genuine meaning of the men that framed them, and the authority which had confirmed them." It was either in this lecture, or in some other academical exercise, that Laud asserted and maintained the perpetual visibility of the Church, as derived from the apostles by the Romish Church, and therein continued (as in the Churches of the East and South) until the period of the Reformation.-Pp. 28-32.

But a new scene opened to view, in the accession of James I., in the year 1602-3. Then it was, that the discordant members of the Puritan faction, by that system of union, which they know how to employ who find it their interest to employ it, were united into one opposing and inimical body. Then it was, that opinion took the form of authority, and schism, throwing off the veil of doubt, assumed the more impenetrable mask of conscience. But Laud was too much for them. Him they could not deceive, even in this disguise; and believing enemies to be enemies, however obscured, he manfully entered into contest with them, that he might “uphold and defend the Church, whose ordination he had received, according to her Articles, and to the Canons passed in her most solemn convocations."-P. 45.

The faction found an opponent also in James himself. They fondly imagined, that coming, as he did, from Scotland, he would be found, if not a friend, at least no enemy; and, with this impression, published works to forbear the use of the surplice, &c. King James, however, by a proclamation, prohibited all innovation in the discipline and doctrine of the Church of England. For this, he has been branded with apostacy: but there is no ground for such an accusation. James saw, that, as King of England, it was his interest and his duty to maintain inviolate, the constitution, both in Church and State, of England as he found it; and had he not, he would have deserved the reprobation of all honest men and scriptural churchmen, and the penalty of such cowardice and perjury, repulsion, or a something worse. And if modern times ever see such apostacy as this would be, let the example of King James, and the still more beautiful example of that patriotic monarch, George III., "who had courage to lay his head upon the block, but had not courage to break his oath," be held up as the object of imitation to our princes, and of expectation to our children!

The great historian of the Puritans, is Neal; a writer whose duplicity is proverbial, and whose reasoning ever verges to the magnetical pole of Geneva. It is principally from him, that later annalists have borrowed their invectives against the "imbecile" and "pedantic" James: but, surely, without venturing to encircle royalty with a halo of perfection, human and divine, some acts of his reign are proofs sufficient, that he has been traduced and falsified, by men who had no certain foundation for their idle tales, and no conscience, save that of a Jesuit.

I venture to add (says Mr. Lawson) one remark upon the Puritan historian's assertion, that James was a "doctrinal Papist," and that from "a disguised Puritan,” he

became their most implacable enemy." These falsehoods are made, because James defended his own prerogative, and the Episcopal Church of England, and because he did not countenance and yield to puritanical extravagance. But James, though pedantic, and often imprudent-though at times weak, and, it may be, indolent—was not deficient in political foresight, though he knew not always how to exercise it. His misfortune, and that of his successor, was the want of such able statesmen as conducted the public affairs in the reign of Elizabeth, while his partiality to favourites made him elevate some to that distinction who had no capacity for it, and disregard others who were more deserving. But he saw the enthusiasm of his Puritan subjects; he needed "no bishops" to be his instructors; he had felt it, severely felt it, before his accession, while his rule was confined to their Presbyterian friends in the north. He saw it necessary, therefore, to assert his prerogative, to draw tightly the reins of government, and, if possible, to restrain that religious frenzy which had excited the spirit of faction. The pupil of Buchanan was not destitute of penetration, and he is called a "doctrinal papist," not because he believed in Popery, for not even the sturdiest Puritan could be animated by a greater anti-popish zeal than he, but because he became the "implacable enemy" of men who, he saw, were secretly spreading their enthusiastic opinions throughout the kingdom, to overthrow the constitution of the Church and State, and who were attempting to make Calvin the grand oracle of all theological and political science. What, therefore, was the result? Of what advantage would the reformation of religion have been to James, as a monarch and a prince, had he yielded at his accession to the demands of the Puritans? A Church in which " every man did that which was right in his own eyes," and rejected all human authority, was a nursery of sedition, of treason, of every thing, in short, which could molest and annoy, and which its preachers could not fail to defend, in their visionary themes about spirituality, and what they termed things lawful. These remarks, therefore, are against private interpretation, whether in religion or politics: it should be the voice of the learned, not of the ignorant; of the prudent, not of the clamorous and violent: and not even should it be always the former, seeing that they are alike subject to deception. The Reformation had indeed rid James of the intolerance and tyranny of one Pope; but to have yielded to Puritans, would have been to have raised up himself a pope in every parish of England and Scotland. He had been delivered, I say, from the absurdities of one extreme,— now he would have fallen into another. And if the contest had been between him and the Bishop of Rome, if he fell, there was glory in the fall; it was to crouch before the majestic lion: but to have fallen before the Puritans, and the Calvinistic preachers of the north, to have yielded to them, to have allowed their fanaticism to triumph,-it was unworthy of him as a. English monarch.— Pp. 61-63.

The whole tenor of the opinions of those times tended to the subversion of the Church, and, through the Church, of the King and Constitution. Papistry was the watch-word of the tongue-but Church of Englandism the worm that preyed upon the bilious spirits of these conscientious nonconformists. Laud, who defended the Church, was, therefore, accused of a secret leaning to Popery; as if the scriptural customs, doctrines, and ordinances of Rome were to be despised, because they are loaded with what is unscriptural and unholy. Romanism reformed is Church of Englandism: and though, in these days, the one opposes itself to the other, the conduct of the Puritans gains no excuse: because, in the one case, it is an opposition of principle, in the other, an opposition of no principle at all-an opposition for the love of opposition,-a hatred not alone of Romish but of all

Church government; and a disobedience to legitimate authority, however constituted, and wheresoever located. Calvinism sets out with a denial of responsible obedience to a responsible supremacy: what, then, has Rome to do with it? It is democratical in principle, and therefore democratical in conduct. It has much of the wisdom of the serpent also, without the harmlessness of the dove. Baffled in its attack on one side, it turns to the other; and, to obtain its object, turns even the purest food to venom, branding the tenets of the Church with Calvin's marking-iron, as if Calvinism were synonimous with Christianity, and Calvin were neither as Paul nor as Apollos, but as Christ himself. Let us hear Mr. Lawson.

But the doctrines of Calvin were chiefly in the mouths of the preachers; the abstruse, and fanciful, and daring dogmas of predestination, election, reprobation, irresistibility of grace, and final perseverance,-themes which ought never to be introduced into popular sermons, even by a supporter of them, as being by far too profound for the capacities of a popular (or indeed any) audience, in which the great majority are illiterate, and which, besides their contradiction to the Scriptures, have the most dangerous effect upon the mind. For where is he who can prove what he calls the divine decree? Most daring indeed is that man who pretends to scan the ways of Omnipotence, and to set limits to divine grace; who forgets that "secret things belongs to the Lord our God alone," and who pretends that he, a short-sighted, frail, and erring mortal, has discovered the will of Heaven; that infants and full-grown men, ages before they are born, were doomed to eternal punishment for Adam's transgression, by a divine decree, which they could not alter. Most impious is he who thus sets limits to the mercy of Heaven, and makes the God of love appear as an implacable tyrant, mocking the creatures he has made; offering them salvation,—-punishing them if they do accept of it, and yet who has decreed from all eternity, that salvation shall not be theirs. Most guilty is he who thus contracts the efficacy of Christ's redemption, and asserts, that the death of our divine Saviour is not the ground of hope to every son and daughter of Adam's degenerate offspring, who sincerely repents and unfeignedly believes God's holy gospel. Need I stop to reflect on the tendency which such preaching must have had on the minds of the people in that fierce age of religious contention? or need I enter into any metaphysical argument to shew how destructive these tenets are to the spread of pure and undefiled religion, and to the peace and well-being of civil government? The history of that age furnishes too many melancholy illustrations. Let the reader only turn to the daring actions of the English Puritans under Charles I. which they planned during his father's life-time; let him look to the reign of fanaticism under Cromwell, that patron of sectaries; let him turn to the achievements of the Covenanting religionists of the north, to their rebellions, their enthusiasm, their insolence to their rulers, their canting sermons, their almost impious prayers, and their irreverent "familiaritie" with ' the Majesty of Heaven. Let the reader ponder well the intolerable arrogance of those religionists, who, like their brethren, the Papists, alleged that they were the only true Church, excommunicated all who differed from them, and swore solemn oaths, that with the sword, and without mercy, they would extirpate Popery, Prelacy, Arminianism, Erastianism, &c. as their precious record of treason, entitled the Solemn League and Covenant, sets forth: who invariably spoke with the most intolerable insolence of their rightful governors, and who more than once acted as vile assassins, when it was in their power. And then let the reader trace the history of the Dissenters in the last century, when he will find Socinianism, Arianism, and Infidelity, making dreadful havoc among them. It is at times dangerous and hazardous for one poor sinner to denounce damnation from the pulpit to his hearers, when perhaps he has as much need of

repentance as they, and at all times it must be done with solemn caution; but it is doubly presumptuous for erring and frail men to pretend to scan the ways of Heaven, and assert, with the most positive assurance, the dogmas of election and reprobation.-Pp. 212-214.

Thus manfully does the eloquent and pious author plead the cause of our Church, whilst he defends the character and conduct of James and Laud and thus clearly does he shew the nature of the times in which they lived. With what pointed accuracy to times much nearer to our own does he continue.

The situation of the Church at this period was truly hazardous. Attacked on the one hand by the Papists, and on the other by the Puritans, it required the greatest skill in those who regarded the interests of the Reformation, and the welfare of Church and State, to restrain the hostile intentions of those factions. No sooner had the Parliament been dissolved, than the Papists began to exert themselves with the greatest activity. The Puritans were chiefly popular among the lower classes, who were sufficiently illiterate, and were generally treated with contempt by the higher orders of the kingdom. The Papists, however, who could also reckon a considerable number of adherents among the rabble, were more ambitious, and endeavoured to secure adherents among the nobility. For this purpose they laid a most crafty plot, and began first to practise on the Duchess of Buckingham, the lady of the celebrated court favourite; not doubting, that if they were successful in inducing her to recant, they might have some chance of favour for their tenets from her husband. The famous John Fisher, the Jesuit, had undertaken the task of managing the lady, and he had succeeded so well, that she was beginning to think favourably of the superstition.— Pp. 17, 18.

But Laud was amongst them: and would to God there was a Laud now living when great men, and noble men, and right honourable and right reverend men, are, like Fisher the Jesuit, working in the dark to ruin the "fair beauty of the temple of the Lord!"

Thus far have our remarks been controversial; but there is much most interesting matter in the volumes before us, of a more historical and domestic nature. The adventure of Prince Charles in his erotic journey to the court of Madrid, in company of the haughty Buckingham; the death of Buckingham by the hand of the assassin Felton; and the narration of the visit of King Charles to Edinburgh; are told with graphic elegance of style and language. We stay not to give an abstract of these events: but shall hastily glance over the period intervening between the accession of Charles, to that denouement of the awful tale, when the fate of the Church was written in the blood of her arch-prelate, and the monarchy of England became a footstool to democratic usurpation. The remarks on the doctrine of non-resistance-a doctrine much misunderstood and greatly misrepresented-and the remarks on Arminianism, are worthy of an attentive perusal; and we regret, that want of room prevents our transferring them to our pages. These and other points of subordinate importance are so connected with the history of the times, that the full examination of them by the author is almost a

necessary portion of his labours; and we know no writer who has expressed himself so clearly on these disputed topics as he has done. The doctrine of private interpretation is also admirably handled; and it is a doctrine which not only then prevailed, but now prevails to a very fearful extent: therefore, it is useful to consider it, in its past effects, and in its future tendency. If men may each interpret, then wherefore a Church,-wherefore ministers? Still we must be cautious in accusing others of this offence; for though the self-interpretation, or rather self-application of the word of God be a lamentable evil, we must not forget, that the "Scripture is given to every man to profit withal."

There were other subjects, however, which, in those days had an almost paramount importance; and next to the insane and ceaseless clamour raised against the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, as Popish, were the machinations of the Papists themselves, in Puritanical disguise, to hasten her destruction. The following remarks are so applicable to the present state of national affairs, that we cannot forbear to quote them:

We cannot, in any society, great or small, calculate the consequences of essential change with absolute certainty; and, therefore, he who seriously, and of set purpose, undermines the established principles by which any society is held together, whether his pretext be religion or liberty, a reformed system of faith, or a philosophical improvement of policy and manners, is justly to be suspected of views beyond what he avows, and may be justly resisted, even when he is sincere; because he cannot with any certainty say, even if he obtain his avowed object, "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no farther, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed." He cannot even assure us, as experience universally proves, that when his avowed object is attained, he will be satisfied himself. The reformer, whether religious, political, or philosophical, who addresses reason to the public reason of mankind, is always respectable, and will generally produce a salutary though a gradual influence on the public mind. But he who addresses the mob, and who labours to enlist the populace in his service, aims evidently at revolution; and if salutary consequences ultimately result, it will generally be through scenes of crime and suffering, and by a Providence over which the original agitator has no control. There is a limitation of intellect and of vision in such men, with all their high pretensions, which is truly pitiable. With pretensions which have no limit, they seem chained to earth and fixed to time, as if society were a mass of matter on which they may repeat experiments ad infinitum, without regarding the misery which they occasion, or the risk to which they expose the individuals whom they influence, when time with them shall give place to eternity."-Pp. 422, 423.

We have spoken of the state of things at the accession of James, and have detailed the successive elevations of Archbishop Laud. It may be as well to state in few and necessary words, that Charles, like his predecessor in authority, found his policy in adhering to the Constitution. As to his safety, perhaps, that were a question, let him do what he would; and it were better for him to perish than to be buffetted about upon the waves of a tempestuous sea, from which there would have been no hope of safety. Laud, at that time a