“Alius abusus corrigendus est in ordinibus
religiosorum, quod adeo multi deformati sunt, ut magno
sint scandalo sæcularibus, exemploque plurimum noceant.
Conventuales ordines abolendos esse putamus omnes, non
tamen ut alicui fiat injuria, sed prohibendo ne novos
possint admittere. Sic enim sine ullius injuria cito
delerentur, & boni religiosi eis substitui possent.
Nunc vero putamus optimum fore, si omnes pueri qui non
sunt professi, ab eorum monasteriis repellerentur.”
“Abusus alius turbat Christianum populum in Monialibus,
quæ sub cura fratrum conventualium, ubi in plerisque
monasteriis fiunt publica sacrilegia cum maximo civium
scandalo. Auferat ergo Sanct. vestra omnem eam curam a
conventualibus, eamque det aut Ordinariis aut aliis,
prout melius videbitur.”
These passages are extracted from the “Historia Conciliorum
Generalium,” by Edmund Richer, Doctor and Fellow of the Sorbonne: Book
IV, Part II, pp. 78-9. Colon. 1681. See also Du Pin Cent. XVI, B. I.,
ch. 27.
[79] The writer evidently means the party favourable to the
Reformation, in the sense in which the word is generally used.
F. (_Page 126._) THE CAPPERS OF BRIDGNORTH.
An Act of Parliament was passed in 1571, to enforce the wearing of
Woollen Caps; but this failing to have the desired effect, and the
people still continuing to indulge their fancy in the choice of
covering for their heads, the Queen thought fit to exert her royal
prerogative in the matter, and issued a Proclamation for the purpose
of enforcing the statute. The Proclamation set forth “how that by
little and little the disobedience and wanton disorder of evil-disposed
and light persons, more regarding private fantasies and variety, than
public commodity or respect of duty, had increased by want of execution
of the said law.” It therefore commanded that Bailiffs, Constables,
Churchwardens, &c., every Sunday and Festival Pay, make diligent view
and search in all Churches and Chapels, and all other places within
the circuit and compasses of their offices, for all singular breakers
and offenders of the said Statute, and without delay cause the names
of such offenders, together with the day and place of the offence, to
be then written, and lawfully ordered and committed. It states that
the violation of this Act of Parliament tended “to the decay, ruin,
and desolation of divers antient Cities and Boroughs, which had been
the nourishers and bringers up, in that faculty, of great numbers of
people, as London, also Exeter, Bristowe, Monmouth, Hereford, Rosse
and Bridgnorth.” (_Strype’s Annals, Vol. 2, Book 1_, C. VIII, _pp.
109-110_.)
G. (_Page 130._) ON THE CHARACTER OF CROMWELL.
It is a curious fact, that two of our great poets, writing in prose,
have exerted their genius to paint, the one the character of Cromwell,
the other the character of Charles I, in the darkest possible
colours. Cowley, in his “Vision,” has heaped on the Protector as many
reproachful epithets, and as stern expressions of reprobation, as the
most unrelenting royalist could desire; but the bolder wing of the
Author of “Paradise Lost,” has soared far above him in the region of
invective. In his famous answer to the Icon Basilica, Milton has put
together for the purpose of defaming the memory of his Sovereign, a
piece of writing perhaps as vituperative and scornful as is to be found
in the English language. But it is not in brochures, such as these,
that we are to look for just delineations of character; and as I should
consider it very unwarrantable to bring an accusation against King
Charles on the authority of Milton, I should feel it to be equally so
to found a charge of hypocrisy against Cromwell, on statements made
in “The Vision” of Cowley, or in any writing of the kind. Unhappily
the charge of hypocrisy against Cromwell rests on less questionable
evidence. The following letter, written by him to Robert Hammond,
Governor of the Isle of Wight, plainly convicts him of it; and affords
melancholy proof of how unscrupulously he could adopt the most sacred
phraseology when he had a point to gain, and enter on the discussion
of the most deeply spiritual subjects, when his real purpose all the
while was to win over his correspondent to his party, and to secure
his co-operation in furthering his own schemes. The letter to Hammond
is so curious an illustration of this, that I think it right to lay
the whole of it before the reader. The occasion of his writing it was
this:—King Charles had been induced by Cromwell’s machinations to make
his escape from Hampton Court, and to fly to the Isle of Wight, and
there to entrust himself to Hammond, the Governor. This man, when he
was required by the Army to surrender the person of the King to them,
felt strong scruples of conscience against doing so, and for a while
refused. In order to remove his scruples, both Ireton and Cromwell
wrote to him. Cromwell’s letter[80] is written with consummate skill,
but no one surely can avoid seeing how deeply it is tainted with the
odious sin of hypocrisy—all the more odious for venturing so far on
holy ground, and soiling with its touch things so precious as the
things of the Spirit of God.
“DEAR ROBIN,
“No man rejoyceth more to see a line from thee
than myself. I know thou hast long been under tryal.
Thou shalt be no loser by it. All must work for the
best. Thou desirest to hear of my experiences. I can
tell thee I am such a one as thou didst formerly
know, having a body of sin and death; but I thank God
through Jesus Christ our Lord there is no condemnation,
though much infirmity, and I wait for the redemption;
and in this poor condition I obtain mercy and sweet
consolation through the Spirit, and find abundant cause
every day to exalt the Lord,—abase flesh. And herein I
have some exercise.
“As to outward dispensations, if we may so call them,
we have not been without our share of beholding some
remarkable providences and appearances of the Lord.
His presence hath been amongst us, and by the light
of His countenance we have prevailed. We are sure the
good will of Him who dwelt in the bush has shined upon
us; and we can humbly say, we know in whom we have
believed, who is able, and will perfect what remaineth,
and us also in doing what is well-pleasing in His
eyesight.
“Because I find some trouble in your spirit,
occasioned first, not only by the continuance of your
sad and heavy burthen, as you call it, upon you; but by
the dissatisfaction you take at the ways of some good
men, whom you love with your heart, who through this
principle, that it is lawful for a lesser part (if in
the right) to force, &c.
“To the first: call not your burthen sad nor heavy.
If your Father laid it upon you, he intended neither.
He is the Father of lights, from whom cometh every good
and perfect gift; who of His own will begot us, and bad
us count it all joy when such things befall us; they
bring forth the exercise of faith and patience, whereby
in the end (James 1st.) we shall be made perfect.
“Dear Robin, our fleshly reasonings ensnare us.
These make us say, heavy, sad, pleasant, easy. Was not
there a little of this, when Robert Hammond, through
dissatisfaction too, desired retirement from the
army, and thought of quiet in the Isle of Wight? Did
not God find him out there? I believe he will never
forget this. And now I perceive he is to seek again,
partly through his sad and heavy burthen, and partly
through dissatisfaction with friends’ actings. Dear
Robin, thou and I were never worthy to be doorkeepers
in this service. If thou wilt seek, seek to know the
mind of God in all that chain of providence, whereby
God brought thee thither, and that person to thee:
how before and since God has ordered him, and affairs
concerning him. And then tell me, whether there be not
some glorious and high meaning in all this, above what
thou hast yet attained. And laying aside thy fleshly
reasoning, seek the Lord to teach thee what it is; and
he will do it.
“You say, ‘God hath appointed authorities among the
nations, to which active or passive obedience is to be
yielded. This resides in England in the parliament.
Therefore active or passive,’ &c. Authorities and
powers are the ordinance of God. This or that species
is of human institution, and limited, some with
larger, others with stricter bands, each one according
to his constitution. I do not, therefore, think the
authorities may do any thing, and yet such obedience
due; but all agree there are cases in which it is
lawful to resist. If so, your ground fails, and so
likewise the inference. Indeed, dear Robin, not to
multiply words, the query is, whether ours is such a
case? This ingeniously is the true question. To this
I shall say nothing, though I could say very much;
but only desire thee to see what thou findest in thy
own heart, as to two or three plain considerations.
First, Whether _salus populi_ be a sound position?
Secondly, Whether in the way in hand, really and before
the Lord, before whom conscience must stand, this be
provided for; or the whole fruit of the war like to be
frustrated, and almost like to turn to what it was, and
worse? And this contrary to engagements, declarations,
implicit covenants with those who ventured their lives
upon those covenants and engagements, without whom
perhaps, in equity, relaxation ought not to be.
Thirdly, Whether this army be not a lawful power called
by God to oppose and fight against the King upon so
stated grounds; and being in power to such ends, may
not oppose one name of authority for those ends as well
as another? the outward authority that called them,
not by their power making the quarrel lawful; but it
being so in itself. If so, it may be, acting will be
justified _in foro humano_. But truly these kind of
reasonings may be but fleshly, either with or against;
only it is good to try what truth may be in them. And
the Lord teach us.”
[80] The letter is given in _pp. 162-5_ of Tytler’s “_Trials of Charles
I_.”
H. (_Page 167._) DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE KING’S TROOPS AND THE TOWN’S
PEOPLE.
The following letter,[81] written from Bridgnorth in the year 1642,
affords evidence of the fact, that there were partizans of the
Parliament in the town, who doubtless did their best to alienate the
minds of the people from the King’s cause; and also that the rude
conduct of the soldiers, in the royal army, greatly aggravated the
evil. The statements made on this latter subject must however be taken
with some allowance, as they are made under the influence of strong
party feeling.
“_Bridgenorth, Octob. 1. 1642._
“Our Countrey is in a most miserable condition, there
is nothing can be expected but a totall ruine thereof,
except God do miraculously help us with assistance from
the Parliament. The Kings Souldiers are altogether bent
on mischief, taking, wasting, and spoyling those things
we should live by: they do take our Corn unthresht
to litter their horses, spoyling that which many a
poor creature wants; if any one speak, be it man or
woman, either a Pistoll or a Sword is straight set to
the party, with many grievous oathes; They know what
they do, they are the King’s servants, and will not
be limitted of their will: you may judge by this what
a case we are in; and for any thing we can perceive,
like to be worse; for as long as these outrages are
permitted, no question but the King’s Army will
encrease: What with Papists, Atheists, and all
desperate Ruffians, they have made _Shrewsbury_ strong,
as it is reported to us; many Pieces of Ordnance,
300 Carts laden with Ammunition; and our County of
_Shropshire_ is very much awed, many wel-affected
people withdraw themselves: The Sheriff here hath
lately seized certain thousands of pounds at our Town
of _Bridgenorth_, intended to be sent down Severn
lately to _Bristoll_, by M. _Charlton_ of _Ayley_, M.
_Baker_ of _Hamond_, and others: We have many brags
here of the Cavaliers, what victories they have had
at _Worcester_, though we know for certain they are
notorious lyes; yet we dare not contradict them: it
grieves the soul of every good Christian, to see how
His Majestie is misled. We are glad to hear of your
constancy to the King and Parliament; our affections
are the same, though we dare not shew it: for all the
reports you have heard, you may perhaps understand
by the next, that _Shropshire_ is not altogether so
malignant as it is reported; fear makes us yeild to
many things. I am in haste.
_Yours, T. C._”
There is a copy of a letter among the _Blakeway Papers_ from Prince
Maurice, addressed to His Majesty’s Commissioners for the county of
Salop, dated 1645, which also affords evidence of some disaffection
to the royal cause among the people of Bridgnorth, or, at least, some
slackening of zeal in the King’s service, produced most likely by the
causes above referred to.
“GENTLEMEN,
“This day I received a letter from Sir Lewis Kyrke,
Governor of Bridgnorth, alleadging that his warrant
for the advancement of the works at Bridgnorth were
disobeyed, which I cannot avoyde to take notice of,
being sent downe by His Majesty to advance the affayres
of these parts, for the good of His Majesty’s service.
To the intent that I may ease and cherish your county
as much as may bee, therefore I desire to knowe what
their grievances and dislikes are, and why and upon
what ground the Governor’s warrants were neglected,
that if reason be shewed, I may doe the country that
right, which in justice they may expect, or however see
those things perfected, which conduce to the security
of those parts, and the better serving His Majesty,
which is all att present I have to say, but that I am,
Gentlemen,
Your lv. ffriend,
MAURICE,
Comr. of Salop.”
Worcester,
19 of January, 1645.
ffor his Majesty’s Commissioners of the County of Salop.
[81] This letter forms a part of a tract, entitled “A true and exact
Relation of the Proceedings of His Majesties Army in Cheshire,
Shropshire and Worstershire. Together with what hath happened to the
late Lord Strange, now Earl of Derby, before Manchester. With the
Resolution of the Town to oppose him; and the number of Men which were
slain.” It is bound up in a Volume of very valuable tracts, referring
to the events of this period, and was kindly lent to me by the Rev. T.
L. Claughton, of Kidderminster.