|
|
Scalawag on the Web Sectory 24
Page 08
For their children; the tragedies likewise of dangers from them, have been many. And generally, the entering of fathers into suspicion of their children, hath been ever unfortunate. The destruction of Mustapha (that we named before) was so fatal to Solyman's line, as the succession of the Turks, from Solyman until this day, is suspected to be untrue, and of strange blood; for that Selymus the Second, was thought to be suppositious. The destruction of Crispus, a young prince of rare towardness, by Constantinus the Great, his father, was in like manner fatal to his house; for both Constantinus and Constance, his sons, died violent deaths; and Constantius, his other son, did little better; who died indeed of sickness, but after that Julianus had taken arms against him. The destruction of Demetrius, son to Philip the Second of Macedon, turned upon the father, who died of repentance. And many like examples there are; but few or none, where the fathers had good by such distrust; except it were, where the sons were up in open arms against them; as was Selymus the First against Bajazet; and the three sons of Henry the Second, King of England.
Accordingly in 1639 the assembly met and passed various acts, mostly relating to civil affairs. One, however, was specially noteworthy, as giving to the "Holy Church" "her rights and liberties," meaning by this the Church of Rome, for, as Gardiner says, the title was never applied to the Church of England. It was at the same time expressly enacted that all the Christian inhabitants should be in the enjoyment of every right and privilege as free as the natural-born subjects of England. If Roger Williams was the first to proclaim absolute religious liberty, Lord Baltimore was hardly behind him in putting this into practice. As has been neatly said, "The Ark and the Dove were names of happy omen: the one saved from the general wreck the germs of political liberty, and the other bore the olive-branch of religious peace."
Is there then, if we are confronted with such problems as these, anything to do except to stay prostrate, like Job, in darkness and despair, just enduring the stroke of sorrow? Is there any excuse for bringing before the world at such a time as this the delightful reveries, the easy happiness, the gentle schemes of serener and less troubled days? The book which follows was the work of a time which seems divided from the present by a dark stream of unhappiness. Is it right, is it decent, to unfold an old picture of peace before the eyes of those who have had to look into chaos and destruction? Would it not be braver to burn the record of the former things that have passed away? Or is it well to fix our gaze firmly upon the peaceful things that have been and will be once more?
|
