respecting the character and principles of the separatists, a circumstance easily to be accounted for from their practical connexion with the church of England, in an age of calumny and intolerance. Some years back, John Robinson had been sagacious enough to perceive the identity of his views with those of most of the nonconforming clergy who had not separated from the church of England; and he had expressed his conviction that this identity would be at once confessed by the clergy themselves as soon as they were dissociated from that church. "There will be no difference," said he, in 1620, in his address to the pilgrims of Leyden, "between the unconformable ministers and you, when they come to the practice of the ordinances out of the kingdom."* So that, on the review of the whole matter, we cannot fail to perceive how widely the scriptural views of the Brownists, and their successors of various names, had become disseminated in England, even in the bosom of the establishment, at this time. The Independent party of a later period did not, as some have supposed, spring up in a day, taking the world by surprise, both by the novelty of its principles and the new-born might of its great leaders. The formative process had been going on during many long years of trial. The blood of the martyrs in Elizabeth's reign, the labours and controversies of the exiles in James's, and the successes of the colonists in Charles's, led to those results which have perplexed the minds of the annalists, and at which the world even yet sometimes seems astonished.

* Winslow's Brief Narration, in Young's Chronicles, p. 398. Also see back, pp. 70, 7L.

In 1633, at the instigation of Laud, king Charles made an unsuccessful attempt to subjugate the church of Scotland to an episcopalian discipline. Rejecting the lessons of experience which his father's previous failure should have taught him, he determined to try what authority and power could do in this respect. He therefore made a royal progress into that country, attended by a large retinue of noblemen and churchmen. On the 18th of June, he was crowned at Edinburgh, and on the 20th, he met the Scotch parliament of Lords and Commons, whom he treated with as little ceremony as the purpose of his visit required. Two acts were proposed for their adoption, one relating to his prerogative and the apparel of kirkmen, the other to former acts touching religion, which were to be ratified. When the first bill was put, his majesty, fearing the character of the vote that might be rendered, took a paper out of his pocket, containing a list of the members, and said, "Gentlemen, I have all your names here, and I will know who will do me service, this day, and who will not." When the vote was taken, the majority appeared against the bill; but the clerk, making a false report, reversed the decision, and declared that it was carried in the affirmative. The indignant expression which marked the countenances of some of the members, and the outspoken denial of the truth of the clerk's declaration on the part of others, were alike in vain. The king would have it so. The royal insult, however, alienated not only the parliament, but all ranks of Scottish subjects. In eight days the parliament was dissolved; and on the 1st of July, Charles left Edinburgh for London, where he arrived on the 20th. This visit to his native land was as mischievous as it was brief, and

was followed by measures of the most impolitic nature. Before the king's departure, a new bishopric had been instituted at Edinburgh, through the influence of Laud, who had availed himself of every opportunity of affronting the presbyters of the kirk ;* and now it was determined, if possible, to introduce the English liturgy, together with all the ceremonies so fashionable at court. Articles, framed for this purpose, were sent into Scotland, under the royal hand, with the declaration that they were intended, in the first instance, for the chapel royal, but also as a pattern for all the cathedrals, chapels, and parish churches, of the kingdom. Instead, however, of surrendering themselves to these innovations, the Scotch people from the beginning resisted, and when the proper time came, rose up against it as one man." +

Soon after Charles's return from Scotland, or on the 4th of August, Archbishop Abbot died, and Laud was almost immediately appointed to the vacant office. The consequences attending this promotion we reserve for another chapter, and conclude this with a few particulars respecting an individual whose name has already been mentioned, and who died about this period.‡

Dr. William Ames was a Congregational Independent, and had great influence over his contemporaries,

*At the king's coronation, when Lindsey, the Archbishop of Glasgow, appeared at the king's side in simple attire, Laud thrust him aside in a rude manner, saying, "What! are you a churchman, and want the coat of your order?" and another bishop, more after Laud's fashion, was called to officiate in his place. Rushwork, ii. 182.

† Neal, i. 563.

Notwithstanding his European celebrity, Ames is not once mentioned in Hallam's Introduction to the Literature of Europe.

*

both in the church of England and amongst the sepa ratists. He was descended from an ancient family in Norfolk, where he was born in 1576. He was educated at Christ Church, Cambridge, and derived great advantages from the counsels of the celebrated Perkins, by whom he was instructed in the evangelical doctrines of the New Testament. From an early period, he was distinguished by his zealous maintenance of those doctrines, his great assiduity as a scholar, his purity of life, and his enmity to the corruptions of the Romish system. In his thirty-fifth year, he was compelled to leave Cambridge in consequence of his public remonstrance against the immoral and frivolous practices of that university, in a sermon delivered at St Mary's. Had he been a great churchman, the offence might have been overlooked; but being known as a puritan in many of his sentiments, it was unpardonable. In order, therefore, to prevent his expulsion by the Master, who acted in concurrence with Archbishop Bancroft, he forsook the college, went to Holland, and became minister of the English church at the Hague.

He had not been long at the Hague, before he received an invitation from the States of Friesland to occupy the professor's chair in the university of Franeker. He was already known as a scholar and writer,† and his reputation gave Franeker a celebrity

* Ames always classes Perkins with Calvin, and other great writers.

† In conjunction with Bradshaw, he had published his sentiments respecting the separatists. In 1608, he had written the preface to Bradshaw's "Unreasonableness of the Separation ;" and in 1610, he had translated Bradshaw's "English Puritanism," into Latin. The last-mentioned work was re-published in 1641, in Ames's name. Brook's Lives of the Puritans, ii. 408.

it had never possessed before. Many went from Hungary, Poland, Prussia, and Flanders, to receive the benefit of his instructions, who, according to the testimony of one of their number, "would not have stayed there but for the liking they had of him." * During this period of his life, he had many opportunities of intercourse with Robinson, with whom he had previously become acquainted. At one time they had been opposed to one another; but now there was "much loving agreement between them.' They were men of kindred spirit, and much alike in temper. Ames was superior to Robinson as a scholar, and in metaphysical acumen; but was not equal to him in his knowledge of men and manners. Robinson laid

more stress than Ames on matters of church government; and Ames was more successful than Robinson in setting forth the cardinal doctrines of Calvinism in a succinct and transparently logical form. Neither of them were prolix writers; but Ames was of the two the most elegantly sententious and consecutive in his style. Both were gifted with considerable power of analysis; but Ames was, probably, the keenest disputant. Robinson received the thanks of the clergy and learned men of Leyden for his triumphant discussion with Episcopius; Ames secured the approbation of some of the choicest minds of Europe for his two treatises in opposition to Grevinchovius, and his confutation of the Dutch Arminians.†

* Biographia Evangelica, iv. 47.

The Disceptatio Scholastica," and the "Disputatio," the former of which was published in 1613, and the latter in 1615, were written in reply to Grevinchovius of Rotterdam. The "Coronis ad Collationem Hagiensem, &c.," is a vindication of the arguments of the Dutch pastors against the remonstrants, or Armi