« ZurückWeiter »
for his hero*; but Arthur was reserved to another destiny.
Returning from his travels, he found England on the point of being involved in a civil war, between the king and parliament. It seems wonderful that one of so warm and enterprizing a spirit as his certainly was, should be restrained from the camp in those commotions, when his countrymen were striving for liberty against the ambition of the crown. We may certainly impute it to the great deference he paid to paternal authority, that he retired to lodgings provided for him at the house of Mr. Russel, a taylor, in St. Bride's Church Yard. Here, however, he did not long continue; for he had not sufficient room for his library and furniture: he therefore took a house with a garden, in the vicinity of Aldersgate Street; which was the more agreeable to him, as it was removed in a great measure from the noise and disturbance of the town. This house, being commodious for the reception of his sister's sons, and some other young gentlemen, he undertook their education, not out of
* “O mihi si mea sors talem concedat amicum
any sordid and mercenary views, but merely from a benevolent disposition, and a desire to do good; and is said to have formed them on the same plan which he afterwards published, in a short tractate inscribed to his friend Mr. Hartlib.
We must not, however, imagine, that Milton was so attached to this academical life, as to be an indifferent spectator of what passed in this country. There were great disorders in the nation in 1641, and the clamour ran high against those who wore the episcopal habit. On this occasion it is easy to guess which side was taken by Milton : he took part with the people, and joined the puritanical ministers in their opposition to episcopacy. He published a tractate “Of Reformation, touching Church Discipline in England: and the Causes that hitherto have hindered it. In two books." A treatise against episcopacy was likewise published about the same time by several ministers, in answer to the Humble Remonstrance of Dr. Joseph Hall, Bishop of Norwich, under the title of Smectymnuus (a word consisting of the initial names of the authors, viz. Stephen Marshall, Edmund Calamy, Thomas Young, Matthew Newcomen, and William Spurstow.) This book was answered by Archbishop Usher, who published at Oxford a Refutation of Smectymnuus, in a tract concerning the Original of Bishops and Metropolitans. This latter brought forth Mil
ton's little piece Of Prelatical Episcopacy; but as it was not sufficiently explicit to meet the entire approbation of the author, he handled the subject more at large in “ The Reason of Church Government, urged against Prelacy. In two Books.” This was divided into several Chapters, of which the following are the heads : Chap. 1. That Church Government is prescribed in the Gospel, and that to say otherwise is unsound. Chap. 11. That Church Government is set down in Holy Scripture, and that to say otherwise is untrue. Chap. 111. That it is dangerous and unworthy the Gospel, to hold that Church Government is to be patterned by the Law, as B. Andrews and the Primate of Armagh [Usher] maintain. Chap. iv. That it is impossible to make the Priesthood of Aaron a Pattern whereon to ground Episcopacy. Chap. v. To the Argument of B. Andrews and the Primate. Chap. vi. That Prelacy was not set up for the Prevention of Schism, as is pretended, or if it were, that it performs not what it was first set up for, , but quite the contrary. Chap.vii. That those many sects and schisms by some supposed to be among us, and that Rebellion in Ireland, ought not to be a hindrance, but a hastening of Reformation. Part 11. Chap. 1. That Prelacy opposeth the Reason and End of the Gospel three ways; and first in her outward form. Chap. 11. That the ceremonious Doctrine of Prelacy opposeth
the Reason and End of the Gospel. Chap. 111. That Prelatical Jurisdiction opposeth the Reason and End of the Gospel and of State. ConCLUSION. The Mischief that Prelacy does in the State.—Bishop Hall published also a Defence of the Humble Remonstrance; which induced Milton to write Animadversions upon it, under the title of Animadversions upon the Remonstrant's Defence against Smectymnuus. All these treatises he published within the course of the year 1641; which show how diligent he was in the cause he had espoused. And the next year he set forth his Apology for Smectymnuus, in Answer to the Confutation of his Animadversions.
In this philosophical course he, however, continued without a wife to the year 1643; when he married Mary, the eldest daughter of Richard Powell of Forest-hill, near Shotover, in Oxfordshire: a gentleman of estate and reputation in that county, and of principles so very opposite to his Son-in-law, that the marriage is more to be wondered at than the separation which ensued, in little more than a month after she had cohabited with him in London. The time having elapsed which he had allowed her to stay with her friends in the country (for she had previously obtained his permission) he wrote several letters, requesting her return; but she did not deign to answer them. At length, being
highly displeased, and imagining some mistake might have arisen, he dispatched a messenger with a letter, requesting her return: but she positively refused, and dismissed the messenger with contempt. Her desertion provoked him both to 'write several Treatises concerning the doctrine and discipline of Divorce *; and also to
* These treatises were, (1.) “The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce; restored to the good of both Sexes, from the Bondage of Canon Law, and other Mistakes, to the true Meaning of Scripture in the Law and Gospel compared. Wherein also are set down the bad consequences of abolishing or condemning of Sin, that which the Law of God allows, and Christ abolished not. In Two Books.”—Against this book it was objected, that his doctrine was a novel notion, and a paradox that nobody had asserted before. This occasioned him to take up his pen again; which produced, in 1644, (2.) “The Judgment of Martin Bucer, concerning Divorce: written to Edward VI. in his Second Book of the Kingdom of Christ; and now Englished. Wherein a late Book, restoring the Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, is here confirmed and justified by the Authority of Martin Bucer, to the Parliament of England.” Against this book also cavils were raised; and it was objected, that the doctrine could not be reconciled to Scripture. He now took up his pen once more, and published, in 1645,(3.) “Tetrachordon : Expositions upon the Four Chief Places in Scripture which treat of Marriage, or Nullities in Marriage. On Gen. i. 27, 28, compared and explained by Gen. ii. 18, 23, 24. Deut. xxiv. 1, 2.—Matth. v. 31, 32. with Matth. xix. from the 3d verse to the 11th.—1 Cor. vii, from the roth to the 16th. Wherein the Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, as was lately published, is confirmed by Explanation of Scripture, by Testimony of Ancient Fathers, of Civil Laws