of the Arminians, in whose ruin and condemnation in Holland he had been singularly instrumental; and the most zealous defender of episcopal government, against which he had more than once expressed himself in the strongest terms. He left the constitution of England, both ecclesiastical and civil, in a very unsettled and fluctuating state, languishing under intestine disorders of various kinds *."

CHAPTER V.

SCOTLAND UNDER JAMES I.

Changes in England affect Scotland - Ecclesiastical constitution in Scotland- Prelacy inimical—James labours for its subversion- Bishops restored-- High Commission Four new articles-James visits Scotland - Imperiousness of the King Persecution of the clergy-Death of James.

- Five new articles SCOTLAND being virtually united with England, by the succession of its king, James VI, would necessarily be affected, in a considerable degree, by all its changes, especially in matters of religion. Vital godliness prevailed very powerfully among the Scotch, by the diligent zeal of their ministers, from the period of the Reformation; but the tyrannical bigotry of the Stuart kings and the English priesthood, was severely felt by them, in a long series of grievous persecutions, similar to those endured by the puritans in England.

James had left the church of Scotland, as established at the Reformation, when he removed from his native country to ascend the English throne. That communion, it will be remembered, had rejected prelatical episcopacy, as having no foundation in the Scriptures; as being an essential part of popery, and pernicious to the interests of genuine piety. Presbyterian equality in their pastoral bishops had been adopted, as the manifest institution of Christ and his apostles, and the protestant nobles and ministers had repeatedly signed their national "solemn league and covenant," against popery and prelacy.

Ecclesiastical arrangements so simple and decided could not possibly have cordial friends among the popish clergy; and

* Ecclesiastical History, vol. v, p. 391.

they were equally disliked by the ruling priesthood in England; especially from the year 1588, when Dr. Bancroft published his unscriptural doctrine of the divine right of diocesan bishops. When, therefore, James arrived in England, being surrounded by that order of dignitaries, whose flattery of the vain monarch has become proverbial in history, and having adopted his boasted maxim, "No bishop, no king," he formed the determination, under their direction, to subvert the national church of Scotland, and in its stead to establish an episcopal hierarchy.

James's hypocrisy and meanness were evident in the manner of his proceeding to overturn presbyterianism, and establish prelacy in Scotland. Besides having repeatedly declared his conviction, that the church of Scotland was the purest upon earth, that unprincipled monarch, on leaving his native country, solemnly uttered and published his resolution not to alter its constitution, when at that very time he was corresponding with bishop Bancroft to effect its subversion! The Scots were soon aware of the king's intention, and he was obliged to proceed with caution. However, in 1606, his ministers secured a majority in the Scottish parlia ment, in favour of an act for restoring the popish dignity of the thirteen bishops; against which the General Assembly published this solemn protest :-" In the name of Christ, and in the name of the kirk in general, whereof the realm hath reaped comfort these forty-six years; also in the name of our presbyteries, from which we received our commission; and in our own names, as pastors and office-bearers within the same, for discharging of our necessary duty, and for the disburdening of our consciences; we except and protest against the erection, confirmation, or ratification of the said bishoprics and bishops by this present parliament; and humbly pray that this our protestation may be admitted and registered among the records *."

A convention of the nobles, however, agreed afterwards, that the bishops should be perpetual moderators in ecclesiastical assemblies; declaring at the same time, that it was not

* Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. ii, p. 74, 75.

intended to alter the church discipline; and a general assembly was convened to sanction these new measures. To increase the power of the bishops, in February 1610, the high commission was, contrary to law, put into their hands; and to give them a spiritual character, three were sent for to London, to receive consecration from the English bishops, that they might convey the mysterious authority to their brethren in Scotland. Thus was the Scotch national church overthrown, by the base kingcraft of the hypocritical sovereign, and the ambitious archbishop Bancroft.

James was not satisfied with the mere constitution of bishops. In contradiction of his own royal word, and the solemn declarations of his ministers, the king was determined on compelling his subjects to observe a complete conformity, in religious ceremonies, throughout his dominions. To accomplish this, four new articles were drawn up, and sent to the general assembly of Scotland for their adoption: these were, "first, the Holy Communion should be received kneeling second, the Eucharist should not be denied to the sick third, Christmas, Easter, Ascension-day, and Whitsunday, should be observed as holidays; and fourth, Confirmation should be practised in a prescribed manner when the children were eight years old *.”

:

These articles were rejected by the general assembly, as innovations, not founded on the Word of God; but the king resolved to enforce compliance by his august presence, and for this purpose, after fourteen years, James visited his "old kingdom." He issued a proclamation, declaring his intention, "not to alter the civil and ecclesiastical state, but to reform certain abuses in the church and commonwealth." He appointed commissioners to "settle the affairs of religion;" and they obtained the sanction of the parliament to this article, "That whatsoever his majesty should determine in the external government of the church, with the advice of the archbishops, bishops, and a competent number of the ministry,' should have the strength of a law †.”

Having thus far succeeded, the king ordered the bishops

Rapin, vol. ii, p. 194, folio edition.

↑ Ibid. p. 194.

to summon the ministers to meet him at St. Andrew's; when he reproached them for their rejection of his "four articles,” saying, “I mean not to do any thing against reason; and on the other part, my demands being just and religious, you must not think that I will be refused, or resisted." Rapin remarks, "He spoke these last words knitting his brows, and looking at them with a majestical and stern eye, which made them all fall down on their knees." Then continuing his speech he said, "It is a power innate, and a special prerogative which we that are Christian kings have, to order and dispose of external things in the polity of the church, as we by advice of our bishops shall find most fitting. And, Sirs, for your approving or disapproving, deceive not yourselves, I will never regurd it, unless you bring me a reason which I cannot answer * ”

Such was the supercilious haughtiness with which James treated the venerable body of the clergy of Scotland; and such the imperious and irrational manner in which the king began to destroy the national church. The next general assembly at Edinburgh, however, refused to confirm the four articles, by which the king was highly provoked, and ordered a year's salary to be withheld, as a fine upon the ministers but by the management of the courtiers, another was convened at Perth, Aug. 15, 1618, when five articles were carried, subversive of the discipline of the church; and which, after much court intrigue, and many threats from the king, were ratified in 1621, in the parliament at Edinburgh.

Still the clergy of Scotland refused to publish the new articles, which they denounced as illegal, contrary to the sense of the nation, and unscriptural: great numbers of them therefore were suspended, imprisoned, fined, and driven into exile, under the tyrannical court of high commission. During these violent proceedings, however, James was called from his dishonoured throne to the righteous tribunal of God, leaving his native country full of distractions, the consequence of his imprudence and intolerance; and the bitter fruit of his perfidious "kingcraft" was reaped by his unfortunate son and successor Charles I.

* Ibid. p. 194.

CHAPTER VI.

ENGLAND UNDER CHARLES I.

Character of Charles-He marries a papist - Character of the Court Clergy-Archbishop Abbot suspended - Laud the ecclesiastical chief- Persecutions - Sufferings of Mr. Prynne, Dr. Bastwick, Dr. Burton, Bishop Williams, Dr. Leighton — Laud's bigotry Religion-Progress of the Revolution - Parliament convened Their redress of grievances - Archbishop Laud executed -Violence of the kingCivil war-Execution of the kiug-Authors of his death-State of religion "Assembly of Divines."

ENGLAND was still more grievously afflicted in the reign of Charles I, who succeeded his father James on the British throne. But to understand the true state of religion in this reign, it will be necessary to review the character of the sovereign, and that also of the ruling prelates.

Intelligent and discriminating writers have commended Charles I, as naturally of a mild disposition; temperate, sober, and regular in his religious duties; while his character as a king is estimated, by the most judicious, exceedingly low. This, however, may justly be attributed in a great degree to the pernicious principles of his father. Unhappily he was educated in all his lofty notions of the royal prerogative towards both church and state; and he seemed to look down upon all, except a few favourites, as inferior beings, created for the purpose of rendering homage and service to their sovereigns. Regardless of his professed protestantism and the wishes of his subjects, James had sent his son to Madrid, to complete a matrimonial alliance with a princess of that popish court: but happily, after much dissembling on both sides, the object failed, through the duke of Buckingham, the prince's unprincipled favourite. This visit, however, as Dr. Lingard states, produced "a baneful influence on the character of Charles. He was taught to intrigue, to dissemble, to deceive, and to employ misrepresentation and falsehood to vindicate his conduct in the eyes of the English public *."

According to bishop Burnet, Charles "affected, in his behaviour, the solemn gravity of the court of Spain, suited to his natural temper, which was sullen even to moroseness. He

* History of England, vol. ix, p. 293.