furious invectives, and incitements to persecution and blood, as the Presbyterian pulpits did against the Episcopal Clergy; when sermons, which turn the heart cold to read, were preached before Parliament, denouncing God's judgment on the Priests of Baal! that is, on those who were not Calvinistic Puritans.

Let it, secondly, in candour be remembered, that the restored Clergy, if a general conformity was insisted on, never denied the consolation, in private, to those who preferred the "Directory," as, in the utmost stretch of cruelty the Presbyterians, in their day of domination, did, under severe penalties! denying even this consolation of "conscience" to those whom they had deprived of bread.

Thirdly, I will not, Heaven forbid! say one word that might look like vindication, in returning "evil for evil," but I believe no man will deny any community, especially after it has cruelly suffered, the right to make laws and conditions for its own safety; and let the Christian, before he hastily classes my friend Morley among the persecutors of the conscientious, reflect on the inveterate hatred (for I cannot soften the word) to the ceremonies of the Church, and her ritual, which those who refused subscription, evinced, when, having joined in the general voice that demanded the King, before the King set his foot on his native soil, they deputed their representatives, among whom was the

very CASE whose sermon we have spoken of, to request he would not tolerate

THE SURPLICE AND THE PRAYER-BOOK! The King's answer is well known. Let it be further considered, that, if two thousand or fifteen hundred of talented and united men, with these feelings of unsubdued hostility, which hostility, I believe, every sensible mind will now admit to have been far more frivolous than wise-remained in the communion to whose discipline and ritual they could not assent with and united talents, energy, and implacable aversion-then Morley might as well have taken off his square-cap again, and gone into exile without bread; and it would have been almost felo de se, in those who thought kneeling at the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to be the most devout posture, had they allowed part of the communicants to receive that holy rite kneeling, and part sitting-when they knew, either that they must eat the bread of poverty again, or that this schism must be eternal in their communion-being conscious that so large and respectable a body still regarded with implacable hate that ritual which was then more precious on account of the tyranny to which it had subjected those who prized it.

i

The alternative, then, was adopted I will not say justly, that charity forbids - nor have I ever, nor will I ever, say one word that might seem to denote any feelings or any principles than those of the cheerfully granting the rights of conscience, as

I trust that those rights will not be denied to me but I will say, that all the circumstances in which the restored Clergy stood, should be taken into consideration before their conduct is condemned

their previous sufferings the malignant revilings of their order-the united strength and inveteracy of hostility ranged against them, hostility which no toleration could soften, and the consciousness that both parties in the same Church could not subsist together. The only question then must be, whether they would succumb, voluntarily, or, adopting the alternative, leave the result to the melioration of charity and time.

These considerations I venture to offer, disclaiming, far more warmly than I have offered them, any participation in the feelings of the persecuting and severe spirit, which was subsequently evinced by Charles and James.*

Having been led to say thus much, I shall make some remarks on another historian of these times.

"The old Clergy," says Neal, "who had been sequestered FOR SCANDAL, having taken possession

* Mr. Hallam has delivered his sentiments as becomes him on one persecution of the Church by the Presbyterians, but he has overlooked a desolating persecution under the Tryers of Cromwell the most torturing inquisition of ignorance, arbitrarily scrutinizing the feelings, and deciding who were or were not Calvinistic Puritans, according to their pattern of belief; and this Junto was sent into every County, with full powers of removal in all cases. The celebrated HUGH PETERS was one of these Tryers!

of their livings, were intoxicated with their new feelings, and threw off the restraints of their order! such was the general dissolution of manners which attended the deluge of joy that overflowed the nation on his Majesty's restoration!"

"A deluge of joy" indeed "overflowed the nation," when the reign of intolerant hypocrisy and demoniacal inspiration came to a close.

Some of the Clergy, indeed, might have given way to feelings of inordinate joy, on being, after twelve years of exile and sorrow, restored to their old parishioners, by whom their return was hailed with more heartfelt cordiality, from the recollection of their silent sorrows, and long suffering; but the example of the Church of England still shone conspicuously amidst the general licentiousness, in the reign of Charles the Second, and fifteen years only after his death was established that Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, which appears so majestic in the front of our Church community at present.

The gloom of Calvinism passed away like a "phantasma or a hideous dream;" but charity itself can hardly forgive the historian* who makes no exception, leaving the reader to suppose that so many learned, pious, and holy men as the Church of England produced in the former reign, were turned out for scandal! I believe firmly that not one in five hundred was turned out for "scandal,"

* Neal's History of the Puritans.

if scandal means vicious lives, but for fidelity to the persecuted communion, and virtuous adherence to what they considered their duties as Christians.

The same candid writer tells us, that at this period of universal joy, whilst "the old, sequestered Clergy flourished in great numbers about the Court, MAGNIFYING their sufferings" [that could not well be], "making interest for preferment." [Why not, having eat the bread of poverty so many years? But what follows? Oh grievous !] "Every one took possession of the living from which he had been ejected!" To be sure he did; what could have been more unjust if they had not? "By which means [oh terrible persecution!] some hundreds of the Presbyterian Clergy were dispossessed at once." Were they so? and how many had they dispossessed at once to get there? "But," adds the historian, for once with ingenuous candour and simplicity, "where the incumbent was dead, his Majesty yielded that the living should be confirmed to the present possessor!"

I trust these observations will be construed fairly. The whole of this work (the "History of the Puritans") is written in the spirit of extenuation on one side, and exaggeration on the other; and, being on the subject of the restored Clergy, though no man would contend more warmly for the rights of conscience, in the widest sense, to all, I could not pass over such historical impartiality, in an age when Clarendon is called a BIGOT!