I have carefully looked into this affair, and collected the characters of the old and new professors from the most approved writers, that the disinterested reader may judge, how far religion and learning suffered by the exchange.

The close of this volume, which relates the disputes between the parliament and army; the ill success of his majesty's arms and treaties; the seizure of his royal person a second time by the army; his trial before a pretended high court of justice, and his unparalleled execution before the gates of his royal palace by the military power, is a most melancholy and affecting scene; in which, next to the all disposing providence of God, one cannot but remark the king's inflexible temper, together with the discretion of his friends, especially his divines at a time when his crown was lost by the fortune of war and his very life at the mercy of his enemies; nor is the unwarrantable stiffness of the parliament less unaccountable, when they saw the victorious army drawing towards London, flushed with the defeat of the Scots and English loyalists, and determined to set aside that very uniformity they were contending for. If his majesty had yielded at first what he did at last. with an appearance of sincerity; or, if the two houses had complied with his concessions while Cromwell was in Scotland; or if the army had been made easy by a general indulgence and toleration, with the distribution of some honors and bounty-money among the officers, the crown and constitution might have been saved; "but so many miraculous circumstances contributed to his majesty's ruin, (says lord Clarendon*) that men might well think that heaven and earth conspired it."

The objections to the first volume of the History of the Puritans, by the author of The Vindication of the government, doctrine and worship of the Church of England, obliged me to review the principal facts in a small pamphlet, wherein I have endeavored to discharge myself as an historian, without undertaking the defence of their several principles, or making myself an advocate for the whole of their conduct. I took the liberty to point out the mistakes of our first reformers, as I passed along, but with no design to blacken their memories; for, with all their foibles, they were glorious instruments in the hand of Providence, to deliver this nation from anti-christian bondage; but they were free to confess, the work was left imperfect; that they had gone as far as the times would admit, and hoped their successors would bring the reformation to a greater perfection.

But the state of the controversy was entirely changed in the time of the civil wars; for after the coming in of the Scots, the puritans did not fight for a reformation of the hierarchy, nor for the generous principles of religious liberty to all peaceable subjects; but for the same spiritual power the bishops had exercised; for when they had got rid of the ops pression of the spiritual courts, under which they had groaned almost fourscore years,they were for setting up a number of presbyterian consis tories in all the parishes of England, equally burthensome and oppres

Vol. v. p. 258.

sive. Unhappy extreme! That wise and good men should not discover the beautiful consistency of truth and liberty! Dr. Barrow and others have observed, that in the first and purest ages of christianity, the church had no coercive power, and apprehend that it may still subsist very well without it.

The body of protestant dissenters of the present age have a just abhorrence of the persecuting spirit of their predecessors, and are content that their actions be set in a fair light, as a warning to posterity. They have no less a dread of returning into the hands of spiritual courts, founded on the bottomless deep of the canon law, and see no reason why they should not be equally exposed, till they are put upon a better foot; though it is an unpardonable crime, in the opinion of some churchmen, to take notice, even in the most respectful manner, of the least blemish in our present establishment, which, how valuable soever in itself. is allowed by all to be capable of amendments. Some little essays of this kind have fired the zeal of the bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, who, in a late charge to the clergy of his diocese, is pleased to lament over the times in the following mournful language: At so critical a juncture, (says his lordship) when common christianity is treated with an avowed contempt and open profaneness; when 'an undisguised immorality prevails so very generally; when there is scarce honesty enough to save the nation from ruin; when, with re'gard to the established church in particular, the royal supremacy is professedly exposed, as inconsistent with the rights of conscience, 'even THAT SUPREMACY, which was the ground-work of the reformation among us from popery, which was acknowledged, and sworn to by the old puritans, though now, inconsistently enough, disowned and condemned in the new history, and vindication of them and their prin'ciples :-When so destructive an attempt has been made on the legal 'maintenance of the clergy, by the late tithe bill, and consequently, on the fate of the christian religion among us :-When an attempt has been lately made on the important outworks of our ecclesiastical establishment, the corporation and test acts, with the greatest insolences towards the church, and most undutiful menaces to the civil govern'ment:-When the episcopal authority has been well nigh undermined, under pretence of reforming the ecclesiastical courts; and if that or 'der had been rendered useless, as it must have been, when it had lost its authority, then the revenues would have been soon thought useless; and in the result of things, the order itself might have been consider'ed as superfluous, and perhaps in due time thought fit to be abolished:-When churches have been put into such a method of repair, as would end in their ruin in a little time; and when the correction of the abuses of the matrimonial licenses has been labored in so absurd 'a manner, as to permit the marriage of minors without consent of their 'parents or guardians :-When these melancholy circumstances have so lately concurred, it is natural to infer, our zeal for the church should be in proportion to its danger; and if these are not proper occasions for zeal for our ecclesiastical constitution, it is not easy to assign cir. 'cumstance that may justly demand it."+ How fine and subtile are these

speculations! I have not observed any insolences towards the church, or undutiful menaces to the civil government,in the late writings of the dissenters; but if one pin of the hierarchy be removed by the wisdom of the legislature, the whole building is supposed to fall, and all religion along with it. His lordship therefore advises his clergy to study the bishopt of London's codex, in order to defend it; and it can do them no real prejudice to examine at the same time, the principles of law and equity, on which it is founded As to the dissenters, his lordship adds, "however 'it will become us of the clergy, in point of prudence, not to give any 'just suspicions of our disgust to the legal toleration of them, while they keep within due bounds; that is, while they do not break in upon the privileges and rights of the established church, by declaring against all legal establishments, or the legal establishment of the church of England in particular, or by not being quiet with the pres❝ent limits of their toleration, or by affecting posts of authority, and "thereby breaking down the fences of the church, and placing them'selves on a level with it."* But whether this would remain a point of prudence with his lordship, if the boundaries of his episcopal power were enlarged, is not very difficult to determine,

The dissenters have no envy nor ill-will to the churches of England or Scotland,established by law,(attended with a toleration of all peaceable dissenters,) any further than they encroach on the natural or social rights of mankind; nor are they so weak as not to distinguish between high dignities, great authority, and large revenues secured by law, and a poor maintenance arising from the voluntary contributions of the people, that is, between an establishment and a toleration.

But I am to attend to the charge of inconsistency brought against myself: I had observed, upon the reign of the bloody Queen Mary,§ that an absolute supremacy over the consciences of men, lodged with a single person, might as well be prejudicial as serviceable to true religion: And in the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth,|| that the powers then claimed by the kings and queens of England, were in a manner the same with those claimed by the popes in the times preceding the reformation. except the administration of the spiritual offices of the church. This was THAT SUPREMACY. which was the ground-work of the reformation; of which I say, let the reader judge how far these HIGH POWERS are agreeable or consistent with the natural rights of mankind. His lordship calls this a professed exposing the royal supremacy, and the rather, because "THAT SUPREMACY was acknowledged, and sworn to by the old puritans themselves, though now inconsistently enough 'disowned and condemned by their historian." But surely his lordship should have informed his clergy at the same time, in what sense the puritans took the oath, when it was before his eyes, in the same page; and my words are these: "The whole body of the papists refused the oath of supremacy, as inconsistent with their allegiance to the pope ; but the puritans took it under all these disadvantages, with the queen's

+ Dr. Gibson. *Charge, p. 46.

See a late excellent Examination of the Codex Juris Ecel. Angl.

Hist. Par. vol. i. p. 55.

Ibid. p. 85, 86.

* explication in her injunctions, that is, that no more was intended, than that her majesty, under God, had the sovereignty and rule over all persons born in her realm, either ecclesiastical or temporal, so as no foreign power had, or ought to have any superiority over them "* Where is the inconsistency of this conduct of the old puritans, or their new historian? Or, where is the dissenter in England, who is not ready to swear to it with this explication ?

But his lordship is pleased to reason upon this head, and in order to support that absolute supremacy, which was the ground-work of the reformation, affirms, that "all christian kings and emperors have the • same power of reforming religion, and are under the same obligations, as the Jewish kings were in cases of the like nature." without producing the least evidence or proof; whereas his lordship knows, that the government of the Jews was a theocracy; that God himself was their king, and the laws of that nation strictly and properly the laws of God, who is Lord of conscience, and may annex what sanctions he pleases; their judges and kings were chosen and appointed by God, not to make a new codex or book of laws, either for church or state, but to keep the people to the strict observation of those laws and statutes that he himself had given them by the hand of Moses.

His lordship is pleased to ask, "if any high pretender to spiritual liberty, and the rights of conscience, should enquire what authority the respective Jewish and Christian powers had to interpose in matters that regarded the rights of conscience; since in fact their assumed supremacy was an usurpation of those natural rights ?”§————I answer, that with regard to the Jews, it was no usurpation, for the reasons before mentioned; and when his lordship shall prove a transfer of the same power to all christian princes, the controversy will be brought to a short issue. "-But will it not be replied (says the bishop) that those kings • and emperors were intrusted by God with the care of the ecclesiastical, as well as civil constitution ?— If, by the care of the constitution, be meant no more than the preserving their subjects in the enjoyment of their unalienable rights, nobody denies it; but if, under this pretence, they assume a sovereign and arbitrary power of modelling the ecclesiastical constitution, according to their pleasure, and of enforcing their subjects obedience by canons and penal laws, I should doubt whether they are obliged to comply, even in things not absolutely sinful in themselves, because it may derogate from the kingly office of Christ, who is sole king and lawgiver in his own kingdom, and has not delegated this branch of his authority to any vicar general upon earth. But I readily agree with his lordship, that if any high pretender to the rights of conscience, should have asked the FIRST CHRISTIAN EMPERORS, by what authority they took on themselves the alteration or change of religion? THEY Would have thought the question unreasonable, and worthy of censure; they would have affirmed their own sovereignty, and have taught the bold enquirers, as Gideon did the men of Succoth, with briars and thorns of the wilderness.

Hist. Pur. p. 88. See Strype's Ann, vel. i. p. 159.

Charge, p. 21.

+ Charge, p. 20. Ibid. p. 22.

The bishop goes on; "Let us now transfer this power of Jewish kings and Christian emperors to our own kings, and the case will admit of * an easy decision." If indeed an absolute supremacy in matters of religion, be the natural and unalienable right of every christian king and emperor, the dispute is at an end; but if it depend upon a transfer, we must beg pardon, if we desire his lordshop to produce his commission for transferring the same powers, that Almighty God gave the Jewish kings of his own appointment, to the first Christian emperors, who were neither chosen by God, nor the people, nor the senate of Rome, but usurped the supreme authority, by the assistance of the military arm, and were some of them the greatest tyrants and scourges of mankind.

His lordship adds, "Have not the English kings, since the reformation, actually been invested with the SAME SUPREMACY, as the Jewish 'kings and Christian emperors were ?" I answer, such a supremacy is, in my judgment, inconsistent with our present constitution, and the laws in being. The supremacy claimed by King Henry VIII. and his successors, at the reformation, was found by experience too excessive, and therefore abridged in the reigns of King Charles I. and King William III. No one doubts but the kings of England are obliged to proteet religion, and defend the establishment, as long as the legislature think fit to continue it; but as they may not suspend or change it by their sovereign pleasure, so neither may they publish edicts of their own to enforce it, as was the case of the first christian emperors: The reader will excuse this digression, as necessary to support a principal fact of my history.

I am sufficiently aware of the delicacy of the affairs treated of in this volume, and of the tenderness of the ground I go over; and though I have been very careful of my temper and language, and have endeavored to look into the mysterious conduct of the several parties, with all the indifference of a spectator, I find it very difficult to form an exact judgment of the most important events, or to speak freely without offence; therefore if any passionate or angry writer should appear against this, or any of the former volumes, I humbly request the reader to pay no regard to personal reflections, or to insinuations of any ill designs against the established religion, or the public peace; which are entirely groundless. I am as far from vindicating the spirit and conduct of the warmer puritans, as of the governing prelates of those times; there was hard measure on both sides, though, if we separate polities from principles of pure religion, the balance will be very much in favor of the puritans. In historical debates, nothing is to be received upon trust, but facts are to be examined, and a judgment formed upon the authority by which those facts are supported; by this method we shall arrive at truth; and if it shall appear, that in the course of this long history, there are any considerable mistakes, the world may be assured, I will take the first opportunity to retract or amend them; having no private or party views, no prospect of preferment, or other

+ Charge, p. 22.