Ecclesiastical
HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
VOLUME II.
Ecclesiastical
HISTORY OF ENGLAND,
FROM THE OPENING OF THE LONG PARLIAMENT TO THE
DEATH OF OLIVER CROMWELL.
BY
JOHN STOUGHTON.
VOLUME II.
THE CHURCH OF THE COMMONWEALTH.
[Illustration]
London:
JACKSON, WALFORD, AND HODDER,
27, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
MDCCCLXVII.
UNWIN BROTHERS, GRESHAM STEAM PRESS, BUCKLERSBURY, LONDON, E.C.
[Illustration]
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PAGE.
Cromwell, Vane, and Marten 1
Spoliation of the Church 6
Opposition to the New Government 11
Religion in Wales and Ireland 14
Ministerial Support 15
Moral Legislation 16
Decline of Marten's Influence 18
Religious Policy of Parliament 19
CHAPTER II.
Charles Stuart 20
Scotch Treaty with Charles 21
Royalist Intrigues 25
Charles in Scotland 31
Declaration of the Presbyterians 32
Cromwell in Scotland 35
Battle of Dunbar 37
Coronation of Charles in Scotland 39
Protesters and Resolutionists 41
The Army and the King 42
Battle of Worcester 43
Christopher Love 44
His Trial 46
His Death 48
CHAPTER III.
Little Parliament 51
Francis Rouse, Speaker 54
Harrison, Desborough, Lambert, and Tomlinson 55
Alteration of the Marriage Law 56
Report of the Tithe Committee 59
Fifth Monarchy Men 61
Feake at Blackfriars 65
Feake and Powell 68
Cromwell made Protector 72
State Affairs at the Time 75
Cromwell's Policy 79
CHAPTER IV.
CROMWELL'S ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY.
State Recognition 81
State Control 83
State Support 88
State Protection 89
State Penalties 90
Cromwell's Establishment not, properly speaking, a Church 93
Moral Discipline 94
CHAPTER V.
First Protectorate Parliament 96
Strength of the Presbyterian Party 98
Limits of Toleration 99
Treatment of John Biddle 102
CHAPTER VI.
Commissioners at Whitehall 104
Ejection of Scandalous Ministers 107
Dr. Edward Pocock 109
Trouble with Episcopalian Royalists 110
Proceedings against them 111
Major-Generals 113
Ecclesiastical Affairs in Scotland 117
---- in Wales 118
---- in Ireland 121
Sir Henry Vane 123
CHAPTER VII.
Second Protectorate Parliament 128
Cromwell's Speech 131
Case of James Naylor 133
Cromwell's Letters 134
Extempore Preaching 137
The New Constitution 138
Cromwell's Speech 141
Comprehensiveness of his Views 143
His Liberal Opinions 145
Commissioners for Approbation of Public Preachers 146
Tithes 147
Catechising 149
Debates on Sabbath Observance 150
Cromwell's Second Installation 153
Re-assembling of Parliament 156
Cromwell's Opening Speech 157
Debates 158
Cromwell's Last Speeches 160
Parliament dissolved 162
Council of State 163
CHAPTER VIII.
Presbyterian System 165
Herrick at Manchester 168
Martindale 171
Newcome 173
Sion College 174
Meetings of the London Synod 175
Presbyterianism in London 177
Church Discipline 179
Edmund Calamy 182
William Jenkyn 183
William Bates 185
Samuel Clarke 185
Peter Vink 187
Richard Baxter 187
Thomas Wilson 196
Thomas Hall 197
Thomas Gataker 198
Dr. John Gauden 201
Dr. Thomas Fuller 202
Abraham Colfe 204
CHAPTER IX.
Congregational Churches 207
Congregationalism and the State 211
Joseph Caryl 216
Nye and Greenhill 217
Matthew Mead 218
William Bridge 219
John Flavel 220
John Howe 220
Congregationalism in Scotland 225
---- in Ireland 226
Cathedral Worship 228
CHAPTER X.
Early Baptists 230
John Tombes 238
Henry Jessy 239
Thomas Ewins 240
John Bunyan 241
Baptists in Wales 243
---- In Ireland and Scotland 244
CHAPTER XI.
Oxford University 247
Owen, Vice-Chancellor 249
Academical Reforms 253
University Costumes 253
Oxford Celebrities 254
Evelyn's Visit 258
Loyalty of the University to Cromwell 260
Walton's Polyglott 261
Owen's Criticism 263
Cambridge University 265
Sydrach Simpson and William Dell 269
Akehurst 271
Evelyn at Cambridge 273
Presbyterianism in the University 274
Dr. Witchcot 276
Dr. Lightfoot 277
Dr. Cudworth 278
Patrick--More--and Smith 279
Cambridge Studies 281
---- Theology 281
Cambridge and Oxford compared 284
University of Durham 286
St. George's Chapel, Windsor 290
Public Schools 291
CHAPTER XII.
Episcopalians--George Bull 294
John Hacket 296
Barksdale 296
Peter Gunning 297
Parsons 298
Farindon 298
Nathaniel Hardy 301
Godfrey Goodman 302
Ussher 303
Joseph Hall 305
Morton and other Bishops 306
Bishops who survived the Return of Charles II. 308
Bramhall 309
Cosin 318
Morley 319
Basire 321
Jeremy Taylor 322
Sanderson and Hammond 324
Hammond's Letters and Death 330
Thorndike 335
Episcopalians 337
Forms of Prayer used by them 340
Episcopalian Loyalty 342
CHAPTER XIII.
Mysticism 348
Rise of Quakerism 349
George Fox 349
His Meeting with Cromwell 358
His Disciples 359
Persecution of Quakers 362
James Naylor 363
Number of Sects 365
Floating Mysticism 369
CHAPTER XIV.
Private and Social Life 371
Baptism 371
Education 374
Marriage 376
Puritan Women 378
Family Worship 380
Observance of the Lord's Day 381
Belief in Witchcraft 383
Clerical Costume 387
Churches 388
Public Worship 389
The Lord's Supper 391
Psalmody 393
Seasons of National Humiliation 394
Recreations 395
Social Habits 399
The Protector's Court 401
Visitation of Sick and Burial Service 405
CHAPTER XV.
Varieties of Spiritual Life 408
George Herbert 409
Hammond 411
Fuller 412
George Dalston 413
Quarles 415
Montague and Grenville 416
Evelyn's Son 418
Richard Fairclough 420
John Lamot 421
Sir Nathaniel Barnardston 422
Christian Women 423
Ages of Christendom 428
Differences between Sects 430
Idiosyncrasies of Individuals 431
State of Religion 433
CHAPTER XVI.
Early English Colonization 443
Pilgrim Fathers 451
Laud's Colonial Policy 455
Colonies during the Civil Wars 459
Colonies during the Protectorate 463
New England 463
Rhode Island 467
Barbadoes 469
Virginia 472
West Indies 475
Maryland 477
East Indies and Levant 480
CHAPTER XVII.
Continental Churches 483
Durie and Laud 484
Sir Thomas Roe 486
Protestant Alliance 487
Persecution of the Piedmontese 490
Cromwell's Interference 492
Collections for the Sufferers 495
Cromwell and Louis XIV. 499
Other Persecuted Protestants 500
Cromwell's Foreign Policy 503
Treatment of the Jews 504
CHAPTER XVIII.
Cromwell at Hampton Court 508
His Last Interview with Fox 510
His Last Days 511
His Last Words 517
His Death 520
APPENDIX.
I. Letters respecting the Trial of Strafford 524
II. Plan of Church Reform 526
III. Articles of the Church of England, with the alterations
made by the Assembly 528
IV. Solemn League and Covenant 535
V. Minutes of the Westminster Assembly 538
VI. Number of the Ejected Clergy 539
VII. Draft of a Bill for Revising the English Translation
of the Scriptures 543
VIII. Extract from the Records of the Church at Bury St.
Edmund's 545
IX. Note on Ritualism 547
[Illustration]
CHAPTER I.
All ecclesiastical power in England having been long before snatched
from royal hands, the death of Charles I. produced no effect upon the
condition of the Church. The control of its political destinies had
from the year 1641 rested with the House of Commons; and with the
remnant of that assembly the control continued, when the kingdom became
a Commonwealth in name as well as in fact.
[Sidenote: 1649, February.]
The Presbyterians, immediately after Pride's purge, lost their place in
the government of this country, upon which the political Independents
at once assumed supremacy in the State. Of the old ecclesiastical
reformers who belonged to that party, and had made themselves
conspicuous in the year 1641, the chief now remaining in power were
Oliver Cromwell, Sir Henry Vane,[1] Henry Marten, Oliver St. John, and
Sir Arthur Haselrig; and these remarkable men all took their seats
at the table of the new Council of State, being installed as members
of it in the month of February, 1649. The other persons occupying
places beside them were nothing more than satellites. Neither St.
John nor Haselrig held any leading position. The former was more a
lawyer than a statesman, and his cold nature and reserved disposition
gave him neither influence with his equals nor popularity with his
inferiors. Haselrig was no less distinguished by his rashness. Having
been simply a follower of Pym, he had not, since his master's death,
acquired sufficient influence to make himself a leader; and his want of
judgment, though it did not exclude him from the council board, left
him without much weight in its deliberations.
[Sidenote: _Cromwell, Vane, and Marten._]
Vane, Cromwell, and Marten, therefore, were now the English
_triumvirate_. Vane and Marten were staunch republicans. Staunch
republicans they had been from the beginning. How far Cromwell was
really so--whether indeed he ever could be considered one at all--are
questions on which much may be said; but at any rate, the government
which he now joined was republican in fact, and to that government,
for the present, the majority of Englishmen felt compelled to submit.
The patriotism of the new rulers cannot be fairly questioned. The
vulgar notion of their selfish ambition appears, when we consider the
circumstances in which they were placed, little short of an absurdity;
yet there can be no doubt that the majority of the people did not
sympathize with them, but only tolerated for a season what they could
not altogether prevent.
[Sidenote: 1649, February.]
Before recording what was done by the Council of State, it is fitting
to notice somewhat further the character and opinions of the men who
mainly guided its deliberations and plans. Marten, who was as distant
as possible from being a Puritan, had little liking for the sermons
and prayers which at times would be forced upon him, and he most
enjoyed himself whilst entertaining friends in the Vale of the White
Horse, with hospitalities which must have appeared scandalous in the
eyes of his staid and sober compatriots. A man of the world, and, if
report speaks justly, a man of licentious habits, he was at the same
time honest and genial, and, like many shrewd folks of his class, knew
how to behave in the presence of religious people so as not to shock
their sensibilities. Cromwell and Vane--in this respect the opposite
of Marten--were sincerely religious. The question in reference to the
former has been set at rest by the publication of his speeches and
correspondence, all of which are plainly animated by a spirit of devout
earnestness. Not only on state occasions, when performing his part
before the world, not only in intercourse with men of strong puritan
feeling, from whom it might be supposed he had some point to gain,
but also in the most retired privacies of domestic life, Cromwell
expressed sentiments of evangelical piety. That hypocrisy should be
carried to such a length, that a man should be so cunning as always
to wear a veil of apparent religious sincerity in his most private
correspondence, without ever betraying himself, is simply incredible;
and besides, the incidental way in which religion is introduced into
his letters, shews that it was nothing patched upon a character of a
different kind, but something which was part of the very texture of his
whole being and his entire life. It is not our province to solve the
problem, how certain acts of the puritan general and certain habits
of the puritan statesman are to be reconciled with the possession of
sincere Christianity; yet we may be allowed, in passing, to observe
that such an ugly fact as the Drogheda massacre would be less terrible
to Cromwell's contemporaries--to men familiar with the barbarities of
the Thirty Years' War and the exploits of Count Tilly--than it is to
us. Fanaticism, and what may be termed a fierce prudential policy, had,
doubtless, more to do with Cromwell's deeds in Ireland than cruelty
of disposition. "I am persuaded," he says, "that this is a righteous
judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their
hands in so much innocent blood, and that it will tend to prevent the
effusion of blood for the future." No one can help seeing in these
words a revengeful justice excited by the Popish massacres of 1641,
like that which would nerve the arm of an English officer when fighting
with Sepoys by the well of Cawnpore. There are some parts of Cromwell's
political conduct which we will not attempt to defend; we would not
avail ourselves for that purpose even of what is said by Lord Bacon on
"simulation and dissimulation;" but we do think that, whilst condemning
certain forms of statecraft in the policy of the great statesman of
the Commonwealth, we ought to allow him the benefit of a comparison
with preceding rulers. To mention only Queen Elizabeth, accounted
by the Puritans of Cromwell's day as one of the most illustrious
sovereigns that ever sat on the throne of England, it may be maintained
that her diplomacy, in its strategic cunning, went beyond anything
recorded in the life of Oliver Cromwell.[2]
Vane's sincerity cannot be questioned. He might be an enthusiast.
His religious opinions might be visionary and wild. A cloudy mysticism
might belong to his theology, and enthusiasm might mingle with his
devotion; but as to the genuineness of his character, the transparency
of his ways, and the pure truthfulness which lived in the centre of his
soul, no one acquainted with his history can have any reasonable doubt.
[Sidenote: _Cromwell, Vane, and Marten._]
The religion of these two men, however, presented very different
aspects. A tinge of mysticism, indeed, is to be detected in the colour
of Cromwell's piety; but it is the predominant hue of Vane's whole
life. Vane could rise to heights of philosophical speculation, which
Cromwell had no power and no desire to reach. Nothing strikes us more
than the robust English common sense of Cromwell's mind, compared with
which that of Vane appears full of German transcendentalism. Vane, no
doubt, had a theory of church polity, as well as of secular government,
more complete, more consistent, and more accurately wrought out than
Cromwell ever held; but he had far less of that inward mysterious
force which, working outwardly, wins the mastery over others--far less
of that inexplicable secret which makes a man, in the judgment of
posterity, _a king of men_.
[Sidenote: 1649, March.]
In ecclesiastical politics, Cromwell and Vane were agreed; and, so far
as they walked in that path, Marten accompanied them. All three were as
anti-presbyterian as they were anti-episcopal, and hated the spiritual
despotism of synods as much as they did the rule of Archbishop Laud.
They were pledged to toleration, and wished to give full play to the
activity of the sects, so far as was consistent with the stability
of the new government. Vane could well elaborate the philosophy of
religious freedom; but Marten, perhaps, advanced still further in
relation to its exercise. He reached practical conclusions which were
thought to imply religious indifference, though the same conclusions
are now firmly held by many, the earnestness of whose piety none would
question. In a petition presented to the House of Commons in 1648, and
generally attributed to his pen, these passages occur: "That you would
have exempted matters of religion and God's worship from the compulsive
or restrictive power of any authority upon earth, and reserved to the
supreme authority an uncompulsive power only of appointing a way for
the public, whereby abundance of misery, persecution, and heart-burning
would for ever be avoided." "That you would have removed the tedious
burden of tithes, satisfying all impropriations, and providing a more
equal way of maintenance for the public ministers." In the same tone
reference is made to the laws against blasphemy and heresies; men, it
is said, being easily mistaken, and Divine truths not needing human
support.[3]
An extraordinary crisis had now arrived in ecclesiastical affairs.
The fate of the Church had become subject almost entirely to the will
of three men, one of whom was an utter worldling, another a spiritual
theorist, and the third an evangelical Independent, and at the same
time a man full of political sagacity.
[Sidenote: _Question of Toleration._]
A declaration of Parliament, stating the grounds of their late
proceedings, and the republican nature of the present government,
appeared in the month of March.[4] The document entered fully into
a defence of the measures which had issued in this result; but the
authors were exceedingly cautious in their ecclesiastical references.
They state that their design had been to deliver England from tyranny,
to prevent a new war, to establish a safe peace, and to provide for
the due worship of God according to His word, the advancement of the
true Protestant religion, the maintenance of godly ministers, and "a
just liberty for the consciences, persons, and estates of all men,
conformable to God's glory and their own peace."[5]
[Sidenote: 1649, April.]
These vague expressions are remarkable, especially when it is
remembered that the declaration, though published by Parliament, must
have emanated from the Council of State. In reference to the doctrine
of toleration, it lagged behind the "Agreement of the People of
England," a document which is ascribed to General Ireton, and which
was presented in the name of the army to the House of Commons in
January, a few days before the King's execution. For that political and
ecclesiastical manifesto, whilst it recognized the national profession
of Christianity and the duty of publicly instructing the people, adds
the significant words, "_so it be not compulsive_;" and also, whilst
it excluded Popery and Prelacy from toleration, and approved of the
maintenance of religious teachers out of the public treasury, it also
protested against perpetuating tithes, enforcing religion by penalties,
and the disturbing of those who "profess faith in God by Jesus Christ,
however differing in judgment from the doctrine, worship, or discipline
publicly held forth," provided they did not disturb the public peace.[6]
[Sidenote: _Spoliation of the Church._]
To such lengths Ireton and certain other officers wished to push the
new government; but extreme men in the army were not then, as is often
supposed, the rulers of the country, either in religious or in secular
affairs. The statesmen possessed the supreme power, and of that power
Cromwell exercised the largest share, simply because he possessed
as much of the sagacity and wisdom required for the cabinet, as of
the valour and generalship needed in the field. And hence it was,
that although the army rushed forward towards extreme ecclesiastical
measures, the government paused, and declined to adopt any plan for
the abolition of tithes; and also maintained so much reticence in
expressing what was designed in relation to the extent of religious
liberty. The Presbyterians had become alarmed at the paper drawn up by
the army, and the ministers of the county of Essex had plainly declared
what were the evils which they apprehended in consequence.[7] In their
worst apprehensions, many other clergymen throughout the country
deeply shared; and the new rulers were not so firmly seated on their
thrones that they could afford unnecessarily to provoke the anger of
such a number of influential persons. To expound fully at that moment
their ecclesiastical policy would inevitably have exasperated their
opponents; and therefore they maintained a prudent reserve, and acted
with extreme caution.
What the Council said is recorded in their Declaration, what they
did may be traced in the Acts of Parliament passed at that time. The
new financiers of the State, in order to meet the pressing necessities
of the Commonwealth, availed themselves of cathedral property. The
ordinance of 1646 for abolishing Bishops, and selling their lands,
had taken no notice of the titles and of the possessions of Deans
and Chapters. These possessions presented a rich quarry to the needy
masters of the realm; consequently, at the end of April, the House of
Commons was found at work upon this new spoil.[8] An Act was passed
for abolishing the offices of Deans and Prebendaries and Archdeacons,
and for investing the endowments of cathedral chapters in the hands
of trustees, for the supply of the necessities of the Commonwealth.
Other Acts followed for the purpose of removing obstructions to the
sale of these estates, and affording encouragement to purchasers. Yet,
we may add, that although the stalls of cathedrals were swept of their
occupants, with no legal authority remaining for the appointment of
successors, Bishop Wren continued the forms of presentation to prebends
at Ely, as he had done all along from the commencement of the civil
wars. His regular collations to preferments, as they fell vacant,
appear in the records of his see.[9]
[Sidenote: 1649, June.]
Amidst this wholesale spoliation of the Church it must be remembered
the public support of religion was not neglected. An Act of the 8th
of June provided maintenance for preaching ministers and other pious
uses out of the appropriate tithes belonging to the late hierarchy.
No charge remained on cathedral estates for the service of religion.
Such property had undergone a thorough secularization;[10] but the
appropriate tithes pertaining to the Bishops were reserved and placed
under trustees for the support of the Christian ministry. From that
source, according to the Act, salaries and augmentation of salaries
were to be supplied; so that every minister should eventually receive
£100 a year. The sum of £18,000 per annum was at once to be raised
for this purpose, and £2,000 per annum was added for increasing the
maintenance of the masterships of colleges.[11]
[Sidenote: _Opposition to the New Government._]
The Council of State and the House of Commons found it hard work to
defend their authority. To silence groans of discontent, uttered in
divers publications, they had recourse to the common expedient of
revolutionary governments, and passed an Act against the licentiousness
of the press. The army discontents also rose alarmingly around the new
rulers. Levellers, with their wild schemes, were very busy. A trooper,
described as a religious man "of excellent parts and much beloved,"
but tinctured strongly with fifth monarchy notions, had to be shot for
his share in a mutiny. Yet, such was the view taken of his case by the
people, that at his funeral, "the corpse was adorned with bundles of
rosemary one-half stained in blood." Sea green and black ribbons were
tied to the hats and breasts of the thousands who followed the coffin
rank and file; and many even of the better sort met the procession at
the churchyard.[12] It was a serious sign of disaffection for so many
persons to shew sympathy with a leveller.
[Sidenote: 1649.]
But the opposition made in the pulpit to the new rulers constituted
a still more formidable difficulty. Presbyterian preachers, who at
the beginning of the war had defended the army, could not be silent,
now that the war had led to results so very different from what they
had contemplated. No wonder then that many of them denounced what had
been done at Westminster and Whitehall. They accused the usurpers of
blood-guiltiness, and regarded the High Court of Justice as "framing
iniquity by law." They held themselves bound, they said, in duty to
God, religion, the King, the Parliament, and the kingdom, to profess
before angels and men, that they verily believed the taking away the
life of Charles was opposed to the teaching of the Bible, and the
spirit of the Protestant religion. The whole business they declared
to be inconsistent with the oath of allegiance, and contrary to
the solemn League and Covenant. Accordingly, they prayed for the
Prince of Wales as Charles II. Mr. Cawton, a Presbyterian minister,
did so before the Lord Mayor of London. While all this is not to
be wondered at, and the men who so acted for conscience' sake are
commendable for their courage, it is no matter of surprise that the
new government, in self-defence, should strive to put an end to such
dangerous proceedings. Therefore, in March, an Act appeared, forbidding
ministers in their pulpits to meddle with affairs of State, or to
hold correspondence with foreign powers. They were ordered to apply
themselves simply to the preaching of the Gospel for the edification of
their hearers.[13]
[Sidenote: _Declaration of Parliament._]
It became necessary for Parliament to vindicate its conduct. It
did so, and, in the declaration published with that view, passages
appear relating to religion, in which is recapitulated what had been
accomplished in the way of reformation; and desires are avowed for
the furtherance of the same object. The rulers profess their wish to
suppress Popery, superstition, blasphemy, and profaneness; but they
also express their desire to remove such acts and ordinances as coerce
conscience, "which have been made use of for snares, burdens, and
vexations to the truly sincere-hearted people of God, that fear Him
and wait for the coming of His Son Jesus Christ." This last clause of
course would please the army. The sheets containing it, wet from the
press, would be despatched to the camp, and eagerly would soldiers
gather round some comrade sitting by his tent door, to read the new
proclamation. The millenarian leveller would take comfort from these
words, whether they were meant for him or not. But what would the
Presbyterians think? The next sentence seems intended to soothe their
fears--and, if it did so, it would rouse alarm in the minds of extreme
men, just elated by the tenor of the preceding paragraph. "And because
we are not ignorant how injuriously our proceedings herein are charged
upon us, as if we were setting up and countenancing _an universal
toleration_, when our true aim in the liberty we give is _only_ the
necessary encouragement we conceive due to all that are lovers of God,
and the purity and power of religion, we can and do therefore declare,
in the sight of God and man, that by whomsoever we shall find this
liberty abused, we shall be most ready to testify our displeasure
and abhorrency thereof by a strict and effectual proceeding against
such offenders."[14] Here the countenance of the Presbyterian would
brighten, and that of the wild sectary would fall.
[Sidenote: 1650.]
As protestations and covenants had been the order of the day, a new
test of obedience was now contrived under the name of _an Engagement_.
The security of the State demanded something of the kind, for authority
cannot exist without allegiance. Reference to religion is indeed
avoided in the Engagement, and by the terms used in it no spiritual
supremacy whatever is claimed; Presbyterians nevertheless considered
the new oath to be inconsistent with their Covenant engagements; and,
taking this view, they gave a religious character to that which had
been carefully framed in order to prevent any such construction. The
new political test appeared to them a snare to catch consciences, and
a sword to wound them. Transformed into an anti-covenant pledge, it
kindled throughout England the fire of a fierce indignation.
On the 22nd of February, 1649-50, the House passed a law for the better
propagation of the gospel in Wales, and on the 8th of March, another
for the better advancement of religion and learning in Ireland. The
latter provided for the maintenance of seminaries in and near the city
of Dublin. Archiepiscopal manors and lands were vested in trustees
for the use of Trinity College, and for the erection and maintenance
of a free-school; the appointment of governors and masters being
vested in the Lord Lieutenant; and the trustees, with his consent,
having authority given them to make rules and ordinances subject to
confirmation by Parliament.[15] The same month saw a statute for the
more frequent preaching of the gospel, and for the better maintenance
of ministers in the city of Bristol.[16]
[Sidenote: _Religious Legislation._]
In the spring of 1650, Parliament resumed the question of ministerial
support, and a new Act was passed for pious uses,[17] for the
augmentation of livings and for the payment of heads of houses in the
Universities; £80 per annum being specially provided for "the Margaret
Lecturer of Oxford."
Other characteristic instances of religious and moral legislation
appear in the statute book for the year 1650. By virtue of an Act
passed the 19th of April, penalties were to be levied for the
desecration of the Sabbath, and for the non-observance of thanksgiving
and humiliation days. Seasons of both kinds were put on a level, which
was a position of things not at all consistent with puritan ideas of
the Divine authority of the lord's Day, Goods carried in the streets at
such times were liable to seizure; travellers and waggoners, if they
performed a journey during the hours of holy rest, were to be fined ten
shillings. Writs and warrants executed on a Sunday were to lose their
effect, and persons serving them were exposed to the payment of a fine
of five pounds. Nobody was to use a boat, a horse, a coach, or a sedan,
except for going to church, upon pain of forfeiting ten shillings. The
like penalty was to fall on those who visited taverns and alehouses.
Authority was given to officers to search for offenders, and justices
and constables were made liable to penalties if they neglected their
duties. The Act was to be read in all the churches yearly upon the
first lord's Day in the month of March.[18]
[Sidenote: 1650.]
Profane cursing and swearing were prohibited by an Act passed the
28th of June, with a curiously graduated scale of penalties, arranged
according to the rank of the offender. A lord was to be fined thirty
shillings; a baronet or knight, twenty; an esquire, ten; a simple
gentleman was to pay six and eight-pence, and people of inferior
quality, three and fourpence. A double fine followed a second offence;
and after a tenth instance of transgression the culprit was to give a
bond for good behaviour. The law made no distinction between men and
women, and gave charge to all constables vigilantly to hunt out all
offenders.[19]
There followed, on the 9th of August, a statute against certain
atheistical, blasphemous, and execrable opinions derogatory to the
honour of God, and destructive to human society, the enumeration
of which includes the most monstrous opinions, such even as the
following:--that a human being might proclaim himself to be God, to
be infinite, to be almighty; that the blasphemy of the Most High,
and other horrible acts are not in themselves shameful; that murder,
adultery, and the like, are in their own nature as righteous as the
duties of prayer; that happiness consists in sensual indulgence; that
there is no such thing as sin, or salvation, or damnation, or heaven,
or hell. Persons holding such opinions were to be punished by six
months' imprisonment, or, on a second conviction, by banishment out of
the Commonwealth. A return without licence incurred the consequences
attendant on felony.[20]
[Sidenote: _Moral Legislation._]
We have given this specification of opinions as we find it in the
Act, because no general description of it could convey an idea of the
extraordinary vagaries of thought to which it points. Taken as they
nakedly appear in this unique schedule, they must have been of an
ultra-fanatical kind, such as we should suppose only madmen would
entertain. But, upon a little reflection, it appears not unlikely
that some of the opinions pronounced execrable were, by those charged
with holding them, expressed in a different form of words from that
given in the Act, and that they really consisted only in those wild
pantheistic speculations to which transcendental thinkers of a certain
description have always been addicted. Amidst excitements which moved
human nature to the loftiest heights and the lowest depths, which
brought out conspicuously what was in man, both of good and evil, it
was not strange that the ignorant should bluntly say some of the same
absurd things which the learned have been wont to convey in specious
phrase and polished diction. At all events, there must have been a
large amount of very objectionable, and even monstrous teaching in
those days, to have called forth such minute notice and such terrible
denunciation.
[Sidenote: 1650.]
Private morals likewise were scanned and marked by these vigilant
legislators.[21] Their policy, as we have said before, was intended
to supply a defect consequent upon the abolition of the old Church
courts, proceeding as it did upon the idea handed down for ages, that
penal laws sufficed to extinguish individual vice, as well as to
suppress social crime--an idea now, after an uninterrupted continuance
of failures, almost universally regarded as utterly delusive. The
Long Parliament in these, its last days, threatened incest with death
without benefit of clergy; it marked adultery as felonious, and it
punished fornication with three months' imprisonment. A common bawd
was to be whipped, set in the pillory, branded with a hot iron, and
committed to the House of Correction for three years: a repetition of
the offence was to be treated as a capital crime. Henry Marten, looking
at the subject from what was then the common point of view, justly
observed, in the course of the debate to which the measure gave rise,
that such severity only served to increase transgression, inasmuch as
merciful people would shrink from bringing offenders to justice, and
offenders escaping with impunity would be encouraged in sin.
The laws which we have just enumerated were passed in the spring and
summer of 1650; and it was about that time, indeed shortly before the
speech just noticed, that the influence of Marten passed its zenith,
and he descended from the high position he had occupied in the rule
of the Commonwealth. The cause of that event, partly political and
partly personal, is to be found in his stern republicanism, and in his
disputes with Oliver Cromwell. An enquiry into that subject does not
come within the scope of our history, nor do the consequences of it
concern us further than this, that they indirectly touched the state
of ecclesiastical affairs: for Marten's exclusion from the Council of
State in February, 1650, and the inconsiderable part which he took in
public business after his re-admission, amounted, according to the view
which we have taken, to the dismissal or the withdrawal of one of the
memorable _triumvirate_ who had wielded for a time supreme authority in
the Church as well as the State. Vane's power was of longer duration,
but his disappearance from the lofty sphere he had occupied is an event
which we shall speedily have to notice--an event which will be found to
have left the government of England in the hands of that one man, who,
as the greatest general and statesman of his age, was alone competent
to rule his country in the hour of its peril, and the crisis of its
fate.
[Sidenote: _Moral Legislation._]
An Act of the 27th of September, 1650, places the religious policy
of Parliament in a very doubtful light.[22] It repealed old acts of
uniformity. It professed to relieve the religious and the peaceable
from the rigour of previous intolerance. Yet this very law goes on to
say, that it does not interfere with existing acts and ordinances for
the due observance of the lord's Day, and days of public thanksgiving
and humiliation; and it therefore requires that on all such days, every
person within the Commonwealth shall resort to some public place, where
the service and worship of God is exercised, or shall be present at
some other place, in the practice of religious duty. Latitude seems
to have been given to the mode of obedience, for people were not
tied up to any set form--so far they were released from the bonds of
Elizabeth's statute. Still religious worship of some kind continued
compulsory, and those who neglected religious duties altogether were to
be proceeded against as criminals. No penalty indeed is specified--it
is only declared that such as broke this law should be proceeded
against accordingly--and probably the statute proved a dead letter; but
such an enactment, although it might commend itself to the Puritan, was
utterly inconsistent with religious liberty, as expounded by Marten,
Vane, and others of the republican school.
[Illustration]