engagement unlawful, it was easily defeated by the forces of Cromwell; and the whole project was blown to the winds. As soon as the news of this defeat came to Scotland, there was a rising in the southwestern counties, where the zeal for the cov. enant had ever been the greatest; and a large body of men from many parishes, with their ministers, aided by the Marquis of Argyle and a party at his command, marched under arms to Edinburgh, changed the administration, and brought the major ity in the parliament upon the side of the covenanters. Upon this a stringent law was passed, excluding all "engagers," from civil employment, until they should give satisfactory proof to the kirk, of their repentance, and make public profession accordingly. "All churches upon that," says Burnet," were full of mock penitents; some making their acknowledgments all in tears, to gain the more credit with the new party."

A number of the ministers favored this engagement, and others, if they did not favor it, were inclined to treat its partisans with leniency. Among these latter was Baillie, principal of the university of Glasgow. In a letter of March 27, 1648, when his own mind was much agitated as to the measures which ought to be taken, he thus speaks of the signs of the times. "Some of our leaders are likely never to be satisfied, and resolve to trust to nothing that their opponents can do or say, so long as this parliament, which they call unsound, is in being. The danger of this rigidity is likely to be fatal to the king, to the whole isle, both churches and states. We mourn for it to God. Though it proceed from two or three men at most, yet it seems remediless. If we be kept from a present civil war, it is God, and not the wisdom of our most wise and best men, which will save us." In June, he says, "all appearance of any possibility to agree daily does more and more

evanish. A spirit of bitterness, jealousy and mutual contempt grows on all hands, and the stronger party is begun to persecute the weaker, and that evil is likely much to increase quickly." In August he attended the general assembly and says that "it was here pressed that ministers silent, who did not preach against the engagement, should for this, be deposed," although he hìmself "wished if men were modest and otherwise offended not, that this fault might carry no more but a rebuke." One overture at this assembly shows the exasperation which arose from the engagement. "It was," says Baillie, "that all ministers conversing with malignants, should be censured by presbyteries. This would have snared many, for the notion of malignants now by the engagement is extended to very many.

Among the favorers of the engagement was Leighton, and according to Burnet he might have fallen into trouble on this account, if the Earl of Lothoan, who lived in his parish of Newbattle and had a great regard for him, and who himself it would appear, opposed the engagement, had not befriended him and rescued him from the hands of the more violent. What his precise views of public policy were, and how he reconciled the engagement with the covenant, which we take it for granted he had subscribed long before, we have no means of knowing. Burnet says that he "soon come to see into the follies of the presbyterians, and to dislike their covenant;" and it is probable that before the engagement he was under the influence of men of the opposite party.

But if the quarrels immediately arising out of the engagement, made Leighton as a man of peace, not

He imposed the covenant on the students at Edinburgh, according to a good authority quoted by Mr. Pearson.

averse to withdraw from the kirk, the subsequent distraction must have greatly increased this desire. After the execution of the king in 1649, all parties in Scotland looked to Charles II, and he was proclaimed, provided he would take the covenant and observe the solemn league. He came over from Holland, swore to the covenant in the most solemn manner, amid the admonitions of the strict covenanters, to avoid all insincerity in so doing, was crowned king, gathered an army, and was defeated at the battle of Worcester, in August, 1651. In order to facilitate the raising of an army, the parliament repealed the law passed after the defeat of the engagers, by which they were excluded from employment, having first obtained resolutions in favor of a partial repeal from the commission of the assembly. This instantly kindled the old flame of party strife, founded on the charge of a breach of the covenant. The two parties, known as the resolutioners and protesters, or the politic and the strict covenanters, were at variance, and sometimes engaged in most bitter hostility from this time until the kirk was overturned. One needs only to read the latter part of Baillie's letters, to be convinced that the disagreement almost amounted to a schism. Synods were divided, ministers of the opposing sides were inducted into the same parish, one general assembly was broken up, and it was fortunate perhaps for the cause of religion, that the assembly was forcibly prevented from meet ing afterwards, by the English military officers at Edinburgh.

Leighton's resignation of his ministerial charge, occurred during the hottest of this controversy, in 1652. It seems to have been English influence which called him to the university. Probably he was looked upon as a man of peace and a gentle spirit, who would submit quietly to the ruling powers, and not teach rebellion either of the loyal or covenanting

sort, to the students. In this station he seems to have gained the reverence of all. One of the duties which he prescribed to himself was to deliver short theological lectures in Latin to the students. While in these the same religious system is inculcated which we gather from the commentary on Peter, there is a manifest disposition to avoid all the abstruse and controverted parts of theology. Leighton approaches the young not so much with arguments and an elaborate system of truths; as with declarations of the great points necessary for salvation. He continued in this office, until he received, in 1662, an intimation of the ecclesiastical dignity to which he was to be preferred.

From what has been said, it appears that Leighton conceived an early dislike to the covenant; that his politics, so far as he had any, were opposed to those of the leading covenanters, who were also the strongest presbyterians; that he by this means was brought into collision with the ruling party in the kirk; that he was disgusted by their quarrels and led to look around to see if there was not some quieter haven, where he might moor his bark. His resignation of his parish, proceeded from these causes, and during his office of principal of the university-the storm in the kirk raging nearly all the whilehis dislikes were strengthened, and his preferences of some other form, where men would be cempelled by a presiding officer to keep the peace with one another, were matured. And can we wonder that he thought that a church so distracted, needed a permanent overseer? Truly if a state of tranquillity could be attained by these means, and they did not give rise to other evils, we should be much of his mind.

We may add to these considerations, that Leighton's views of the duty of obedience to rulers, were such that he must have considered the resistance of the covenanters to

Charles I. unlawful, and that this would naturally disaffect him to their way of thinking in other respects. In one place he says, (on Peter II, 13, 14,) "there is always so much justice in the most depraved govern ment, as to render it a public good, and therefore puts upon inferiors an obligation to obedience." To the politics of the royalist party he would also naturally be bent by the feelings of some of his friends. His brother, Sir Elisha or Sir Ellis Leightonwe suspect he softened his name to suit courtly ears-bore arms on the royalist side, and was afterwards secretary to the Duke of York. Of this man Burnet says, that "he was very like his brother in face and in the vivacity of his parts, but the most unlike him in all other things that can be imagined, for though he loved to talk of great sublimities in religion, he was a very immoral man. He was a papist of a form of his own, but he had changed his religion to raise himself at court.-He had great power over his brother, for he took care to hide his vices from him, and to make before him a great show of piety."

But such influences could not have swayed Leighton, had there been any decided quality in his character opposed to them. His father, for instance, would have resisted similar ones many times stronger, and have been only the more bent to the other side. What were the traits which worked with outward things to lead him away from the church of Scotland?

Leighton's mind seems to have been neither of a logical nor a practical cast, which are reigning features in the Scotch mind, but to have delighted in intuition and contemplation. Such minds, we believe, especially when united with a placid temper, as in the instance before us, are averse to disputation, and much more to outward strife. Their perception of moral beauty is apt to be strong, and they have a love of or

der and harmony while a soul which is alive to the sublime, like Milton or Dante, can mix in the angry contentions of parties, men of this mould will not endure to run into scenes where they behold an unhinged condition of things, and moral tempests. moral tempests. Leighton's meditative turn also inclined him to withdraw from the practical part of life, and to value the contemplative virtues, such as mortification of the bodily appetites, a spirit of prayer and meditation, a calm, quiet state of the desires, and indifference to outward things-virtues which have no necessary relation to our fellowmen-before the practical ones, which lead us out of ourselves to action for and among mankind. It is not strange, therefore, that Leighton found something in monastic life to admire, and had perhaps a onesided notion of what deadness to the world consisted in. He is said to have had some relations at Douay, in visiting whom, he was led to admire the apparent unwordliness of many Catholics. He often quotes from the fathers down to the mystical Bernard. In his meditation on the fourth Psalm, he cites from St. Augustine a story of the power which the life of St. Anthony, the famous monk, had on two prætorian soldiers, in bringing them to quit the world and give up the rest of their days to religion. He then immediately adds, "holy men in former days did wonders in conquering the world and themselves," as if the conquest were of such a sort. His own habits of life were almost ascetic, so that Burnet calls him a monastic man. He never married, and "had no regard to his person, unless it was to mortify it by a constant low diet that was like a perpetual fast." His "rules and instructions for a holy life," in constantly urging the duty of mortification, and in making prominent the mere feeling of love to God, might seem to be the directions of some

pious inspector of a nunnery, or translations from Madame Guion. He says, amongst other things,

"So love and desire God only that if he would create hell in thee here, thou mightest be ready to offer thyself, by his grace, for his eternal honor and glory to suffer it," "at every word thou wilt speak, at every morsel thou wilt eat, at every stirring or moving of every article or member of thy body, thou must ask leave of him in thy heart." "The more perfectly thou livest in the abstraction and departure and bare nakedness of thy mind from all creatures, the more nakedly and purely shalt thou have the fruition of the Lord thy God, and shalt live the more heavenly and angelical life."

It is manifest that a tendency is here exhibited which in some circumstances might have led Leigh ton to serious errors in religion; and it was perhaps the early influ ence of the old man who lost his ears for presbytery, which neutralized or repressed this bent of character.

If we have correctly described Leighton's character, there was in him a contemplative, intuitive mind, a temper inclined to order, tranquil lity and subjection, which differed widely from the logical, free, practical spirit of the Scotch Calvinists. There is no wonder, then, that his sympathies were divorced from his brethren, and that he looked somewhere else for relations more congenial to his disposition.

But surely a good man like Leighton would never have changed his denomination as he did, without some probability, in his own view, that the endeavor to introduce episcopacy would be useful and successful. For, as he thought the church of Scotland a true church, only capable of improvement, he could not have sought to bring about those improvements, if he had seen a risk that the church would be split asunder in the attempt. Was then his sagacity at fault, and did his ignorance of men lead him into a path which a more keen-sighted

man would have shunned?

Here we have two things to take

into view-his own feelings at the moment, and the probabilities as they might appear even to an indifferent person. His own feelings are known from a letter written at that time, and given in Mr. Pearson's biographical sketch. Besides assuring his friend, who must have doubted the propriety of his course, that he was averse to the honors offered him, and that in any station he must have differed from his former brethren in divers practices, he says, "and what will you say, if there be in this thing somewhat of that you mention, and would allow of reconciling the devout on different sides, and of enlarging those good souls you meet with from their little fetters, though possibly with little success?

A

Yet the design is commendable, pardonable at least." From this it would appear, that though Leighton, out of compliance with his friend's views, underrated his own hopes; he still must have had a prevailing opinion that a change of church government could be effected without schism or persecution, which would issue in the peace and prosperity of the church. hope, indeed, at which we can hardly help smiling, as we look back on the very plain reasons which now appear why it should be disappointed. But even the wise men of the day could not confidently predict the result, and still less could a retired man like Leighton. For the probabilities were such that different tempers and judgments would estimate them differently. There were a number of ministers who felt and thought with Leighton. There were many worthy Episcopalians in Scotland who adhered to the church which James had set up. There was a part of Scotland-in the north and around Aberdeen— where opinions were declared for some alteration of church policy. It was confidently asserted that two thirds of the ministers would come over. There was a general dislike

to the violence of a party in the kirk, and a reaction against the covenant. And the reflux of loyalty it was thought would carry men high and dry beyond the tossing waves of resistance to any law touching an established religion. All these things might well persuade some men even of sound judgment, that the proposed change would not endanger the peace of the church and country. And as the change was to be accomplished at any rate, it might seem best for those who honestly favored it, to guard against bad counsels by their own personal co-operation.

These considerations will defend Leighton, we believe, from the charge of unhallowed motives and unusual weakness of judgment. And if there were fewer of them, if his commentary on Peter were the only memorial of the man, we should believe him still good and pure in his most questionable actions; we should cling to him if he had turned Catholic or Quaker.

Leighton's conduct towards his former brethren after his separation from the kirk, is a strong proof of the rectitude of his views. Amid the persecutions and violences of others in his party, he ever pursued a course of mildness and conciliation, patiently trying to bring men to his way of thinking, until he found it hopeless, and feeling little bitterness towards those who thwarted his endeavors. This is a good test of character. When men, and especially ministers, leave a church from base motives, they of course and proverbially hate their former friends, depreciate their talents, and blacken their names. Most men, also, when they leave a church without base motives, unduly dislike their old associates, either because they are aware of being themselves talked against, or because they are conscious of needing excuses for the step they have taken, and can find the best excuses in the failings

of others. But when a man leaves one party for another without leaving his Christian love behind him, when he goes over, not to fight or to take pay, but because he feels that it is better for him or for the cause of God that he should do so, then, whatever we may think of the soundness of his judgment, we ought to feel that he gives the best proof of the soundness of his heart, and that he has a right to our esteem as much as ever.

But if Leighton hoped to do good in this way, he was wofully deceived, as the event showed, and as he soon began to be aware, when he got a view of the character of his associates. We may almost say, that no set of men banded together to destroy the Christian religion were ever as bad as these who united to build up the Episcopal church in Scotland. The sight of Leighton among them must have been like the sight of a dove seated on a carcase, amid vultures and carrioncrows. If he disliked the bitterness of the adherents to the kirk, as an unchristian spirit, what must he have thought of the hypocrisy, the cruelty, the cupidity of these men; and what wonder was it that he longed for retirement and removal beyond the limits of Scotland!

The bishops ordained at the same time with Leighton, were Sharp, Fairfoul, and Hamilton. Sharp's unheard of hypocrisy and dissimu lation could not then have been known to Leighton, certainly not in all its extent. It appears from Baillie's letters that he deceived that sagacious man; and the other bad parts of his character did not fully open until he had obtained the reward of his management. This is not the place to follow the course of this wicked man in his schemes of perfidy, cruelty, and ambition, until he became the victim of the dark fanaticism which grew out of his own conduct. Hardly any drama in history ends more horribly