endeavoured to restore episcopacy, that he might more easily secure his accession to the throne of England, on the antici pated death of Elizabeth! CHAPTER IV. JAMES I-ENGLAND. Character of James, by Dr. Warner and Bishop Burnet-Puritan's Petition Hampton Court Conference-Dr. Barlow's account - Church Canons Persecutions Gunpowder Plot-Translation of the Bible Arminianism - Book of Sports-The last two burnt at the stake-Puritans originate the American Republic-Death of James 1. JAMES VI of Scotland succeeded Elizabeth on the English throne. Having interceded with the queen for relief to the persecuted puritans, whose principles were those of the church of Scotland, the bishops in England carried on a correspondence with their anticipated sovereign, for the purpose of securing his interest in their favour, and by policy they succeeded. While in his native country, James appeared sober and attentive to the ordinances of religion; and having had Buchanan for his tutor, he had acquired a considerable share of learning, so as to make a version of the Psalms, which was commended even by Pope. But being enthroned in "the promised land," as he called England, the excessive flattery of the court prelates so intoxicated his vain mind, that he abandoned his boasted religious principles, and gave himself up to luxury and pleasure. By his corrupt court, therefore, real piety was seriously injured, immorality prevailed, and the nation was degraded. The circumstances of his reign, as they affected the true church of Christ in Britain, require a more particular notice of James's character, which is drawn in various colours. Perhaps Dr. Warner's is the most just that discriminating clergyman says,-"James was naturally mild, humane, and affable, without affectation, easy of access, and without pride or cruelty. His generosity was profuse, not flowing from reason or judgment, but from whim, or benignity of humour, to such as could make themselves. jagreeable to him in his loose and jovial hours. These hours he certainly had; in which he generally forgot his dignity, and let himself down, not only with freedom and familiarity, but with great indecency of language and behaviour.-As to his religion, he may be said to be neither papist nor protestant; it was a motley faith, peculiar, I believe, to himself. Properly speaking, James had no other religion than what flowed from a principle which he called 'Kingcraft.' The sequel of his reign will illustrate and prove what I say *." Bishop Burnet, on a review of his character, remarks, “It is certain no king could die less lamented or less esteemed than he was. His reign in England was a continued course of mean practices. The great figure the crown of England had made in queen Elizabeth's time, who had rendered herself the arbiter of Christendom, and was the wonder of the age, was so much eclipsed, if not quite darkened during this reign, that the king James was become the scorn of the age; and while hungry writers flattered him out of measure at home, he was despised by all abroad, as a pedant without true judgment, courage, or steadiness, subject to his favourites, and delivered up to the councils or rather corruptions of Spain +." Papists, episcopalians, and puritans, respectively sent addresses to their new sovereign, expressive of their loyalty. The papists reminded him, that his parents were of the Romish church, and sought his favour. The puritans petitioned the king for relief from absolute conformity with the ceremonies, and from the various grievances arising from the exorbitant powers of the bishops, and their oppressive courts. The bishops, in their excessive flattery, declared, and the vain prince believed it as certain truth, that the preservation of the hierarchy in its existing powers was essential to monarchy, slandering the puritans as factious, seditious, and aiming at the subversion of all government. Nothing beneficial was gained by the petitions of the puritans, though one of them was signed by eight hundred of the * Warner's Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii, p. 477-509. clergy: the insinuations of the prelates prevailed with the king, so that within nine months after his arrival in England James adopted his favourite maxim, "No bishop, no king." Influenced by the prelates, James now determined to break off with the church of Scotland, and to annihilate the cause of the puritans: he therefore appointed a conference at Hampton Court. "The puritan representatives, who were only four in number, and persons selected, not by their brethren, but by the sovereign, were afterwards confronted with their ecclesiastical opponents, including nine bishops, and the same number of dignitaries, the king being seated as moderator, the privy council and a crowd of courtiers being convened as auditors *." Patrick Galloway of Perth, was appointed to represent the church of Scotland. The ribaldry and abuse on which James was pleased to found his pretensions to a “signal victory +" over the puritans, is manifest from the account published by Dean Barlow. Galloway's account was not allowed to see the light, until it had been submitted to the king. Sir John Harrington, who was not a puritan, says, "The bishops came to the king about the petitions of the puritans. I was by, and heard much discourse. The king talked much Latin, and disputed with Dr. Reynolds at Hampton; but he rather used upbraidings than argument, and told the petitioners that they wanted to strip Christ again, and bid them away with their snivelling. *** The bishops seemed much pleased, and said his majesty spoke by the power of inspiration. I wist not what they mean, but the spirit was rather foul-mouthed: it seemeth the king will not change the religious observances. There was much discourse about the ring in marriage, and the cross in baptism; but if I guess aright, the petitioners against one cross will find another." On the first day, with the bishops alone, the king is said to have "played the puritan," which brought the prelates on their knees, craving "with great earnestness that nothing might be altered, lest popish recusants, punished by penal statutes for their disobedience, and the puritans, punished * Professor Vaughan's Stuart Dynasty, vol. i, p. 105. † lbid. p. 106. by deprivation from their callings and livings for nonconformity, should say they had just cause to insult upon them, as men who had travelled to bind them to that which by their own mouths was now confessed to be erroneous *." On the second day the puritans were called in to state their objections; but they were frequently interrupted, insulted, and ridiculed by some of the prelates, as well as borne down by the frown of majesty. When they began to discuss the subject of the ceremonies, the king interposed, declaring, "I will have one doctrine, one religion, in substance and ceremony, in all my dominions; so speak no more of that point to me;" and closing his replies to the arguments of the puritans with his sage adage, "No bishop, no king.” Dr. Reynolds expressed a wish that the clergy might be allowed to hold their meetings for their religious improvement, which archbishop Grindal so approved, called "prophesyings:" but his majesty refused, exclaiming, “If you aim at a Scottish presbytery, it agrees as well with monarchy as God with the devil." The vain sovereign would not suffer his own decisions to be questioned, nor objections to be proposed; and terminated the second day's conference by threatening the defeated puritans, in a manner equally repugnant to justice and unworthy of a king.—“ If this be all your party hath to say, I will make them conform themselves, or else I will harrie them out of the land, or else do worse." On the third day, after a consultation with the bishops, the puritans were called in to hear the few alterations that his majesty thought proper to make in the Common Prayer, and they were again admonished of the consequences of not yielding a full conformity. Most historians have noticed the unworthy manner in which the puritans were treated by "the prelates, whose sycophancy on this occasion exhibited an amount of dishonesty and impiety, that had it not been reported by a partizan, would have been discredited as one of the foulest calumnies. Egerton, the chancellor, had never seen the king and the priest so truly united in the same person. Bancroft, the bishop of * Calderwood's History, p. 474. London, fell on his knees, exclaiming, "I protest my heart melteth for joy, that Almighty God of his singular mercy has given us such a king, as since Christ's time hath not been." And when his majesty declared himself in favour of the oath ex officio, which, contrary to the humane maxims of the English law, compelled the accused to convict himself, Whitgift, the archbishop of Canterbury, affirined with the same feeling of exultation, that his sovereign had assuredly spoken from the Spirit of God! *" Dean Barlow's account of this conference was complained of by the puritans as representing them in a dishonourable point of view; and of this injury he is said to have repented on his death-bed. Still, as Dr. Harris remarks, "if Dr. Barlow has not represented the arguments of the puritans in as just a light, nor related what was done by the ministers as advantageously as truth required, he has abundantly made it up to them, by showing, that the bishops, their adversaries, were gross flatterers, and had no regard to their sacred characters; and that their mortal foe, James, had but a low understanding, and was undeserving the rank he assumed to himself in the republic of learning †.” James remembered his threatenings against the nonconformists, and fulfilled their import: for the next month a few alterations being made in the Common Prayer, without an act of parliament, he issued a proclamation, requiring immediate conformity. Bancroft drew up the Book of Canons, which breathed his violent spirit. Both clergy and laity, who refused compliance with the ceremonies, were excommunicated; and that terrible sentence excluded them from the congregation of the faithful, rendered them incapable of suing for their lawful debts, doomed them to imprisonment for life, or till they made satisfaction to the archbishop, and when they died, it denied them the burial of a Christian! Whitgift dying in 1604, Bancroft was translated from London to Canterbury: on which Dr. Warner remarks, “As * Vaughan's Stuart Dynasty, vol. i, p. 109. ↑ Life of James I, p. 87. |