Page:The Church of England, its catholicity and continuity.djvu/125

 and as inaugurators of the reign of peace. King James was much to blame for this state of things, because of his teaching that if there were no Bishop there could be no king. There was no reason why the troubles of James' time, and those of the early years of the reign of King Charles, should have been mixed up with the religious problems of the day. The early stages of these troubles had nothing to do with the different religious opinions held by Puritans and Churchmen. But so it was that political and religious differences were looked upon as being one and the same thing, and all the disorders of the latter days of Charles I. were wrongly attributed to the Church.

In passing on to speak of the reign of Charles I., I must say that it is not my business to enlarge upon the troubles which brought about the civil wars, or to discuss the king's mistakes. They are interesting and pathetic reading. You all know something about the rule of tyranny, as it was called, when ship money was imposed upon a part of the nation, when taxes were illegally demanded, when the king and his advisers governed without a Parliament. The end of these troubles were the civil wars and the murder of the king. These are not subjects which we must discuss. I will only say this: that the Puritans, during this first twenty years of Charles' reign, became more formidable than they ever were before, They built their meeting-houses and formed new congregations. Many of the Puritans left the country for Holland and America in Charles I.'s early years of rule, that they might enjoy greater freedom in their worship. Ultimately, we must remember, the troubles in England were resolved into religious troubles, and a war in