HISTORICAL MEMOIRS RESPECTING THE ENGLISH, IRISH, AND SCOTTISH CATHOLICS FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

XXIX.

THE PURITANS

 

WHILE the government of England was thus employed in devising and executing the severities, which have been related, against the catholics, a new denomination of Christians had arisen in the bosom of the establishment, had derived strength from opposition, and, at the time, of which we are now speaking, was rapidly advancing to that power, which enabled them, at no very distant period, to triumph over their parent church, and even to overthrow the monarchy. The subject of these pages makes some mention of these necessary. A succinct account of their vicissitudes of fortune will connect, in some measure, the three histories—of the protestants of the established church,—of the protestant dissenters,—and of the roman-catholics of England. We shall, therefore, present the reader with a suc­cinct account,

I. Of the origin of the puritans:

II. Of the points of discipline, in which there was a difference between them and the established church:

III. Of their division into presbyterians,—independents,—and baptists:  

IV. Of the act of uniformity:

V. Of the court of high commission:

VI. Of the conference at Hampton Court:

VII. Of the legal establishment of the puritans by the long parliament:

VIII. Of the act of conformity:

IX. and of the act of toleration, in the reign of William III. The insertion of the two last articles will break into the chronological order, generally observed in these pages; but, they will occupy a very small space, and the anticipation will enable the writer to close, in this place, the subject of the present chapter.—

X. It will conclude with a brief account of the religious persecutions, suffered and inflicted by the puritans.

1.  

The origin of the Puritans.

It has been mentioned, that, in the reign of Henry the eighth, those, who favored the reformation, were generally inclined to the Lutheran creed, discipline, and liturgy: that, in the reign of Edward the sixth, they generally inclined to the doctrine of Calvin, and that the change of religion, during the reign of queen Mary, and the consequences of that change, drove some of the most zealous of the English reformers into exile. Their number is supposed to have been about 800. Some settled in Switzerland; but the greater part at Frankfort, or its neighborhood. Many preserved the form of worship of the English church; others preferred the Helvetian rites, on account of their greater simplicity. The former received the appellation of Conformists, the latter, that of Non-conformists, or Puritans. These soon split into parties, and scandalized all the protestants of Germany by their quarrels. In the end, the conformists obtained the ascendancy.

The non-conformists, generally, adopted the doctrine, and discipline, of Calvin. On this account, they were disliked by the Lutherans, and the conduct of these, in their regard, was most uncharitable. They proceeded so far, (as we are informed by doctor Maclaine) as to call the English martyrs, who, in the reign of queen Mary, had sealed the Reformation with their blood,— "The devil's martyrs."

2.

The principal points in difference, between the Church of England, and the Puritans.

FROM Mosheim, we transcribe the following very accurate statement of this difference.

The principles laid down by the commissioners of the queen's high court of commission, on the one hand, and the puritans on the other, were very different.

1. For, in the first place, the former maintained, that the right of reformation,—that is,— the privilege of removing the corruptions, and of correcting the errors, that may have been introduced into the doctrine, discipline, or worship, of the church, is lodged in the sovereign, or civil magistrate alone; while the latter denied, that the power of the magistrate extended so far, and maintained, that it was rather the business of the clergy to restore religion to its native dignity and luster. This was the opinion of Calvin, as has been already observed.

2dly. The queen's commissioners maintained, that the rule of proceeding, in reforming the doctrine, or discipline, of the church, was not to be derived from the sacred writings alone, but also from the writings and decisions of the fathers, in the primitive ages. The puritans, on the contrary, affirmed, that the inspired word of God, being the pure and only fountain of wisdom and truth, it was from thence alone, that the rules, and directions, were to be drawn, which were to guide the measures of those, who undertook to purify the faith, or to rectify the discipline, and worship, of the church; and that the ecclesiastical institutions of the early ages, as also the writings of the ancient doctors, were absolutely destitute of all sort of authority.

3dly. The queen's commissioners ventured to assert, that the church of Rome was a true church, though corrupt, and erroneous, in many points of doctrine and government; that the Roman pontiff, though chargeable with temerity, and arrogance, in assuming to himself the title and jurisdiction, of head of the whole church, was, nevertheless to be esteemed a true and lawful bishop; and consequently, that the ministers, ordained by him, were qualified for performing the pastoral duties. This was a point, which the English bishops thought it absolutely necessary to maintain, since they could not, otherwise, claim the honor of deriving their dignities, in an uninterrupted line of succession from the apostles. But, the puritans entertained very different notions of this matter; they considered the Romish hierarchy, as a system of political, and spiritual, tyranny, that had justly forfeited the title, and privileges, of a true church; they looked upon its pontiff as antichrist; and its discipline as vain, superstitious, idolatrous, and diametrically opposite to the injunctions of the gospel; and, in consequence of this, they renounced its communion, and regarded all approaches to its discipline, and worship, as highly dangerous to the cause of true religion.

4thly. The court commissioners considered, as the best, and most perfect, form of ecclesiastical government, that, which took place, during the first four or five centuries;—they even preferred it to that, which had been instituted by the apostles, because, as they alleged, our Savior, and his apostles, had accommodated the form, mentioned in the scripture, to the feeble, and infant, state of the church and left it to the wisdom and discretion of future ages, to modify it, in such manner, as might be suitable to the triumphant progress of Christianity, the grandeur of a national establishment, and also to the ends of civil policy. The puritans asserted, in opposition to this, that the rules of church government were clearly laid down in the holy Scriptures, the only standard of spiritual discipline; and that the apostles, in establishing the first Christian church on the aristocratical plan, that was then observed in the Jewish Sanhedrim, designed it, as an unchangeable model, to be followed, in all times, and in all places.

5thly. The court reformers were of opinion, that things indifferent, which are neither commanded, nor forbidden, by the authority of scripture, such as the external rites of public worship; the kind of vestments, that are to be used by the clergy; religious festivals, and the like, might be ordered, determined, and rendered a matter of obligation, by the authority of the civil magistrate; and that, in such a case, the violation of his commands, would be no less criminal, than an act of rebellion against the laws of the state.— The puritans alleged, in answer to this assertion, that it was an indecent prostitution of power to impose, as necessary, and indispensable, those things, which Christ had left, in the class of matters indifferent; since this was a manifest encroachment upon that liberty, with which the divine Savior had made us free. To this, they added, that such rites, and ceremonies, as had been abused to idolatrous purposes, and had a manifest tendency to revive the impressions of superstition, and popery, in the minds of men, could by no means be considered as indifferent, but deserved to be rejected, without hesitation, as impious and profane. Such, in their estimation, were the religious ceremonies of ancient times, whose abrogation was refused by the queen, and her council.

3.

Division of the English Puritans into Presbyterian, Independents, and Baptists.

1.  Such were the tenets of the original puritans: the Presbyterians are usually considered as their legitimate descendents.

2. The Independents sprang from the Brownists, the most distinguished of the sects, into which the puritans divided. Brown, the founder of this denomination of puritans, was a man of talent. His aim was, to model his party into the form of the Christian church, in its infant state. Being dissatisfied with the treatment, which he received in England, he retired to the continent and founded churches in Middleburgh, Amsterdam, and Leyden. Thus abandoned by him, his English followers mitigated the extreme simplicity of his plan, in its leading feature—that each congregation is itself a sepa­rate, and independent church, acknowledging no superiority, or right of interference, in any man, or in any body of men. This gave them the name of Independents, or of congregation-brethren. A fuller account of them may be seen, in the writer's Confessions of faith, ch. 12.

3. In the same work may be found a succinct account of the Baptists. It is too long for insertion in this place but cannot, it is apprehended, be very much abridged. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to say, that, in their discipline and worship, as well as in the independency of their particular congregations, they very nearly resemble the independents; but differ from them in the administration of baptism. It is observable, that this denomination of christians,—now very respectable, but in their origin, little intellectual,—first propagated the principles of religious liberty.

The separation of the puritans from the church of England began with the act of uniformity; but was not discernible, till the year 1566,—the period assigned for it by Neale, in his History of the Puritans, ch. iv. Some writers, term this,—the first separation: The second, they say, took place, soon after the assembly of the clergy was convened at Lambeth, by the order of James I, in 1604.

The principal cause assigned for these separations, was, the use of certain ceremonies, still practised by the ministers of the established church; particularly the retention of the surplice. In proportion, as the controversy grew warm, more importance was annexed to these circumstances. Cartwright, and his brethren, admitted them to be indifferent, in substance; though, on many accounts, seriously objectionable: At the time of the second separation, they were pronounced to be unlawful and neither to be imposed, nor endured.

4.

The Act of Uniformity.

On the accession of queen Elizabeth, the greater part of the exiles returned to their native country. Their distinction, into conformists, and non-conformists, followed them, on their return; and the liberty, which they then enjoyed, rather increased, than diminished, their animosities. A temporary peace was, however, signed; and letters of mutual forgiveness passed between the leaders of the contending parties. It has been mentioned, that queen Elizabeth wished the national creed and discipline to be as comprehensive as possible; but, being once established, she determinately resolved, that all should conform to it. With this view, the act of uniformity, (1 Eliz. ch. 2.), was passed. It enjoined, as we have already shortly stated, that all ministers of the church should use the book of common prayer, authorised by the statute of the 5th, and 6th years of Edward the sixth, with the addition of certain lessons, to be used, on every Sunday, and holiday, in the year; and with an alteration in the form of the litany; and the insertion of two sentences in the delivery of the sacra­ment to the communicants. All persons were enjoined to attend divine service, at their parish church; or at some accustomed chapel, on every Sunday, and also on every other day prescribed by law, under the penalty of one shilling for each absence. This statute was generally called the Act of Uniformity.

5.

The Court of High Commission.

Mention has been already made of the statutes, which, in the first year of the reign of queen Elizabeth, conferred upon her the spiritual supremacy of the church of England. A clause, inserted in that statute, was attended with the most serious effects; and, in the reign of her second successor, convulsed, both the church, and the state to their centres. It empowered, the queen, and her successors, to appoint commissioners, to exercise any manner of spiritual, or ecclesiastical, jurisdiction, in England, or Ireland; to visit, reform, redress, order, correct and amend all heresies, schisms, contempts, offences, and enormities whatsoever: With a proviso, that they should determine nothing to be heresy, but what had been adjudged to be so, by the canonical scripture, or by the first four general councils, or any other general council, wherein the same had been declared heresy, by the express, and plain, words of scripture; or such as should, thereafter, be declared to be heresy, by the high court of parliament, with the consent of the clergy in convocation.

Agreeing in little else, Hume, and Neale, perfectly accord in their accounts of the unconstitutional and arbitrary rules of this tribunal and of the enormity of its proceedings.    By the former, they are described in the following words:

"The first primate after the queen's accession, was Parker; a man, rigid in exacting conformity to the established worship, and in punishing, by  fine, or deprivation, all the puritanical clergymen who attempted to innovate anything in the habits, ceremonies, or liturgy of the church. He died, in 1575; and was succeeded by Grindall, who, as he himself was inclined to the new sect, was, with great difficulty, brought to execute the laws against them, or to punish the non-conforming clergy. He declined obeying the queen's orders for the suppression of prophesying, or the assemblies of the zealots, in private houses, which, she apprehended, had become so many academies of fanaticism; and, for this offence, she had, by an order of the star-chamber, sequestered him from his archiepiscopal function, and confined him to his own house. Upon his death, which happened in 1583, she determined not to fall into the same error in her next choice and she named Whitgift, a zealous churchman, who had already signalized his pen in controversy, and who, having in vain attempted to convince the puritans by argument, was now resolved to open their eyes by power, and by the execution of penal statutes. He informed the queen, that all the spiritual authority, lodged in the prelates, was insignificant, without the sanction of the crown; and, as there was no ecclesiastical commission, at that time, in force, he engaged her to issue a new one, more arbitrary than any of the former; and conveying more unlimited authority. She appointed forty-four commissioners, twelve of whom were ecclesiastics; three commissioners made a quorum; the jurisdiction of the court extended over the whole kingdom, and over all orders of men; and every circumstance of its authority, and all its methods of proceeding, were contrary to the clearest principles of law, and natural equity. The commissioners were empowered to visit, and reform, all errors, heresies, schisms, in a word to regulate all opinions, as well as to punish all breach of uniformity in the exercise of public worship. They were directed to make inquiry, not only by the legal method of juries,  and witnesses, but by all other means and ways, which they could devise; that is, by the rack, by torture, by inquisition, by imprisonment. Where they found reason to suspect any person, they might administer to him an oath, called ex officio; by which he was bound to answer all questions, and might thereby be obliged to accuse himself, or his most intimate friend. The fines, which they levied, were discretionary, and often occasioned the total ruin of the offender, contrary to the established laws of the kingdom. The imprisonment, to which they condemned any delinquent, was limited by no rule, but their own pleasure. They assumed a power of imposing on the clergy, what new articles of subscription, and consequently of faith, they thought proper.

"Though all other spiritual courts were subject, since the reformation, to inhibitions from the supreme courts of law, the ecclesiastical commissioners were exempted from that legal jurisdiction, and were liable to no control. And the more to enlarge their authority, they were empowered to punish all incests, adulteries, fornications; all outrages, misbehaviors, and disorders in marriage : and the punishments, which they might inflict, were according to their wisdom, conscience, and discretion. In a word, this court was a real inquisition; attended with all the iniquities, as well as cruelties, inseparable from that tribunal. And, as the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court was destructive of all law, so its erection was deemed by many a mere usurpation of this imperious princess; and had no other foundation than a clause of a statute, restoring the supremacy to the crown, and empowering the sovereign to appoint commissioners for exercising that prerogative. But, prerogative in general, especially the supremacy, was supposed, in that age, to involve powers, which no law, precedent, or reason, could limit, and determine.

6.

The Conference at Hampton Court.

During the whole of the reign of Elizabeth, the contest between the established church and the puritans, was on the increase; and many whole­some severities, to use the language of persecution, were inflicted on the puritans. At first, they seemed to be favored by her successor. He expressed a laudable desire to accommodate matters between the contending parties. With this view, he appointed the conference at Hampton Court. It was attended by nine bishops, and as many, dignitaries, on the one side; and by four puritans, on the other. James himself took a great part in it: and had the satisfaction to hear from Whitgift, the archbishop of Canterbury, that, "undoubtedly his majesty spoke by the special assistance of God's spirit; and, from Bancroft, the bishop of London, that the Almighty, of his singular mercy, had given such a king, as from Christ's time, there had not been. Whereupon, says Strype, the lords, with one voice, yielded a very affectionate acclamation. His majesty was highly delighted with his own display of talent, at this extraordinary exhibition. In a letter preserved by Strype, the royal theologian writes to one of his friends, that "he had kept a revel with the puritans, for two days, the like of which was never seen; and that he had peppered them, as he, (to whom he was writing,) had done the papists: and that he was forced to say, at last, that, if any of them had been in a college, disputing with other scholars, and that any of their disciples had answered them, in that sort, they  themselves would have snatched him up, in place of a reply, with a rod."

7.

The Legal establishment of the Puritans by the long Parliament.

This event is shortly related by Mosheim, in the following terms : "After the death of Laud, the dissentions, that had reigned for a long time, between the king and parliament, grew still more violent; and arose, at length, to so great a height, that they could not be extinguished, but by the blood of that excellent prince. The great council of the nation, heated by the violent suggestions of the puritans and independents, abolished episcopal government; and abrogated everything in the ecclesiastical establishment, that was contrary to the doctrine, worship, and discipline, of the church of Geneva; turned the vehemence of the opposition against the king himself; and, having brought him into their power by the fate of arms, accused him of treason against the majesty of the nation; and, in 1648, while the eyes of Europe were fixed on the strange spectacle, caused his head to be struck off, on a public scaffold.

While the long parliament continued, the presbyterians maintained the ascendency. In a great measure, they lost it, when Cromwell usurped the government. Under him, all denominations of Christians, except the catholics and episcopalians, enjoyed full, and unbounded, liberty of conscience; and professed publicly, their religious doctrines. The presbyterians, and independents, were the favored communions; and, at first, had equal favor shown them. But, the protector's jealousy of the influence of the former, procured, by degrees, for the latter, a preponderance in his regard.

8.

The Act of Conformity.

No sooner,—to adopt generally the language of Mosheim, on this subject,—was Charles the second, re-established on the throne of his ancestors, than the ancient forms of ecclesiastical government, and public worship, were re-established with him. The church of England was completely restored to her former honors. The puritans had hoped, that they should be allowed to share some part of the revenues of the church; but, contrary to their hopes, and to the monarch's solemn declarations at Breda, they were miserably disappointed. In 1662, the act of conformity was passed. In consequence of it, the validity of presbyterian ordination was denounced; the terms of conformity were raised higher, and rendered more difficult, than they were, before the civil war; and the non-conforming ministers were deprived of their livings. It is observable that, in the reign of Elizabeth, the deprived ministers were allowed one-fifth of their benefices, but, the statute of Charles made no provision for them.

9.

The Act of Toleration.

In this melancholy state of depression, the puritans remained, till the Revolution. Their affairs then took a more favorable turn. In 1689, the bill for the toleration of all protestant dissenters, from the church of England, passed in parliament, almost without opposition, and completely delivered them from the penal laws, to which they had been subject, by the act of conformity.

10.

Persecutions suffered and inflicted by the Puritans.

"It is, said Mosheim, an observation often made, that all religious sects, when they are kept under and oppressed, are remarkable for inculcating the duties of moderation, forbearance, and charity towards those, who dissent from them; but that, as soon as the scenes of persecution are removed, and they, in their turn arrive at power and pre-eminence, they forget their own precepts and maxims; and leave, both the recommendation and practice of charity to those, that groan under their yoke. The events, which form the subject of the present pages, too well exemplify the truth of this observation.

The Presbyterians, no sooner obtained the legal ascendency, under the provisions of the long parliament, than they imposed, with the same rigor, us their predecessors had done, their own creeds and confessions; and invested their magistrates with the same power of punishing with temporal pains and penalties, dissenters from their establishments. Of the persecutions suffered, and inflicted, by the puritans, Robinson, in his History of the Persecutions of Christians, gives the following extraordinary account.

"On the death of queen Mary, Elizabeth succeeded to the throne. Elizabeth, being a protestant, and being likewise taught by suffering, under the reign of her sister,—the protestants blessed themselves, that now their cause was established; and every friend of mankind hoped persecution would now cease. A church, calling itself protestant, was, indeed, established; but, this queen imitated her father, in persecuting both protestants, and papists. Elizabeth was a princess of most arbitrary principles, and character; ambition was her ruling passion, and he, who contradicted her,—died. The protestant bishops were continually employed in preaching in favor of arbitrary power; and persecuting all, who dissented, either from their political, or theological, creed. If anyone wrote anything against arbitrary power, either in church or state, he was immediately condemned, and put to death, as an author of seditious publications, against which, convenient laws were enacted, to please the queen and the priests. If anyone refused to conform to the least ceremony in worship, he was cast into prison, where, for this offence, many of the most excellent men in the land perished.

Two protestants of the Anabaptist faith, this  accomplished queen burnt, for heresy, and many more of the same denomination, she banished, for the same crime. She also put two heretics to death, who had adopted the faith of Brown, the father of the independents; and, a little before this, she butchered some papists for their ancient heresy. The archbishops, Parker, and Whitgift, are damned to eternal fame, for the brutal part, they took in this cruel carnage.

Indeed, the whole reign of Elizabeth, though distinguished by the political prosperity of England, as far as great fame, and good fortune abroad can be called prosperity, is nothing but a series of arbitrary, and flagitious conduct, pointing to the destruction of all liberty, civil and religious, and full of murder for religious opinions. Elizabeth herself had no religion; but was openly profane, and addicted to common cursing and swearing. Without the weakness of Mary, she had Mary's heart, thirsting for human blood."

"James the first succeeded Elizabeth on the throne of England; and united the two kingdoms of England and Scotland. Educated a Presbyterian, the friends of Reformation expected, at once, a cessation of persecution, and the protection and countenance of the young king. In both, they were grievously disappointed. The protestant churches of England and Scotland had laid down persecution,  as the mark,  and  evidence, of a false church; but, if their mark were a just one, neither of them merited the honorable appellation of a true church. When James ascended the throne, his first concern appears to have been the maintenance of his prerogative, and the extension of his power. He eagerly looked around him for those, who were best inclined to secure him these advantages. Experience had taught him, that the rough manners of the Presbyterian clergy snowed them to be ill adapted to this purpose. They had too often been to him the instruments of restraint and had shown too little disposition to flatter his vanity, or assert the omnipotence of his power. In the English clergy, and especially the bishops, he found men every way fitted for his purpose. Every tyrant is, in his turn, a sycophant and every sycophant, is, in his turn, a tyrant,— is a maxim founded on experience; and James perceived, that those, whose pleasure was the burning of others, would conform to any tiling to please him, from whom they derived their power. His standing maxim soon was, no bishop, no king, for, he found no other men, whose endeavors were equally to be depended upon in securing unlimited obedience in the people, and asserting unlimited authority in the prince. To bribe their exertions in favor of despotism, he published edicts, full of the old spirit of persecution. Bancroft, the pious bishop, was at once his adviser, and agent. The king published a proclamation,    commanding   all protestants to conform strictly, and without any exception, to all, and singular, the rites and ceremonies of the church of England; and granted indulgence to tender consciences to none, but roman-catholics, of all his numerous subjects in England.

"The spirit of this proclamation was directed by Bancroft to the heads of thousands of protestant non-conformists. Above five hundred clergy were immediately silenced, or deprived, for not complying with some slight ceremonies. Some were excommunicated; and some banished the country. Every means was used to distress dissenters. They were deprived, censured, fined in the Star-chamber; and used in the most violent and arbitrary manner. Worn out with endless vexations, and unceasing persecutions, many retired to Holland and, from thence, to America, seeking amongst untutored savages, and roaring wild beasts, that mercy, they were denied by protestant bishops, and priests, in their native land. Amongst the most illustrious of these fugitives was Mr. Robinson, the father of the independents in America;—James, dreading the consequence of such numerous emigrations, prohibited them; but without effect. It is witnessed, by a most judicious historian, that in this, and some following reigns, twenty-two thousand persons were banished from England by persecution, to America.

"To stifle the spirit of inquiry, hostile, at all times, to arbitrary power, in church and state, and to promote universal thoughtlessness, and ignorance, James published the book of sports, to be read in churches, which, on their refusing to comply with the requisition to read it, was *the means of depriving and silencing all the clergy of honor, and conscience in the nation.

"When Charles the first ascended the throne, he early discovered very arbitrary principles of government and, agreeable to the schemes of such as have ever attempted to enslave mankind, he flattered the priesthood, in their most daring usurpations. It is an observation of the authors of the Independent Whig, that where there are no dissenters from the established worship, there  exists not a freeman in the nation. This is an observation, founded on the experience of ages, that the power of the clergy is the death-warrant of liberty. Charles soon discovered his whole heart by marrying a roman-catholic, and placing the infamous Laud at the head of both state, and church. Laud was another Thomas a Becket; and had powers equally formidable, being arch-bishop of Canterbury, and the first man in the state. He, indeed, lived in times, not quite so benighted yet ignorance, bigotry, and superstition, were even yet almost universal. A proof of this may be found in the conduct of the better sort of priests in Ireland, in this reign. A number of pious bishops, with the famous archbishop Usher at their head, published a protest against the toleration of roman-catholics, not on account of their political principles being supposed dangerous, but because they did not dare to concur in the toleration of catholics, lest they (the protestant bishops!), should be involved in the sin of idolatry. Here are men, prepared to exterminate the human race, because they do not adopt their creed; and piously acknowledge their infallibility!—Laud pushed the great business of persecution to its utmost bounds; and gave the nation more exercise in this way, than it was inclined to suffer. Numbers, torn to pieces by this protestant bishop, in their families and property fled to America and founded the settlement of Massachusetts Bay. They were the fathers of the first assertors of liberty, in the last war."

"AD 1630, the learned Dr. Leighton wrote a book against the hierarchy; and felt, to his cost, that his good mother was inclined to chastise as much as to cherish her offspring; when they called in question her high authority.—He was sentenced in the high commission, in a fine of ten thousand pounds, perpetual imprisonment,  and whipping. 1st. He was whipped; and then placed in the pillory. 2dly. One of his ears cut off. 3dly. One side of his nose slit. 4thly. Branded on the cheek with a red hot iron, with the letters S. S.: whipped, a second time, and placed in the pillory about a fortnight afterwards, his sores being yet uncured, he had the other ear cut off; the other side of his nose slit and the other cheek branded. He continued in prison, till the long parliament set him at liberty. Archbishop Laud had the honor of conducting this prosecution.

The singular feature of the persecutions, thus inflicted by the protestants of the establishment on the puritans, is, (to use the expression of Neal) that, in point of faith, there was no substantial difference in doctrine, between the church of England, and the puritans, so that these were turned out of the church, for things, which their adversaries acknowledged to be of mere indifference, whereas the puritans took it in their consciences, and were ready to aver, in the most solemn manner, that they deemed them unlawful. Incredible as it may appear, the point which principally occasioned this animosity was, the habits,—that is, the dress,—particularly the surplice,—of the clergy.

But, no sooner were the Presbyterians possessed of the power of the state, than in their turn they became persecutors.

In 1643, the long parliament, continues Mr. Robinson, interdicted the freedom of the press; and appointed licensers of the press, a singular introduction this, to the establishment of the liberty, they promised.

In 1645, an ordinance was published, subjecting all, who preached, or wrote, against the presbyterian directory for public worship, to a fine, not exceeding fifty pounds; and imprisonment, for a year, for the third offence, in using the episcopal book of common prayer, even in a private family.—Such was the spirit of presbyterian toleration!

The following year, when the king had surrendered to the Scots, the Presbyterians applied to parliament, pressing them to enforce uniformity in religion; and to extirpate popery, prelacy, heresy, schism, agreeably to the solemn league and covenant; and to establish presbyterianisin, by abolishing all separate congregations, and preventing any, but presbyterians, from all offices under government. A resolution of greater folly, madness, and persecution, was never formed by any fanatics, which have disgraced the world. The parliament did not approve of this madness; and the independents, (a sect, which first asserted general toleration), opposed it, with becoming spirit.

Those infallible teachers, the London presbyterian ministers, and the ministers in Gloucestershire, published their protest, and testimony, against all errors; and especially that greatest of all errors, toleration. They seem to be at a loss for words to express their deep abhorrence of the damnable heresy, called toleration, or an indulgence to tender consciences. They call it, the error of toleration, patronizing, and promoting, all other errors, heresies, and blasphemies, whatsoever, under the grossly-abused notion of liberty of conscience. These wise gentlemen needed no liberty of conscience:—they were right;—others were blasphemous heretics, to be damned, for their pleasure hereafter and who ought to have been burnt, for their satisfaction, and delight, here.

On the 2d of May 1648, the English parliament, being ruled by the presbyterians, published an ordinance against heresy, as follows, viz. "That all persons, who shall maintain, publish, or defend, by preaching, or writing, the following heresies, with obstinacy, shall upon complaint, or proof by the oath of two witnesses, before two justices of the peace, or confession of the party, be committed to prison, without bail, or main prize, till the next gaol delivery; and in case the indictment shall be found, and the party, on his trial, shall not abjure his said errors, and his defence and maintenance of the same, he shall suffer the pains of death, as in case of felony without benefit of clergy; and if he recant or abjure, he shall remain in prison, till he find securities, that he will not maintain the said heresies, or errors, any more but, if he relapse, and be convicted, a second time, he shall suffer death"

Such were the offences of each party against the sacred duty of religious toleration. Much has been said, and is still daily said, of the persecuting spirit of the catholics. That they have been frequently guilty of persecution, must be acknowledged: But, is the spirit of persecution less discernible, in the instances, which Robinson has enumerated, and which we have just cited from him?

It is not a little remarkable, that, while the puritans were suffering under these laws, and filling the world with their just complaints against them, they were, by an unaccountable inconsistency, uniformly clamorous for the execution of the laws against the catholics; and for fresh enactments against them. They also repeatedly forced, both the first James, and the first Charles against their own views of policy, and their own natural dispositions, into the most sanguinary measures. The fact was, that the doctrines of toleration were neither understood, nor felt, by any party. All were equally guilty. Men, otherwise most humane, and charitable,—many of them learned, and in other respects, enlightened in the highest degree, were the warm advocates of persecution.

A fairer, a more learned, or a more honorable, name than that of archbishop Usher, the church of England cannot produce:—yet, did this venerable man, with a file of musketeers, enter the catholic chapel, in Cork-street Dublin, during the celebration of divine service; seize the priest, in his vestments; and hew down the crucifix:—Yet, did this venerable man, with eleven other Irish prelates, sign, what is termed, the judgment of diverse of the archbishops, and bishops of Ireland, on the toleration of religion—and declare by it, that the religion of the papists was superstitious, and idolatrous; their faith and doctrine erroneous, and heretical; their church, in respect to both, apostatical: that, to give them, therefore, a toleration, or, to consent, that they may freely exercise their religion, is a grievous sin."—It is observable too, that the circumstance, we have just mentioned, took place, at a time, when Charles the first was in his greatest distress; and the catholics of Ireland were straining every nerve to serve him. Surely, the archbishop must have forgotten the just rebuke, which, not long before this time, himself had given, to a clergyman for a want of charity. Being wrecked, on a desolate part of the Irish coast, he applied to a clergyman for relief; and stated, without mentioning his name, or rank, his own sacred profession. The clergyman rudely questioned it, and told him peevishly, that he doubted, whether he knew the number of the commandments.—"Indeed I do, replied the archbishop, mildly, there are eleven.

"Eleven!" said the clergyman,—"tell me the eleventh; and I will assist you."

"Obey the eleventh," said the archbishop, and you certainly will.—A new commandment I give unto you,— "that ye love one another."

It is pleasing, however, to add, that, while Usher declared against toleration in Ireland, doctor Jeremy Taylor advocated it in England, in his Discourse on the Liberty of Prophesying,—an immortal work abounding in passages of the closest reasoning; and strains of eloquence seldom equaled. It was published in 1647; and, therefore, long preceded the liberal treatise of Grotius de Jure summorum principum circa sacra, published in 1661: Boyle's Commentaire Philosophique, sur ces paroles de Jesus Christ, contrainez les d'entrer first published in 1686, and Locke's six letters upon toleration, the first of which appeared, in 1689

By preceding these, doctor Taylor has conferred on his country the honour of having produced the first regular treatise on toleration. Long, however_,before this time, its existence, in Utopia, had been supposed by sir Thomas More:—and long before Utopia was imagined, St. Martin of Tours had refused to communicate with the persecutors of the Priscillianists, on account of their religious intolerance; and long before Tours was edified by the virtues of St. Martin, the Son of Man had rebuked the sons of Zebedee for wishing that a shower of fire might descend on the incredulous Samaritans. A new edition of doctor Taylor's Liberty of Prophesying has been recently published.  The work concludes with the following apologue; it would be well that every child should learn it by heart: "When Abraham sat at his tent-door, according to his custom, waiting to entertain strangers, he espied an old man, stooping, and leaning on his staff, weary with age and travel, coming towards him,—who was an hundred years of age, he received him kindly,  washed his feet,  provided supper, caused him to sit down; but, observing, that the old man eat, and prayed not, nor begged for a blessing on his meal, asked him, why he did not worship the God of heaven? The old man told him, that he worshiped the fire only, and acknowledged no other god, at which answer, Abraham grew so zealously angry, that he thrust the old man out of his tent, and exposed him to all the evils of the night, and an unguarded condition. When the old man was gone, God called to Abraham, and asked him, where the stranger was: he replied, "I thrust him out, because he did not worship thee"; God answered him, 'I have suffered him, these hundred years, although he dishonored me; and couldst not thou endure him one night, when he gave thee no trouble? Upon this, says the story, Abraham fetched him back again; and gave him hospitable entertainment, and wise instruction.—Go thou and do likewise; and thy charity will be rewarded by the God of Abraham.