lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." The Twenty-seventh Article, "Of Baptism," entirely thwarted his opinions:-"Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened; but is a sign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the church; the promises of the forgiveness of sins, of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased, by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." In king Edward's Articles, published in 1552, number Twenty-eight, the last clause thus reads: "The custom of the church, to christen young children, is to be commended, and in any wise to be retained in the church.” In this Article, too, the term "regeneration" is not used in reference to the baptism of infants!!

I am certain the Thirty-fourth Article, entitled, "Of the Traditions of the Church," thwarted his opinions entirely: "It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly alike, for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as one that offendeth against the common order of the church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of weak brethren. 'Every particular or national church, hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the church, ordained only by men's The last sentence authority, so that all things be done to edifying."" in quotation marks, is not in king Edward's Article, number Thirty

three !!

I might instance other Articles, as number Thirty-six, entitled, "Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers;" number Thirty-seven, entitled, "Of Civil Magistrates." In king Edward's Article it is asserted, "The king of England is supreme head in earth, next under Christ, of the Church of England and Ireland.” In queen Elizabeth's

it is thus stated, 'Supreme headship of the first civil magistrate next under Christ," &c. &c. and much changed; for which alteration the reason is assigned, because the compilers say they had understood the "tilles" which they had attribued to the queen's majesty had "offended the minds of some dangerous folks," [John Fox, the martyrologist, Thomas Cartwright, and hundreds of godly ministers besides them, to say nothing of " the congregation of faithful men."] "The queen's majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England, and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction." "Where we attribute to the queen's majesty the chief government, by which titles we understand the minds of some dangerous folks to be offended: we give not to our princes the ministering either of God's word, or of the sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our queen, do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in Holy Scripture by God himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers."*

I appeal to the candid reader, who is acquainted with the religious opinions of MILTON, whether all the above Articles are not in direct opposition toto cœlo to those which he has so powerfully maintained. An ingenuous mind would instead of censuring MILTON for refusing to subscribe what he did not believe, as, by so doing, he would have committed perjury, and that too in regard to matters of "truth, conscience, and God," have expressed regret that the Articles of the Church were so framed, and the demand of subscription so rigid, that such a good and great man as MILTON should not have been able to undertake the office of minister in it, when he had gone to the university with that design! With his sentiments of religious liberty, and the inalienable right of private judgment, and the sufficiency of the Scriptures alone for all purposes of doctrine and discipline, and especially of the sole headship of Jesus Christ in his church; would it not have been, I appeal to all unprejudiced minds, and even those of the Church of England, whether it would not have been for MILTON to

* It was not long before the prelates had an opportunity of discovering how dis. creetly the queen would use this jure divino prerogative. Grindal having expostulated with her majesty, requesting her to mind civil matters, and leave the ecclesiastical to the bishops, was deprived, or, as the queen elegantly expressed it, she "unfrocked him!"

have "subscribed slave," had he become a clergyman? And was it not more honourable to his own character, however injurious to the interests of the community at large, "to prefer a blameless silence before the office of speaking, bought and begun with servitude and forswearing?" Dr. Johnson ought to have given him credit too for having exempted those subscribing clergymen from the charge of perjury, "who had consciences that could retch !"

Dr. Johnson's questioning the truth of MILTON's statement, that the reason why he did not become a clergyman was, because he could not ex animo subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles; but that his chief objection was to the canons, is not creditable even to his liberality! He says:

"It seems more probable his objection related to canonical obodience; the thoughts of obedience, whether canonical or civil, raised his indignation."

The fact is, that he also objected to swear entire and uncompromising obedience to the canons as well as to the Articles: he refused to subscribe slave, and take an oath withal," to observe human regulations in matters of religion. But does it follow, that because he would not voluntarily lay himself under an obligation to obey statutes which he was not otherwise bound to observe, that he felt repugnant to render the civil obedience which, as a subject, he owed to the state. Is it not perfectly compatible to object to submit to ecclesiastical domination, and to render cheerful obedience to the constitutional aws? MILTON could distinguish, if Dr. Johnson could not. between canonical and civil obedience: he refused to submit himself to the former, but his life affords no instance of his objecting to the latter.

Let us suppose that MILTON, in the prospect of entering the establishment, even if he had not anticipated the possibility of becoming a bishop or archbishop, yet that he might have become a dean or batchelor of divinity and laws, he would of course first read over seriously (if he could have preserved his gravity) the following:

"Articles of outward apparel of persons ecclesiastical.

"First, That all archbishops and bishops do use and continue their accustomed apparel,

66 Item, That all deans of cathedral churches, masters of colleges, archdeacons, and other dignitaries in cathedral churches: doctors, bachelors of divinity and law, having any ecclesiastical living, shall wear, in their common apparel, a tide gown, with sleeves straight at the hand, without any cuts in the same. And that also without any falling cape; and to wear tippets of sarcenet, as is lawful for them by that act of Parliament, Anno 24, Henrii Octavi.

A

"Item, That all doctors of physic, or of any other faculty, having any living ecclesiastical, or any other that may dispend by the church one hundred marks so to be esteemed by the fruits as tenths of their promotions; and all prebendaries whose livings be valued at twenty pound a year or upward, wear the same apparel.

"Item, That they and all ecclesiastical persons, or other having any ecclesiastical living, do wear the CAP appointed by the Injunctions, and they to wear no HAT but in their journeying.

Item, That they in their journeying do wear their cloaks with sleeves put on, and like in fashion to their gowns, gards, welts, or cuts.

"Item, That in their private houses and studies, they use their own liberty of comely apparel.

"Item, That all inferior ecclesiastical persons shall wear long gowns of the fashion aforesaid, and caps as afore prescribed.

Item, That all poor parsons, vicars, and curates, do endeavour themselves to conform their apparel in like sort, so soon and as conveniently as their ability will serve to the same. Provided that their ability be judged by the bishop of the diocese. And if their ability will not suffer them to buy them long gowns of the form afore prescribed, that then they shall wear their short gowns, agreeable to the form before expressed.

"Item, That all such persons as have been, or be, ecclesiastical, and serve not in the ministry, or have not accepted, or shall refuse to accept the oath of the Queen's Majesty, do from henceforth abroad wear none of the said apparel of the form and fashion aforesaid, but to go as mere laymen, till they be reconciled to obedience; and who shall obstinately refuse to do the same, that they be presented by the ordinary to the commissioners in causes ecclesiastical, and by them be reformed accordingly."

Now, I respectfully ask those who know the honest and enlightened character of MILTON, that had he been resolved "to retch his conscience, by taking an oath withal," (which there can be no doubt Dr. Samuel Johnson, the moralist, would have recommended, as required from every obedient subject to the king,) is it likely that, for the sake of obtaining a living of twenty pounds per year, (and it was not likely that such a man as MILTON could have expected more under the archiepiscopal government of Laud,) that he would have consented to go "without his hat," and to "wear a short gown," that is, if the bishop of the diocese deemed he was not able, with twenty pounds a year, to buy a long one. I am fully persuaded that other * Sparrow's Articles, &c. p. 126 127.

and better reasons may be assigned, why MILTON refused to "subcribe slave," than because "the thoughts of obedience," properly understood, "whether canonical or civil raised his indignation." It was not possible the noble mind of MILTON could have submitted to be bound by such ignoble fetters and chains.

"Canonical obedience," MILTON well knew, would demand implicit regard to a hundred and forty-one cannons, besides seventeen passed in 1640, upon pain of being presented to "commissioners in causes ecclesiastical, and by them to be reformed accordingly," or how could he have "subscribed slave" to this engagement? I shall not openly intermeddle with any artificers, occupations, as covetously to seek a gain thereby, having an ecclesiastical living to the sum of twenty-six pounds, ten nobles, or above by the year."

I can conjecture, too, the possibility of the honest and upright MILTON refusing to "retch his conscience" to take the "Oath of Simony!" I think it probable he might have balked too, when taking deacon's orders, to answer to the following question

"The Bishop. Will you reverently obey your ORDINARY, and other chief ministers of the church, and them to whom the government and charge is committed over you, following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions ?"*

Now would not MILTON have hesitated, before he had "retched his conscience," and have "subscribed slave, and took an oath withal," to say, "I will endeavour myself, the Lord being my helper?"—or might it not have entered his mind, "Judas got thirty pieces of silver for selling his master, but I am advised to sell my conscience, when it is possible I may only get in exchange for it twenty nobles a year!" Nothing can be more evident to my mind, than that Dr. Johnson, with all his blunt and unmannerly Toryism towards Whigs, had not the ability to comprehend the essential qualities of an honourable, conscientious mind, like that of MILTON.

Dr. Johnson, who doubtless hated MILTON for taking part with the Parliament against the king, and had therefore hastened home from the continent to take part in the national struggle for freedom, says:

"Let not our veneration for MILTON forbid us to look, with some degree of merri. ment, on great promises and small performance; on the man who hastens home because his contrymen were contending for their liberty, and when he reaches the scene of action, vapours away his patriotism in a private boarding-school. This is the period of his life from which all his biographers seem inclined to shrink. They are unwilling that MILTON should be degraded to a schoolmaster; but since it cannot be denied that he taught boys, one finds out that he taught for nothing, and another that his motive was only zeal for the propogation of learning and virtue; and all tell what they do not know to be true, only to excuse an act that no wise man Ibid p. 147.