As successor to Elizabeth, James I. who had been king of Scotland, ascended the throne of England, 1603, and reigned over both nations. The long and prosperous reign of Elizabeth had prepared the way for James to enjoy a considerable share of tranquillity. He gloried in the character of a 66 pacifick prince," and avoided war till near the close of his life.

The severity of Elizabeth had weakened the Popish party; but the sect called Puritans had made their appearance, and when James ascended the throne, they were found to be numerous. This sect was in some things imprudent and assuming, but they were among the foremost in pleading for civil and religious liberty. About 750 clergymen of this sect presented a petition to James, soon after his arrival in England. They entertained a hope, that he would abate the rigour of the laws which had been enacted against them, and in favour of the ceremonies of the Episcopal church. James was much more tolerant than his predecessors, but he was aware that the EpisVol. IV. No. 7.

copal hierarchy was more favour able to monarchy, than the principles of the Puritans.

The king regarded himself as a learned theologian, and was ford of disputing. In the Puritans he found more of a similar spirit than was agreeable to him, as their views were not accordant with his own.

But while the Puritans ap peared as advocates for liberty, "they maintained," says Hume, "that they themselves were the only pure church; that their principles and practices ought to be established by law, and that no other ought to be tolerated." Such has too often been the case with advocates for religious liberty. While they have perceived the evil of intolerant principles, as exercised towards themselves, they have too readily adopted them, as soon as power came into their hands. The Puritans are not alone in this inconsistency.

It was in the reign of James, that the daring gunpowder plot was discovered-a plot for blowing up the king and parliament, and which came near to being executed. This, however, ap

pears to have been a project of a few Papists, who were so bewildered by fanaticism as to imagine, that any means were lawful, which would advance the cause of Popery.

One of the most important events in the reign of king James, was the translation of the Bible. The translation which was made under his patronage and direction, has been in common use from that age to the present. That event probably contributed much to the improvement of society, as it was done in a time of peace, and must have excited considerable attention to the scriptures. Although there were some defects in the character of the king, his reign was probably more favourable to the progress of religion and virtue, than any one which had preceded.

King James died in 1625, and was succeeded by his unfortunate son, Charles I. The history of Charles is in a great degree composed of records of deplorable and sanguinary scenes. He reigned over England, Scotland, and Ireland. In each of these countries a restless, fanatical, and blood-thirsty spirit prevailed.

The population of these islands was principally divided into three or four large sects; Papists, Episcopalians, and Puritans, or Presbyterians, and Independents, each of which possessed the principle and spirit of intolerance and persecution.

Historians represent, that a "spirit of religion" prevailed in this age; and it is unquestionably true, that great attention was paid to what was called religion, and

that there was indeed a considerable number of men in the different sects, who were eminent for real piety. But from the facts recorded of this reign, it is very certain, that the predominant zeal was neither according to knowledge nor charity. The fervour that prevailed was not the fervour of love one to another ; and it had but little resemblance to the mild, forbearing, pacifick, and benignant spirit of the Messiah. Their zeal for God was expressed, not in works of selfdenial and beneficence, but in oppressing and destroying one another. Nor is this remark to be limited to any one sect; it will apply to all which have been named.

re

In Ireland, the religious zeal of the Papists, in 1643, was displayed in one of the most horrible massacres which blackens the pages of history. "An universal massacre commenced of the English. No age, no sex, no condition was spared. The old, the young, the vigorous, the infirm, underwent a like fate, and were confounded in one common ruin. Amidst all these enormities, the sacred name of RELIGION sounded on every side,-not to stop the hands of the murderers, but to enforce their blows, and to steel their hearts against every movement of human and social sympathy. The English, as hereticks, abhorred of God, and detestable to all holy men, were marked out by the priests for slaughter; and of all actions, to rid the world of these declared enemies to Catholick faith and piety, was represented as most

meritorious."-Hist. of Eng. vol. VI. pp. 437-439.

This, the reader will say, was the work of Papists. It was so; and happy should I feel in reviewing the history of those times, if nothing of a similar spirit could be found in the Protestants. But, alas! the different sects of Protestants still retained the worst ingredients of Popery; the principle and spirit of persecution.

Even prior to the dreadful example of the Papists in Ireland, the different sects in England had blended their religion and politicks together, and introduced a horrid civil war, which raged for many years; and which, in its progress, occasioned the slaughter of many thousands, filled the land with confusion and distress, overwhelmed the Episcopal church, established Presbyterianism in England, beheaded the king, dissolved the parliament, and placed Oliver Cromwell, a military chief, in the chair of state, as Lord Protector. During these scenes of havock, fasting, and praying, and fighting seem to have been blended together, as duties of the Christian religion, and as equally acceptable to God!

In the midst of this scene of confusion, fiery zeal, and civil war, the celebrated Westminster Assembly of Divines was called together by the parliament, while at war with their king. "This Assembly sat five years, six mouths, and twenty-two days, in which time they had 1163 sessions." What they did to reform the religion of England, or to

change it to a conformity with the religion of Scotland, was done under all the disadvantages which resulted from a state of national distraction, and the influence of party passions.

In the same deplorable state of publick ferment, was formed the "Solemn League and Covenant" between England and Scotland, for the destruction of Popery and Episcopacy, and for the establishment of the Presbyterian form of government. The covenant was such as might have been expected from the circumstances under which it originated; and from men who were so bewildered as to imagine, that the Christian religion could be promoted by swearing and fighting, oppressing and destroying their brethren, who happened to dissent from their opinions.

Thus the covenanters say"We have-resolved and deter mined to enter into a Solemn League and Covenant, wherein we all subscribe, and each one of us for himself, with our hands lifted to the most high God, do swear." In this solemn, if not profane manner, they bound themselves to act the part of intolerant persecutors against the Papists and Episcopalians, and others who should dissent from their covenant, or oppose their unjustifiable usurpation.

This covenant was signed by the members of parliament, and by the Westminster Assembly; by multitudes of the people of Scotland, under severe penalties; and it was ordered to be taken throughout the kingdom of England, by all persons above the

If we reflect on the small advantages for education which were then enjoyed, and the popular insanity which then prevailed, may it not be presumed that not one in a hundred of those who swore to that covenant, ever understood its meaning? It fills nearly four octavo pages, close print, in Neal's History of the Puritans; yet such is the manner of composition, that there are but eight sentences in the whole League, and the first sentence contains forty-five lines. On what principle of reason or religion, could an ignorant multitude be compelled or enticed to swear to such a complicated, and to them, unintelligible covenant? Was not this to compel or entice people to swear falsely, and to take the name of God in vain? What excuse can be made for those ministers of religion, or members of parliament, who planned and executed the measure, but this;-that they were the subjects of that kind of insanity or delusion which ever accompanies the war spirit, in politicks and in religion, and by which even good people are often led to "do evil that good may come?" The whole business of war, and every species of persecution, proceeds on the same principle, and is accompanied with the same kind of insanity or delusion.

That the Presbyterians of that age were as really disposed to persecute, as the Episcopalians, or even the Papists, is clear from the "ordinance" respecting he

104.

If that ordinance had been fully executed, it would probably have occasioned five times the slaughter that occurred in the Popish massacre in Ireland ; and it is not to be ascribed to the wisdom or benevolence of those who made the law, that it was not executed, but to the providence of God, which limited their power and subverted their designs.

That the morals of society among our ancestors, at that period, must have been deplorable, may naturally be inferred from the fact, that their religion was made subservient to the most sanguinary deeds, or was itself of a sanguinary character. But farther evidence respecting the depravity of morals, may be produced.

A law was passed for displacing ministers of religion, who were of immoral and scandalous lives, and for sequestering their estates. By this law, a large. portion of the clergy were removed, and deprived of their livings. If the complaints against them were well founded, we may naturally infer a gross depravity of morals in the community at large; for it is not probable that the people in general were less corrupt than their teachers. the contrary, if we suppose that the allegations against the Episcopal clergy were unjust, `a charge of licentiousness and immorality will lie against the ruling party which abused them. We have another document, by which both the ignorance and

On