Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

of his abilities, and so much to the satisfaction of his auditors, that he was desired to print his discourse; but his diffidence was such, as to incline him to avoid doing so if possible. At all events, he judged it well to submit his manuscript first to a person more acquainted with the subject, and to request his advice; in doing which, he lamented extremely that it had fallen to his lot, to preach on so trying an occasion, having never applied his mind particularly to that branch of polemics. It naturally surprized his referee to find that something so incongruous should have taken place, till a gentleman happened to tell him, that in that Archdeaconry the preachers were always appointed alphabetically, and on turning to the name of his correspondent, he found that it actually began with the three following letters, PRU***.

[merged small][ocr errors]

QUAKERS.

IT may be expected that in such a work as the present, some notice should be taken of the Quakers, who reject all titles, "flattering titles," as they call them, with Elihu in Job, (ch. xxxii. 21, 22) and all compliments. To whom such ordinary appellations as Sir and Madam, Master and Mistress, give offence, and who cannot bear that any should profess to be the obedient humble servants of those to whom in reality they owe neither service nor obedience. Howell in his Epistle to the Nobility of England, prefixed to his French and English Dictionary, and who is often cited by the Quakers, observes, that "Sir and Madam were originally names given to none but the King, his brother, and their wives, both in France and England. Yet now the ploughmar in France is called Sir, and his wife Madam; and men of ordinary trades in England Sir, and their wives Dame; which is the legal title of a Lady, and is the same as Madam in French. So prevalent have pride and flattery been in all ages, the one

to give and the other to receive respect." Superfluous titles of honor they contend do lay a necessity upon Christians most frequently to lie; because the persons, obtaining these titles either by election or hereditarily, may frequently be found to have nothing really in them deserving them, or answering to them: as some to whom it is said "your Excellency," have nothing of Excellency in them; and who is called "your Grace," appears to be an enemy to Grace; and he who is called "your Honor," is known to be base and ignoble. Barclay, from whom I take this, goes farther; he objects much to the Papal titles of Holiness, Eminence, &c. and grounds his objections on Scripture. "We find, says he, no such thing in Scripture. The Christians speak to the Apostles without any such denomination, neither saying, if it please your Grace, your Holiness, your Lordship, nor your Worship; they are neither called my Lord Peter, nor my Lord Paul; nor yet Master Peter nor Master Paul; nor Doctor Peter nor Doctor Paul." Though he confesses the Apostles might have borne these titles, since " they really had Holiness, Excellency, and Grace; but because they were holy,

s 2

excellent, and gracious, they neither used nor admitted of such titles. But these having neither Holiness, Excellency, nor Grace, will needs be so called, to satisfy their ambitious and ostentatious minds, which is a manifest token of their hypocrisy." Even the title of "Majesty" offends him equally. Proud Nebuchadnezzar, he says, assumed it, but was punished for it, and generally in Scripture, we find only the simple appellation, "O King!" without further designation save perhaps the name of the person, as, "O King Agrippa." Paul, he observes, was very civil to Agrippa, and yet gave him no other title. He glosses over plausibly enough the address of Luke," Most excellent Theophilus," as well as that of Paul, Most noble Festus," concluding that as both Luke and Paul wrote under the dictates of the infallible Spirit of God, they knew that these persons deserved the titles given them. He is rather sharp upon Calvin, and I really think with great reason, on the following occasion. The Author of the Ecclesiastical History of the Reformation of France, relating the speech of Lord Rochefort at the Assembly of the Estates under Charles the Ninth, in the year

66

1560, observes, that this harangue was well remarked, in that he used not the word (Majesty) invented by flatterers of late years. "And yet, says Barclay, this Author minded not how his Master Calvin used this flattering title to Francis the First, King of France; and not only so, but calls him Most Christian King, in the Epistle to his Institutions; though by Francis's daily persecuting of the Reformers, it was apparent, he was far from being such even in Calvin's own esteem." I confess, this Epistle of Calvin has always struck me as a very extraordinary one, nor do I wonder that Barclay should notice it as he does, considering his principles in regard to titles, and the remark above of the Author of the History of the Reformation; for if the omission of the word Majesty, a title, which as I have before observed, Selden pronounced to be particularly unexceptionable, as expressing only

66

greaterness," appeared so commendable in the case alluded to, it cannot but seem extraordinary, that the very chief of the French Reformers, should, as he really has done, load Francis the First with titles, not merely in the comparative degree, but constantly superlative; not only styling him Christianissimus, most Christian, in

« AnteriorContinua »