vaughan and his Dissenting brethren. The Socinians are at liberty to preach and to publish heresy, if not blasphemy; the Roman Catholics are emancipated; and the English Liturgy is not, indeed, proscribed, as was the case during the Commonwealth, but held up in Dissenting periodicals as a most awful book-a book which has been the ruin of immortal souls; and even the late Robert Hall, the greatest ornament of which Dissent could ever boast, is censured, in no measured terms, for the well-known eulogy pronounced many years ago on the Book of Common Prayer.

We may remind these gentlemen that the Liturgy was compiled by men who suffered in its defence-men who took it with them to the stake, making it the companion of the Bible in their solitary cells-men to whom Dissenters are indebted for their present privileges, and whose names they are not worthy to pronounce--men whose example would scarcely be imitated by those individuals who decry the Book of Common Prayer. After all their boasting, we do not believe that any of these gentlemen would, were they brought to the test, suffer for their principles what was endured by the martyrs in defence of the English Liturgy. But of course modern Dissenters are become much wiser than the Reformers, and the Reformation itself needs to be reformed!

In the year 1653, Cromwell assumed the supreme power, having put an end to the existence of what Dr. Vaughan designates the English Parliament. The usurper, however, was determined to convene what he chose to call a Parliament—an assembly well known in history by the designation of the Little Parliament, and Barebones' Parliament. Even this assembly is viewed with favour by our author; for he speaks with much seeming good will of their proceedings in commencing business without a chaplain. In this strange assembly some of the members themselves acted as chaplains; so so that any individual was at liberty, not only to speak in the house, but to lead the

devotions of his brethren in an extempore prayer.*

The army, too, was in the same condition; the chaplains were dismissed, and the task was undertaken by the officers.

Most of our readers are acquainted with "Morland's Account of the Churches in Piedmont," published by command of Cromwell. We allude to the question, not to censure Cromwell nor Dr. Vaughan, but simply in connection with a fact mentioned. in this volume relative to the collections in the churches in England for the relief of the sufferers. Cromwell issued an order for a collection in every parish, and a considerable sum was thereby obtained. In several parish registers, which we have seen, there are records or entries of the order, and of the amount collected in the church; and in one rural parish we were particularly struck with the sum, which is much the same as is now collected in the same church, whenever a sermon is preached for a public object; and we infer, from certain facts stated in the parish register, that the population there has been stationary-it is now nearly what it was in 1653.

Though the measures of Cromwell are generally applauded by our author, he meets with his censure for refusing to tolerate the worship of the Roman Catholics :

"It must be confessed, however, that the Protector knew not how to extend that liberty to Catholics which he so sternly demanded from them in favour of Protestants. He not only prohibited the exercise of their worship, but concurred in excluding them from all places of public trust, and in depriving them of their elective franchise. Even prelacy and the Liturgy were proscribed. The law, however, as it related to worship according to the Book of Common Prayer, was not strictly enforced." (p. 534).

Dr. Vaughan appears to imagine that the refusal to tolerate Popish worship was a greater blot on the Protector's character than the proscription of prelacy and the Liturgy. The author's political bias pervades every page of his writings. When, however, he states that the law respecting the Liturgy was not strictly enforced, he omits the reason which prevented its enforcement-an omission which we shall supply. That the Liturgy was, in some cases, permitted to be read, was entirely owing to Cromwell himself, and not to the sect of the Independents, of which the Protector was the reputed head. It cannot be pretended that this party, though they were ready to tole

* It was once wittily observed by an English prelate, that " extempore prayer was preaching to God Almighty." Into the question itself we do not enter; but we believe that many extempore prayers in dissenting chapels differ little from preaching; and as they are addressed to God, we may admit that there is some truth in the above remark,

rate all sects, were disposed to allow the use of the Liturgy. On the contrary, their hostility to the book was of the most bitter kind; nor did they spare Cromwell himself, for his lenity in not suppressing its use altogether. It would seem that the Independents of that day hated the Book of Common Prayer just as much as the Dissenters of the present day, and for the same reason, namely, because it was viewed with affection by the great bulk of the people. Their hostility was even greater than that of the Presbyterians. Cromwell had no objection to the Liturgy itself: he probably cared as little for forms as for religion; but he was under the necessity of acting, on some occasions, against his own feelings. To Cromwell, therefore, and not to the Independents, were the Churchmen of that day indebted for the privilege of using the English Liturgy in private houses, and occasionally in churches. In the estimation of the Independents themselves, as in the opinion of the Eclectic Reviewers, it was an awful book.

The appointment of a mixed body, under the singular designation of Triers, a body entrusted with all ecclesiastical appointments, is approved of by Dr. Vaughan, who states, what was probably the fact, that Cromwell wished to wrest the power of appointing ministers from the hands of the Presbyterians. Our author, however, quotes the following words from the first ordinance on the subject, that the person "be approved for the grace of God in him, his holy and unblameable conversation, as also, for his knowledge and utterance, able and fit to preach the Gospel" and adds, "The first instructions supplied scarcely any definite rule to guide these examiners, and afforded a dangerous latitude to passion and caprice." (p. 535). This is an important admission from such a quarter. Still he is inclined to view them with favour. In stating the results of their labours, he argues that much good was effected. He seems to lose sight of their treatment of Pococke, who, but for the interference of Owen, would have been rejected by this heterogeneous body. Their tyranny was of the very worst description. Ignorant themselves, they could not appreciate learning, and talent, and piety in others. There was in their proceedings a near approximation to the Popish maxim, that ignorance is the mother of devotion; for in many cases the candidates had nothing but their ignorance to recommend them. The Triers evidently imagined that God did not need human learning in his servants, forgetting that, as it was afterwards keenly said by South, still less did he stand in need of human ignorance. A А singular scene was then presented to the view: the pulpits were occupied by soldiers, tradesinen, and labourers. Most of Crom

well's troopers were also preachers, and not unfrequently the parish clergyman was thrust out on a Sunday morning to make way for one of these militant divines, who, perhaps, pursued the same course in another parish on the ensuing Sabbath. Curious cases of this kind are mentioned by Evelyn and others, whose journals have been published during the present century. These preachers, it may be remarked, were not agreed in their views of doctrine or practice. Every man framed his own creed, and promulgated it when he had an opportunity: and he was willing for his neighbour to enjoy the same liberty, provided he hated the Anglican Church; for hostility to the Church was the only bond of union, in those days, between the sects and parties into which the religious world was divided. And is it not the same now? Since the commencement of the present year a sly hit has been aimed at the Church, by a man who has usually been held up as a pattern of moderation, and on an occasion, too, when it might have been expected that no unkind allusions would have been indulged in. We allude to a sermon preached in Bath, by Mr. Jay, on occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of his ministry in that city. In reference to his early life, which appears to have been spent in a Dissenting academy or school, at Marlborough, he says, "I shall never forget with what eagerness and feeling these villagers received the words of life. The common people heard us gladly, and the poor had the Gospel preached unto them not by the poor man's Church,' but by those who then supplied their lack of service." (p. 24). Why such an allusion on such an occasion? It shows the animus of the man, and reveals the character of Dissent.

Dr. Vaughan's own account of this period is so curious, that we cannot refrain from extracting it:

"It was the greater toleration of religious notions and usages during the ascendancy of Cromwell which contributed to make that period so memorable in the history of religious opinion. All those varieties of theological speculation and sentiment, which had been so often condemned in ecclesiastical history under the name of heresy, then seemed to spring up anew, like the sproutings from seed which had lain dormant in a wintry soil. The republics of Greece and Rome embraced no principle of government which was not broached, discussed, and propagated among us in that age; and there was hardly a sublimity or a weakness in those conceptions of our holy religion which had sprung from the diversified character and condition of the species in preceding centuries that did not then seem to break forth as with the vigour and freshness of novelty. It is a spurious philosophy which stumbles at these things, and which shows itself capable of pardoning the weakness of humanity on any matter rather than upon religion, where, assuredly, it is most of all entitled to our indulgence." (p. 536).

This description may very well suit for the state of religion at the present time. It was formerly said of Amsterdam, in allusion to the number of sects in that city, that if a man had lost his religion, he might find it there; and assuredly the same saying was applicable to England during the Commonwealth : nor can it be denied that it applies to the state of our country at the present moment. New sects spring up every year almost in rapid succession; in a few years they are forgotten, or become the subject of history: while others, still more extraordinary than their predecessors, come up in their room. That such a state of things can be viewed as satisfactory, or be regarded as a healthy state, by reflecting persons, is impossible. The great Apostle of the Gentiles cautioned those to whom he wrote against divisions: but in our day divisions are applauded and fostered, while all Dissenters concur in opinion that the sin of schism cannot be committed; thus, in effect, setting aside the authority of many passages of Holy Writ altogether.

But Dr. Vaughan has made certain discoveries which have escaped the researches of all his predecessors. Thus he says

"Nevertheless, the people had grown prodigiously within the last twenty years (this was during the Protectorate of Richard Cromwell) in political knowledge; and having exercised the vigour of their intellect on all the great questions of social right during that period, they might have been regarded by any sober mind, even at that juncture, as prepared to assert their claim to a system of rational liberty, with moderation and effect, at no very distant day. It is to Pym and Hampden, and their coadjutors, much more than to the men who became conspicuous forty years later, that we owe the revolution of 1688." (p. 562).

This is a singular passage, and not at all in keeping with the views of the generality of Dissenting historians, who usually attribute the revolution to other causes. We, however, suspect that Dr. Vaughan is fully aware, that the Dissenters did all they could to favour King James, in return for the liberty of conscience which he offered them, when he was so anxious to introduce Popery. Being aware of this fact, and knowing well that the revolution would not have taken place if matters had been left to the Dissenters, Dr. Vaughan is determined that the credit of producing that change shall be awarded, not to the men who actually took a part in the proceedings of the time, but to individuals who lived nearly half a century before. This is rather an ingenious expedient; and it is resorted to by our author for the purpose of throwing a shield over the Dissenters of 1688, who, with few exceptions, concurred in the measures of King James, concurring also, as is still the case with the body,