land, had been brought up and educated amongst them. But, however, their hopes, reasonable as they were, of finding a protec tor in him, were utterly difap. pointed. They might, indeed, have remarked, that even whilst he was only king of Scotland, he did not exprefs much inclination to them; which fome amongst them, more particularly attentive to his conduct, had long perceiv ed. Immediately upon his acceffion to the throne of England, he openly teftified his entire appro bation of the conflitution of the English church, and his diflike to the difcipline of the Puritans. He, indeed, caufed to be held at Hampton Court, in 1604, a conference between the divines of both parties, at which he himfelf was prefent, and where the cause of the English church prevailed. From this time he became fo great a favourer of epifcopal government, 7 Q

that

that he re-established it in Scotland, from whence it had been banished ever fince the Reformation. James was entirely actuated in this affair by his ruling paffion, the defire of fupreme authority," which he perceived the conftitution of the Puritan church did not favour.

capital crimes, was juridically condemned, and loft his life on a fcaffold.

The Puritans, from the year 1633, had given rife to many difputes, principally on the fanctifi. cation of the Sabbath, and on Predeftination. Those who were of different fentiments, maintained them with great warmth. But whilft the minds of the people were taken up with thefe difputes, there arose one of much greater importance, between the king and the parliament. The limitation of the royal authority, and the liberties of the people, were the fubjects of this difpute. Much the greatest part of the bishops, and their adherents, were attached to the king's intereft, whilst that of the people was maintained by the Puritans and their minifters, who, actuated by a fpirit of enthufiafm, carried things to a moft fatal length. The preachers, in their fermons, animated the people against the king, and folicited them to revolt. They, at length, took arms, and a war broke out, as fatal to the church as it was to the king and people. The Puritans of England, uniting with thofe of Scotland, became the mafters, and abolished epifcopacy in the two kingdoms. They likewife annulled the liturgy, and all the worship of the English church, depriving those of their employments who refused fubmit to these regulations. At length, after fome battles, they feized the king, threw him into prifon, juridically proceeded against him, and committed the most deteftable of actions by condemning him to death.

Charles I. fucceeded his father in 1625, and followed his example; nay, even carried his fe verity beyond what James. had done. His great attention during the whole course of his reign, was employed to fettle the epifcopal church of England on the fame footing it had been established by the laws of the kingdom about fixty years before. He likewise fucceeded in what his father had begun, by forcing the Scots to receive bishops. In this he principally followed the advice of William Laud, then bishop of London, and afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. This prelate was poffeffed of many great talents and excellent qualities; notwithstanding which, he was very fuperftitious, and fo extravagant an admirer of antiquity, that he conceived an utter averfion to the ceremonies of the Puritans. Add to that, he was fo fixed in any defign he had once formed, that he fpared nothing for its execution. His defign was to deftroy the Puritans; for which end he fometimes caufed them to be treated with the greateft indignities, and in a manner contrary to the laws of the kingdom. The Puritans being, at length, exafperated by this treatment, united themfelves for their common defence, and formed a party, which at length prevailed. The archbishop was then, in his turn, perfecuted, and after being accused of

to

It is commonly fuppofed, and moft hiftorians have affirmed, that the principal authors of this cruel parricide