Page images
PDF
EPUB

ing which is a coming close up to your lusts, were a going away from our texts. In the Bishops' times we were suffered to preach any thing, so we came not near their sins: And this prelacy is still kept up among us. Hence it is that faithful ministers are

denied their maintenance, are abused by the nick-names of Antichristian, are voiced enemies to the Parliament, (are you and your lusts so near, that we cannot be enemies to one, but we must be enemies also to the other?) that they have changed their princi"ples, that they are turned Malignants: Whereas it is not the shore that moveth, but the boatman. The ministers are still the same men, and walk by the same rule,-still are for you, the Covenant, and a pure Reformation. The Lord will one day judge who they are that continue faithful and firm both to Him and you, and who are unfaithful to Him, to us, and to your

selves."

[ocr errors]

In one of the most judicious sermons* preached before the House of Peers, on May the 26th, 1647, by the Rev. William HUSSEY,

I call this "one of the most judicious sermons preached before the house of Peers." Two or three extracts will corroborate my favourable judgment of it: Their Lordships were then dwindling fast in public estimation; and the King, though a prisoner, was in treaty with his rebellious subjects. Instead of insulting fallen Majesty, and exciting the rage of the populace against the King, as was the practice of many of his co-pastors, Hussey made the following remarks: "I cannot but confess, these times have involved your Lordships in very great diffi culties: But the greatest difficulty is, to amend yourselves. If you could but give testimony to the world, that you see yourselves, (partly by the fault of your ancestors, and partly by your own,) disabled from doing your country that service which the duties of your places do require, and that you earnestly desire a reformation of yourselves; if you could but undertake the principal duty of your places, to be reconcilers of the King and people, and propose such terms of agreement as may be fit for Prince and people to receive, God would certainly assist you. You ought to deal plainly with King and people. Where you find the fault, lay the blame. Press the King to his duty, and the people to theirs. Let your propositions be legal, reasonable, and wholesome for the State. God and good men will not leave such endeavours without comfort and success. You ought not to join with the King against the Commons, nor with the Commons against the King; but carry the balance of justice so justly and friendly between them, that they may join in friendship one with another. You are trusted with the honour of the Crown, the justice of the people, the setting up the honour of Christ's kingdom: Ye must not suffer any of these to sink."

Speaking in favour of a better maintenance for himself and his Puritan brethren, Hussey says: "There was great pretence of honour done to the Clergy, in the Court of England. Were the Bishops so much honoured at Court, that Christ might be honoured in them, that religion might be advanced by them? No such matter, but that they might be popular orators to draw over the people to put on the yoke of slavery, and that hath drawn so much envy of the people on them. The principle, notwithstanding, that was pretended, was a good principle that he who laboured in the word and doctrine, is worthy of double honour. (1. Tim. v. 17.) But the honour must be joined to the work, that the work may be done. Certainly it is the duty of Christian Kings and Princes, to use all means that come to their hands to encourage the choice of men for parts and education to become ministers, to make such public provision for ministers that men may by that obtain more honour, more maintenance by it, than by any other

Minister at Chiselhurst, in Kent, the following observations are made, by a professed adversary, in behalf of the Bishops who had

public profession. So that Kings and States cannot receive the Gospel, unless they honour the messengers of Christ, according to the command of Christ; not as beggars and private men give honour with cap and knee, but with honourable maintenance; and command that honour be given them from private subjects." -He then successfully combats the common arguments for an ignorant ministry, and observes in conclusion: "This is the common ery of the multitude, Ye may see what good learning did in the Bishops' time : We must never look for better from it! Therefore down with it! Yet this I say, that if the value of but one Bishopric were bestowed on seven honest and able Divines that might maintain a School of Divinity, and [were] the scriptures interpreted by them according to the best improvement of human skill, such satisfaction would be given, that the mouths of those who fill the world with new fancies would be stopped, the hard places of scripture made plain, unity and piety much advanced: Which no one man's skill will ever be able to bring to pass, that would make more for the safety of the kingdom than all the forces and power of the sword."

With such sentiments as these about the superiority of the Puritans over the Bishops, it is not wonderful that Hussey should plead in the following manner for a better maintenance : "Were any ministers received into this state as Commissioners to preach the Gospel ought? Have any sort of ministers been received as Ambassadors from a King to his own subjects? Were not those Bishops that were honoured by this State, first sized to the Prince's humour and good experience had of their servile condition, then sent out to stop the mouths of all that were not fitted to the same last, not with the commission of Christ to preach what He commanded, but with a new commission to preach what the Prince and his Commissioners should allow? And was all this done with intelligence, according to principles of christian religion? Or have not all these strivings to keep the ministers of the Gospel under, come from a more corrupt fountain, that they might not be bold to preach against their corruptions, or lay the yoke of Christ too heavily on the necks of kings, princes, and people !-Were not Bishops nursed up to keep the ministers of the Gospel from speaking boldly in the name of Christ? Was not this their style? No Bishop, No King! I never heard No Bishop, No Christ! But had they relied on Christ, and heard Christ freely speaking to them out of the Gospel, He would have kept them safer than the Bishops did. And I dare boldly say, No honour and freedom given to the ministers of the Gospel, No Christ received in that Commonwealth! Men dare not say, Christ is proud: A course must be taken to bring Christ a little lower!' But, Ministers are proud; they must be taken down; they must come under the gentry. If that be the end of taking down the Bishops, to make the Clergy below the Gentry, I would fain know, by what principle must wealth needs be of more esteem than religion? But let these men speak plain, and tell us they will bring Christ below the Gentry. Indeed, I have heard a gentleman that had some influence on the placing of a minister in a country church, should say, 'he * scorned any minister should be so saucy as to tell him his faults:' And surely the carriage of the Gentry has been such, as if they were above the commands of Christ."

The fact is, the character here drawn of the Bishops is much more applicable to the Puritans themselves: For no man was permitted to become a Court Preacher before the Long Parliament, unless he had first proved himself " to be sized to their humour, and good experience had of his servile condition." He was then qualified to be sent, as all the Assembly of Divines were commissioned by Parliament, August 10, 1643, "to go into the country to stir up the people to rise for their defence," or, as Hussey quaintly expresses it, "to stop the mouths of all that were not fitted to the same last." Where are the records of the Bishops, or of the Episcopal Clergy, engaging in a warlike crusade, and exciting

then been suppressed: "War is the breaking out of the Lord upon an unjust people. I dare say, had the judges walked in judgment according to the Petition of Right,-punished those that first took monopolies, tonnage, and poundage, not exacted, because not granted in Parliament, or [had] the exacters [been] punished in judgment,-[had] ship-money not [been] judged to be law contrary to law,-it had been impossible to have brought the their fellow-subjects to arouse themselves, and destroy their republican invaders ? The sermons preached by Hammond, Sanderson, Usher, and others, before the Court and the Army, are still extant: Let a comparison be instituted between these pacific and truly christian discourses, (of which many specimens will be found in the subsequent pages,) and those of their adversaries. It will then be instantly seen, that the adherents to Arminianism and Loyalty were better instructed in the school of Christ Jesus, and did not return railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing.

· Old Dr. THOMAS MANTON, though he also was a Presbyterian, had the same view of the bad consequences of suppressing Episcopacy. In his Sermon before the Commons, June 30, 1647, he said: "I confess, God loveth to 'pour contempt upon the sons of Levi that are partial in the Covenant,' (Mal. ii, 9,) and it is his way many times to cause the voice of many waters,' that is, of the confused multitude, to go before the voice of mighty thunderings,' (Rev. xix, 6,) that is, the regular act of the magistrate, whose sentences and decrees are terrible as thunder. And therefore I do adore the justice of Divine Providence, in causing the former ministry to become base and contemptible before all the people. But, however, I cannot but sadly bewail the mischiefs that abound amongst us by the neglect of men. Though the corruptions of Episcopacy made it justly odious, yet it would have been better it had been, rather than jested down. Arguments would have done more good than scoffs, beside the danger of returning to folly. Do but consider the present inconveniences of making so great a change without more public and rational conviction; when things that before were of reverend esteem, are of a sudden decried. What is the effect? Why, religion itself is of less esteem: Men suspect all, can as well scoff at truth as error. Calvin's observation is excellent: He saith, that in times of changes there are many that are ' of Lucian's temper, who, by jesting against all received rites, insensibly lose all 'sense and awe of religion; and, by scoffing at false Gods, come the less to ' dread the true.' Consider, and see if the former liberty of tongues and pens hath not begotten that present irreverence and fearlessness that is in the spirits of men against things that undoubtedly are of God. But this is not all: Do but consider how many are hardened in their old ways, and prejudiced against the reformers, as if they were men that did proceed, not to perfection, but to permutation, were men given to changes, merely to love things out of passion and present dislike, or, which is worse, out of self-aims."

The truth is, the Puritans had "raised a spirit which they could not lay." They had taught the common people to ridicule the decent observances of Episcopacy, and they could not prevail with them, after having abandoned the form of religion, to shew any attachment to the substance. Besides, all these Puritanic complainers studiously conceal the important fact, that Calvinism was inadequate to produce any good effect upon a people that had been carefully instructed in their Christian duties, as the great mass of the nation had been by many of the' Bishops and Episcopal Clergy. Though the political might of Calvinism in the Civil Wars gained the ascendancy here, as it had previously done in Holland, yet its "moral power" was gradually diminished during the whole of the Interregnum, notwithstanding the strenuous exertions which were made for its establishment, and which had never before been made for that of any other religious system. I could quote several confessions similar to this, from the Calvinistic sermons preached before the Long Parliament,

people into such a distemper as to fall one upon another. The fault was laid upon the BISHOPS and CLERGY of the land. I will not excuse them as far as they had any hand in over-swaying the Judges, putting down the good ones, and setting up such as were servile and might easier be bent to serve the lust of the Court against law, or as they were active themselves in arbitrary Courts to the oppression of the people, such as were the High Commission, Star Chamber, Council Table. But this I dare say, the most immediate causes of breach of peace have been failings in judgment. All failings in judgment are oppressions; therefore is judgment opposed to oppression."

The next quotation, from Thomas CASE's sermon before the Commons, May 26, 1647, describes the havoc which this Calvinistic Crusade had made in the belief and the practice of the nation, compared with which, the preacher says, the abolished cere

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

monies of Episcopacy were children's sport: "Is there any thing refused and opposed so much as Reformation? Oh that Popery were so much opposed as Reformation! Oh that Blasphemies were so much opposed as Reformation! Oh that Anti-christianism and Atheism were so much opposed as Reformation! Happy we then! Would ye know wHEN all these abominations are broken out in England? Oh, it is in a time of Reformation! In a time of the breaking out of gospel-light and liberty, such as the world never saw since it was christian: In a time when we had sworn ourselves to God by Covenant 'to extirpate Popery, Prelacy, Superstition, Heresy, Schism, Profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness. Alas! we run in such a contrary motion, that a man might almost think there was a word in the Covenant mis-printed, and the next errata should bid the reader read ESTABLISH instead of extirpate. Oh, God may say of us, When I would have healed England, then the iniquity thereof was discovered! England was never so bad as in a time of Reformation. Witness the numerous and numberless increase of errors and heterodox opinions even to blasphemy among us! The world once wondered to see itself turned Arian. England may wonder to see itself turned Anabaptist, Antinomian, Arminian, Socinian, Arian, Anti-trinitarian, Anti-scrip turist, what not! Alas, what were CEREMONIES to these things, but (as Calvin once called them) tolerabiles ineptiæ, 'children's sport' in comparison! How much less an evil was it, think ye, to bow at the name of Jesus, than to deny, to blaspheme the name of Jesus? (2 Pet. ii, 1.)"

These topics are still more amply treated in the next quotation, and might soon be confirmed by numbers of others. In the perusal of this volume, the reader will find that I have frequently alluded to the attachment of the people of England to Episcopacy, and have (p. 779,) called the influence of the Episcopal Clergy, DEEP ROOTED:" No one, I think, who reads the following il

lustrative passages from Richard KENTISH's sermon before the Commons, Nov. 24, 1647, will consider that epithet to have been inappropriately applied:

"Oh that the Lord would persuade the people of England, to remember from whence they are fallen. (1.) The people of England once loved the Saints, and honoured those that feared the Lord; but now they loath them. They once longed for a Parliament, petitioned for a Parliament, honoured a Parliament, thought they could not be happy without a Parliament; but now how is the Parliament slighted! their order and ordinances contemned! and how many are there that say to the Parliament, as the Gadarenes to Christ, Oh that it would depart out of our coasts! Oh how is England fallen!

[ocr errors]

(2.) The people of England once desired reformation, petitioned for reformation, covenanted for reformation. But now they do hate to be reformed; they are like Israel of old in their travel towards the promised land; they preferred the garlick and onions of Egypt, before the milk and honey of Canaan; so now a prelatical Priest, with a superstitious service-book, is more desired, and would be better welcome to the generality of England, than the most learned, laborious, conscientious Preacher, whether Presbyterian or Independent. Oh how is England fallen!

“(3.) Again: About six years since sin began to be ashamed, to creep into corners, to be out of fashion. But now sin is grown brazen-faced, walks in the open streets, is come in great request again. Sabbaths are profaned, ordinances slighted, swearing is accounted gainful, drunkenness goes unpunished, and whoredom the people are apt to think lawful now, because, since the Bishops' Courts went down, we have scarce any law against it.

"Now here (by the way) I do most earnestly beseech you, (honoured worthies of Parliament,) if you have not been acting that way already, to hasten out some order for the punishment of that heinous sin of adultery. We read in God's law, (Lev. xx, 10.) that he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. Was it to be punished with death then, and shall it go unpunished now? I beseech, let some course be taken that such kind of transgressors may be made to smart.

66

(4.) Again: Oh how is England fallen! Time was when we rejoiced that we had days of fasting; we looked upon them as none of our least mercies. But now we are ready to say with those in Amos viii, 5: When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the Sabbath, that we may set forth wheat? So say our people, 'When shall we have an end of these fasting days, that we may follow our callings, look to our shops and our other 'occasions?" And these poor simple creatures are mad after superstitious festivals, after unholy holidays. Alas! why should we be weary of well-doing? Are England's dangers all over? Is not Ireland's case as bad as it was? And shall we give over seek

« PreviousContinue »