takes in this controversy: and if here he be sincere in his profession, it is by a most singular felicity he has so written in every other place, that no sect or party but one, who desires to be called by the name of neither, can fail of being pleased with what he has so largely and zealousy detailed. But for this very slender profession, we should have naturally considered the work as intended for one of those orationes objurgatoria, with which, in former times, orators were wont to bespeak the indignation of their auditors prior to the full examination of the case: or at least as the accusatory libel of more impartial times, which, being couched in the most comprehensive of all possible terms, is given to the defendant in proper time and place to provide a suitable reply. The two passages quoted above from the dedication, we are sorry to say, afford a just specimen of the impartiality observed throughout the work. If the saving clause in the latter passage, which exhorts the rising generation to follow the Puritans as guides so far as they followed Christ, be quoted as any extenuation of our charge; we answer, that if that clause mean any thing at all, it makes the whole exhortation mean nothing; inasmuch as we might exhort to follow the Pope himself, so far as he followed Christ but if on the contrary the clause itself mean nothing, we consider it only as on a par with the very few and tender exceptions which are scattered up and down the body of the work, at once to save his own credit, and to enhance by "faint blame" the merit of his heroes. It is very true he occasionally redeems his pledge, by "not suppressing even the accusations of their adversaries;" which, it must be acknowledged, set forth their pretensions in no agreeable light. But this he does so much in the spirit and femper of the noble Roman, who exhibited the gored and breathless corpse of Ce CHRIST. OBSERV. No, 162,

sar to make every wound a mouth of reproach to his murderers, that it is impossible to award him the slightest meed of impartiality on that account. He has not exposed his friends to the fire of their virulent opponents, till he has so completely case-hardened them, by preceding and subsequent observations of his own, as to render their characters perfectly invulnerable. "A modern slanderer," says he, "affirms, that they maintained the horrid principle, that the end sanctifies the means; and that it is lawful to kill those who opposed their endeavours to introduce their model and discipline.' Surely so much calumny and falsehood are seldom found in so small a compass." p. xiv.

So introduced, it is very evident what advantage accrues from making the abuse bestowed on the Puritans proceed from the mouths of their adversaries, whilst the reproaches cast on their adversaries is made to proceed from his own:the authority of the historian will always stand in the mind of the reader above that of the slanderer. And if, as we find too much to be the case, the imputations and invectives thrown out by the Puritans on their adversaries be wholly suppressed, or only distantly alluded to, or obscurely quoted, not only will it effectually be made appear, that calumny and reproach were chiefly on one side; but posterity will be made more willing to load with ignominy, the memory of persons who were, in comparison, treated so gently by their suffering contemporaries. It is in the preface, the front and forehead of the piece, we are told with indignation, that " Archbishop Parker stigmatizes the Puritans as schismatics, belly gods,deceivers, flatterers, fools, having been unlearnedly brought up in profane occupations, being puffed up with arrogancy." We have to look we know not how far into the body of the work, to find 3 E

huddled up amongst a variety of matter, an account of a humorous piece, written on the other side, so singular and curious, that for the satisfaction of the inquisitive reader it is there transcribed; in which the ecclesiastical genealogy is expressed as follows:-"The devil begat Darkness. Darkness begat Ignorance. Ignorance begat Error, and his brethren. Error begat Free-will and Self-love." Free-will was the parent of Lady Lucre, and many other abominations, which after long succession, produced "the pope and his brethren, the cardinals, with all their successors, abbots, priors, and all the brood of popelings, archbishops, lordbishops, archdeacons, deans, chancellors, commissaries, officials, spiritual doctors, and proctors, with the rest of that viperous brood, in the transmigration of abomination."

A slight variation indeed, to the advantage of Puritan humour and good temper, appears in the above quotation which we have taken elsewhere, from the same as given by Mr. Brook, vol. I. p. 282. Which of the two is correct we know not; but it would be a very heavy charge, and one which we should unwillingly bring without the strictest proof, that Mr. Brook has in any degree garbled or placed quotations in a perverted light, under the influence of a prepossession, which it is evident he never knows how to controul. We think it justice, however, so far to warrant our fears on this head, as to place the following quotation from Bishop Burnet, which is brought forward by our author, as an answer to various slanders, side by side, with the real passage as it stands in the History of his Own Times. "Bishop Burnet, a man less influenced," says Mr. Brook (p. xiv.)" by a spirit of bigotry and intolerance, gives a very different account of them. The Puritans,' says he, gained credit as the bishops lost it. They put on the appearance of great

sanctity and gravity, and took more pains in their parishes than those who adhered to the bishops, often preaching against the vices of the court. Their labours and their sufferings raised their reputation, and rendered them very popular. Now turn we to Burnet himself, vol. I. pp. 17, 18. "The Puritans gained credit, as the king and the bishops lost it. They put on external appearances of great strictness and gravity: they took more pains in their parishes than those who adhered to the bishops, and were often preaching against the vices of the court: for which they were sometimes punished, though very gently, which raised their reputation, and drew presents to them that made up their sufferings abundantly. They begun some particular methods of getting their people to meet privately with them: and in these meetings they gave great vent to extemporary prayer, which was looked on as a sort of inspiration. And by these means they grew very popular. They were very factious and insolent, and both in their sermons and prayers, were always mixing severe reflections on their enemies." After which, alluding to certain pretended prophecies uttered by them, he concludes," They were spiteful against all those who differed from them; and were wanting in no methods that could procure them either good usage or good presents. Of this my father had occasion to see many instances." The discerning reader will observe here, how very little the real passage in Bishop Burnet's work was calculated to afford an answer to the calumnies against the Puritans: and if that worthy prelate was indeed so little influenced by a spirit of bigotry and intolerance, as Mr. Brook represents him, and as we believe him to have been, who does not see that his words, rightly quoted and applied, serve the very opposite purpose to that for which they were

so imperfectly brought forward by our author?

To make one more observation in limine, where indeed we are sorry so long to detain our readers, we cannot help suggesting, that Mr. Brook's characteristic partiality appears strongly in the very subject and digest of his whole work. We find inconsistency in the very title-page itself. It promises us generally, "the Lives of the Puritans;" and when we raise our expectations accordingly to a catalogue raisonne, at least of all the eminent men distinguished in the page of history, as the instruments of those great events, we are surprized to find in the next line a limitation of these "Puritans" to "those Divines who distinguished themselves in the cause of religious liberty, from the Reformation under Queen Elizabeth, to the Act of Uniformity in 1662." The exclusion of all the lay Puritans, necessarily indeed, precludes the relation of many a dark and bloody tale, which our first expectations might justly have anticipated: and yet even the degree of impartiality we seemed to expect from our biographer, on his reduced scale, experienced a further curtailment when we read the motto taken from the Wise Man, and given equally to the whole race of his selection, "The memory of the just is blessed." Nor could we well restrain our exclamation of surprize when a second motto from "Hume," (whose name by the bye seems quaintly classed with "Solomon"), announces a sentiment which that historian doubtless applied to the entire mass, as well political and religious and of whom he declares, that "the precious spark of liberty," not religious liberty, but "liberty" in general, "had been kindled, and war preserved by the Puritans alone; and it was to this sect, that the English owe the whole freedom of their constitution." Did Mr. Brook then really mean the present volume to be an implied panegyric on the whole

genus, of which he has only treated of a particular species? And if so, did he find it convenient to pass over in total silence, a large portion of those whom he meant, notwithstanding, to be included in his panegyric? In short, does he imagine, that the merits of Puritanical divinity afford a mantle sufficiently large and deep to spread over the defects of lay Puritanism? Or does he think that the commendations which, in spite of all their sins and defects, an infidel historian lavishes alike on the best and the worst of the sect, for their patriotism; are, in fairness of reason, applicable to that portion of them who are pointedly extolled as Christians, by a Christian historian, for " earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints?"

This peculiar selection only of the more distinguished Puritan divines under the general title of "Puritans," answers two ends very desirable to a writer whose first aim is not impartiality. It enables him to keep in the back ground all that is unfavourable to view in the character of his own party, and presents the opposite party by contrast under the most disadvantageous of all possible colours. Though the capital punishment of a few noted and stigmatized heretics in church and state may be permitted to figure in the general introduction, to deepen the shade of cruel persecutions, yet we own Mr. Brook was under no moral obligation, on his plan, to bring forward into more distinct view, amongst the lives of "distinguished divines," the equivocal race which nevertheless, in point of fact, served no little to fill and strengthen the ranks of those "who contended for religious liberty." The abettor of Arian and Socinian blasphemies, the notorious rebel, the infatuated Brownist, the popish emissary under the mask of Puritanism, the red-coated agitator of theological controversies, with all the mixed multitude that went up with them to the battle; how

ever large an angle they may subtend to the eye in a general review of those portentous times, need fill but a very small one, and in fact are scarcely visible in the peculiar field of view, so happily selected by Mr. Brook. It were certainly more difficult to curse his Israel from a place which discovers but the utmost part of them, than from another which should disclose to view the whole camp. Whilst, on the other hand, not only are the best, the most learned, and most godly members of the conforming clergy, who might not happen to be engaged in immediate conflict with the Puritan divines, kept wholly out of sight; but also the piety of the most pious, the learning of the most learned, nay even the moderation of the most moderate persecuting conformists, will find little or no place in a work which has only to record the sufferings of the persecuted non-conformists. A plan which would have admitted the former to observation, would have promised much less to Mr. Brook than his own. It is impossible to say what effect the life of Hooker, or of George Herbert might produce if ranged by the side of that of Travers or Burton. The calm and sanctified effusions of some Right Reverend Father in God*, even though he were proceeding on the same mistaken principles of eccle

* "No wonder that he (Legate) slight ed the power of earthly bishops, denying the Divinity of Him who is the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. The disputation against him was principally managed by John King, bishop of London, who gravelled, and utterly confuted him with that place of Scripture, John xvii. 5. And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. This text, I say, was so seasonably alleged, so plainly expounded, so pathetically

enforced by the eloquence and gravity of that bishop (qualities wherein he excelled), that it gave marvellous satisfaction to a number of people then present," &c. Fuller's Church History,

B. 10. Condemnation of Legate.

siastical judicature which Mr. Brook owns were in some measure participated even by his Presbyterian antagonist, if they could have found a place in such a work, might have acted as a marvellous counteraction to the general notions it instils of the episcopal character, Perhaps the very mention of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity might have blunted the edge of some of those shafts levelled by our author at the champions of the church in Queen Elizabeth's reign. To what else but some such fear as this can we attribute the omission, by so diligent a reader as Mr. Brook, even where he had a place for it, of this last-named important work amongst others to which he has thought proper to allude? Surely the labours of Hooker in the cause of episcopacy were at least as noticeable as those of Bancroft, Bridges, Wilcox, Cosin, or Soam. Vol. I. p. 58. Nor can the weight of these labours quite have escaped Mr. Brook's recollection, when hinting at a comparatively trifling controversy of admonitions to the council between Travers Hooker in the Tempie Church, Vol. II. p. 327.

and

We have dwelt the longer on these preliminary observations as intending them to serve for a clue at once to the principles on which the work before us is constructed, and to the remarks we shall find ourselves further called to make If we neupon it as we proceed. cessarily appear in some measure in the attitude of defence, we hope it will be now considered as imposed upon us by the opposite position of attack assumed by Mr. Brook whilst it is our earnest wish to exhi bit, throughout, the spirit of arbitra tion; and our best hope we confess as well as our most strenuous endeavour, in the course of the few observations we may have to offer, will be to impose silence in future alike on the abettors and the abus ers of the Puritanical struggle, and to turn the thoughts of the truly.

pious and devout of all parties, exclusively to those many points in which we agree, as the best means of final reconciliation on the few in which we disagree. We are brethren; why do we fall out by the way?

Our attention must be first turned to the introduction, or rather historical summary, with which this work commences.

This historical summary-which Mr. Brook has divided into five sections, containing successively the history of Non-conformity, from the commencement of the Reformation to the death of Queen Mary: thence to the death of Queen Elizabeth: thence to the death of King James I.: thence to the death of King Charles I. thence to the passing of the Act of Uniformity, in 1662 -might, we think with respect to the four last sections, have been better divided thus: From the death of Queen Mary, to the commencement of the Long Parliament under King Charles I.: thence to the re. storation of King Charles II.: thence to the passing of the Act of Uniformity. Thus we should have, in the whole, distinctly exhibited to view, four important periods in those eventful times; differing, it is true, somewhat in their respective length of duration, but still more differing in the nature of their transactions, which we think by all means ought to have been kept distinct. The first of these periods would present to our view the Protestant faith, amidst various pangs and sufferings, struggling for birth till the death of Queen Mary, in 1558. The second period, ending in 1640, would detail the struggle between the two classes of Protes tantism in the respective forms of Episcopacy and Non-conformity during the reign of Episcopacy, The third period from 1640, the first year of the Long Parliament to the death of Oliver Cromwell, in 1658, would embrace the same struggle during the predominance of the Non-conformists. The fourth period would relate the circumstances immediately preceding and

attending the restoration and final establishment of Episcopacy.-We shall offer a few remarks on each of these periods.

The first period, which we adopt in common with Mr. Brook, embraces the history of Protestantism from the Reformation, under Henry the VIII., to the death of Queen Mary. This, we own, we do not exactly understand whether he intends or not to identify with the history of non-conformity. The opening paragraph rather leads us to conclude he does. "Those who presumed to think for themselves on religious subjects, and to dissent from the national church, underwent all the oppressions and severities of persecution," says he, speaking of the days of Wickliffe, and subsequent times. Again, the re-establishment of Popery amidst the vacillations of Henry the VIII. is said to have re-introduced, “the superstitions of Popery under the title of laudable ceremonies, necessary rites, and godly constitutions.” p. 3. Again, during the reign of King Edward the VI. the reforma tion is made to proceed in the abolition of the superstitious rites and ceremonies; and numerous debates are alluded to respecting habits, rites, and ceremonies; together with a considerable party against the established liturgy. And finally, during the reign of the bloody Queen, the numerous martyrdoms are cursorily alluded to; but no other distinct ground alleged for them, than that the martyrs, of whom many had been " avowed non-conformists" in the former reign, refused to wear the habits, or submit to the forms, of the Ro mish superstition. This we say, looks much as if Mr. Brook intended to date the rise of Puritanical non-conformity from a very early period. And therefore, we were much surprized, farther on, p. 15. to find that "at Frankfort, whither many divines had fled from Queen Mary's persecution, a contest and division commenced, which gave rise to the PURITANS, and to that