CHAPTER VI.

UPON the gathering of the present storm, Bishop Hall came forward a second time as a strenuous champion in defence of the church of England. He published "An Humble Remonstrance to the High Court of Parliament," in which treatise he vindicated the antiquity of liturgies and episcopacy with admirable skill, meekness, and simplicity; yet with such strength of argument, that five presbyterian divines "clubbed their wits together to frame an answer." These dissenting ministers were Stephen Marshall, Edmund Calamy, Thomas Young, Matthew Newcomen, and William Spurstow. Their performance bore the strange title of "Smectymnuus, or An Answer to an Humble Remonstrance, &c." This fictitious word is made up of the initial letters of the names of the above authors. Bishop Hall, in his reply entitled "A Defeuce of that Remonstrance," alluding to his antagonists, merrily says," My single Remonstrance is encountered with a plural adversary, that talks in the style of

"We" and "Us." Their names, persons, qualities, numbers, I care not to know: but could they say, "my name is Legion, for we are many;" or, were they as many legions as men; my cause, yea God's, would bid me to meet them undismayed, and to say with holy David, "Though a host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear." Ps. xxvii, 3. Bishop Hall proceeds with much composure to point out the bulk of his adversaries' performance, their trifling cavils, and their inveterate malice against episcopacy: and, with his usual ability and learning, demonstrates the antiquity of forms of prayers, and the Apostolical institution of episcopacy. In a word, this reply is a complete refutation of the arguments of the bishop's adversaries.

It is said of the treatise of Smectymnuus that it is "certainly written with great fierceness of spirit and much asperity in language, containing eighteen sections, in the last of which the differences between the prelatists and puritans are aggravated with great bitterness."* Bishop Hall, at the end of his "Defence of the Humble Remonstrance," speaks of the last section of Smectymnuus thus: "The rest that remains, is but mere declamation, not worthy of any answer, but contempt and silence,"

* Brook's Lives of the Puritans, vol. iii, p. 246.

In this controversy, no one can say that Bishop Hall has used "asperity of language," or manifested bitterness of spirit: on the contrary, he has written with the simplicity of a primitive christian bishop; with confidence of the goodness of the cause; with brotherly respect to his opponents: his language is energetic, yet temperate, courteous, and chaste.

The bishop terminates this controversy by a tract called "A Short Answer to the Tedious Vindication of Smectymnuus," in which he vindicates, with great strength of argument, what he had already advanced in defence of liturgies and episcopacy: refutes his opponents' cavils and subterfuges, and challenges them to produce any settled national church in the whole christian world that has been otherwise governed than by bishops, in a meet and moderate parity, ever since the time of Christ and his apostles, until this pre

It is proper here to observe, that, though Bishop Hall proves that there always had been a form of prayer used in the public worship of God, both in the Jewish and christian church; yet he does not disapprove of the use of extemporary prayer on certain occasions, but confesses that he made use of both ways. "Far be it from me,'

* Bishop Hall's Works, vol. ix, pp. 591, 768.

says he, "to dishearten any good christian from the use of conceived prayer, in his private devotions, and upon occasion also in public. I would hate to be guilty of pouring so much water upon the Spirit; to which I shall gladly add oil rather. No; let the full soul freely pour out itself in gracious expressions of its holy thoughts, into the bosom of the Almighty. Let both the sudden flashes of our quick ejaculations, and the constant flames of our more fixed conceptions, mount up from the altar of a zealous heart unto the throne of grace and if there be some stops or solecisms in the fervent utterance of our private wants, these are so far from being offensive, that they are the most pleasing music to the ears of that God unto whom our prayers come. Let them be broken off with sobs, and sighs, and incongruities of our delivery, our good God is no otherwise affected to this imperfect elocution, than an indulgent parent is to the clipped and broken language of his dear child, which is more delightful to him than any other's smooth oratory. This is not to be opposed in another, by any man, that hath found the true operation of this grace in himself."* "What have I professed," says he again, concerning conceived prayer, "but that which I ever allowed, ever practised, both in private and

* Bishop Hall's Works, vol. ix, p. 629, &c.

public? God is a free Spirit, and so should ours be, in pouring out our voluntary devotions upon all occasions. Nothing hinders, but that this liberty and a public liturgy should be good friends, and may go hand in hand together. And whosoever would forcibly sever them, let them bear their own blame." And again, in his "Answer to Smectymnuus' Vindication," he says, "you tell me of thousands, who desire to worship God with devout hearts, that cannot be easily persuaded that these set forms, though never so free from just exceptions, will prove so great a help to their devotion: I tell you of many more thousands than they, and no less devoutly affected, that bless God to have found this happy and comfortable effect in the fore-set prayers of the church. Neither doth this plead at all against the use of present conception, whether in praying or preaching; or derogate any thing from that reverent and pious esteem of conceived prayer, which I have formerly professed. Surely I do from my soul honour both I gladly make use of both; and praise God for them, as the gracious exercises of christian piety, and the effectual furtherances of salvation. There is place enough for them both: they need not justle each other." *

Bishop Hall's Works, vol. ix, pp. 651, 760.

While this controversy was debating at home, letters were

Р