868 H. Pur. P. J47 r 596. A Review of the principal fags objeged to the this the authors were fent to Newgate, and Cartwright, after Tome time retired beyond fea. Thus the puritans were divided among themfelves ; theirfl generation declaring they would give themfelves and the church no further trouble, if they might be difpenfed with fubfcribing to the ufe of the habits, and the abovementioned ceremonies ; and of thefe there remained a very confiderable number, throughout the greateft part of this reign. The fecond generation were more zealous and refolute, apprehending it their duty, by all lawful means, to attempt a farther reformation in the church of England, by Petting afide what they efteemed the remains of antichrift, and obtaining a legal eflablifhment of what they apprehended to be the difcipline of Chri which, according to them, was prefbyterial, or at leaft a college of prefbyters, with a dated prefident, called afterwards by the name of BISHOP, at their head. At length there arofe a thirdgeneration, about the year 1584. (under the name of BROwNISTS), of warmer and more uncharitable fpirits than both the former; thefe denied the church of England to be a true church, and urged the neceflity of a feparationb not only from that, but even from Geneva itrelf. If the reader will keep thefe diftint`tions in mind, hewill eafily difcern, that as the riling Pet of bilhops were more rigid and revere in girding the eccicfiaftical laws upon the puritans, thefe, by degrees, removed to a greater diftance from the eftablifhment. Our author has wafted a great many pages in proving, that the fecond generation of puritans were for their own eftablifhment, exclu/ìve ofall others, and that they would have enforced it with wholefome fèverities, if the power hadbeen in their hands. And has Mr. N. denied or concealed this part of their hiftory ? has he not Paid, " that both parties (viz. churchmen " and puritans) agreed too well in affecting the neceffity of uniformity of " publick worfhip, and of calling in the fword of the magiftrate for the " fupport and defence of their feveral principles, which they made an ill " ufe of in their turns, as they could grafp the power into their " hands." -- Again, " neither party were for admitting that liberty " of confcience, and freedomof profefiion, which is every man's right, " as far as is confident with the peace of the government." And further, " that their zeal for their platform would have betrayed them " into the impofition of it upon others, if it had been eftabliihed by " law." But did there narrow and uncharitableprinciples of the puritans, give the church a right to make ufe of thefecular arm egainft men, who had not been guilty of any overt-aids of fedition or rebellion ? Mr. N. agrees with this writer, that it was an ad of goodnefs, as well as wifdom in the government, not to put the weapons of authority into the puritans hands;
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=