Chap. .rr. 7be HISTORY oJ ·t!J.ePuRITANS. 429 · of government· but the articles relating to religion can hardly be comOliver ' . ]] h f h ] ] ~ Protetlor. plained of, though they d1fgufl:ed a t ~t part o t. e c e~gy w 10 were or . 1653 . church power; the prejbyterians. preac~ed and wnt agamfl: the _36t~ and~ 37th articles, as inconf1fl:ent with the1r efl:a~lllhment, ~nd _linkmg It almofl: to a level with the feCtaries. The republicans were d!ifattsfied, becaufe the engagement by which they had fworn fidelity to a co~monwealth; without a fingle perfon, or houfe of lords, was fet afide. B1fhop Kem:et is angry with the proteCtor's latitude, becaufe there was no tefl: or bamer to the efl:ablia1ment. " How little religion was the concern, or fo much " as any longer the pretence of CronniJell and his officers (fays his lord~ " fhip ), appears from hence, that in the large infhument of the govern- " ment of the commonwealth, which was the magna charta of the new '' confl:itution, there is not a word of churches or fynods, or minifl:erF, " nor any thing but the chrifl:ian religion in ~eneral, with liberty " to all difrering in judgment, from the doClrine, worlhip, or dif- " cipline, publici y held forth.'' Strange, that this fhould difpleafe a chrifl:ian biil10p! But his lordfhip £hould have remembered; that this liberty was not to extend to any kinds of immoralities, nor to fuch as injured the civil rights of others,. nor to fuch as difl:urbed the public peace. And do the fcriptures authorize us to go further? The fixth · article provides, " that the laws in being relating to the pre£byterian reli-· " gion were not to be fufpended, altered, abrogated or repealed; nor any " new law made, but by confent of parliament." The 36th adds, . " that until a better provifion can be made for the encouragement and " maintenance·of able and painful teachers, the prefent maintenance [ball " not be taken away nor impeached." And TRYERS were appointed. foon after for preventing fcandalous and unlearned perfons invading the pulpit; This part of the in!l:rument is in my opinion, fo far from being criminal, that it breathes a noble fpirit of chrifl:ian liberty, though it was undoubtedly faulty, in putting popery, prelacy, and licentioujilefs if manmrs, upon a level. The open toleration of popery is hardly conlifl:ent with. the fafety ofaprotefl:ant government, otherwife confidered merely as a religious infl:itution, [ fee not why it fhould be crufhed by the civil power: and · !-icentioufi1efs of manners, is-not to be indulged in any civilized nation; but 1f the epifcopalians would have given fecurity for their living peaceably under their new mafl:ers, they ought undoubtedly to have been protected; however the protector did not in every in fiance adhcrre fl:rittly to the injirument. But though in point of policy the epifcopalians were at · this time ex- Epijcopalimr; cepted from a legill toleration, th€ir affemblies were connived at; and [e_tolerated, vera! of their clergy indulged the public exercife of theif minifl:ry with~ . eut the fetters of oaths, fubfcriptions, or engagements; as Dr. Ha/J, afterwards
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=