party, while they harrassed the Puritans to death at home, would not have suffered them, if they could have prevented it, from seeking safety abroad; as if they would detain them purposely for the malignant gratification of tormenting them. It is affirmed that Hampden and Oliver Cromwell intended to expatriate themselves, and were prevented by the interposition of the reigning powers: if so, the King and the Archbishop had good reason to repent of their wickedness in keeping the Puritans within the reach of their cruelty.

Some opinion of the vigilance of this infamous primate in persecuting the objects of his hatred, and in either driving them out of the country, or into the greatest retirement in it, may be formed from the fact that the "Report of the state of the province of Canterbury, as delivered by him to his master, at the close of the year 1639, represents the Church of England in the highest and most palmy state. There was scarcely the least appearance of dissent. Most of the Bishops stated that all was well among their flocks. Seven or eight persons in the diocese of Peterborough had seemed refractory to the church, but had made ample submission. In Norfolk and Suffolk, all whom there had been reason to suspect, had made profession of conformity, and appeared to observe it strictly. It is confessed there was some little difficulty in bringing some of the vulgar in Suffolk to take the sacrament at the rails of the church. This was the only open instance of nonconformity which the vigilant eye of Laud could find in all the dioceses of his twenty-one suffragans, on the very eve of a revolution, in which primate and church, and monarch and monarchy, were to perish together."* This report, if correctly made, of which there is some * Edinburgh Review, No. 100, p. 552.

reason to doubt, viewed in connexion with the revolution that followed, proves either that there must have been a widely diffused, though suppressed, Puritanism, or that it spread most rapidly when the pressure was taken off by the Long Parliament. Both are true. And the report of Laud proves, in addition, and it is one of the most striking evidences of this on record, that the stillness produced by oppression is often a most deceptive augury, being only the unruffled surface of the accumulating lake, just before it bursts the dam, and rushes forward with the irresistible force of a torrent, and the overwhelming power of an inundation.

In the contest between Charles and his parliament, Puritanism, which had been gaining ground in the legislature, triumphed. The Long Parliament was at one time a collection of patriots, whose eulogium is thus pronounced by the eloquent historian so frequently alluded to in this sketch,-"For the authority of law, for the security of property, for the peace of our streets, for the happiness of our homes, our gratitude is due, under Him who raises and pulls down empires at his pleasure, to the Long Parliament, to the Convention, and to William of Orange." This is true: but it is not the whole truth. There were spots, and broad ones too, upon the disc of its glory. It may not be irrelevant here to remark that, though the parliament contained many Pruitans, it had no Separatists. They were all, as admitted by Clarendon, up to that time, members of the Church of England, and nearly all advocates of Episcopacy. Such was the constitution of the very house which, after passing various acts, even in the time of Charles, though much against his inclination, for liberty of conscience, and for destroying the Star Chamber and Court of High Commission, proceeded to

overthrow the Episcopacy altogether, and to set aside the Book of Common Prayer. This august body, in the year 1643, appointed an assembly to take into consideration the state of religion, and to devise and recommend to parliament such measures as might be, in their opinion, conformable to the Word of God. This convocation held its sittings in Henry VII.'s Chapel at Westminster, and on that account was called "The Westminster Assembly:" it was composed of one hundred and twenty divines, and thirty lay assessors. By this time, partly through the influence of Scotland, and partly through that of Geneva, in both of which places Presbyterianism was the established religion, this form of polity had now become exceedingly prevalent among the theologians of England, and was favoured by the Parliament, perhaps in some degree on account of their partial dependence in the conflict with the King on the Scotch army. A few of the Episcopal clergy were nominated on this Assembly, but when Charles protested against it, they all withdrew. With the exception of six members, who were Independents, and on that account called "The dissenting brethren," the assembly consisted wholly of Presbyterians, at least as regards the ministers of religion. The power of this body was not legislative, but simply advisory.

The Parliament had put aside Episcopacy, but was not prepared with any other system to set up in its place and acted very wisely in abolishing all penal statutes of our religion and allowing every one to think and worship as he pleased. Well had it been for the honour of those who belonged to it had they persevered as they commenced, but falling under the influence of "The Westminster Assembly," they were soon betrayed into acts of intolerance which have left a stain upon their

memory never to be effaced. The divines of the Assembly were eminently good men, and sound theologians, and as such put forth some valuable confessions of faith, but they did not understand the subject of religious liberty. In common with many others, they were misled by drawing their arguments and precedents too much from the Old Testament instead of the New, and seeking for their models in the Jewish theocracy.

When penal statutes against heresy were abolished, and liberty of conscience, though with some restrictions, was granted, an inundation of sects rushed in to fill up the vacuum occasioned by the overthrow of the Establishment. Never did an age manifest a greater fecundity in the production of systems than this, which was just what was to be looked for; as liberty of opinion, like every other privilege, might, of course, be expected to be much abused or misdirected when first enjoyed. Some of the earliest efforts of an emancipated slave, when his fetters have just dropped from his limbs, might very probably be wild, freakish, and almost in appearance insane. It is one of the mischiefs of longcontinued oppression that it not only makes a wise man mad, while under the yoke, but even when he has recently thrown it off. This multiplication of creeds alarmed the Assembly of Divines, with whom it became now a question of grave and momentous consideration, what system was to be established upon the ruins of Episcopacy, and whether toleration should be extended to any who dissented from it. In a convocation of Presbyterians, the former part of the subject was soon disposed of, and it was agreed that Presbyterianism should be recommended as the state religion. It was not so easy to dispose of the second part of the question. It might have been expected that the men who had drank

so deeply of the bitter cup of persecution, as many of these men had done, would have been backward themselves to mingle and administer the wormwood and the gall to others. It is said that emancipated slaves often make the most tyrannical masters. It was found too true in the present instance, in the spirit of the remark, if not to the full extent of the letter. A fine opportunity was now presented to the Assembly to manifest how well, in imitation of some we have already mentioned, they also had learnt, in the school of affliction, that hardest but loftiest lesson of Christ, to love our enemies; to bless them that curse us; and to pray for them that despitefully use us. Unhappily the opportunity was suffered to pass away unimproved, and instead of this, the Westminster Assembly took up, and used, the carnal weapons of persecution, which they had wrested from the hands of the Episcopalians.

The divine right of Presbyterianism was set up in the Assembly and contended for by the main body with a zeal not at all inferior to that which had been displayed for the divine right of Episcopacy. If this were a divine institution, it was by these casuists argued that it should admit of no infraction, and therefore toleration would be a sin against God. This brought on a struggle in the Assembly between the friends of liberty and the advocates of intolerance, which was maintained for a considerable time with all the force of argument which the different parties could command, and all the vehemence of passion which both, but especially the Presbyterians, could feel.

In that Assembly, as we have said, were six Independents, these were Mr. Thomas Goodwin, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Philip Nye, Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs, Mr. William Bridge, and Mr. Drury. By the declared