87

act of worship, as if to the body of Christ; yet now by Queen Elizabeth's command that explanation was stricken out, for the very purpose that the Papists might still, in the use of the Liturgy of the Church of England,-continue the idolatry of worshipping a breaden God. The Puritans objected to no decent posture, merely as a posture; but they were unwilling to give this implied sanction to the doctrine of transubstantiation, or to open idolatry.

They objected against the injunction of the Liturgy, that "When in time of divine service the name of Jesus shall be mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present." This the Puritans regarded as a childish and superstitious interpretation of the passage, "At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow;" as though a bodily bowing, at the literal name, were even a resemblance of the thing intended in Scripture; and as though it were proper to make this distinction between the mere literal name of Jesus, and the other names of the Godhead.

They objected to the ring in marriage; as one of the charmed symbols of the POPISH SACRAMENT of marriage. The custom had been to bless the ring; or to speak more truly, to CHARM it with a popish incantation. The popish office for consecrating the ring ran thus [I copy from "Challoner's Catholic Christian instructed;" a work published by authority]: The priest says, "Let us pray." Then he says, "Bless + O Lord" (here he makes the sign of the Cross), "this ring, which we bless + in thy name; that she that shall wear it, keeping inviolate fidelity to her spouse, may ever remain in peace, and in thy will; and always remain in mutual charity through Christ our Lord. Amen." "Then the priest sprinkles the ring with holy water, and the bridegroom taking it, puts the ring on the fourth finger of the left hand, saying, In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; with this ring I thee wed," &c.

They objected against filling up the calendar with a multitude of Saints' Days which people were required to observe religiously, while the Lord's Day was required to be made a day of merriment and sports.

They objected to the office of Baptism* in which the priest is required to say, "We yield thee humble thanks that it hath

pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit."

They objected to the service for visitation of the sick, in which the priest is required, upon the patient's profession of penitence, to pronounce this ABSOLUTION; "Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him; of his great mercy forgive thee thine

*Bogue and Bennett-History of the Dissenters.

offences; and BY HIS AUTHORITY committed to me, I ABSOLVE THEE FROM ALL THY SINS, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen." The Puritans considered this not only the means of a cruel delusion, but a blasphemous assumption of power which belongs to God only.*

They objected against the Burial Service, that the clergyman was required to say over every one, save unbaptized adults, and those who die excommunicated, or who have laid violent hands on themselves, these words: "For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God, of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother now departed, we therefore commit his body to the ground in sure hope of the resurrection to eternal life," and again, "We give thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased thee to deliver this our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world, beseeching that it may please thee shortly to accomplish the number of thine elect."

*

Against such things, among others, in the service book, the Puritans objected as popish, and as tending to bring back a scheme of faith not only corrupt, but subversive of the true gospel; and calculated to delude and destroy the souls of men. Those who revised the Liturgy for the Episcopal Church in America appear to have considered that there were good grounds for objection in some of these instances; for the absolution in the visitation of the sick is omitted; and the burial service, instead of saying that God hath taken the soul of the deceased "to himself," says simply, that He hath taken it "out of the world ;" and instead of committing the body to the earth "in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life," the American book reads, Looking for the GENERAL resurrection in the last day."

Such were the original complaints of the Puritans. But they were put down by the strong hand of power. Deprivations, fines, maiming, slitting of the nostrils, cropping of the ears, lingering death by famine, and cold, and sickness, in damp, unwholesome prisons; these were the arguments used to enforce a uniform observance of the Liturgy and rituals imposed by law. It was impossible that the Puritans, under these persecutions, should not at length enter into some inquiry concerning the fundamental principles of RIGHT; and concerning the AUTHORITY

OF THE PERSECUTING POWER.

They began to inquire what right the CIVIL POWER had to make laws for the faith and order of the Church; and at once it flashed upon their minds, that the assumption of such authority is not only unscriptural, but a despotic usurpation, entirely destructive both of purity in religion and of all religious liberty,the dearest and most important of all human rights. It fol. * Bogue and Bennett-History of the Dissenters,

lowed, that whether the particular things complained of in the Liturgy were right or wrong; the imposition of a Liturgy or of ceremonials or articles of faith, by parliament, was in itself a heinous wrong-an act of despotism; and that all the laws to enforce that imposition were so many acts of outrage upon the dearest rights of man. If the prince and parliament may impose articles of faith, and forms and ceremonies of worship, then that right was as good in Queen Mary, as in King Edward or in Queen Elizabeth. Then, when the sovereigns are popish the people are bound in duty to God to be good papists. Then the people must be Lutherans in Saxony, good Greek Christians at Constantinople; and in old England, they must have no fixed faith or worship,-no, nor any conscience or principle in the matter, save meekly to change their religion with every change or caprice of the sovereign.

But if the civil authority has not that power, does it reside in the HIERARCHY? The inquiry was first with regard to the rightful power of the bishops; and secondly, with regard to their rightful existence. In the first case, it was discovered that if Queen Elizabeth's bishops have authority to alter, to change, and impose Liturgies and forms, then the same power resided in Gardiner and the Bloody Bonner; and the consequences were the same as in the case of the same authority in the sovereign. The inquiry on the second point resulted in the conviction that the very office and order of prelatical bishops was unknown both to the early Church and to the Word of God. Wickliffe had indeed taught this before. And John Knox, even before he became acquainted with Calvin, had refused the offer of a bishopric from King Edward VI. on this ground.*

For this, Beza, who has of late been represented as favorable to the English Hierarchy, bestows on Knox the highest eulogiums.

But if the Hierarchy of Prelates has not that power, may such impositions be made by the Church? The Church! These impositions are not made by the Church, in any capacity; but by the queen and parliament. True, they are as much the Church as the bishops are; but what right have prelatic bishops, whose very existence is questionable,-what right have these to make such impositions? The Church! What is the Church? How does she make known her decisions? May she impose Popery in one age or country, and Protestantism in another? and are we still bound to change with her, however she may chance to change?

Here arose another great issue :- What is the Church? What is its organization? What is the reach and the limit of its * Bogue and Bennett-History of the Dissenters.

power? The inquiry convinced the Puritans that such a thing as either a Catholic authoritative unity, or a national or diocesan Church, with power to impose articles, creeds, liturgies or ceremonials upon individual congregations of Christians, was unknown to the New Testament and to the early ages of Christianity, and a sheer usurpation; equally destructive of purity of faith or worship; incompatible with religious liberty, and at war with the dearest rights of man.

In addition to this, their inquiries resulted in the conclusion, that a Church gathering whole parishes-the profane-the unbelieving the careless and the impious-indifferently, within its pale, was not only inconsistent with the ends, the character, and discipline of a Church as described in the New Testament; but necessarily destructive of those ends; and calculated to delude and deceive men to their eternal ruin.

These were the results to which they were gradually led, as longer discussion and suffering brought them more and more fully into the light. For a long time they were in doubt with regard to the alleged sinfulness of SCHISM: they dared not,they wished not to separate. For a long time they continued to forbear and to suffer; till at length they were forced to the conviction that they could not worship God according to his requirements, and continue with a corrupt and persecuting Church. At length they saw that for congregations of Christians to use the freedom with which Christ has endowed them; to follow Christ where others depart from him; and to worship God according to his Word, IS NOT AND CANNOT BE SCHISMATICAL: and that if there be a separation or a schism, the sin is on those who depart from THE TRUTH AND SIMPLICITY OF CHRIST, not on those who FOLLOW IT; and on those who OBSTRUCT AND PERSECUTE THE LIBERTY WHEREWITH CHRIST HAS MADE FREE; NOT ON THOSE WHO EN

JOY IT.

The causes which led to these investigations and results, and the persecutions which awaited those who dared to stand for purity and freedom to worship God, will be further set forth in the following chapter.

VII.

THE CONFLICT OF PRINCIPLE.

Ultimate scope of Puritanic Principles. Means employed to exterminate them. Their rapid spread: nearly prevail in Convocation. The Puritans ask only liberty of Conscience. Not a struggle for political power. Remonstrances of the Puritans. The Separation begins. Persecutions. The nation roused.

THE Contest, thus basing itself upon the fundamental principles of purity and religious liberty, was likely to enlist not enthusiasts alone, whose zeal flames out hotly for a season and then expires, -but the sober, the deep thinking,-whatever men had penetration enough to perceive the mighty interests involved, and principle sufficient to forego every personal advantage, and to set themselves for the truth and for freedom, in defiance of the storm that was now preparing to rage. Such men there were; men deeply learned in the school of Christ, and in all human wisdom: men whose talents and influence the court would have been glad to purchase by placing them upon the bench of bishops, had they known how to barter truth and freedom for so tempting a prize. They had already learned how to endure adversity for Christ. They had witnessed the devastations of Popery. They had traced its abominations to their source,-to the very beginnings and principles of the impositions to which they were now required to yield.

It was a new thing for the people and their humble pastors to talk about RIGHTS. But this new idea,-fraught with such consequences to the human race, and destined ultimately to revolutionize all the theories of government that the world had entertained, now started up in the minds of the Puritans. Despotism and superstition were now to encounter a new enemy;the consciousness of RIGHTS founded on a sense of RESPONSIBILITY TO GOD. The soul of freedom and the soul of religion were now to combine in rousing up the Puritans to a firmness and energy which no terrors could appal, and which no force of oppression and no violence could subdue. Here was the spring