the cry of hate, and even death, against those whose lives were blameless, and who were distinguished for learning and virtues? First, because the Bishops were Lord-Bishops!* Because the theologians of the school of Geneva had learned at Frankfort, that where there were Bishops there could be no vital religion. Next, that, as enemies to God, they ought to be cut off! as Sharp afterwards was! Because these Bishops were in the front of idolatrous worship in Cathedrals, where surplices were worn, and boys sung a treble "like hogs!

In short, the universal cry was, "There could be no religion," meaning the Presbyterian, "TILL all the Lord-Bishops were sent to the bottomless pit, from whence they were spued out."

How glorious to such pietists must the day have been, when, in the Cathedral of that city where Ken was educated whose episcopal throne Morley afterwards so long adorned — the "godly" soldiery scattered over the pavement the bones of the earliest English Prelates, bravely discharging their reforming muskets at the statue of King Charles! (the marks of which may be seen to this day; and when, their pikes not reaching the painted windows, they broke them into fragments, hurling at the BISHOPS' bones!

* John Vicars wrote a book with the title, "Lord-Bishops, not the LORD's Bishops."

+ They broke open the chests containing the bones of the ancient Kings and Bishops.

As if to encourage Warden Harris, who had taken the Solemn League and Covenant, these same "true Christians" paraded the streets in surplices, sounding, as with frantic joy, an Io pœan with the broken organ-pipes.

But who excited this public spirit of these illumined soldiers? The Puritanic press and pulpit, I reply; and, in answer to the charge against the abused Church of England, I throw back on those who most deserve it, the charge of intolerance ruthless intolerance..

In Milton's Areopagetica, or, "Speech for unlicensed printing," which, I suspect, is more spoken of than read, the point of inhibiting the publication of "bad books" is fully admitted. The question is, what books are bad? A Presbyterian would say, "all books which advocate Prelacy;" an Episcopalian would say, "all books which excite odium by unjust representations of a particular order of men." But no words can describe better than Milton's own the effect of the numerous and furious pamphlets! "I deny not but that it is the greatest concernment in a Church and Commonwealth to have a vigilant eye how books bemean themselves, as well as men," &c. "I know they are as LIVELY, and as vigorously productive, as those fabulous dragons' teeth, and, being sown up and down, may chance to spring up ARMED MEN.” *

* The Long Parliament had scarcely met, before they issued an Ordinance against scandalous and lying Pamphlets.

This is an exact description of their effects on Cromwell's armed men, made frantic by those who sowed the dragons' teeth, some of whom were traitors in the Church. I leave the Christian reader to determine on which side CHARITY LAY; but I adduce Miltonum contra Miltonum.

Let us now turn to historians of the Restoration. Various and most discordant

Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra―

have been the accounts of the conduct of the Clergy after the restoration of Charles the Second.

We have seen the holy and interesting groupe of Ken and Walton at the palace of the Bishop of Winchester. As my friend Morley, I fear, will be classed among those who have been regarded, by the extreme party as intolerant, if not oppressive, it will enter into a part of my plan to make some further remarks on the chief of those circumstances which have been adduced as affecting the character of that Episcopal Church of which Ken was now a rising and eminent member.

Of the most distinguished historian of that period, Neal, I shall deliver my opinion without fear, nor am I insensible how much prejudice has varnished the colours on the other side; whilst Calamy on one part, and Walker on the other, have advanced, each with his own catalogue of orthodox and dissenting martyrs.

If my friend Morley should appear not so tolerant to the Non-conformists as the general charac

ter for moderation in the Church of England might, at this day, incline us to have wished, I would remind my reader of what was answered by the Prussians, when, in the late war, the brave and generous English reproached them for their cruelty to the French: "You English have not had your fields invaded, or your households scattered, or your friends killed." Therefore, with respect to the restored Clergy, although it had been much nobler, if, "being persecuted," they had not, according to the lesson of their divine Master, in any instance, returned evil for evil-yet, it will be remembered they had grievous wrong, and they were men. The most unprincipled prejudice only is to be condemned, which enlarges on the deprivations they inflicted, and keeps out of sight the persecutions they endured.

But I am bound to say that, of all who have given their views of the circumstances of these times, no historian has, in general, so evenly held the balance of truth as Mr. Hallam, in his "Constitutional History of England," a work which sets him in the rank with those of the Church of England, to whom he has done willing and generous justice-Hooker, Chillingworth, Hales, and Jeremy Taylor. Of all historians whom it has been my lot to look into, he is the most fair-judging, weighing every circumstance, with the acumen, discrimination, and steadiness of a philosopher, and in the spirit of a Christian. I do not agree with him in

all parts; and on the period of our history relat→ ing to the conduct of the Clergy towards the Non-conformists, after the Restoration, I would suggest some circumstances which may have escaped his notice, comparing the sufferings of each party.

When we reflect on the two thousand Non-conformist Ministers ejected from their livings for not declaring their assent to "all and every-thing in the Prayer-book," who is he that does not respect and honour them, for surely it is unfair to attribute to them any motives but those that guided the faithful members of the Church in refusing the Covenant—that is, motives of conscience.

But some men's consciences are more sensitive than others, and poor Baxter always looked back with remorse on the sins of his youth, when he indulged in "eating too many apples." We can smile at this remorse, as well as at his terrors respecting "ungodly Maypoles ;" but still his feelings were conscientious, and if in these minor things we respect it, we must surely respect it when honours and wealth were before him, in case he complied, and when he knew that deprivation and poverty waited on non-compliance, and yet chose, for conscience sake, like Bishop Ken, poverty and deprivation.

But between the two parties I must remark this difference. The episcopal pulpits at no time resounded, in the house of peace and charity, with