Page images
PDF
EPUB

may unite for every good work. They may join in promoting education, and in circulating Bibles, tracts, and useful books. They may unite for the assistance of such Churches as are poor and feeble, as well as for the support of the disabled ministers, and the widows and orphans of such ministers as may be called to their reward.

7. Again, free Churches are not shut out from a change of ministers. If a minister believes that he would be able better to serve the cause of Christ by removing to another Church, or to another district, there is nothing in the Congregational system to hinder him from removing; and if a Church believe that they may be better served by a change of ministers, there is nothing to hinderthem from effecting a change.

8. Again, there is nothing in the principles of Congregationalism as held by us, to prevent an occasional interchange between the pastors of different Churches. The pastor of the Church at Bradford and the pastor of the Church at Newcastle may change with each other for a season, whenever such a change might be likely to prove serviceable to the Churches. And so with other Churches. There would be nothing to prevent the Churches from enjoying, on occasions, the ministrations of every pastor in the country.

9. Nor is there anything in the principles which we advocate to prevent any one, called to the office, from "doing the work of an Evangelist." The pastors themselves might be evangelists in a great measure, and others, specially called to the work, might go from place to place, both visiting the Churches, and carrying the Gospel into regions yet dark and unvisited.

10. Nor is the Congregational system less friendly to soundness in doctrine, or to necessary discipline, than the Conference system. Congregational Churches, with the Gospel for their only creed and lawbook, have not degenerated in doctrine and discipline so frequently as Churches placed under the control of Synods, General Assemblies, Convocations, and Conferences.

11. While the Congregational system is friendly to the maintenance of

Christian discipline and Christian doctrine, it is in direct and irreconcileable opposition to persecution and intolerance. No minister can fall a prey to the jealous rage of rivals, nor to the criminal resentments of wounded pride, or disappointed avarice and ambition. So long as a minister commends himself by the purity of his doctrine, and by the excellency of his character, to the consciences of his flock, he is

secure.

12. If a minister should prove unsound in the faith, or faulty in his moral character, and so be disowned by the Church over which he was overseer, the Congregational system does not give such minister any fa. cilities for causing extensive divisions in the churches.

In short, the Congregational system is the system of the New Testament; it is the system appointed of God, and cannot therefore but prove, when properly carried out in all respects, most conducive to the purity and prosperity of Churches, and to the speedy conversion of the world.

[We shall be glad to hear what is to be said on the other side of this question, only let the communications be short, plain, straightforward, and good-tempered.-ED.]

A LESSON FROM HISTORY ON THE DANGER OF INTRUSTING MEN, WHETHER LAY OR CLERICAL, WITH SPIRITUAL POWER.

THE following account of the penalties inflicted by the authority of the High Court of Commission upon Dr. Leighton, father of the celebrated and pious Archbishop Leighton, is given for the purpose of showing that when any description of men, lay or clerical, or both united, become invested with great power, there is danger of its being abused, and sooner or later, employed for the purposes of oppression; so that when individuals of an independent spirit fall under the displeasure of parties thus terribly armed with the means of punishment, they find their tender mercies to be cruel. Some persons take it for granted, and sometimes plainly assert, that when the laity are associated with the mi

nistry in the government of a religious body, there can be no injustice perpetrated towards any one, and that every thing done, must, of necessity, be fair and impartial, merely on account of its being the work of both orders conjointly. If those who write and speak thus would spend a little time in examining ecclesiastical history, they would find out their mistake. Facts beyond number, therein recorded, show that however good as to their original intention, the ultimate objects of Councils, Synods, Convocations, Assemblies, Conferences, and Commissions, their tendency has too often been, in the long run, not to advance the kingdom of Christ by the diffusion of Gospel Light, and truth, and holiness of heart and life amongst mankind, but to subjugate, by degrees, the rights of conscience; and that under the pretence of correcting errors, securing uniformity of opinion, and advancing the interests of the church, the greatest tyranny has been exercised, and the most inhuman conduct pursued in reference to some, whose only offence was, that they refused to acknowledge any other master than the Lord Jesus Christ. A few ambitious or mistaken individuals, by getting hold of power, and using it as an instrument for improper ends, have sometimes done more to bring true religion into disrepute, and to divest the Gospel of its heavenly loveliness in the eyes of mankind, than all the infidels in the world could have done. Hence, in defending Christianity, we do not find it so difficult to answer the objections of unbelievers, as to reconcile the lives and actions-the cruel and barbarous actions-of many of its professors, with its pure and merciful principles. It is time to renew attempts to put out of countenance persons who arrogate to themselves the character of being zealous for religion, and yet exemplify none of its tempers. Who talk loudly of the cause of Christ, but have in view the strengthening of their own power only, or the promotion of their own interests.

The High Commission Court was founded upon the statute of the 1st Elizabeth, which gave the ecclesiastical supremacy to the crown; and in 1584, a commission was issued,

appointing a court of forty-four members, twelve of whom were to be ecclesiastics, and the rest laymen, who were empowered to visit and reform all errors, heresies, schisms, regulate opinions, and punish all breaches of uniformity in the exercise of public worship. It almost always happens, when large powers are placed in the hands of any body of men, that a few, by degrees, monopolize the whole authority; and when this is the case, the rest, though formally associated with them, are, in reality, mere cyphers, and only regarded as fit to be used when convenient, as a sort of fair covering or authority for conduct on the part of the ruling few, when its arbitrariness might otherwise be too barefaced and likely to create dissatisfaction and alarm. So it was in the case before us. Archbishop Laud, and one or two other individuals, became the leading men in the High Commission, and the remainder of the members were as nothing. What these few resolved upon, the court sanctioned; so that instead of the circumstance of the commission consisting of 48 persons, three-fourths of whom were laymen and only 12 ecclesiastics, being an advantage, it became quite the reverse, when the power had been thus usurped. If this court had consisted of only Laud and two or three others, they alone would have had all the responsibility of whatever was done; but many more persons being ostensibly associated with them, they were not so strictly accountable, though whatever was done, was virtually done by themselves only. This occurred two hundred years ago. We have, however, seen a similar state of things ourselves, on a much smaller scale, it is true, but yet the same in principle. The Methodist New Connexion Annual Committee and Conference, are constituted of preachers and laity in about equal numbers; this has a fair appearance, and whatever is decided upon is the act of the majority; this too seems fair, and it would be fair, if the actual working of the plan did not force us to believe otherwise. Το describe the Annual Committee as consisting of five, or nine, or twelve persons, and the Conference as composed of sixty or seventy members,

half preachers and half laymen, is plausibility itself; not a word can be said against it. But, as in the High Commission Court, though the numbers were forty-eight, Archbishop Laud, with one or two besides, had centred in themselves all the power, and did as they liked, so five or six individuals in the Methodist New Connexion have become all in all as to authority and influence. These form the Annual Committee, the Conference, and in fact, every thing. The rest are truly men of strawmere nonentities, as to having any control. They might as well be absent as present at their meetings. The few say, Let us do or not do this or that, and it is decided accordingly. Still, we do not think that either Mr. Allin, Mr. Ridgway, or any of the five or six individuals, who hold of themselves the entire authority in the Methodist New Connexion, would be disposed to imitate every part of Archbishop Laud's conduct. We feel no doubt of their being of opinion, that a little wholesome correction might be administered with advantage to Joseph Barker for example, but as to slitting his nose, cutting off his ears, making him pay a fine of £10,000, or placing him in prison for life, and especially as to visiting him with all these punishments together, we are persuaded better things of them than that such a thought should have entered their minds. At the same time, lest at any period a spirit of persecution should unwittingly, and in regard to similar matters, come upon us, it may be well for our abhorrence of this evil to be kept alive by reviewing deeds done by unhappy bigots while under its influence in former ages. We now introduce the case of Dr. Leighton, whose crime was, that he had published a book containing sentiments offensive to those in power. One of the passages for which he was cited to appear before the High Commission was this:-"That the Church hath her laws from the Scripture, and that no king may make laws for the house of God."

"Nor long after the book had been delivered to the parliament, two high-commission pursuivants arrested Dr. Leighton, as he was coming out of Blackfriars church, from hearing a sermon: and, with a mul

titude of staves and bills, dragged him to the house of Dr. Laud, then bishop of London. As they were carrying him along, they, all the way, called him by the opprobrious names of jesuit and traitor. He was imprisoned in the bishop of London's house, and a strong guard set over him; and there kept, without food, till seven in the evening, when Dr. Laud, bishop of London, and Dr. Corbet, bishop of Oxford, came from Fulham House, with a great number of attendants. Dr. Leighton then demanded a hearing, and one of the pursuivants made as if he should have had one. But, instead of that, the gaoler of Newgate was sent for, who came with a strong power of halberts and staves; and, clapping Dr. Leighton in irons, they carried him through a blind, hollow, subterraneous passage, into Newgate; where, opening a gate into the street (which some say, had not been opened since the days of bloody Queen Mary) they thrust him into a loathsome and ruinous dog-hole, full of rats and mice, which had no light, but what came through a little grate. There, the roof being uncovered, the snow and rain beat in upon him. He had no bedding, nor any place to make a fire, but the ruins of an old smoky chimney. There he was kept, without meat or drink, from Tuesday night to Thursday noon.

In that doleful place and condition was he kept close, with two doors fastened upon him, for the space of fifteen weeks; during which time, they suffered no friend to come near him; but, after fifteen weeks, his wife, and she alone, gained admittance.

On the fourth day after his commitment, the high-commission pursuivants, under the conduct of one of the sheriffs of London, and attended by the sheriff's men, went to Dr. Leighton's house in Blackfriars, under the pretence of seeking for jesuits books. There those sons of plunder laid violent hands upon his distressed wife, and used her with such barbarous inhumanity and indecency, as it is a shame to express. They rifled every person in the house, and held a pistol to the breast of a boy of five years old, threatening to shoot him, if he would not tell where the books were; which so affrighted the

poor child, that he never recovered it all his life. They broke open presses, chests, and boxes, though the family would readily have opened them, to have facilitated their search. They tore up the very boards of the house, and destroyed every thing at their pleasure. They robbed the doctor's house, and carried off all the books and manuscripts which they could find, together with his household stuff, apparel, arms, and other things, leaving nothing which they had a mind to have; though Mrs. Leighton put them in mind, that a day of reckoning might come. They also took away a great number of Dr. Leighton's books from one Mr. Archer, with whom they had been deposited for greater security.

The keeper of Newgate denied Dr. Leighton a copy of his commitment: upon which his wife, with some other friends, repaired to one of the sheriffs of London, offering bail, according to the statute in that behalf; which statute being shown by an attorney at law, the sheriff replied, "He wished the laws of the land, and the privileges of the subject, had never been named in parliament," &c.

The creatures of the high-commission court went to Dr. Leighton, in Newgate, and would have examined him; but he refused to answer them, or acknowledge the authority of that court; though he professed himself ready to answer any officer, who came to examine him by the king's authority.

Thus Dr. Leighton (having already suffered in body, liberty, family, estate, and house ;) at the end of fifteen weeks was served with a subpoena, on information, laid against him by Sir Robert Heath his majesty's attorney-general, who went to him in Newgate: and (as Dr. Leighton himself expresses it) “used him with cruelty and deceit."Afterwards one Reeves, another tool of Bishop Laud's, went to Newgate, and, with flattering deceitful promises, got him to confess, that he wrote the book with which he was charged. After that, he went again to Newgate, and would have had Dr. Leighton to have confessed who put him upon writing the book, promising him not only pardon, but other favours, if he would frankly

tell him. But the Doctor, like a brave man, would not mention one of near 500, who had set their names to his book, by way of approbation; as knowing the miseries to which he would have exposed them, by such a nomination. Upon that refusal, he was brought into the starchamber court, and required to put in an answer to a long invective, called an information; which he did, to the satisfaction of all unprejudiced persons. He owned the writing of the book, but said it was done with no ill intention; his design being only to lay these things before the next parliament, for their consideration.

But things were carried with so high an hand, that no council dared to plead for him, nor any body to appear in his behalf.

There were other circumstances, which discovered the inveterate malice of his enemies. It appeared to four physicians, who examined the case, that poison had been given to him in Newgate: for his hair and skin came off, in a distemper which was attended with loathsome symptoms. But, notwithstanding a certificate was given under the hands of these four physicians, and an affidavit made by an attorney, that his disease was desperate, the following sentence was passed upon him, though absent, and that court unanimously decreed, June 4, 1630,

"That Dr. Leighton should be committed to the prison of the Fleet for life, and pay a fine of £10,000. (though they knew he was not worth so much) that the high commission should degrade him from his ministry; and that then he should be brought to the pillory at Westminster, while the court was sitting, and be whipped. After whipping, be set upon the pillory, a convenient time; and have one of his ears cut off, one side of his nose slit, and be branded in his face, with a double S. S. for a Sower of Sedition. That then he should be carried back to prison: and, after a few days, be pilloried again in Cheapside; and be there likewise whipped, and have the other side of his nose slit, and his other ear cut off; and then be shut up in close prison, for the remainder of his life.”

That pious, merciful, and truly Christian bishop, Dr. Laud, pulled off his cap, when this horrible sentence was pronounced, and gave God thanks for it ;-like one who had obtained a signal victory over his most mortal enemy.

A knight moved one of the lords about the dreadful nature of the sentence, intimating that it opened a gap to the prelates, to inflict such disgraceful punishments and tortures upon men of quality. That lord replied, "It was only in terrorem, and that he would not have any one think that the sentence would ever be executed." But Bishop Laud was resolved that it should be executed, and accomplished his cruel intention.

Between passing the sentence and the execution of it, Dr. Leighton found means to escape out of the Fleet prison, by the assistance (as is supposed) of two Scots gentlemen, Mr. Elphinstone and Mr. Anderson; for they were fined £500 a-piece, for helping their countrymen to fly from that infernal punishment.However, Dr. Leighton was overtaken in Bedfordshire, and brought back to the Fleet.

November 26, part of the sentence was executed upon him, and that in a most tremendous manner; the hangman having been plied with strong drink all the night before, and likewise threatened, if he did not execute the sentence in a cruel manner. When he came to the place of execution, besides other torments, his hands were tied to a stake, where he received thirty-six stripes on his naked back, with a triple cord, every lash whereof brought away the flesh. Then he was set in the pillory, in which he stood almost two hours in cold, frost, and snow. While he was in the pillory, one of his ears was cut off, one of his nostrils slit, and one cheek branded with a red hot iron, with the letters S. S. so that he was made a dismal spectacle of misery to God, to angels, and to

men.

After that, he was remanded to prison; and the next eruel handling of him we may take in the words of Bishop Laud, who has recorded both the executions in his diary. "On that day se'nnight, his sores upon his back, ear, nose, and face, being not yet cured, he was whipped again, at

the pillory in Cheapside; and had the remainder of his sentence executed upon him, by cutting off the other ear, slitting the other side of his nose, and branding the other cheek."

Being so broken with such terrible sufferings, he was unable to walk. However, the warden of the Fleet would not suffer him to be carried in a coach; but hurried him away, by water, to the Fleet, to the farther endangering of his life.

In that prison, he went through much harsh and cruel usage, for the space of eight years; paying more for a room than the value of it; and not being allowed a bit of bread or drop of water, but what he or his friends paid for. And, to increase his misery, the clerk of the Fleet sent for him to his office, and (without warrant, or any fresh offence given) set eight strong fellows upon him, who tore his clothes, and bruised his body, so that he never was well after; and then carried him, head and heels, to that loathsome place, the common gaol; where (besides the filthiness of the place, and vileness of the company) various projects were set on foot to take away his life.

In the year 1640, he presented a petition to the long parliament, setting forth a brief narrative of his great and many sufferings and hardships. While the petition was reading, the House of Commons burst out into tears. And the clerk of that house was ordered to stop, once and again, until they had given some vent to their compassion; and recovered themselves to such a composure of mind, as to be fit to attend and hear the rest.

When they had considered the case, they released him from prison, and voted that Dr. Laud, then Archbishop of Canterbury, should give satisfaction to Dr. Leighton, for the damages sustained, by fifteen weeks imprisonment in Newgate, upon the said bishop's warrant, &c. They likewise voted, that the fine of £10,000, the sentence of corporal punishment, the execution thereof, and the imprisonment thereupon, were all illegal. But no sufficient reparation, in the world, could possibly be made to a man so highly injured.

[Alas for man when he accepts of power over his fellow-man.-ED.]

« PreviousContinue »