marked men. He succeeded in establishing, for a brief space, a bastard prelacy in Scotland by accepting Presbyterian orders as a sufficient preparation for Episcopal consecration; and he won favour even with the Puritans by the zeal with which he persecuted Roman Catholics. His successor, George Abbot, entered but imperfectly into the former of these views, and failed in consequence to establish a permanent ascendancy over the mind of his pedantic master. Moreover, Abbot's misfortune in killing accidentally one of the keepers in Croydon forest seemed to hang like a cloud over his spirits through life. It rendered him patient of private slights, and indulgent, as far as circumstances would permit, to public irregularities. The Church in Scotland broke down under his administration, and the marriage of Prince Charles with the Dauphiness of France never commanded his approval. Besides, Abbot was known, in his general view of the Christian scheme, to coincide with the decisions of the synod of Dort-conclusions diametrically the reverse of those at which King James had arrived. For all these reasons, and still more because he shrank from persecution, he soon lost the favour of James, and with Charles he possessed no influence whatever. It is by no means clear to us, however commendable on abstract grounds Archbishop Abbot's policy may be considered, that it did not operate, under the peculiar circumstances of the times, unfavourably for the cause of peace and order. Trusting to his leniency many divines who would have otherwise kept within the limits of the law, broke through them, and inflamed their congregations, first, by preaching against the established order of things, and, next, by becoming martyrs for conscience sake, often very much to their own surprise. At the same time it is only fair to add, that, from first to last, Charles and his advisers acted as if an evil destiny were impelling them to their own destruction. When it became fashionable about Court to argue in favour of a reconciliation with Rome-when clergymen were noticed and preferred for preaching up the right of the sovereign to govern by the prerogative alone-when the remonstrances of the House of Commons against abuses in the Church were treated with contempt, and the Primate was suspended for refusing to license the publication of a sermon in which the authority of Parliament to make laws was called in question-it is very little to be wondered at that disaffection in Church and State should have become more and more prevalent from day to day. And here we arrive at another stage in our journey. Under James the watchword of the Prelatists had been, No Bishop, 'No Church. In doctrine they leaned towards the abstract views

The

of the Remonstrants, and inculcated uniformity in the celebration of public worship, and the divine right of kings to misgovern. The promotion of Laud to the see of Canterbury narrowed to a wonderful extent the terms of Church communion. New views of the nature and purposes of the Sacraments were put forth. Regeneration in baptism was understood to signify much more than admission into the visible Church of Christ. In the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper the body and blood of the Saviour were received in substance, though not in form. Sacrament itself became a sacrifice, the minister a sacrificing priest; the table was become an altar, and its position arbitrarily fixed. To refuse to bow at the name of Jesus- to pray with the eyes directed anywhere except to the east-to object to reverences on approaching or passing the altar-to lighted tapers or pictures, or images,-all these became offences against the authority of the Church. And the law being brought into operation with a rigour which relaxed not even for a moment, it broke down at last, as all machines are apt to do when kept too long upon the stretch.

We are not going to follow Mr. Marsden in the account which he gives of the causes which led to the civil war, and the issues in which it resulted. Perhaps there is no page of history with which the generality of Englishmen are better acquainted. The resistance of the Scots to Laud's Episcopate and Service Book, encouraged the disaffected in England to enter upon a similar course, and the whole fabric of Church and Monarchy came to the ground. It was succeeded, for a short time, by a Republic and a Presbyterian polity; the Westminster confession of faith taking the place of the Thirty-nine Articles, and extemporaneous worship superseding the Book of Common Prayer. And now was verified the truth of the saying, 'that 6 we seldom learn lessons of charity in the school of suffering for conscience sake.' The Presbyterians made haste to vindicate the Scriptural authority of their system, by expelling from their benefices such of the clergy as hesitated to conform to the new discipline. The bishops were of course deposed. Laud suffered death, and of his brethren very many went into banishment. But Presbyterianism, as it had no real hold either upon the respect of the House of Commons, or the affections of the people, so it fell before the assaults of Independency, and its armed preachers. We need not linger over this part of our subject. The gleanings of the harvest which the Commission of Religion had left, the Triers gathered in, and to all outward appearance the Church of England ceased to exist.

We have spoken, without reserve, of the severities of the

High Prelatic party. If we omit to expose at equal length the not less oppressive acts of their warlike rivals, it is only because our paper has already far exceeded the limits which we had set to it. Not in England only, but abroad, on the Continent of Europe and in America, the Puritans brought discredit upon themselves and upon the faith which they pretended to vindicate. For the High Court of Commission was never guilty of cruelties more revolting, than the execution of Robinson and Stevenson, and of Mary Dyer, the quakeress at Boston. At the same time let us do justice to the great man, who without assuming the kingly title, exercised for some years more than kingly power in this country. Cromwell was no persecutor for religion's sake. His views were tolerant to a degree which his contemporaries could not understand. Yet even Cromwell's vigorous arm with difficulty bent the elements of confusion into something like order; and when he died, chaos came back again. The people became impatient under it. They regarded all the sufferings of the last years as God's judgments upon the nation for its behaviour to a king whose faults had never been visible except to the leaders of the Opposition, and whose violent death had more than atoned for them, even in that quarter. As soon, therefore, as General Monk was known to be in favour of a restoration, the entire English nation assented to it. No conditions whatever were made with Charles II.; so that free and unfettered, except so far as a sense of gratitude might bind him, he returned to occupy the vacant throne.

And here, as it appears to us, an opportunity was afforded to the Church of England, of gathering under her wings almost the entire population of the realm. Charles II. had no religious predilections or antipathies one way or another. His own creed, if he had any, was the Creed of Rome. He felt his obligations to the Presbyterian party, which, with Monk at its head, had done more than any other to effect his restoration, and was inclined to favour them as far as might be compatible with a monarchical government. On the other hand, the Church of England, understanding the term in its constitutional sense, could not be said to have had at this time any existence. Episcopacy was abolished by an Act of Parliament, to which the late Sovereign had given his consent, and the rites and ceremonies which used to wait upon it were fallen quite into disuse. The measure to be undertaken, therefore, was not so much the alteration or modification of an old system, as the establishment of a new. And so the Presbyterian party regarded it, when among the first acts of his reign, Charles selected ten or twelve of their most influential divines to be his domestic chaplains.

VOL. CI. NO. CCV.

S

Nay, more, the King's answer to his chaplains when urging him to take steps for easing the consciences of that large section of the people to whom they ministered, could be interpreted in no other way, than as conveying an assurance that conciliation would henceforth be the rule of his policy. Among the divines who took part in this conference we find Calamy, Reynolds, Shenstone, Wallace, Bates, Manton, Cox, and Baxter; Ash and Newcome, their contemporaries and equals, declined to take office about the Court.

It is well known that by this time the term Puritan had fallen into disuse, All who from whatever cause felt indisposed to welcome back the Laudian system, called themselves Presbyterians; whether, with Baxter, they preferred the Independant polity, or with Lords Manchester and Holles, were favourable to a modified Episcopacy. In perfect good faith, and hopeful of the King's support, they set themselves to consider rather how much, than how little, of the ancient Church system they could accept. And it did so happen that they found a scheme concocted to their hands, of which Archbishop Usher, Primate of Ireland in the reign of Charles I., was the author. This scheme did not seek to overthrow the Episcopate,-far otherwise. It suggested, indeed, a curtailment of the worldly state which enabled Whitgift to make his visitations followed by a train of 500 horsemen, and to keep on foot, ready when need should arise, 100 infantry, and 50 cavalry, equipped and disciplined for war. But it aimed at a large increase to the number of Bishops, by requiring that in each rural deanery throughout the Kingdom a suffragan bishop should be planted, and that each of the existing dioceses should become an archbishoprick; and that the two primates should assume the spiritual rank, and execute the spiritual offices of patriarchs. The suffragan bishop, however, was not to act without consulting his incumbent clergy, whom he was to meet once a month in synod. The diocesan archbishop was to meet a diocesan synod in like manner yearly, and each primate to assemble a convocation once in every three years, and to preside over its deliberations. Before these several courts all questions of discipline and difficulty were to be brought, appeals lying from the lower to the higher, till they should be finally settled in convocation.

Having agreed among themselves to this form of government, the Presbyterians went on to consider the doctrines and services of the Church. To the former they made no objection: the Thirty-nine Articles satisfying all their wishes. Into the latter they desired to see various modifications introduced. Though

generally approving of the Book of Common Prayer, they wished it to be treated rather as a directory than a liturgy. They objected to the sign of the cross in baptism, to the use of the ring at marriage, to the kneeling posture in receiving the communion, to bowing at the name of Jesus and towards the altar. You admit,' they say to the Prelatists, that these 'things be in themselves indifferent; they are not so to us who 'behold in them a rock of stumbling;' and quoting the words of King James, they add, it is not enough that public worship be free from blame, it ought also to be free from 'suspicion. We pray you, therefore, not for such occasion 'to hazard the peace of the Church.' It is much to be deplored that propositions upon the whole so moderate should have been met in a spirit, not merely of hostility, but of contemptuous hostility. The opening sentences, in the reply of the High Church party, changed entirely both the tone and object of the discussion. We must first observe,' they write, that they, the Presbyterians, take it for granted, that there is a firm agreement between them and us in the doctrinal truths of the 'Reformed Religion, and in the substantial parts of divine worship; and that the differences are only about mere various 'conceptions about the ancient forms of Church government, and more particularly about liturgy and ceremonial forms, 'which makes all that follows the less considerable, and less 'reasonable to be stood upon to the hazard and disturbance of the peace of the Church. This we deny.' Here was a direct charge of heresy. The Presbyterians threw it back with scorn; and a breach, which appeared at one moment on the point of being healed, grew wider than ever.

In this, as in almost all other disputes of the kind, blame may be pretty equally shared between the contending parties. The gauntlet was unquestionably thrown down by the Prelatists; but it would have been good for themselves, and indeed for the Church at large, had the Puritans proved less eager to take it up. Ere yet the Savoy Conference was well begun, the King had pressed upon their leaders, bishopricks and other high dignities. With the exception of Reynolds they all declined the preferment, alleging as a reason, that till the points in dispute between them and their rivals were settled, they could not, with a safe conscience, accept office in an Episcopal Church.

It is not worth while to pursue the subject farther. The points in dispute between the Presbyterians and their rivals were not settled, and Baxter, Manton, and Bates, and Bowles, instead of acting with Reynolds in convocation and in the House of Lords, stood aloof to witness the passing of a new Act of Uni