43
“REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. Dean KENNEY’s Principles and Practices of pretended Reformers,” Christian Observer and Advocate, vol. 19, no. 226 (October 1820), pp. 666–93; selection from pp. 669–82.
Anonymous
The Christian Observer and Advocate was a London monthly that was reprinted in a number of American cities including Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Hume’s discussion of the causes of the English Civil War, and especially the role played by religion, was frequently discussed and debated in early America. On the Christian Observer see Gaylord P. Albaugh, History and Annotated Bibliography of American Religious Periodicals and Newspapers (Worcester, 1994), vol. 1, pp. 199–208; API, p. 58. For more on Hume and the Puritans, see selection #118.
___________________________________
[A] man may be not only a Calvinist, but a Calvinist and a Disciplinarian too, and yet retain, with his love of liberty, respect and attachment to the throne.
The remark may be extended to the Presbyterians of Scotland. Undoubtedly there is much of their conduct, as well as of the proceedings of their brethern in England, which every enlightened friend of rational liberty, and every generous mind, must reprobate, and condemn. But if they are indeed to be stigmatized through all coming ages for the harsh treatment with which they repaid the unsuspecting confidence of their sovereign, when he fled to their camp at Newark, and, in addition to all their other offences, to bear the reproach “of selling their king, and betraying their prince for money,” let it also be remembered, that when the intention of brining him to trial became known, “the Scots exclaimed, and protested against the violence:”* and afterwards, although “invited by the English Parliament to model their government into a republican form, they resolved still to adhere to monarchy, which had ever prevailed in their country, and which, by the express terms of their Covenant, they had engaged to defend.” “The execution, therefore, of the king, against which they had always protested, having occasioned a vacancy of the throne, they immediately proclaimed his son and successor, Charles the Second,”† &c.
These facts we take to be undisputed; and so little was the conduct of the Presbyterians in England approved by Hugh Peters, that he charged them in the pulpit, according to the cant of the day, with the intention of crucifying Christ, and releasing Barabbas. “It would, however,” says the Dean, “be a contradiction to the evidence of authentic history to attribute their wish for the preservation of the king’s life at the period when Mr. Peters uttered his pious reproaches against them, to any just feeling of loyalty.” (p. 203.) And to the same purport he tells us (p. 266,) that “though the numerous faction of Presbyterian saints, which had begun the rebellion, were now extremely hostile to the execrable measure of putting their sovereign to death,” yet they deserve no credit for their moderation: “they seem to have been brought, in a great degree, to reason, by their terror of the violent faction of Independent saints,” (p. 266:) and he refers to a note D, comprising Nelson’s statement on the subject, as incontrovertible. Some of our readers may probably smile, when they find that the notes intended to be subjoined to this work are, by reason of its length, wholly omitted. But it is not difficult to discover, that, in the opinion of the Dean, the Presbyterians, having at first begun the rebellion, were driven into something like loyalty by their hatred and horror of the Independents. These motives may easily be supposed to have very greatly invigorated the spirit of loyalty where it was languid, and perhaps in not a few cases to have created it. Lord Clarendon supposes that many of the Scottish preachers, in presuming to pray for the king, and generally, though secretly, exasperating the minds of the people against the then overbearing domination of Cromwell, were influenced more by the affront that was offered to Presbytery, than the conscience of what was due to majesty:‡ and Mr. Hume intimates something of the same kind. The thing is so probable in itself, that we have little scruple in ascribing to the impression produced by the violence of fanatical sectarians, as Baxter§ has done before us, that universal spirit of combination which at length united in one cause both the old friends of the king and the party of the Parliament. But we cannot so readily admit, what the Dean seems to intimate, that this was the main or the chief reason or [sic] their desiring to preserve the life of the king: the republican faction was that of the Independents; whereas Mr. Hume asserts, (however contrary it may be, as the Dean of Achonry insists, to the evidence of authentic history,) that the project of the Presbyterians was, not that of destroying royalty, but that “of confining to very narrow limits the power of the crown, and reducing the king to the rank of first magistrate.”* Their plan was to reduce the authority of the king far below the standard which was necessary for the liberties of the people; and the government, which they sought to establish, would have stripped royalty of many of those appendages which are requisite for the proper dignity of the crown: but they were not generally, and, in the proper sense of the word, favorable to a republic; and there is a wide difference between aiming to establish monarchy, however limited, and seeking the destruction of the king:† and if certain individuals of the party were conspicuous for their violence, this can with no colour of justice be adduced in condemnation of the whole body. Some of them were probably hostile to royalty, and to the person of the sovereign: yet so difficult was it, notwithstanding the alleged prevalence of the Presbyterian, and the Independent or Republican faction in the Long Parliament, and notwithstanding all the exertions of regicidal and fanatical preachers, to procure a vote for the trial of their king, that, according to the admission of Dean Kenney himself, seven eighths of the members, on account of their hostility to that nefarious measure, were excluded from the house by the bayonets of the conspirators; and nearly half of the remainder, even under these circumstances of terror, opposed the ordinance for trial!‡ So that, after all we have heard of the fatal influence of the Calvinistic doctrines and a Puritan Parliament, the measure was carried at last by the “base refuse of a faction surrounded by Cromwell’s bayonets!” (p. 261.) One would suppose, if Calvinism be regicidal, that almost all the Calvinists in England had been suddenly annihilated.
But were not the enemies of the church and the throne exclusively Calvinistic? And is not this an evidence of the tendency of these tenets?
. . .
Without pledging ourselves for the literal correctness of this statement, it may at least justify the remark, that those persons who attempt to draw a clear boundary between the friends of the King and the friends of the Parliament, as if all churchmen were on one side of the line, and all Presbyterians on the other, are under a manifest error; and that not less erroneous is the supposition, which refers the discontents of those unhappy times exclusively to motives of religion.
It is probable, indeed, that the seeds of discontent had been sown at the Reformation. So long as the papal authority was dominant in England, it checked the progress of inquiry; and notwithstanding the arrogance of its claims, and the insolence with which it sometimes trampled upon the rights of sovereigns, as well as of their subjects, it served powerfully to retain the people at large in a blind and unreflecting submission to the authority of the state. So little, at that period, were the principles of civil liberty understood or regarded, that measures which would seem now to be extremely oppressive, excited not a murmur of dissatisfaction: and if the papal authority could have been upheld, a free constitution would probably have been as much beyond the wishes of Englishmen as beyond the possibility of attainment. It was not Calvinism, but the progress of the Reformation, and the revival of letters, which first gave a shock to the existing establishment.* The very circumstance of appealing to the judgment of the people on the points of debate between the Romish hierarchy and the Reformers, combined as it was with disgust at the restraints of the old religion, and indignation at the tyranny of the ecclesiastics, naturally served to open the minds of men, and to give to their inquiries a scope and freedom hitherto unknown. This spirit of inquiry, being once excited, was very speedily directed toward the civil constitution and the rights of the people. So intimate was the connexion in this country between civil and ecclesiastical tyranny, that an inquiry into the abuses of the ecclesiastical system led almost necessarily to the wish for political reform. The increasing intelligence of the community was naturally unfavourable to the arbitrary rights of the throne; and it was moreover obvious that the religion of the Protestants never could be safe, while subjected to the wayward caprices of a single individual. Hence arose a wish for a greater degree of civil liberty than the subject had hitherto enjoyed: and a struggle presently commenced, which was never wholly laid aside till it issued in the glorious Revolution of 1688.
Mr. Hume adverts to this point at so early a period as 1534. Apprehensions, which he considers to have been well founded, were even at that time entertained, that political innovations were likely to follow the attempts against the authority of the pope. The spirit of the Reformers in those days he states to have been republican. * We are not to infer, from this remark, as the Dean of Achonry would conclude from similar data against the Calvinists, that Protestantism is but another word for disloyalty: Mr. Hume expressly guards against the inference: neither are we to suppose that the republican mania was universal among the Reformers; for we know the contrary. But under the circumstances of the times, this spirit would probably be cherished by many friends of the Reformation; and where the principle of loyalty still remained, it was doubtless associated with an ardent desire for a government less despotic in its character, under which they might be able to serve God according to their consciences, without the hazard of degradation, imprisonment, and death.
The reign of Queen Mary was little calculated to conciliate men either of this or any other description. It compelled several of the most distinguished of our Reformers to seek an asylum in a foreign land; and of these some were so affected by persecution, and others so delighted with the liberty enjoyed by their brethren abroad, that we cannot be much surprised, if, even after the re-establishment of our Protestant Church, they looked to the reformed churches, which had received and sheltered them, with an undue and overweening regard. It was not their attachment to Calvinism, but to Protestantism, which banished them from their homes: and the civil privileges which they found upon the continent had probably as great an effect in alienating them from the institutions of their own country as any subject of theological debate. The principles thus imported and confirmed gathered strength in the following reigns; and the explosion which took place in the time of Charles the First was produced not merely by hypocrites and enthusiasts and fanatics, but by political as well as religious advocates for a change; — by the co-operation of men who cared little about religion, with others to whom religion, according to the way in which they professed it, was all in all; — by the union of discontented spirits of every description, whether honestly contending against measures inconsistent with civil liberty, or enthusiastically fighting for a peculiar discipline, or hypocritically availing themselves of the passions and prejudices of others to further their own projects of unprincipled and criminal ambition.
In speaking of the Puritans, who make so conspicuous a figure in those pages of our history, we are apt to apply the name simply to that class of persons, who, with high doctrinal pretensions, and a rigid profession of religion, finally took the lead in every act of violence and outrage. But the word Puritan, as we are told by Hume, “stood for three parties, which, though commonly united, were yet actuated by very different views and motives. There were the political Puritans, who maintained the highest principles of civil liberty; the Puritans in discipline, who were averse to the ceremonies and episcopal government of the church; and the doctrinal Puritans, who rigidly defended the speculative principles of the first Reformers. In opposition to all these stood the court party, the hierarchy, and the Arminians; only with this distinction, that the latter sect, being introduced a few years before, did not as yet comprehend all those who were favourable to the church and monarchy.”* By the term doctrinal Puritans, we are therefore not to understand Dissenters of any class exclusively; but likewise conformists to the Church, who still retained the views of Whitgift, and the Reformers generally, on the contested points. The translator of Mosheim confirms this distinction: “All the Protestant divines of the Reformed Church, whether Puritans or others, seemed indeed hitherto of one mind about the doctrines of faith. But towards the latter end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, there arose a party that first wished to soften, and then to overthrow, the received opinions concerning predestination, perseverance, freewill, effectual grace, and the extent of Christ’s redemption.” “The clergy of the Episcopal Church began to lean towards the notions concerning those intricate points which Arminius propagated some time after this; while, on the other hand, the Puritans adhered rigorously to the system of Calvin. Several episcopal doctors remained attached to the same system; and all these abetors of Calvinism, whether Episcopal or Presbyterian, were called doctrinal Puritans.”† The inventor of this reproachful term was that renowned and respectable personage the Archbishop of Spalato, who, after abusing the credulity of the English by his pretended conversion to the Protestant faith, apostatized once more to the Church of Rome, died miserably, and was dishonoured after death by a papal sentence of excommunication. “We must not forget says Fuller, “that Spalato (I am confident I am not mistaken therein) was the first, who, professing himself a Protestant, used the word Puritan to signify the defenders of matters doctrinal in the English Church. Formerly the word was only taken to denote such as dissented from the hierarchy in discipline and church government, which now extended to brand such as were Anti-Arminians in their judgments. As Spalato first abused the word in this sense, so we could wish he had carried it away with him in his return to Rome. Whereas now leaving the word behind him in this extensive signification thereof, it hath since by others been improved to asperse the most orthodox in doctrine and religious in conversation.”* It was indeed an evil day when this term was introduced; and happy would it be for the Church of England, if opprobrious epithets of this kind were no longer heard within her walls! But it must needs be: the spirit of Spalato still hovers by the venerable pile; and in addition to the epithet by which he branded the advocates for the principles of the Reformation, his successors in the art have enriched the vituperative vocabulary, in reference not to Calvinists alone, but to many Anti-Calvinists, with the popular titles of the saints and the godly, and Calvinistic and Evangelical preachers, — expressions which are every day employed “to asperse the most orthodox in doctrine and religious in conversation.”
According to Hume, the Puritans (by which term he seems to mean in this place chiefly the political Puritans) possessed considerable influence in all the Parliaments, even from the reign of Elizabeth: and in the progress of discontent many persons united with them, who at the same time declined all connexion with the Disciplinarians. Thus the reformers of the state gradually augmented their numbers; and, highly as we respect the personal character of King Charles — a prince who, under different circumstances, and with a different education, and above all with wiser counsellors, would have been among the best sovereigns that ever sat upon a throne — we cannot be surprised at this fact, or at the symptoms of discontent which eventually became so generally and dangerously prevalent. Our object in these remarks is not so much to state the grounds of discontent, as to notice the general existence of it. We shall therefore say nothing of the unbounded power exercised by the Crown;† of the manifest violation of the laws;‡ of the necessity under which Parliament was laid, unless it meant to abandon all hopes of preserving the freedom of the constitution, to find a speedy remedy for abuses on the part of the Crown — abuses apparently reduced to system, exerted without interruption, and studiously sought for to supply the place of laws.§ We shall be silent also concerning those exorbitant claims of prerogative, which, according to the historian, were sufficient to render an opposition not only excusable, but laudable in the people.¶ We leave to others to sing the praises of Hampden;* to descant upon the unjustifiable revival of monopolies, after the solemn abolition of them by an Act of Parliament,† upon the demerits of tonnage, and poundage, and ship money, and compositions for knighthood,‡ and enlargements of forests, and the decrees of the star chamber and high commission courts, &c. &c. &c. We are willing to concede, for the sake of argument, what the Dean of Achonry most assuredly does not require of us — for here we are agreed — that the conduct of the King was uniformly right, and of his Parliaments, whenever they opposed him, uniformly wrong: yet surely it is undeniable, and this is the point at which we aim, that the spirit of discontent was not confined to any one class of the community, but pervaded generally the great body of the people. Mr. Hume cannot be suspected of any remarkable dislike to the court, or any excessive attachment to the popular party. What then is his language? “It may safely be affirmed, that except a few courtiers or ecclesiastics, all men were displeased with this high exertion of prerogative, and this new spirit of administration.”§ “There was reason to apprehend some disorder or insurrection from the discontents which prevailed among the people in England. Their liberties, they believed, were ravished from them; illegal taxes extorted; and these ills were ascribed not to the refractory disposition of the two former Parliaments, to which they were partly owing, but solely to Charles’s obstinacy in adhering to Buckingham.”* “Hampden obtained by the trial the end for which he had so generously sacrificed his safety and his quiet. The people were roused from their lethargy, and became sensible of the dangers to which their liberties were exposed. These national questions were canvassed in every company; and the more they were examined, the more evidently did it appear to many, that liberty was totally subverted, and an unusual and arbitrary authority exercised over the kingdom. Slavish principles, they said, concur with illegal practices. Ecclesiastical tyranny gives aid to civil usurpation: iniquitous taxes are supported by arbitrary punishments: and all the privileges of the nation, transmitted through so many ages, secured by so many laws, and purchased by the blood of so many heroes and patriots, now lie prostrate at the feet of the monarch.”† These remarks of the historian, it will be observed, apply to successive years, and prove not only that among the chief sources of dissatisfaction‡ were the supposed arbitrary measures of the crown, but that the feeling was very general throughout the whole kingdom. Under these circumstances of irritation came on the election of the Long Parliament; and “no wonder,” says Hume, “when the nation was so generally discontented, and little suspicion was entertained of any design to subvert the church and monarchy, that almost all elections ran in favour of those who, by their high pretensions to piety and patriotism, had encouraged the national prejudices.”§ The spirit in which this Parliament commenced its proceedings, represented but too faithfully the exasperated dispositions of the people: and so prevalent was the feeling, that members of unimpeached character, and of unquestionable loyalty, were found among the foremost in the contest with the Crown. “So little apology would be received for past measures, so contagious the general spirit of discontent, that even men of the most moderate temper, and the most attached to the church and monarchy, exerted themselves with the utmost vigour, in the redress of grievances, and in prosecuting the authors of them. The lively and animated Digby displayed his eloquence on this occasion, the firm and undaunted Capel, the modest and candid Palmer. In this list too of patriot royalists are found the virtuous names of Hyde and Falkland. Though, in their ultimate views and intentions, these men differed widely from the former; in their present actions and discourses, an entire concurrence and unanimity was observed.”* The excessive love of liberty, by which this Parliament was influenced, and the indignation generally felt by the members at the arbitrary measures, as they supposed, with which they had for so many years been contending, undoubtedly drew closer the bonds which in some degree united all the enemies of unlimited prerogative. The political Puritans were glad to avail themselves of the help afforded to the common cause by the abettors of liberty among the popular preachers: and as the dominant party in the church had, by the avowal of doctrines incompatible with civil liberty, offended the advocates of reform, and become extremely unpopular, we can scarcely be surprised at the appointment of such persons as Marshall and Burgess to preach before the Commons. It is true that Hume adverts to this fact as an evidence of the prevalence of the Presbyterian sect among them: but his own statements are decisive in proof, that the House consisted of persons whose leading characteristic was an ardent love of liberty, rather than attachment to a sect. For a time, according to the admissions of this very historian, with the exceptions “of Strafford’s attainder, which was a complication of cruel iniquity, their merits, in other respects, so much outweigh their mistakes, as to entitle them to praise from all lovers of liberty:”† he even finds an apology for their early exorbitances, in the supposition, that factions once excited can neither firmly regulate the tempers of others nor their own; and adds (1642,) not only that “the king had possessed a great party in the lower house, but that this party, if every new cause of disgust had been carefully avoided, would soon have become the majority, from the odium attending the violent measures embraced by the popular leaders.” It is unnecessary to point out to the reader how much these statements tend to confirm the assertion of Baxter concerning the origin of the war, and the composition of the Parliament; and how little they appear to countenance the position of the Dean, that the Presbyterians (except in common with persons of a different description) began the rebellion.
But do we not, it may be said, discover the Presbyterian and Puritanical spirit of the Parliament in their treatment of the episcopal clergy? To understand this part of the subject, it is necessary to advert to the character and circumstances of the times. There was a general outcry for liberty: and how was it met by the higher clergy? Look at the sermons of Sibthorpe and Mainwaring — sermons which were industriously spread by the court over the kingdom. “Passive obedience was there recommended in its full extent; the whole authority of the state was represented as belonging to the king alone, and all limitations of law and a constitution were rejected as seditious and impious. So openly was this doctrine espoused by the Court, that Archbishop Abbot, a popular and virtuous prelate, was, because he refused to license Sibthorpe’s sermon, suspended from the exercise of his office, banished from London, and confined to one of his country seats. Abbot’s principles of liberty and his opposition to Buckingham had always rendered him very ungracious at court, and had acquired him the character of a Puritan. For, it is remarkable, that this party made the privileges of the nation as much a part of their religion, as the church party did the prerogatives of the crown; and nothing tended farther to recommend among the people, who always take opinions by the lump, the whole system, and all the principles of the former sect.”* — Was there a very general desire in the more serious and strict part of the community, for the better observance of the Lord’s day? There comes out, under the sanction of the Court and the Archbishop, the Book of Sports;† a book enjoined to be read in all parish churches. And what is its burden? “Our pleasure likewise is, that the bishop of that diocese take the like straight order with all the Puritans and Precisians within the same, either constraining them to conform themselves or to leave the country, according to the laws of our kingdom, and canons of our church, and so to strike equally on both hands against the contemners of our authority and adversaries of our church. And as for our good people’s recreation, our pleasure likewise is, that, after the end of Divine service, our good people be not disturbed, letted, or discouraged from any lawful recreation; such as dancing, either men or women, archery for men, leaping, vaulting, or any other such harmless recreation; nor from having of May-games, Whitson-ales, and Morris-dances, and the setting up of May-poles, and other sports therewith used,” &c. This doubtless was as well calculated to recommend the religion of the church as Mainwaring’s sermon was its love of liberty.
Again: Did the stream at that day run strongly against Popery? the policy of Laud was to brave general opinion: and such was his conduct, “that not only the discontented Puritans believed the Church of England to be relapsing fast into Romish superstition; the court of Rome itself entertained hopes of regaining its authority in this island; and in order to forward Laud’s supposed good intentions, an offer was twice made him in private of a cardinal’s hat, which he declined accepting. His answer was, as he says himself, that something dwelt within him, which would not suffer his compliance till Rome were other than it is.”* — It is obvious that not only must the existing evils of those times have been lamentably exasperated by this most impolitic conduct, but that it was “the sure way to bring odium upon the church.”† Accordingly we find that all lovers of civil liberty were disgusted at the doctrines and proceedings of the clergy: and so little were they inclined to suppress their indignation, that in the early days of the Long Parliament, there appeared to be no distinction between such as desired only to repress the exorbitances of the hierarchy, and such as intended to annihilate episcopal jurisdiction.‡ The intolerant measures of the Archbishop inspired his opponents with a thorough hatred of his religious opinions; and Arminianism was subjected to far greater abuse than it would otherwise have encountered, from the circumstance of its being supported by the advocates of passive obedience, and unlimited submission to the will of the prince. That we are not singular in the judgment which we have expressed of the mischievous effects arising from the measures of Laud and his adherents, must be well known to every one at all conversant with the common histories of those times. “It may safely be affirmed,” says Hume, “that the high monarchical doctrines, so much inculcated by the clergy, had never done Charles any real service.”§
. . .
Mr. Hume seems to think, that since the king had granted every thing that could reasonably be demanded of him, and rebellion was therefore left without excuse, the war must be considered throughout as a war of religion. We greatly doubt the justice of this conclusion. The King and the Commons had long been proceeding upon principles of mutual exasperation: and the triumph of the Parliament and the people, after contentions like these, was almost sure to end in the destruction of the throne. The events of the French Revolution are not usually explained upon Calvinistic principles:¶ we find other reasons for the atrocities committed in that country; and hence satisfy ourselves with adverting to the ambition of some men, and the passions and jacobinical principles of others. Are these considerations to be omitted in our review of the Great Rebellion? “Early reformations,” says Mr. Burke, “are amicable arrangements with a friend in power; late reformations are terms imposed upon a conquered enemy: early reformations are made in cool blood; late reformations are made under a state of inflammation. In that state of things the people behold in government nothing that is respectable. They see the abuse, and they will see nothing else. They fall into the temper of a furious populace, provoked at the disorder of a house of ill fame: they never attempt to correct or regulate; they go to work by the shortest way . . . . . . they pull down the house.” Mr Hume also himself gives countenance to the idea, that the fears of the Parliament afforded quite as strong a stimulus to war, as their zeal, whether civil or religious. “The Commons were sensible that monarchical government, which during so many ages had been established in England, would soon regain some degree of its former dignity after the present tempest was overblown: nor would all their new invented limitations be able totally to suppress an authority to which the nation had ever been accustomed. The sword alone, to which all human ordinances must submit, could guard their acquired power, and fully ensure to them personal safety against the rising indignation of their sovereign. This point, therefore, became the chief object of their aim,” &c. (Year 1612.)
*Hume
†Hume; year 1649.
‡Book XIV.
§Life, part II. p. 207.
*Lord Clarendon, in speaking of the state of the Parliament at the time when Monk was on the point of effecting the restoration, observes, “It was thought these men (some of the men elected after the war,) with others who had been lawfully chosen, were willing and desirous that the concessions made by the late king at the Isle of Wight, might be accepted; which in truth did, with the preservation of the name and life of the king, nearly as much establish a republican government, as was settled after his murder; and because they would insist upon that, they were, with those circumstances of force and violence, which are formerly mentioned, excluded from the House; wihout which that horrid villany could never have been committed.” Book XVI.
†Hume; year 1644.
‡Of forty-six members then in the House, only twenty-six voted for it.
*See McCrie’s Life of Knox.
*Perhaps the term Republican may be used here, in a loose and indefinite sense, as opposed to arbitrary power. We find it adopted in this way in other instances.
*Hume; year 1629.
†Mosheim, cent. XVI. Sect. III. part II. Note.
*Church Hist. Book X. p. 99.
†Hume, 1625.
‡Ibid. 1626.
§Ibid. 1627.
¶Ibid. 1634.
*“John Hampden has merited great renown with posterity for the bold stand which he made in defence of the laws and liberties of his country.” — Hume, 1637.
†Hume, 1640.
‡This expedient had a direct tendency to render the court contemptible: and if we may judge by a burlesque song written on the occasion, and of the following description, such was the effect.
“Come all you farmers out of the country,
Carters, ploughmen, hedgers, and all,
Tom, Dick and Bill, Ralph, Roger and Humphrey,
Leave off your gestures rusticall:
Bid all your home-spun fashions adieu,
And suit yourselves in the fashions new:
Honour invites you to delights:
Come to the court, and be all made knights.
.....................
Shepherds leave singing your pastoral sonnets,
And to learn compliments shew your endeavours:
Cast off for ever your ten-penny bonnets,
And cover your coxcombs with three pound beavers:
Sell cart and wagons, new coaches to buy,
And then, ‘Good your Worship,’ the vulgar will cry.
Honour invites, &c.
.....................
Now to conclude, and shut up my sonnet,
Leave off the cart, whip, hedge-bill, and flail:
This is my counsel, think well upon it,
Knighthood and honour are now put to sale;
Then make haste quickly and let out your farms,
And take my advice in blazing your arms.
Honour invites, &c.”
§Hume, 1627.
*Hume, 1628.
†Ibid. 1637.
‡Dean Kenney distinctly admits that other causes, besides religion, aided the progress of discontent; but he by no means attaches to them their due importance.
§Hume, 1640.
*Ibid.
†Hume, 1641.
*Hume, 1626. Mainwaring was for this sermon impeached, and punished by the House; but “no sooner was the session ended, than this man, so justly obnoxious to both houses, received a pardon, and was promoted to a living of considerable value. Some years after he was raised to the see of St. Asaph’s.” Vide Hume’s reflections on this subejct, 1628.
†First published in 1618, and again in the 9th year of Charles I.
*Hume, ad ann. 1630. “A court lady,” says the same writer, “having turned Catholic, was asked by Laud the reason of her conversion, ’Tis cheifly, said she, because I hate to travel in a crowd. The meaning of this expresison being demanded, she replied, ‘I perceive your grace and many others are making haste to Rome; and therefore, in order to prevent my being crowded, I have gone before you.’ The senseless puritanical cry raised long before this time against the church as papistical, was on account of the maintaining of the episcolpal order,” &c.
†See Hume, year 1629, concerning the views and practices of Neile, Montague, &c.
‡Hume, 1640.
§Hume, 1642.
¶The privileges obtained by the Protestants of France during the existence of the Republic, and under the authority of Bonaparte, may perhaps at some future period be alleged as evidence by a zealous Roman Catholic, that the Revolution in that country was strictly Protestant; and to the Protestants may hereafter be ascribed, by some papistical dignitary, all its horrible excesses.