Saturday, upon his motion and by consent of the House, the Speaker gave formal admonition that speeches there uttered should not be bruited, or in any wise reported, out of doors. (D'Ewes, 432.) On Monday Sir Edward complained that this admonition had been disregarded; that his speech upon his bill then in progress had been reported, and untruly, to some great personage, not a member of the House, who had called him to account and sharply rebuked him for the same. He then prayed for the testimony of the House to the untruthfulness of the report, and for their good consideration of him and of his justification at this present time given by himself, - an act of justice accorded of old by the House in such cases, especially when involving "the maintenance and preservation of the ancient liberties of the same." (Ibid., 433.) In other words, as I apprehend it, he desired them, by their testimony in his case, to take their stand for the right of freedom of speech, which had been impugned by the rebuke he had received. This the House proceeded to do; not by any vote, so far as appears by the record, but by speeches from individual members, justifying Sir Edward in toto. In other words, they declared that he had a perfect right to say what he did say. (Ibid. 434.) Whether quoting Mr. Hal lam again whether, by express words, they did or did not "testify indignation at the breach of their privileges" of which Sir Edward complained, does not appear in the journal. That it is silent upon this point proves nothing; for, as Mr. Hallam himself justly remarks, "we cannot rely upon negative inferences from D'Ewes' Journal"as to the proceedings in Parliament at this period." (Hallam, 153, note.) But when we consider the earnestness with which Sir Edward's colleagues entered upon his case, and that the whole burden of their words was to justify his speech, when, too, we observe that it was the gist of his appeal to them, that they would by their remonstrance defend the liberties of the House, we can hardly suppose that they did not distinctly resent the very breach of their privileges to which their attention had been called. However this may have been, Mr. Hume and Mr. Hallam are certainly in error on one important point, in saying that the House sought to redress the indignity by their vote admonishing the members not to repeat elsewhere what transpired in their debates. I say, certainly in error; for this vote was passed two days before Sir Edward made his complaint; and, indeed, before the report of his speech had given occasion for complaint. (Ibid., 433.) CHAPTER IX. THE DIVINE RIGHT OF BISHOPS. THE FIRST SUNDAY AT SAINT PAUL'S CROSS AFTER THE OPENING OF PAR- 1588-9. BAN The SOME six or seven thousand people were assembled in the churchyard of St. Paul's cathedral.' Lord Mayor and Aldermen were there in their official robes. The "Companies" of the city were there in their liveries. Many of the bishops were there, some of the Privy Council, judges, Benchers, Knights of the Bath, lords and ladies, all in courtly array. It was on the ninth day of February, the first Sunday after the opening of the Parliament. The multitude were gathered for the worship of God. Pride of blood, pride of rank, pride of office, pride of display, shrunk to nothing for the moment while the stately service of the Church was read, when each solemn response rolled from the mighty voice of thousands, and when, with a movement like the sinking of a mountain wave, they bowed at the name of Jesus. The pomp of the world, the grandeur of nature, the voice of thunder, how small beside the posture and voice of worship rendered to God, whether in the great congregation or in the closet! The squalid pauper, the little child,at prayer in the name of His beloved Son, are of more account with Him than courts, or crowns, or all the works of his hands. > This day the pulpit at Paul's Cross was occupied by Dr. Richard Bancroft, lately chaplain to his Grace of Canterbury,1 but now chaplain to the Lord Chancellor Hatton.2 He stood there in the character of an ambassador of Christ, whose office it is to cry aloud, "As though God did beseech you by us, we pray you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God!" With such an audience before him, what an opportunity! what responsibility! Yet, waiving themes of eternal moment, he spake chiefly of the odiousness of Puritanism, of the contemptible and dangerous character of Puritans. "You see," said he, "into how desperate and dangerous a course they are fallen. Your further bearing with them will not be well excused. They are almost come from words to blows. Her Majesty is depraved, her authority is impugned, and great dan 1 Strype's Whitgift, 292. 2 "Bibliotheca Scriptorum Ecclesiæ Anglicana; or a Collection of Tracts," &c. (p. 247.) By Rev. Dr. George Hicks. London, 1709. This collection contains the sermon which I notice in this chapter; a ser mon which must have tested the patience of the hearers, for it occupies sixty-nine closely printed duodecimo pages. In my frequent references to it- as heretofore I use only the name of the collector, Hicks. gers are threatened. into question. Princes' prerogatives are curiously scanned. The interest of the PEOPLE in kingdoms is greatly advanced, and all government generally is pinched at and contemned. The Church is condemned, the ancient fathers are despised, your preachers are defaced. It is well to have geese and dogs for fear of thieves in the night; but if, without cause, they will gaggle and make a noise in the daytime, I think it very fit they be rapt on the shins. Even so it is with these our prophets and their adherents. Some of them are geese which only gaggle and cannot hurt. Others are dogs which both can bark and bite. And yet we see them maintained! But you that are magistrates ought rather to restrain them." 1 Civil government is called We venture to elicit another prominent topic in this noted harangue. "Another sort of prophets there are, (you may in mine opinion call them false prophets,) who would have the people to be always seeking and searching. It hath ever been 6 noted as a right property of heretics and schismatics always to be beating this into their followers' heads, Search, examine, try, seek'; bringing them thereby into a great uncertainty. It falleth not within the compass of every man's understanding to determine and judge in matters of religion; but of those who are well experienced and exercised in them. . . . . . Read the Scriptures with sobriety. If any man, presuming upon his knowledge, seek further than is meet for him, besides that he knoweth nothing as he ought to know, he shall cast himself into a laby 1 1 Hicks, 302, 303. rinth, and never find that he seeketh for. God hath bound himself by his promise unto his Church [?] of purpose that men by her good direction might in this point be relieved; and to whose godly determination, in matters of question, her dutiful children ought to submit themselves, without any curious or wilful contradiction."1 "He is but of a mean conceit among the Puritans who will stick to say, 'Indeed, all the fathers are of this opinion, but I am of another judgment.' Were it not more agreeable to justice that the mouth of such a man should by punishments be stopped, than by reasons repelled?" 2 A higher theory of abject submission of opinion, or of punishment for the opposite, was never propounded in the worst days of the Romish Church. Such were the words of one set to preach the Gospel of the grace of God. Such were the sentiments of one placed by authority as the representative of a Protestant Church; of one with thousands before him - thoughtless worldlings and famishing disciples awaiting the teachings of the grace of God! It is painful and mortifying to record them. But it is necessary, that we may show the points of difference between the prelatic party of the day and their Puritan opponents. These were for the People; those, for the Aristocracy. These were for the Oracles of God; those, for the Fathers. These were for man's individual responsibility in the interpretation of the Oracles; those, for his blind submission to the word of the priesthood. The one party was for religious manhood; the other, for perpetual religious childhood. On this one point of studying 1 Hicks, 271-273, passim. 2 Ibid., 261. |