How much soever all the actors in the great national drama, which has thus much of it passed under our review; may yet be deemed either the basest or wisest of their species, one fair inference can never be successfully eluded, That a government compacted through a long series of ages, and wrought into practice by heads and hands eulogized for the utmost attainments of learning and art, could never have fallen into disruption by instrumentality so destitute of those attainments, as party prejudice would endeavour to persuade its votaries to believe. Either, surely, the most gross mismanagement is correctly chargeable on those who had presided over the public weal; or else the biformed edifice long esteemed impregnable would not, with weapons primarily and chiefly of ethereal temper, have dissolved at their touch. Clay and iron-the sceptre and the crosier-form but a brittle alliance; they cannot adhere to perpetuity, while Mammon is endeavoured to be leagued with Christ, and the world shall be forcibly wedded to the church: the qualities of either, must ever be repulsive of the other.

Why should statesmen and philosophers be at a loss, then, to account for a perpetual perturbation among all ranks of society, so long as this legislative source of discord exists? Say not, that the strifes among the several religious denominations, if placed on an equality in civil rank, would produce likewise an endless agitation: the reply is ready, that experience has proved that nothing is therefore gained by the attempts to procure a stagnant uniformity; for so great diversity obtains notwithstanding, that to repress it, as experience has also proved, the wisdom of long-tried legislation is utterly unavailable. The conclusion is past gainsaying; that as in civil affairs the passions of the multitude are only awed by measures adequate to their end; so in religious concerns, the inculcation and practice, by any sect, of what is destructive of the proper ends of civil government, does alone justify any kind of state-interference!

The supremacy of the crown, is the subjugation of the mitre: this axiom furnishes an irrefragable argument, why they whose will it is not to be inthralled under authority of state-leagued rocheted-episcopalians, can never render to them voluntary submission; especially, because it is certain that no other than mitred brows wear the ignominy of justifying the statute enacting the coronary supremacy. With a fact like this, never possible to be obliterated from their historical recollections, "separatists" are always prepared to repel the petulant allegation of "divided allegiance." Independents owe and own but only an indivisible fealty, to which they are true and indefectible beyond comparison with those of their accusers whom the State itself so much distrusts, that since Nov. 8th, 1717, it has not permitted them to deliberate and transact business in Convocation! See their old assumption of exclusive loyalty tested in "The Antipathy of the English Lordly Prelacy both to Regal Monarchy and Civil Unity; etc.,' ," a continued through several ages; and the occurrences also, incident to the deposition of "our most religious and gracious King," his a By William Prynne, 1641, 4to. b See back, vol. i. p. 476, 477. Prayer for the High Court of Parliament."

"

"Sacred Majesty" James II., whose right and title he himself claimed to be fully as good and legal as were those of his forefathers; and for whom, as their "most gracious Sovereign Lord," they prayed also four twenty-ninth days of May, "promising all loyal and dutiful allegiance to thine Anointed Servant now set over us, and to his Heirs after him." a Had the self-exiled King's restitution been effected, whether by force or fraud, would not his parasites have styled what had passed against him, another "Great Rebellion ?" Here then, Episcopalians alone were implicated in measures for the deposition of their own "anointed" head! "Thus"-so wrote in 1756, the Tory historian of the finally rejected dynasty of the House of Stuart-" have we seen, through the whole course of four reigns, a continual struggle maintained between the crown and the people: privilege and prerogative were ever at variance. And both parties.. had many latent claims which, on a favourable occasion, they produced against their adversaries... The Revolution [of 1688] forms a new epoch in the Constitution; and was probably attended with consequences more advantageous to the people than barely freeing them from an exceptionable administration. By deciding many important questions in favour of liberty, and still more by that great precedent of deposing one King, and establishing a new family, it gave such an ascendant to popular principles as has put the nature of the English Constitution beyond all controversy. And it may justly be affirmed, without any danger of exaggeration, that we in this Island, have ever since enjoyed, if not the best system of government, at least the most entire system of liberty, that ever was known amongst mankind!"

a "Prayer for the Twenty-ninth of May."

C

All the prelates,

b The question was carried for a King, by two voices only. except two, voted for a Regent; the primate alone, did not vote at all. See Hume, Hist. chap. lxxi. an. 1689. That there was a divided allegiance among their body subsequently, history shows, where it treats of the Jacobites and of those who complied with the new order of affairs. A hundred and fifty years and more have not, however, been enough to confirm loyalty to "the powers that be," in the representatives of those who, as their advocate, Hume, admits, "agreed to drop for the present all over-strained doctrines of submission, and attend to the great and powerful dictates of nature;" and in another place he writes, "The Tories and High Church party. had zealously promoted the national revolt, and had on this occasion departed from those principles of non-resistance of which, while the King favoured them, they had formerly made such loud professions!" Ann. 1688, 1689. How one sovereign was in part assailed in our own times, we have exhibited in our early pages, Vol. I. p. 123, 124: how his successor-whom may God long preserve!-is warned of Her insecurity upon the throne, is attested by those Puseyites, whom we have slightly noticed, p. 60, in the same volume,-in their " Tracts for the Times. By Members of the University of Oxford. Vol. IV. For 1836-7." 1838. 8vo. where, No. 80, p. 77, they remark "The great loss of Christian principle, which our Church sustained at the REBELLION of 1688." Since this, however, Dr. E. B. Pusey, one of the leaders in this daring Anti-Protestant confederacy, has been, in May, 1843, by the "Board of Heresy," at Oxford, suspended from preaching before the University for two years, in consequence of having uttered sentiments in the pulpit alleged to be at variance with the doctrine of the Church of England on the subject of the Eucharist.

c Hume, ut sup.

CHAP. LXXXIV.

REMAINS OF HUGH PETERS.

WHILE it is not for us to exculpate faults, and especially crimes, we may under circumstances be expected not to permit injustice to be perpetuated, nor truth violated and suppressed. We proceed, therefore, to exhibit portions of the remains of him whose life had been so varied and whose death was so tragical as "to point a moral" if not to "adorn a tale." Some time in the year 1660, appeared a hasty production intituled "The Case of Mr. Hugh Peters, impartially communicated to the View and Censure of the whole World: Written by his own Hand.a Lond." No date; 4to. pp. 8.

Where he was at this time, does not appear, but he writes in p. 2, "At this distance and leisure, hearing, by printed papers, what my lot is in England my native country; therefore I do,—in the name and fear of God, and before his holy Majesty, angels, and inen,—profess that I never had head or hand in contriving or managing the late King's death; as is basely and scandalously suggested by black mouths. [1] was all that day he died, sick and sad in my chamber; which I prove by two substantial witnesses. And for what is in that pamphlet, June 19, about my confessing in my sickness, landing at Plymouth from Ireland, it is most untrue and inistaken; for I never was sick at Plymouth, nor landed there from Ireland, nor any of that information colourable... I shall briefly give an account of my coming into England, my behaviour since I came, and my present condition in this juncture.

"A colony going to settle in New England by his Majesty's patent, I went thither; who by my birth in Cornwall [at Fowey, in 1599,] was not a mere stranger to that place and fishing trade, and thither invited often; I say [1] went; and was with another sent [back] into England by the magistrates there, for ease in excise and customs, and some supplies for learning, etc., because I had been witness to the Indians receiving the Gospel there in faith and practice; they having the Bible translated by us into their language, and part thereof printed, and hundreds of them professing the Gospel are teaching each other the knowledge of the true God, and the rather from the example of the English there: when in seven years, among thousands there dwelling, I never saw any drunk, nor heard an oath, nor [saw] any begging, nor Sabbath broken. All which, invited me over to England; but coming, [1] found the nation embroiled in troubles and war; the preaching was 'Curse ye Meroz' from Scotland to England; the best ministers going into the field; in which without urging, I was embarked in time, and by force upon me here, failed of a In "Letters to Henry Cromwell, Lord Deputy of Ireland," vol. iii. fo. Bibl. Lansdowniana, Num. 351-356, are all by the hand of Peters.

b Judg. v. 23.

my promise of returning home [to New England], which was and is my sad affliction.a

a Among proceedings in America the following possess no inconsiderable share of interest, especially as connected with him whose name gives occasion for their being recorded at this place, no better having occurred since the particulars had come to our knowledge. In a "Memoir of Roger Williams; etc. By James D. Knowles; Boston [N. E.]. 1834." 12mo., at p. 176, is this very remarkable Certificate: "Reverend and dearly Beloved in the Lord,-We thought it our bounden duty to acquaint you with the names of such persons as have had the great Censure passed upon them in this our Church, with the reasons thereof; beseeching you in the Lord, not only to read their names in public to yours, but also to give us the like notice of any dealt with in like manner by you, that so we may walk towards them accordingly; for some of us, here, have had communion, ignorantly, with some of other churches; 2 Thess. iii. 14; we can do no less than have such noted as disobey the Truth. ROGER WILLIAMS and his wife; John Throgmorton and his wife; Thomas Olney and his wife; Stukely Westcott and his wife; Mary Holliman; Widow Reeves: these, wholly refused to hear the Church; denying it, and all the churches in the Bay, to be true churches; and, except two, are all rebaptized. John Elford, for obstinacy, after divers sins he stood guilty of, and proved by witness: William James, for pride and divers other evils, in which he remained obstinate: John Tabby, for much pride, and unnaturalness to his wife, who was lately executed for murdering her child: William Walcott, for refusing to bring his children to the Ordinance, neglecting willingly family duties, etc. Thus wishing the continued enjoyment of both the 'staves, beauty and bands' [Zech. xi. 7], and that your souls may flourish as watered gardens, rest-Yours in the Lord Jesus, HUGH PETERS: By the Church's Order and in their Name.-For the Church of Christ in Dorchester. Salem, 1st, 5th Mo., [July] [16]39."

66

We have shown-in vol. i. p. 267, 268-by what method an alleged true" baptism was sought to be obtained for England; and here we are able to show how it was managed in America: "The most obvious expedient in their circumstances was adopted. Mr. Ezekiel Holliman was selected to baptize Mr. WILLIAMS, who then baptized the administrator and ten others [Benedict, vol. i. p. 473]. This event occurred in March, 1638-9. Thus was founded the first Baptist church in America, and the second, as it is stated, in the British empire." Backus, vol. i. p. 106, note; and Knowles, p. 165. The "validity of this baptism," or rather, those baptisms, might well be disputed! "The question disturbed for awhile, the first English baptists. They had no clerical administrator who had himself in their view been baptized. Some of them went to Holland, and were baptized by baptistministers there." Knowles, p. 169. "These examples, however, cannot justify a departure," so says Knowles, p. 170, "from the usual practice of our churches at the present day, when the ministry is regularly[?] established." This same writer informs us also, that Governor "Winthrop, [Journal] vol. i. p. 307, says under the date of June or July, 1639, At Providence, matters went on after the old manner. Mr. WILLIAMS and many of his company, a few months since, were in all haste rebaptized, and denied communion with all others; and now he was come to question his second baptism, not being able to derive the authority of it from the apostles otherwise than by the ministry of England whom he judged to be ill authority, so as [that] he conceived God would raise up some apostolic power. Therefore he bent himself that way, expecting, as was supposed, to become an apostle; and having a little before refused communion with all save his own wife, now he would preach to and pray with all comers. Whereupon some of his followers left him, and returned back from whence they went.' This fact is confirmed by a Letter of Richard Scott, inserted in George Fox's New England's Firebrand quenched,' Pt. ii. p. 247."

It should seem that Peters and Williams had come to an understanding, for the latter who had been in England since the end of 1651, being lately returned home, wrote from Providence, July 12th, 1654, to Mr. John Winthrop at Pequod, and who had married a daughter of Peters, thus-" Your father Peters preacheth the same doctrine, though not so zealously as some years since, yet cries out against New-English rigidities and persecutions; their civil injuries and wrongs to himself, and their unchristian dealing with him in excommunicating his distracted

"My first work was, with the first to go for Ireland; which I did with many hazards; then I was at sea, with my old patron, the Earl of Warwick, to whom I owed my life; then was employed by the City; then by the Earl of Essex, my lord Say, and others; and my return stopped, by the Power that was; and so was in the last army in several places, but never in the North. In all which affairs, I did labour to persuade the army to do their duty. . . For the war, I thought the undertakers knew their work; I was inconsiderable, yea, heartily sorry for mistakes about me. For my carriage, I challenge all the King's party to speak if I were uncivil; nay, many of them had my purse, hand, help every way, and are ready to witness it; yea, his present Majesty's servants preserved me through hazards. . . It is true, I was of a party, when I acted zealously, but not with malice or mischief. . . The many scandals on me for uncleanness, etc., I abhor as vile and false, being kept from that, and those aspersions cast; and such I make my protest against as before. I know how low my name runs, how titleless, how contemned. David knew why Shimei cursed him... I can charge myself with evil enough, as any eccentric motion of mine from my own calling; want of a solemn spirit, in slight times; with unbelief, if I have gone about to teach religious ends by trampling upon civil duties, breaking of my covenants, or slighting them; and do fear [the] Gospel and the Spirit also, may be undervalued by mine and others' unworthy dealing with them. Much to these I might add, who have seen many vanities under the sun, and the world hung with nets and snares. And lastly, I understand what exception there is upon me for life and estate, in the House of Commons. I have taken hold of the King's Majesty's gracious pardon, as others did; and know not truly where this exception lies grounded. .

Through grace, I resolve to be quiet in a corner, if I may; to let God alone with ruling the world, to whose wisdom and power we ought to submit; yea, to mind my own work though never so small; to be passive under Authority, or other than impatient; to procure the quiet of the nation to my utmost; to mind things invisible and of a better consistence than these below, and to pray when I can do no more!"

But we desist, only to call attention to one of the most touching narratives which a man about to die ever left to inform and further

wife. All this he told me in his lodgings at Whitehall, those lodgings which I was told were [Abp.] Canterbury's; but he himself told me that that library wherein we were was Canterbury's, and given him by the Parliament. His wife lives from him not wholly, but much distracted. He tells me he had but two hundred pounds a year, and he allowed her fourscore per ann. of it. Surely, Sir, the most holy Lord is most wise in all the trials he exerciseth his people with. He told me that his affliction from his wife stirred him up to action abroad; and when success tempted him to pride, the bitterness in his bosom-comforts was a cooler and a bridle to him. Surely, Sir, your father and all the people of God in England, formerly called 'Puritani Anglicani,' of late 'Roundheads;' now, the 'Sectarians' --as more or less cut off from the parishes ;- -are now in the saddle and at the helm, so high that non datur descensus nisi cadendo. It pleased the Lord to call me for some time, and with some persons, to practise the Hebrew, the Greek, Latin, French, and Dutch. The Secretary of the Council, Mr. Milton, for my Dutch I read him, read me many more languages." Knowles, sup. p. 262, 264. b P. 7.

a 2 Sam. xvi.