LEIGHTON, Robert, a prelate of eminent talents and learning, and of the most exalted piety, was born in the year 1611. His father, Alexander Leighton, a descendant of the ancient family of Ulyshaven in Forfarshire, commenced his academical studies at St Andrews, and afterwards rep>aired to Leyden, where he took the degree of Μ. D. That he ever took the degree of D. D∙ seems to be asserted without sufficient evidence: as he became a clergyman, it was apparently taken for granted that he must have proceeded in the theological faculty. That he never was a professor of philosophy in the university of Edinburgh, is still more certain. Dr Leighton fixed his residence in London, where he betook himself to the practice of physic, but met with strong opposition from the college of physicians. He was however doomed to encounter persecution in a more appalling form. His indignation was violently moved by the lordly pretensions and popish practices of the bishops of those days; and he was induced to prepare an elaborate volume, under the title of Sions Plea against the Prelacies in which his indignation was very strongly expressed. With the view of conducting his work through the press, he retired to Holland; and we find that the year 1629 he became minister of the English church at Utrecht. But his conscientious scruples respecting the observance of the appointed festival days, which he doubtless regarded as a remnant of superstition, induced him to resign his charge within the space of a few months.^[1. Steveu s History of the Scottish Church, Rotterdam, to which are subjoined Notices of the other British Churches in the Netherlands, p. 339. Ēdinb. 1833, 8vo. ] His book having been printed in the course of the preceding year,^[2. An Appeal to the Parliament; or Sions Plea against the Prelacie: the summe whereoffis delivered in a decade of positions, in the handling whereoff the Lord Bishops and their appurtenances are manifestly proved, both by divine and humane lawes, to be in- ] he returned to London. Two copies were presented to parliament two [7:13:211]days before its dissolution; and it was immediately perceived that the author had treated the bishops with uncompromising severity, describing them as men of blood, and maintainers of superstitious worship and antichristian government. This last position was verified by the inhuman treatment to which he was himself subjected. He was soon afterwards arrested by two pursuivants of the high commission, and was first conducted to the house of Dr Laud, who was then bishop of London, and who may with sufficient propriety be described as the inquisitor general of England. On the bishop’s warrant he was committed to a dark, cold, and loathsome dungeon in Newgate, to a place not fit for the reception of a Christian’s dog, and there he was kept, without meat or drink, from Tuesday night to Thursday at noon. It was only after a dismal interval of fifteen weeks that the inquisitors would permit even his wife to visit him. Four days after his commitment, she had been treated with the most barbarous inhumanity and indecency by a pursuivant and other ruffians, who were sent to ransack his house, under the pretext of searching for Jesuits books. They presented a pistol to the breast of a boy five years of age, threatening to shoot him if he did not inform them where the books were to be found; “and so affrighted the poor child, that he never recovered it all his days.” They not only carried off books and manuscripts, but robbed the house of arms, clothes, and furniture. His wife had sufficient courage to remind them that a day of reckoning might yet come; and come it did, in a signal manner, to the chief authors and abettors of such flagitious proceedings. Some of Laud’s emissaries infested him in Newgate; and, by means of flattering and deceitful promises, one of them prevailed upon him to confess that he was the writer of the book in question. During a subsequent visit, he offered to procure him pardon and favour, on condition of his disclosing the names of those who had encouraged him to write; but although nearly five hundred individuals had, by their subscriptions, testified their approbation of Sions Plea, he had too much magnanimity to betray anyone of his friends and adherents. After this refusal, he was brought before the court of Star-Chamber, and required to answer a long information, setting forth his many and grievous offences. He admitted that he was the author of the book, but denied all criminality of intention. No counsel dared to plead his cause, and he returned to prison in order to await his doom. It was the opinion of four physicians that poison had been administered to him in Newgate. He had been seized with a violent distemper, which was accompanied with loathsome symptoms, and his strength was so completely exhausted that he could not be produced before this atrocious court. In his absence the following sentence was unanimously pronounced on the 4th of June 1630: that Dr Leighton should pay a fine of L. 10,000; that the high commission should degrade him from his ministry; that he should be brought to the pillory at Westminster during the sitting of the court, and should there be whipped; that after whipping he should be set upon the pillory for a convenient time, should have one of his ears cut off, one side of his nose slit, and his face branded with the letters S. S. denoting a Sower of Sedition; that he should then be carried back to prison, and, after an interval of a few days, should again be pilloried at Cheapside, should then likewise be whipped, have his other ear cut off, and the other side of his nose slit; and should then be detained in close custody in the Fleet-prison for the remainder of his life. When this sentence was pronounced, it has been stated that Laud pulled off his cap, and gave thanks to the God of mercy; nor does such an act appear to be in any respect inconsistent with the general character of the ferocious and unrelenting bigot to whom it is imputed.^[3. Even in the solitude of his prison, Laud seems to have entertained a deliberate opinion that Dr Leighton’s punishment had fallen short of his deserts. “In which book of his,” he remarks very coolly, “were many things, which in some times mi<dit have cost him dearer.” (Hist, of the Troubles and Tryal of Laud, vol. i. p. 198.) The archiepiscopal palace was converted into a state prison, of which Leighton was appointed keeper; and this amiable prelate felt it as a great trial of his patience, that a person who had thus “been censured in the Star-Chamber,” should come with a warrant from the House of Commons to demand the keys. See likewise p. 203, and Dr Nalson’s Collection, vol. i. p. 512. ] This is the same individual whom τ the high-churchmen of our own times describe as an excellent prelate. Between the passing and the execution of the sentence, Leighton made his escape from prison; and two of his countrymen, named Anderson and Elphinstone, were each fined L.500 for aiding and abetting him in his flight. He was however retaken in Bedfordshire; and, before the expiration of a fortnight, having again been committed to the Fleet, he endured the first part of his punishment on the 26th of November: it was inflicted with the most unrelenting severity; the second part followed after a short interval; and his bodily frame having thus been miserably shattered, he lingered in prison for the tedious space of nearly ten years.^[4. - Rushworth’s Historical Collections, part ii. p. 58. Oldmixon’s Hist, of England during the Reigns of the House of Stuart, p. H0. Pierce’s Vindication of the Dissenters, p. 177∙ Neal’s Hist, of the Puritans, vol. ii. p. 209. Toulmin’s edit. Brook’s Lives of the Puritans, vol. ii. p. 47G. Brodie’s Hist, of the British Empire, vol. ii. p. 308. ] In 1640 he presented a petition to the long parliament, reciting the direful persecution to which he had been subjected, and he now obtained such redress as could be afforded to him; “but,” as Dr Benson has too truly remarked, , ∙' no sufficient reparation, in this world, could possibly be made to a man so highly injured.”^[5. J Benson’s Brief Account of Archbishop Laud’s cruel Treatment of Dr Leighton, inserted in the third edition of his Collection of Tracts, p. 224. Lond. 1748, 8vo. ]

Robert Leighton, the eldest son of this learned and persecuted individual, is commonly represented as a native of Edinburgh; but as Burnet speaks of his father’s having sent him to be educated in Scotland, it has been inferred that he was born in London.^[6. Murray’s Life of Robert Leighton, D. D. Archbishop of Glasgow, p. 42. Edinb. 1828, 12mo. ] The name of his mother we have not found recorded, but it is certain that he was of the issue of the first marriage. His father’s second wife was Isabel the daughter of Sir William Musgrave of Ireby in Cumberland, and she had previously been married to William Calverley, and Ralph Hopton, Esq.^[7. Thoresby’s Ducatus Leodιensis, or the Topography of the ancient and populous Town and Parish of Leedes, p. 97∙ Lond. 1715, fol. See likewise p. 57. He elsewhere states that he was employed in “writing Memoirs of the charitable Madam Leighton, and ner admirably pious sou-in-law, Archbishop of Glasgow.” (Diary of Ralph Thoresby, F.R.S. vol. ii. p. 10. Lond. 1830, 2 vols. ] After the death of her third husband, she retired to the neighbourhood of Leeds; and she appears to have been left in very comfortable, if not affluent circumstances. Her stepson was educated in the university of Edinburgh, and became one of its brightest ornaments. He “was accounted a saint from his youth up ;” but he seems originally to have had, what the readers of his works could not easily have supposed, some slight propensity to satire. He in truders vpou the priviledges of Christ, of the King, and of the Common-weal; and therefore, vpon good evidence given, she hartelie desireth a iudgement and execution. Printed the year and moneth wherein Ilochell was lost. 4to.
[7:13:212]

curred some degree of academical censure, for writing an epigram on the provost of the city, whose name was Aikenhead. The point of it is, “his head cannot be made of oak, or his fiery nose would have produced combustion.”^[8. Scotish Pasquils, b. iii. p. 88. It is here stated that he was extruded from the college for writing this epigram; but if the statement is correct, he must speedily have been re-admitted. Among Wodrow’s MSS. in the Advocates Library (Rob. III. 6. 14), a copy of the epigram is followed by an Apologie of twenty-four lines, ascribed to “Mr R. Lightoune.” ] That he made uncommon progress in his studies, is sufficiently evident from his works. He took the degree of A. Μ. in the year 1631. After he left the university, his father, who was then, groaning under the rod of the oppressor, sent him to travel on the continent, and he thus enlarged his knowledge of men and manners. Among other places, he visited Douay, where some of his relations were then residing. In France he spent several years, and learned to speak the language like a native. Returning to the land of his fathers, he became a clergyman of the presbyterian church, having on the 16th of December 1641 been ordained minister of Newbattle, a parish within seven miles of Edinburgh. He had now attained the age of thirty, and was qualified by his natural endowments, as well as by his acquired knowledge, to appear with singular advantage in his public capacity. “His preaching,” says Bishop Burnet, “had a sublimity both of thought and expression in it. The grace and gravity of his pronunciation was such, that few heard him without a very sensible emotion: I am sure Į never did. It was so different from all others, and indeed from every thing that one could hope to rise up to, that it gave a man an indignation at himself and all others. It was a very sensible humiliation to me, and, for some time after I heard him, I could not bear the thought of my own performances, and was out of countenance when I was forced to think of preaching. His style was rather too fine; but there was a majesty and beauty in it that left so deep an impression, that I cannot yet forget the sermons I heard him preach thirty years ago. And yet with this he seemed to look on himself as so ordinary a preacher, that while he had a cure, he was ready to employ all others, and when he was a bishop, he chose to preach to small auditories, and would never give notice beforehand: he had indeed a very low voice, and could not be heard by a great crowd.”^[9. Burnet’s History of his own Time, vol. i. p. 230. Oxford, 1823, G vols. 8vo. This is the first genuine edition of the book. ]

The leading clergy of that period were men of fervent zeal, and several of them possessed no mean share of learning; but in various instances the heat of their zeal seems to have dried up the sources of their Christian charity; nor did they think it lawful, not to say expedient, to tolerate any differences of religious opinion. The sinfulness of toleration was a topic too frequently inculcated. It must at the same time be recollected that there was no existing church from which the principles of toleration could then be learned. The bishop proceeds to state that Leighton “soon came to see into the follies of the presbyterians, and to dislike their covenant; particularly the imposing it, and their fury against all who differed from them. He found they were not capable of large thoughts: theirs were narrow, as their tempers were sour. So he grew weary with mixing with them. He scarce ever went to their meetings, and lived in great retirement, minding only the care of his own parish at Newbottle near Edenborough. Yet all the opposition that he made to them was, that he preached up a more exact rule of life than seemed to them consistent with human nature: but his own practice did even outshine his doctrine.” Let it in the mean time be remembered that the follies of the episcopalians were at least equally conspicuous, and that they took a more bloody direction. The presbyterians did not let loose a ferocious band of ruffians to cut the throats of men and women, if they merely refused to pray as they were directed.

In the year 1648 Leighton declared in favour of the engagement for the king, and thus exposed himself to the hazard of being subjected to heavy penalties. When some of his parishioners who had been concerned in the unfortunate expedition to England, were enjoined to make a public profession of their repentance, he studiously avoided all mention of the grounds of the war, but admonished them that “they had been in an expedition, in which, he believed, they had neglected their duty to God, and had been guilty of injustice and violence, of drunkenness, and other immoralities, and he charged them to repent of these very seriously.” The earl of Lothian, who resided in his parish, and entertained a high esteem for his character, had sufficient influence to protect him from any serious annoyance. It is however evident that he found himself placed in a very uncomfortable situation; and his uneasiness must in no small degree have been encreased by the differences which unhappily ensued between the resolutioners and protesters. He was at length induced to resign the pastoral charge of Newbattle. This resignation took place in the year 1652; and, under the date of May 24, 1653, we find the subsequent record of a conversation with Brodie, one of the judges. “I spoke with Mr Leighton. He did shew me that the composing of our differences was not a harder task than the finding out the Lord’s mind by them, both the procuring and final cause. He thought holiness, the love of God and our brethren, was the chief duty God was calling us unto, and sobriety and forbearance to one another. He knew not if it were not from his natural temper, or something of the English air; but he thought it was the safest to incline in mitiorem partem. Much persecution was there upon our imposing upon one another, as if we were infallible, allowing none that differed from ourselves in the least measure. He thought the Lord would break that which we would’so f⅛in hold up, our judicatories: he had observed so much of our own spirit in them these many years past, that he had lothed them for the most part, and wearied of them.”^[10. Diary of Alexander Brodie of Brodie, Esq. p. 50. Edinb. 1740, 8vo. ]

The office of principal of the university of Edinburgh became vacant by the death of John Adamson in the year 1652. He was a man of learning and reputation, nor did the electors fail to look for a worthy successor. Their first choice fell upon William Colville, minister of the English church atUtrecht; but some difficulties, whether political or ecclesiastical, having been interposed, Leighton was elected on the 17th of January 1653, and was persuaded to accept of an office for which be was so eminently qualified by his character, his talents, and his attainments. With the office of principal is conjoined that of primarius professor of divinity. The other professor of divinity was David Dickson, who published several theological works, and was a man of high consideration with his own party. Some of Dr Leighton’s academical prelections, as well as his addresses to the students, have been preserved, and they exhibit the author in the most favourable light. He continued several years in that post, says Burnet, “and was a great blessing in it; for he talked so to all the youth of any capacity or distinction, that it had great effect on many of them. He preached often to them; and if crowds broke in, which they were apt to do, he would have gone on in his sermon in Latin, with a purity and life that charmed all who understood it. Thus he had lived above twenty years in Scotland, in the highest reputation that any man in my time ever had in that kingdom.”

During the vacations, he made occasional excursions to [7:13:213]England, and even to Flanders. He had an opportunity of observing the character of the eminent men who frequented the protector’s court; but, according to the account which he gave to his friend, “he could never see any thing among them that pleased him. They were men of unquiet and meddling tempers; and their discourses and sermons were dry and unsavoury, full of airy cant, or of bombastic swellings. Sometimes he went over to Flanders, to see what he could find in the several orders of the church of Rome. There he found some of Jansenius’s followers, who seemed to be men of extraordinary tempers, and studied to bring things, if possible, to the purity and simplicity of the primitive ages; on which all his thoughts were much set.” The restoration of a heartless and profligate monarch, who had derived no wisdom from experience, introduced a material and fatal change in the state of ecclesiastical affairs in Scotland. The great body of the people were firmly and zealously attached to the presbyterian polity and form of worship, which Charles had solemnly promised to maintain: but episcopacy was considered as more favourable to those maxims of government which he and some of his councillors were inclined to propose; and the resolution, equally iniquitous and impolitic, was finally adopted of forcing upon his northern subjects an ecclesiastical establishment, which the most honest and devout portion of them regarded as but one small degree removed from popery. The undaunted opposition to the innovations of the late unfortunate reign, seems to have been utterly erased from the memory of those who now devised the restoration of episcopacy in Scotland. It was doubtless thought a wise and dexterous measure to place at the head of this new establishment a very conspicuous proselyte from the presbyterian cause, James Sharp, who had recently been appointed professor of divinity at St Andrews,^[11. Symson’s Account of the Life of Dr James Sharp, Arch-bishop of St Andrews, p. 42. Printed in the year 1723, 8vo. ] and who had been sent to London as the accredited agent of the Scotish clergy. He was a person of address and of talents for business; but being at the same time aspiring and unscrupulous, he could not resist the temptation which was now presented to him; and in an evil hour he entered upon a career of ambition which he pursued with great violence, and which was at length brought to a very tragical termination. Sharp was nominated to the archbishopric of St Andrews, Fairfowl to that of Glasgow; Sydserf, who had been bishop of Brechin and Galloway, and who was the sole survivor of the ancient bench, to the see of Orkney; and Hamilton, a brother of Lord Belhaven, to that of Galloway. Leighton, who was then in London, on his return from Bath, where he had been residing for the benefit of his health, was persuaded to accept of a bishopric, and he selected that of Dunblane, a small diocese, as well as a small revenue. He had previously cultivated an acquaintance with several episcopalians, and, among others, with the father of Bishop Burnet. He was a man of so much primitive piety, and was so uncontaminated with worldly ambition, that no person of ordinary candour can impute his change to any unworthy motive. He evidently considered church government as a matter not determined by any positive injunctions, but open to the adjustment of bodies of men varying in their opinions, and placed in a variety of circumstances. In the mere name of a bishop there is nothing pernicious; but that the office may be rendered highly pernicious, the history of the church has too clearly evinced. According to Dr Paley, “the appointment of various orders in the church, may be considered as the stationing of ministers of religion in the various ranks of civil life. The distinctions of the clergy ought, in some measure, to. correspond with the distinctions of lay-society, in order to supply each class of the people with a clergy of their own level and description, with whom they may live and associate upon terms of equality.”^[12. Paley’s Sermons and Tracts, p. 92. Lond. 1815, 8vo< ] In conformity with this evangelical distribution of rank and office, the English curate is reduced to the condition of the labouring poor, and the archbishop is raised to the level of the first nobility. All this is frequently described as very apostolical: but we are not aware that the apostles recommended their successors to a seat in the house of lords; nor have they clearly taught us to infer that the prosperity of the church of Christ has any necessary connexion with such splendour. We recollect the appropriate remark of a writer eminently distinguished by his acuteness and candour of mind. “Exorbitant wealth annexed to offices,” says Dr Campbell, “may be said universally to produce two effects. These two effects are, arrogance and laziness.” And on this subject what were the sentiments of Dr Leighton? “It is true,” he remarks, ςς that penury and want of competency in temporals, in those who bring an eternal treasure, argues base ingratitude, and is most unworthy of well-constituted churches. But where the remedy exceeds too tar, it becomes worse than the disease, being compounded of carnal prudence and ambition, both of which are enmity to God.” Ecclesiastics raised to great and superfluous wealth, may in some instances be fully as much inclined to imitate the folly as to improve the piety of their fashionable associates. We are very far from wishing to reduce the order to a primitive state of poverty; but we are not prepared to acquiesce in the opinion, that the personal respectability, or the spiritual influence, of a clergyman, is more effectually secured by five thousand than by five hundred pounds a year.

The nomination of the other bishops was chiefly left to Dr Sharp; but the promotion of Dr Leighton, who was not such a person as he would have been inclined to select, was solely imputed to his brother Sir Ellis Leighton, who was at that period secretary to the duke of York. In his face, as well as in the vivacity of his talents, he resembled the bishop of Dunblane, but in other respects no two individuals could be more unlike each other. The knight was as unprincipled as the other courtiers of that time and place. In order to favour his schemes of ambition, he had embraced the Romish faith, and the general tenor of his conduct exhibited a great laxity of moral feeling. But, in such a foul atmosphere, who could be free from contamination? He was intimately acquainted with Lord Aubigny, a brother of the duke of Richmond’s, who had not only changed his religion, but had even entered into holy orders. It was perhaps one recommendation to the king’s favour, that he led a very vicious life; and as he was in the secret of his majesty’s religion, and' was acquainted with his private schemes for the advancement of popery, he enjoyed an ample share of his confidence. Sir Ellis impressed this nobleman with a very high opinion of his brother’s qualifications: he did not overlook his celibacy and his ascetic mode of life, as being conformable to the popish notions of piety; nor did he scruple to aver, what was very remote from the truth, that he was persuaded of his being secretly inclined to their own faith. Through this polluted channel did the learned and pious Leighton arrive at his high station in the church; for at the suggestion of Aubigny, the king nominated him to a bishopric, and thus excited the suspicion of Sharp, who did not wish for a coadjutor of his spiritual habits and superior character. It was not without[7:13:214] the utmost reluctance that he was induced to accept of this preferment. Of the four bishops-elect, only two had received episcopal ordination; but before the consecration of the other two, Sharp and Leighton, it was considered as absolutely necessary to ordain them deacons and priests. The same necessity was not recognized at the consecration of Scotish bishops in the year 1610; for when Bishop Andrews maintained that they must first be ordained presbyters, as having received no episcopal ordination, Archbishop Bancroft replied that “there was no necessity, seeing where bishops could not be had, the ordination given by the presbyters must be esteemed lawful; otherwise that it might be doubted if there were any lawful vocation in most of the reformed churches.”^[13. Spotswood’s History of the Church of Scotland, p. 514. ] Wycliffe had adopted the opinion of St Jerom, that in the age of the apostles,^[14. See Dr Campbell’s Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. 125. Stillingfleet’s Irenicum i a Weapon-salve for the Churches Wounds, second edition. Lond. 1662, 4to∙See Dr Mitchell’s Presbyterian Letters, p. 185. Lond. 1809, 8vo. ] presbyter and bishop were names of the same office-bearers. This opinion was likewise maintained by the founders of the English reformation; and Cranmer has unequivocally stated that “a bishop may make a priest by the Scriptures, and so may princes and governors alsoe, and that by the auctority of God committed to them, and the people alsoe by their election.” Archbishop Whitgift declares that no form of government is by the Scriptures prescribed to the church of God; and the mutability of ecclesiastical government is asserted by Hooker, and other distinguished writers of that period. This indeed appears to have been a prevalent opinion, till the pontificate of the unhappy Laud, who was but too anxious to complete the assimilation of the English with the Romish hierarchy, and whose mind was deeply tinctured with the most abject superstition. The divine right of episcopacy was not however maintained by some of the most eminent divines of the succeeding age. Bishop Stillingfleet, in a very learned and able work, 3 has completely demonstrated that bishop and presbyter were originally different appellations of the same office-bearers; that the apostles have nowhere enjoined any particular form of ecclesiastical polity; and that “a mere 'apostolical practice being supposed, is not sufficient of itself tor the founding an unalterable and perpetual right for that form of government in the church, which is supposed to be founded on that practice.” And as to what is called the perpetual succession in the church, 4 he has distinctly averred, that “this personal succession, so much spoken of, is sometimes attributed to presbyters, even after the. distinction came into use between bishops and them.”—To this idle or arrogant ceremony of reordination, Sharp, who “had swallowed down greater matters,” submitted with no small reluctance; but, as Dr Mitchell has remarked, “Leighton submitted easily to this, not because he was eager to put on a mitre, but because he had good sense enough, and a sufficient acquaintance with Scripture, and the writings of early antiquity, to know that it was a matter of no consequence, whether he submitted to it or not.” These two were privately ordained deacons'-ųmd priests; and on the 15th of December 1661, all the four were publicly consecrated in Westminster Abbey. The good bishop of Dunblane was scandalized at the feasting and jollity which followed this religious ceremony. They travelled towards Scotland in one coach; and Leighton stated to Burnet that he believed his associates were weary of him, for he was very weary of them. When he found that they intended to enter the metropolis with some degree of pomp, he left them at Morpeth, and reached Edinburgh a few days before them. The other bishops made a kind of triumphal entry; the lord chancellor, with the nobility and privy counsellors, as well as the city magistrates, having joined in a procession, and met them in due form. Soon after their arrival, other six bishops were consecrated; but they were not subjected to the previous ceremonial of being ordained deacons and priests. Parliament assembled in the month of April 1662, and most of the bishops immediately took their seats: Leighton did not however appear among them, and he adhered to the practice of only attending in his place when he expected some discussion concerning religion or the church. He did not permit his friends to give him the title of lord, nor did he willingly acquiesce in its being given to him by others; for he evidently had not unlearned the presbyterian lesson, that Christ has no lords in his house.

He speedily found that his new associates were for the most part men from whom the cause of religion could derive very slender aid, and that the affairs of the church were managed with as little wisdom as moderation. Sharp, though a man of talents, was artful and insincere. Of the other prelates, very few were eminently distinguished by either learning or piety, and the parochial clergy were in all respects greatly inferior to those whom they had supplanted. “By these means,” says Bishop Burnet, “Leigh-toun quickly lost all heart and hope; and said often to me upon it, that in the whole progress of that affair there appeared such cross characters of an angry providence, that, lww fully soever he was satisfied in his own mind as to episcopacy itself, yet it seemed that God was against them, and that they were not like to be the men that should build up his church; so that the struggling against 'it seemed to him like a fighting against God. He who had the greatest hand in it proceeded with so much dissimulation; and the rest of the order were so mean and selfish; and the earl of Middleton, with the other secular men that conducted it, were so openly impious and vicious, that it did cast a reproach on every thing relating to religion, to see it managed by such instruments.” He governed his own diocese like a truly Christian bishop, labouring very assiduously in his vocation, and uniformly pursuing measures of gentleness and conciliation. But the ecclesiastical, as well as the civil rulers, were generally inclined to pursue measures of so opposite a nature, that he at length adopted the resolution of resigning his bishopric. This resolution he announced to the clergy of Dunblane in the year 1665, and afterwards proceeded to London, for the purpose of communicating it to the king. He gave his majesty a true account of the proceedings in Scotland, “which, he said, were so violent, that he could not concur in the planting the Christian religion itself in such a manner, much less a form of government. He therefore begged leave to quit his bishopric, and to retire; for he thought he was in some sort accessory to the violences done by others, since he was one of them, and all was pretended to be done to establish them and their order.” The king appeared to be somewhat moved at the good bishop’s recital; and having spoken of the primate with severe reprehension, he promised to enforce a more lenient method of proceeding with the nonconformists. He thus prevailed upon Leighton to retain his bishopric; and he so far fulfilled his promise as to suspend the functions of the ecclesiastical commission. But most of his Scotish ministers were so utterly destitute of all principle and humanity, that no material improvements ensued. The presbyterians were subjected to such intolerable grievances, that at length, in the year 1666, they had recourse to arms, but their military proceedings were [7:13:215]very speedily terminated at the battle of Pentland-hills.' The atrocious murders committed among a conscientious and resolute people, were committed under the sanction of a king who had once professed the same religion with themselves, and who was now consigning them to the sword and halter, because they refused to adopt the rites of a church whose creed he had secretly renounced. If every other action of his life had been free from reproach, this cold-blooded and unrelenting villany would alone have been sufficient to ensure the execration of all posterity. What a lamentable picture of human depravity was exhibited in the two monarchs of Britain and France; men immersed in the most debasing sensuality, surrounded by the most profligate of both sexes, and, from the polluted atmosphere in which they daily breathed, sending forth mandates to their subjects to shape their religious creed and ritual according to the pattern which their majesties were graciously pleased to prescribe. To this point, the matter only seems capable of exciting derision; but a very different sentiment arises in the mind when we recollect that both Charles and Louis were prepared to carry havoc and devastation where other means of conversion had been found ineffectual. In the French king there might be a certain species of consistency when he cut the throats of his protestant subjects, because they refused to embrace popery: but in the English king there was manifestly none when he cut the throats of his presbyterian subjects, because they refused to embrace episcopacy; unless we can discover some consistency in the mere consideration, that those converted to episcopacy were brought one step nearer to his own faith.

In the midst of these direful scenes of persecution, the gentle spirit of Leighton must have been heavily afflicted. He opposed all the violent methods of producing a formal compliance with the established mode of worship; and to the nonconformists of his own diocese he granted a liberty of conscience which the laws of those flagitious times did not acknowledge. Not satisfied with this limited indulgence, he made great exertions to secure a more general and permanent toleration. With this view he repaired to court in the year 1669, and had two audiences of the king. One of those who seconded his endeavours was Dr Wilkins, bishop of Chester. The king at length addressed a letter to the privy council, commanding them to indulge such of the presbyterian clergy as were peaceable and loyal, so far as to suffer them to serve in vacant churches, though they did not submit to the present establishment. But this indulgence was not attended with any beneficial effects: the presbyterians and episcopalians were alike dissatisfied, and the country long continued in a state of the most unhappy agitation. It was violently opposed by the clergy of the diocese of Glasgow; and the archbishop, Dr Alexander Burnet, gave so much offence to Lauderdale by his zeal against it, that he found it expedient to retire to a private station, with the provision of an annual pension. It was not without much reluctance that Leighton was induced to accept of the vacant office. As his translation was attended with some informalities, he became, according to the strictness of the ecclesiastical law, not archbishop, but administrator of the archbishopric.^[15. Keith’s Catalogue of the Scottish Bishops, p. 2G7∙ Russell’s edit. Pref, to Symson’s Life of Sharp, p. xlviii. ] He removed to Glasgow in 1670, and in the course of the preceding year his friend Dr Gilbert Burnet had been elected professor of divinity in that university. They appear to have lived upon terms of great cordiality; and to Burnet, who became bishop of Salisbury, we are indebted for a copious and most interesting record of his evangelical virtues.

Soon after his translation, he held a synod of his clergy, who uttered many complaints of being deserted and ill-treated by the people. In his public and private discourses, he exhorted them to consider themselves as ministers of the cross of Christ, to lay aside all desire of revenge, and to humble themselves before God. “This was a new strain to the clergy. They had nothing to say against it; but it was a comfortless doctrine to them, and they had not been accustomed to it. No speedy ways were proposed for forcing the people to come to church, nor for sending soldiers among them, or raising the fines to which they were liable. So they went home, as little edified with their new bishop as he was with them.” Accompanied by the professor of divinity, he afterwards visited some of the most eminent of the indulged ministers in different districts, with the view of persuading them to listen to terms of accommodation. Although his overtures were but coldly received, he was unwilling to abandon all hope of conciliation. In the presence of the earls of Lauderdale, Rothes, Tweeddale, and Kincardine, he held a conference at Edinburgh with six of the presbyterian clergy. He spoke for nearly half an hour, with much gravity and force, but his arguments in favour of episcopacy produced no effect upon those to whom they were addressed, nor was a second conference attended with a different result. He sent to the western counties six episcopal clergymen, Burnet, Charteris, Nairne, Aird, Cook, and Paterson, who were commissioned to preach in vacant churches, and to argue with the people on the grounds of conformity and accommodation. “The people of the country,” says Burnet, “came generally to hear us, though not in great crowds. We were indeed amazed to see a poor commonalty so capable to argue upon points of government, and on the bounds to be set to the power of princes in matters of religion: upon all these topics they had texts of Scripture at hand; and were ready with their answers to any thing that was said to them. This measure of knowledge was spread even among the meanest of them, their cottagers, and their servants. They were indeed vain of their knowledge, much conceited of themselves, and were full of a most entangled scrupulosity; so that they found, or made, difficulties in everything that could be laid before them. We staid ahout three months in the country; and in that time there was a stand in the frequency of conventicles.” Against these conventicles two acts had recently been passed. In reference to one of them, Leighton declared to the earl of Tweeddale, that the entire tenor of it was so contrary to the common rules of humanity, not to say Christianity, that he was ashamed to participate in the councils of those who could frame and pass such laws. Nor must it be forgotten that these atrocious laws were not suffered to continue a dead letter. At Paisley the archbishop had another meeting with the presbyterians, to the number of about thirty; and their conferences came to a final close in the month of January 1671, when, at a meeting in the earl of Rothes’s house in Edinburgh, Hutcheson declared, in the name of his party, that “they had considered the propositions made to them, but were not satisfied in their consciences to accept of them.”

In the course of one year, four bishoprics became vacant, and the choice of them was offered to Dr Burnet. Leighton was authorized to recommend such individuals as he tíiought most worthy of promotion; but neither Burnet, Charteris, nor Nairne, could be induced to undertake the episcopal office in the church, as it was then constituted; and as they were among the most learned and respectable of the episcopal clergy, he thus found himself beset with new discouragements. He had failed in his endeavours to conciliate the presbyterians, and was suspected and hated by the episcopalians. In utter despair of securing any benefit to others or satisfaction to himself, he adopted the [7:13:216]resolution of resigning his preferment, and retiring from all public employment. He accordingly repaired to London in 1672, and, not without considerable difficulty, obtained the king’s permission to resign after an interval of one year. He however retained the archbishopric till the year 1674, and Alexander Burnet was then restored to his former dignity. Leighton now returned to Edinburgh, and for some time lived within the precincts of the university; where the chair which he had occupied was not unworthily filled by William Colville, who had been put in nomination at the time of his own election. He afterwards retired to England, and spent the remainder of his life with his sister Sapphira, the wife and finally the widow of Mr Lightwater of Broadhurst, a demesne in the parish of Horsted Keynes and county of Sussex. He had another sister married to a Mr Rathband, of whom we find no further mention. His time was chiefly spent in devout seclusion, but he frequently officiated in the parish church, and in some others of that vicinity. In the year 1679, an attempt was made to draw him from his retreat: at the suggestion of the duke of Monmouth, the king was induced to request that he would again fix his residence in Scotland, and use his endeavours in reconciling the ecclesiastical animosities which still prevailed in that country. “I desire you may go down to Scotland with your first conveniency, and take all possible pains for persuading all you can, of both opinions, to as much mutual correspondence and concord as may be; and send me, from time to time, characters both of men and things. In order to this design, I shall send you a precept for two hundred pounds sterling upon my exchequer, till you resolve to serve me in a stated employment.” But the duke soon afterwards ceased to have any influence in the affairs of either kingdom, and this negociation seems to have made no further progress.

In the year 1684 Leighton was urged by Dr Burnet to make a journey to London, for the purpose of meeting the earl of Perth, chancellor of Scotland, who had expressed an earnest wish to see him; and his friend entertained a hope that this “angelical man might have awakened in him some of those good principles which he seemed once to have, and which were now totally extinguished in him.” When he reached the metropolis, Burnet was surprised to see him look so fresh and active at his advanced period of life: his hair was still black, and he retained much of his former vivacity, with the same quickness of conception and strength of memory. He however spoke of his work and journey being nearly finished at the same time: he was next day seized with a pleurisy; on that which ensued, he suddenly fell into a state of insensibility, which continued for about twelve hours, and he then expired without pangs or convulsions. He was constantly attended by that friend whose zeal had prevailed upon him to undertake this fatal journey. He died on the 25th of June 1684, in the seventy-fourth year of his age, ten years after he had ceased to be archbishop of Glasgow. He closed his earthly pilgrimage at an inn in Warwick-lane, and his remains were deposited at Horsted Keynes. A great portion of his income had been devoted to deeds of charity and benevolence; and by a will, dated on the 17th of February, he had destined the residue of his property to charitable uses.^[16. Pearson s Life of Leighton, p. clxxiv. edit. 1830. ] To his sister, and to her son Edward Lightwater of Broadhurst, he only left a small token of grateful acknowledgement of the great kindness with which they had treated him while he was their guest. His library he bequeathed to the cathedral of Dunblane, for the use of the clergy of that diocese; and although the fashion of a cathedral and diocese has there passed away, the library is still preserved in the same place.

The character of Leighton has been drawn by Bishop Burnet in very striking colours. “He had great quickness of parts, a lively apprehension, with a charming vivacity of thought and expression. He had the greatest command of the purest Latin that ever I knew in any man. He was a master both of Greek and Hebrew, and of the whole compass of theological learning, chiefly in the study of the Scriptures. But that which exalted all the rest was, he was possessed with the highest and noblest sense of divine things that I ever saw in any man. He had no regard to his person, unless it was to mortify it by a constant low diet, that was like a perpetual fast. He had a contempt both of wealth and reputation. He seemed to have the lowest thoughts of himself possible, and to desire that all other persons should think as meanly of him as he did himself: he bore all sorts of ill usage and reproach, like a man that took pleasure in it. He had so subdued the natural heat of his temper, that in a great variety of accidents, and in a course of twenty-two years’ intimate conversation with him, I never observed the least sign of passion, but upon one single occasion. He brought himself into so composed a gravity, that I never saw him laugh, and but seldom smile. And he kept himself in such a constant recollection, that I do not remember that ever I heard him say one idle word. There was a visible tendency in all he said to raise his own mind, and those he conversed with, to serious reflections. He seemed to be in a perpetual meditation. And, though the whole course of his life was strict and ascetical, yet he had nothing of the sourness of temper that generally possesses men of that sort.”^[17. Burnet’s History of his own Time, vol. i. p. 228. ] In another work, he mentions the archbishop in terms of similar commendation. “I have now laid together with great simplicity what has been the chief subject of my thoughts for above thirty years. I was formed to them by a bishop that had the greatest elevation of soul, the largest coinpass of knowledge, the most mortified and most heavenly disposition, that I ever yet saw in mortal; that had the greatest parts as well as virtues, with the perfectest humility that I ever saw in man; and had a sublime strain of preaching, with so grave a gesture, and with such a majesty both of thought, of language, of pronunciation, that I never once saw a wandering eye where he preached, and have seen whole assemblies often melt in tears before him; and of whom I can say with great truth, that in a free, and frequent conversation with him for above two and twenty years, I never knew him say an idle word, that had not a direct tendency to edification: and I never once saw him in any other temper but that which I wished to be in, in the last minutes of my life. For that pattern which I saw in him, and for that conversation which I had with him, I know how much I have to answer to God: and though my reflecting on that which I knew in him, gives me just cause of being deeply humbled in my self, and before God, yet I feel no more sensible pleasure in any thing, than in going over in my thoughts all that I saw and observed in him.”^[18. Burnet s Discourse of the Pastoral Care, p. 220. 4th edit. I.and. 1736, 8vo. See likewise the preface to his Life of Bedell. ]

Of his indifference to literary reputation we have a sufficient proof in the fact of his never having committed any of his works to the press. For their preservation we are chiefly indebted to James Fall, D. D. who had been principal of the university of Glasgow, and, having vacated his office at the Revolution, was collated to the precentorship of the cathedral of York.^[19. Diary of Ralph Thoresby, F.R.S. vol. i. p. 365. He afterwards mentions that he “visited the excellent Dr Fall at the duke of Queensberry’s in London.” (Vol. ii. p. 24.) Professor Scholefield apparently considered him as some very obscure person: “edente quodam Jacobo Fall.” ] The first of these posthumous [7:13:217]works is a volume of “Sermons; published at the desire of his friends after his death, from his papers written with his own hand.” Lond. 1692, 8vo. This was followed by his “Praelectiones Theologicae, in Auditorio Publico Academiae Edinburgenae (dum Professoris Primarii munere ibi fungeretur) habitae: una cum Paraenesibus in Comitiis Academicis ad Gradus Magistralis in Artibus Candidatos. Quibus adjiciuntur Meditationes ethicocriticae in Psalmos iv. xxxii. cxxx. Ex Authoris autographo fideliter editae.” Lond. 1693, 4to. Of a very recent date, there is a more correct edition, published under the title of “Roberti Leighton, S. T. P. Archiepiscopi Glasgnensis, Praelectiones Theologicae; Paraeneses; et Meditationes in Psalmos iv. xxxii. cxxx. ethicocriticae. Editio nova, recensente Jacobo Scholefield, A.Μ. R.S. ι L. S. Graecarum Literarum apud Cantabrigienses Professore Regio, et Collegii SS. Trinitatis nuper Socio.” Cantabrigiae, 1828, 8vo. An English translation of the prelections and exhortations had been published with the title of “Theological Lectures, read in the Publick Hall of the University of Edinburgh; togetherwith Exhortations to the Candidates for the Degree of Master of Arts: translated from the original Latin.” Lond. 1763, 8vo. Mr Pearson is evidently mistaken in supposing that these compositions had been translated by Dr Fall. The Meditationes were translated under the inspection of Dr Doddridge, and inserted in his edition of the author’s works. Dr Fall next edited “A practical Commentary upon the first Epistle General of St Peter.” York and Lond. 1693 -4, 2 vols. 4to. The first volume was printed at York, and the second at London. “Perhaps,” says the late Mr Orme, “there is no expository work in the English language equal altogether to the exposition of Peter. It is rich in evangelical sentiment and exalted devotion. The meaning is seldom missed, and often admirably illustrated. There is learning without its parade, theology divested of systematic stiffness, and eloquence in a beautiful flow of unaffected language and appropriate imagery.”^[20. Orme’s Bibliotheca Biblica, μ, 288. Edinb. 1824, 8vo. ] These original editions are most incorrectly printed. The commentary was followed by “An Exposition of the Creed, Lord’s Prayer, and ten Commandments; with two Discourses, on St Matth, xxii. 37, 38, 39, and Heb. viii. 10; to which is annext a short Catechism.” Lond. 1701, 8vo. The volume contains a portrait of the author, engraved by R. White. Of his works edited by Dr Fall, the last is a small collection of Tracts. Lond. 1708, 12mo. It includes the Rules for a Holy Life, a Sermon, and the Catechism. After a considerable interval appeared “Select Works of Archbishop Leighton, some of which were never before printed. To which is prefixed an account of the author’s life and character.” Edinb. 1746, 8vo. This publication was soon followed by “The Expository Works and other Remains of Archbishop Leighton, some of which were never before printed. Revised by P. Doddridge, D. D. with a preface by the doctor.” Edinb. 1748, 2 vols. 8vo. There are many other editions of a subsequent date, but among these we shall only specify that of Lond. 1825, 4 vols. 8vo. To this collective edition, which has been more than once reprinted, the Rev. John Norman Pearson has prefixed a copious life of the author, and has made some important additions to the old stock of biographical materials. (x.)