VI. Tue PresByTERIAN Divines.

When we turn to his attack on the Presbyterian
party, we are also constrained to admit that Queen
Truth was on his side. Alluding to their sins in
general, he accuses them of intolerance to otber sects
(41. 19), of rendering assistance to the Royalists whom
they themselves had called reprobates and enemies to
God and his church (41. 25), and of opposing the
Independents, who are, he declares, their best friends
and associates (41. 32).

In his criticism of the life and conduct of the Pres-
byterian divines, however, we realize that Milton is
prejudiced and unfair. His severest accusation is that
these men, who formerly denounced the prelatists
for being pluralists, are guilty of the same offence.
He charges that ‘pluralities greas'd them thick and
deep’ (7. 26); it would be good if they ‘hated plurali-
ties and all kind of Simony’ (43. 28); they have
gorged themselves ‘like Harpy's on those simonious
places and preferments of their outed predecessors,
-+.not to pluralitie onely but to multiplicitie’ (61.
18 ff.); they have followed ‘the hot sent of double
livings and Pluralities,’ etc. (56. 31 ff.). In his History of
England, a work begun at this time, Milton roundly
declared that the Presbyterian ministers did not scruple
‘to seize into their hands, or not unwillingly to ac-
cept (besides one, sometimes two or more, of the best
livings), collegiate masterships in the universities,
rich lectures in the city, setting sail to all winds that
might blow gain into their covetous bosoms.’ ! Neal,
in his History of the Puritans, is silent on this question,
nor does Shaw in the latest and most complete work

1 Hist. of Eng. (Bohn 5, 288, 239).

xxiv Introduction

on the history of the English church during this
period! mention any instances of Presbyterian plu-
ralism. Marsden resents these charges with asperity,
They are, he says, simply the result of Milton's harsh
and vindictive mood, his attempt to avenge himself
upon the Westminster 4.asembly.?/ Masson, while he
criticizes Milton for his ‘ somewhat ungenerous sum-
mary (48. 26ff.) of the history of the Westminster
Assembly,’* adduces several instances where leading
Presbyterian divines accepted lectureships at the uni-
versities or in the city,4 but makes no mention of
ordinary cases, where two or more benefices were
held by Presbyterian ministers, Owing to his preju-
dices, Milton may have unduly magnified a few cases
of this kind, yet, in spite of exaggeration, there was
Some ground for his repeated accusations. Attached
to a proclamation of Sir Thomas Fairfax in 1647,5
there is a statement that according to ‘the petition
of many thousands of the poore sequestered clergie
of England and Wales,’ ‘those who are put into our
places [Presbyterian divines] labour by all means to
stir up the people, and to involve this kingdom in a
new war, and are generally men ignorant and unable
to instruct the people, and many of them are scandal-
ous in their practices, if impartially exainined; and
divers of them hold three or four of the best bene-
fices, whilst divers other churches are void and without
any constant preachers.’ In a tract published in 1646,
Thomas Tookey, M. A., charges Mr. John Yaxley with
exacting ‘the worldly sweet of two distinct congre-

1 'W. A. Shaw, Hist. of & » Church.

* Hist. of Later Puritans, p. 86.

* Masson, Life of Milton 4, 72,

* Masson, Zife 8, 469,

* King’s Pamphiets, Br. Museum, 825, 420 cat. 5,

this
plu-
erity.
harsh
mself
le he
sum-
nster
ding
uni-
n of
were
reju-
ases
was
shed
347,5
ition
rgie
our
s to
ina
able
dal-
and
ne-
out
B46,
vith
pre-

The Presbyterian Divines XXxV

gations.’ Yaxley, he says, ‘had peeped into much
logic, so that, tho once he could not,’ now ‘he can
account both nonresidency and sacred thievery dearly
lawful, gainful, hopeful, and needful,’! In another
pamphlet, specific instances are not given, but the
general charge is boldly made. ‘I could instance in
many places,’ says this anonymous foe of the Pres-
byterian clergy, ‘ where superstitious and blind buzzards
were put out of their livings, and some of the ortho-
dox men [Presbyterians] put in their roomes, and when
they had got good livings were they, or are they
contented? Some hold livings in the country, and
some in London, hardly ever coming to the flock but
to take the fleece. Some hold two or three livings
apiece: some leave one and run to another when
they can find a greater, nay, they will fight for a
better living rather than lose it,’? In view of this
contemporary evidence, however prejudiced some of
it may be, we must agree that it bears out Milton's
general assertion that the Presbyterian ministers were
not altogether free from the pleasant vice of pluralism.

When Milton calls these clergymen ‘mutinous min-
isters’ (66, 28), ‘dancing divines’ (7. 15), ‘doubling
divines’ (9, 17), *prevaricating divines’ (35. 27) ca
Covetous and ambitious generation’ (61.9), © disiur-
bers of the civil affairs’ (43. 9), he may also be well
within the truth, but when he denounces them as
being ‘clov'n tongues of falshood and dissention’
(38. 15), ‘ministers of sedition’ (38. 28) ‘firebrands’
(39. 2), it must be said that he is descending to
coarse abuse. In the most scandalous passage of
this treatise (48, 8 ff.) he accuses them of meddlesome-
ness, of neglecting their studies, of laziness, of being

* An Inspection for Spiritual Improvement, etc., p. 5.
* The Clergy in their Colors, etc., p. 41.

xxvi Introduction

tyrants over other men’s consciences, of covetousness,
of simony, of pride, of gluttony, of hypocrisy, of being
pulpit firebrands. Not content with saying all these
things, he returns to the charge in the second edition
of his book, repeats his accusation ~f pluralism (51.18 ff.)
and formulates a new indictment in the amusing pas-
sage (55. 7 ff.) in which the ministers are called ‘nimble
motionists,’ time-servers, careless of all considerations
except their own material advantage. In the year
which elapsed between the publication of the first
and the second edition, he also happened upon a
Presbyterian pamphlet written as far back as 1643,
which he used as a postscript text for further abuse
of his clerical foes.1_ The title of this tract, Scrip-
ture and Reason, is a fitting introduction to our next
topic, Milton's Use of Scripture.