In 1653 the Long Parliament had worn itself out, and its dissolution
had become an inevitable necessity. The last gleams of its expiring
light emanated from Sir Harry Vane, whose character and genius
chiefly, if not entirely, gave to its latest debates whatever of power
and brilliancy they possessed. A true estimate of this previously
illustrious senate, in the period of its decadence, must rest upon a
full consideration of the opinions and conduct of its remaining members
regarded in general, and not upon the exceptional views and virtues of
a single distinguished individual. There can be little or no doubt that
the effect of the later proceedings of this Parliament was likely to
be the ruin of the cause for which it had fought in its earlier years;
and even the policy of Vane--who was a sincere champion of the rights
of conscience, and the toleration of all religious opinions--from being
associated with impracticable republican theories, was not calculated
to prevent that deplorable result.
[Sidenote: _Little Parliament._]
Cromwell, who alone at that moment had the sagacity to perceive to
the full extent the mischiefs which threatened his country, therefore
interposed, with an energy which was as startling as it was bold; and
which is now acknowledged by numerous careful students of history to
have proceeded from wisdom as really profound as it was, at the time,
apparently questionable. Upon the disappearance of the Long Parliament
from the chapel of St. Stephen's, there followed the disappearance of
Sir Harry Vane from the Cabinet of Whitehall. As an honest republican
he could not but condemn the course pursued by his colleague; and the
two men--who, with Marten, for some time after the establishment of the
Commonwealth were the chief pillars of England--now stood parted from
each other in this world for ever. The triumvirate was at an end. It
had given place to a virtual monarchy.[43]
But though Cromwell dissolved the Long Parliament he had no idea of
ruling England without the assistance of a popular assembly; and hence,
within three months after that extraordinary event, a new Parliament
was convened at Westminster.
[Sidenote: 1653, July.]
The theory of its constitution was unique. It was to consist of men
who were able, who loved the truth, who feared God, and who hated
covetousness; so ran the terms employed in certain directions given to
the Congregational churches to send up names to the Lord General,[44]
out of which list, together with another provided by the council of
officers, the members of the new convention were to be selected. There
were not wanting, at such a moment, people to tilt their jests--and
they asked if the image of Him who rode into Jerusalem upon an ass was
not a type of the new deliverer about to ride to a throne on the back
of one hundred and twenty asses--that being the number of the Little
Parliament.
[Sidenote: _Little Parliament._]
Upon the list of the summoned appears the name of Dennis Hollister--a
grocer in High Street, Bristol--a person who had great influence with
the magistrates of the city, and who is described in the records
of the church of which he was a member,[45] "as Diotrephes-like,
loving to have the pre-eminence," and as "sucking in some principles
of an upstart locust doctrine, from a sort of people afterwards
called Quakers." If there be any truth in such a statement, this
new member of Parliament must have been fanatical in one way, while
his fellow-members were fanatical in another; and such conflicting
phases of fanaticism made the settlement of ecclesiastical business
in connexion with the State exceedingly difficult; rendering it
necessary for Cromwell to interpose with his strong English common
sense, unless affairs were left to fall to ruin. Fanatical people
there must have been in this singularly constituted assembly, but it
numbered also persons rationally religious; and even in the fanatics
there might be redeeming qualities. What they said and did are the
truest tests by which to judge of what they really were; and it will
be seen, that amidst their follies, some of their words and deeds
were of a description not to be despised. Much is said of their birth
and station; but the grocers and leather-sellers of that day might
be rich and prosperous, and socially on a level with the merchants
and cotton-lords, who, in our own time, sit upon the benches at
Westminster.[46] There were of the number also, Lords, and Knights, and
Colonels; and two of the individuals summoned, who afterwards sat in
Charles the Second's House of Peers, as Earl of Albemarle and Earl of
Shaftesbury, have been pronounced by history as certainly not the most
respectable persons in the Little Parliament.
[Sidenote: 1653, July.]
On the 4th of July, 1653--a very sultry day--the gentlemen met in
the Whitehall Council Chamber, and seated themselves round the room
on chairs. As Cromwell, with his officers, entered, all present rose
and bowed. The General moved his hat, advanced to the middle window,
and leaning on the back of a chair, addressed them for more than an
hour. Descanting upon religion, he pleaded earnestly that all God's
saints should be treated with tenderness, and that if he had seemed
to reflect upon those who held Presbyterian opinions, he now thought
faithfulness demanded that he should love them. He had, when God had
been gracious to him and his companions, often read that passage: "He
would plant in the wilderness the cedar, the shittah-tree, and the
myrtle, and the oil tree; and He would set in the desert the fir tree,
and the pine tree, and the box tree together. That they may see, and
know, and consider, and understand together." Therefore he besought his
audience to have care for the whole flock--lambs and all--and if the
poorest and most mistaken Christian should desire to live peaceably
and quietly under the government, let him be protected. He pleaded for
a faithful ministry, such as did not derive itself from the Papacy;
the true succession being through the Holy Spirit. He never looked, he
said, to see such a day as that he now witnessed, Jesus Christ being
owned by all. The persons present might not personally be known to each
other; but the endeavour in calling that New Parliament had been, not
to choose any but such as had hope and faith in Christ. "The Lord," he
observed, "shakes the hills and mountains, and they reel; and God hath
a hill too, an high hill as the hill of Bashan, and the chariots of God
are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels, and God will dwell upon
this hill for ever." Such a speech had never before been delivered at
the opening of a Parliament.
When it was finished, a formal instrument devolving authority on the
members was placed on the table, with the General's signature and seal,
after which he left the Chamber,--politically "nothing more than the
brewer's son of Huntingdon."[47]
[Sidenote: _Little Parliament._]
Francis Rouse, provost of Eton, was elected speaker--before which
proceeding the members prayed without a chaplain--"Eight or ten
speaking in prayer to God, and some briefly from the Word." "Much of
the presence of Christ and His Spirit," says a person who was present,
"appearing that day to the great gladdening of the hearts of many--some
affirming they never enjoyed so much of the spirit and presence of
Christ, in any of the meetings and exercises of religion, in all their
lives, as they did that day." On the day following they again spent
some time in prayer, and prayer, it is recorded, "was daily performed
by one member or other, as they were found free to perform it."
Presently again they devoted a day to prayer, which "was done by the
members, principally by such as had not done service before, when also
the Lord General was present, and it was a very comfortable day."[48]
The Lord General had been specially invited to join the Assembly,
together with Harrison, Desborough, Lambert, and Tomlinson.
Major-General Harrison--a rather noble though not refined-looking
man, with flowing locks, irregular features, aquiline nose, and black
eyes, often flashing with enthusiasm--had distinguished himself at
Basinghouse, Preston, and elsewhere, as a stern soldier, and had been
heard by Baxter breaking out into a rapture at Somerton. He was now
getting deep in the study of prophecy, and was expecting the reign
of the saints to succeed the four great monarchies described by the
prophet Daniel. Desborough--a ruder and coarser man than Harrison,
as his face, eyebrows, form, and gait all betokened--who had shewn
himself a gallant soldier in the storming of Bristol, and had become
brother-in-law to Oliver Cromwell--was an Independent, and, after the
Restoration, became a member of Dr. Owen's church, in London. Major
General Lambert--who had done good service in the wars, had routed
the Scots at Linlithgow, and achieved daring feats at Worcester--was
Cromwell's particular friend, and adhered to him throughout his career,
when others turned their backs; a shrewd, clever, practical sort of
person. Tomlinson, Colonel of the Guard at King Charles' execution,
was not, beyond that circumstance, at all a noteworthy individual.[49]
[Sidenote: 1653, July.]
The Little Parliament altered the marriage law,[50] which, owing to
recent confusion, and consequent irregularities in domestic life,
needed amendment. Matrimony was considered by these new legislators
in its relation to the State, and was treated by them simply in the
character of a civil contract; possibly, in part at least, with the
view of diminishing clerical influence, but also with so remarkable an
insight into what is just and wise, as to anticipate modern legislation
in this respect both in England and on the Continent. Parties were
to obtain a certificate from the registrar of the parish, and then
solemnly before a justice of the peace to take each other for husband
and wife. The religious sanctions of the wedding bond were left
entirely to the will of the parties united, and these sometimes were
so connected with the secular part of the ceremony, that the service
altogether resembled the solemnization of matrimony at the present day
in a Nonconformist church in the presence of a registrar.[51]
[Sidenote: _Question of Tithes._]
The Parliament had scarcely commenced its sittings when it entered upon
the consideration of the important subject of tithes; and on the 15th
of July, it was determined by a majority of twenty-five--in a House
consisting of one hundred and eleven members--that the maintenance
of ministers by tithes should not be continued after the 3rd day of
November following. On the 19th of July, upon a renewal of the debate
relative to this subject, the question whether _incumbents_ possessed
a propriety in this kind of income, was referred to the consideration
of a committee specially appointed for that purpose. And to this same
committee a different business was committed on the 26th of the next
month. On that day were presented petitions from several churches in
Devonshire and Gloucestershire, seeking the further reformation of
religion, in connexion with which it was resolved: "That a committee be
appointed to consider of some way to be propounded to the House, how
ignorant, profane, and scandalous ministers may be rejected; That it be
referred to the same committee to consider of some way to be propounded
to the House, for the encouragement of such godly and able persons as
shall preach the Gospel; and That it be referred to the committee for
tithes."[52] The consideration of the question as to whether incumbents
had any property in tithes having been previously entrusted to this
committee, that question now became mixed up with the other relating to
the character of the clergy; and what the Little Parliament ultimately
did respecting the one has been supposed to have been a legislative
decision of the other, which is not the fact.
[Sidenote: 1653.]
Two parties were in contention, one disposed to retain the old tithe
system, the other bent upon supporting ministers in some other way.
Harrison led the latter division, and occupied the extreme left in
relation to the moderates, who were swayed by Cromwell, and who, as to
tithes, agreed with both the Presbyterian and Episcopal parties. The
House generally concurred in the opinion that the collection of tithes
by the clergy was a grievance; yet perhaps only a few members were
prepared to vote for putting an end to that method of support without
the provision of some legal substitute. These few, following Harrison,
were intent on having the impost repealed at once, leaving only such
other provision "as God should direct." A distinction was admitted
throughout the debate between the claims of _impropriators_ and the
claims of _incumbents_. The whole House was willing to compensate
impropriators in case of the forfeiture of their rights. It was the
case of incumbents alone which came under the consideration of the
committee. The utmost measure of change formally proposed was, to put
an end to the payment of the clergy in the old way, and to equalize
benefices by reducing those of £200 per annum and upwards, and by
increasing smaller incomes. It was also suggested that a provision
should be made to meet the wants of ministers' widows and children.[53]
[Sidenote: _Question of Tithes._]
The larger question respecting ignorant, profane, and scandalous
ministers, involved also the minor one touching presentation to
benefices; the predominant feeling of the members favoured the right
of congregations to choose their own pastors. The Puritan current
had long been setting in that direction, and arguments were now urged
to the effect that it was unreasonable for people not to be allowed
to select their own spiritual guides; much, in short, being advanced
upon the subject, of the same kind as is common in the present day. The
parties having a pecuniary interest in the maintenance of things as
they were, did all they could to keep on their side the men in power.
Such people sought protection from the Lord General against what they
deemed Parliament-robbery. However, on the 17th of November, the right
of presentation to benefices by patrons was condemned by a resolution,
and a bill in accordance with it was ordered to be brought in. The
effect of this decision was to place the election of the clergy in the
hands of parishioners.
[Sidenote: 1653, December.]
On the 2nd of December came the long-expected and much-dreaded report
of the Tithe Committee. It first recommended the sending forth
of certain authorized commissioners to enquire into ministerial
character, and next it gave a deliverance with regard to ministerial
maintenance. As this portion of the report is so imperfectly explained
by historians, we will present it to the reader as it is printed in the
journals:--
"_Resolved_--That it be presented to the Parliament: That all such as
are, or shall be approved for public preachers of the Gospel in the
public meeting-places, shall have and enjoy the maintenance already
settled by law, and such other encouragement as the Parliament already
hath appointed, or hereafter shall appoint; and that where any scruple
payment of tithes, the three next justices of the peace, or two of
them, shall, upon complaint, call the parties concerned before them,
and by the oaths of lawful witnesses shall duly apportion the value of
the said tithes, to be paid either in money or land, by them to be set
out according to the said value, to be held and enjoyed by him that
was to have the said tithes; and, in case such apportioned value be
not duly paid or enjoyed, according to the order of the said justices,
the tithes shall be paid in kind, and shall be recovered in any court
of record. Upon hearing and considering what hath been offered to
this Committee touching propriety in tithes of incumbents, rectors,
possessors of donatives, or propriate tithes, it is the opinion of this
Committee, and resolved to be so reported to the Parliament, that the
said persons have a legal propriety in tithes."[54]
An earnest debate ensued, "managed day by day," says one who was
present, "with very great seriousness, many arguments and Scriptures
being alleged," and "very little of heat or passion being shewed all
that time, only one gentleman or two that were for the report, seeing
themselves and their party so engaged, flew out a little, complaining
of the expense of time, to have given a check to the going on of the
debate."[55] The first part of the report, relating to the method of
removing scandalous ministers, upon being put to the vote, was rejected
by a majority of two, fifty-six voting against fifty-four. The second
part, relating to the mode of supporting ministers, and the rights of
property possessed by incumbents, was not put to the vote at all. The
probable rejection of it might be inferred, but no formal rejection was
expressed. What is sometimes represented as the decided abolition of
tithes amounted to no more than the rejection of a Committee of Triers.
That Committee was a favourite scheme of Cromwell's, and was afterwards
by him practically carried out; he also favoured the continuance of
the old method of supporting ministers. But the Little Parliament
indicated a wish to change that method; yet what they decided now, and
even their distinct votes against tithes in the preceding July, did not
necessarily imply that they intended to terminate altogether the state
maintenance of religious worship.[56]
[Sidenote: _Fifth Monarchy Men._]
It is desirable here once more to pause, and to consider the opinions
of Fifth Monarchy men, who were at this time becoming very numerous and
very active.
They may be divided into three classes. The first was composed of _mere
millenarians_, who entertained views not essentially different from
those which had been held in ancient times with regard to the reign of
Christ upon the earth; and whatever may be thought of these persons in
some other respects, their opinions cannot be regarded as involving
anything discreditable to their reputation, inasmuch as in substance
those opinions had received the sanction of a great scholar, Henry
Mead, and of a distinguished philosopher, Henry Moore.
[Sidenote: 1653.]
The second class consisted of _theoretical theocrats_, people who
talked in an extravagant manner respecting Divine dominion, and
generally opposed the authority of Oliver Cromwell; yet they appear
to have been inoffensive persons, not at all disposed to attempt any
violent measures for the realization of their wild and mystical dreams.
John Tillinghurst, the now forgotten author of several publications
on prophecy, which were popular at the time of which we are speaking,
belonged to this order of anti-Cromwell millenarians, who were very
bold and busy, but for the most part very harmless. Some of them wrote
and preached with great confidence upon the prophecies of Daniel and
the Revelations of St. John, only to find, in a short time, their
theories exploded by the criticism of facts.
But the third class included a number of _practical theocrats_ who
blended republican ideas with their theological speculations, and who
were quite disposed, whenever the opportunity offered, to open by force
a path by which the saints might advance to the government of the
world. Venner before and after the Restoration went even this length;
and Harrison, although a different man from Venner, was also a military
theologian, ready with carnal weapons to cast down strongholds. Certain
Anabaptists also belonged to the same division.
[Sidenote: _Fifth Monarchy Men._]
The fifth monarchy fever, in its fanatical symptoms, threatened much
mischief to English society. As in the tenth century the notion then
so common throughout Europe--that the end of the world had come, that
the whole social fabric had crumbled away, and was to give place to an
order of things just on the point of descending from heaven--proceeded
from the existing confusion of the age; so the prevalence of fifth
monarchy dreams, in the earlier part of the Commonwealth, was aided,
no doubt, by the convulsions which had so rudely shaken the whole of
the British Empire. The actual overthrow of the hierarchy, the peerage,
and the throne, with the desolations of civil war, and the disturbance
of the whole country, could not but throw the minds of many into a
maddening whirl, and dash them completely off their balance. Fifth
monarchism arose, in a great measure, out of the ruins of English
monarchism. The enthusiastic visions which absorbed certain minds were,
to a large extent, the effect of prevalent disorder. Men's brains were
crazed by what they had recently witnessed, and their insanity created
omens of other things, brighter or more terrible, which were yet to
come.
[Sidenote: 1653.]
During the sittings of the Little Parliament, the fifth monarchy
delusion reached its height; and to that delusion, though not to that
alone, may be attributed, as to their cause, certain incidents which,
although exaggerated by both Clarendon and Baxter, were not by any
means imaginary. These writers speak of this period, as if the very
existence of the Christian ministry, of rational religion, of the
two Universities, and of Christian learning in general, were then on
the point of complete extinction.[57] Things certainly were not in
that condition. What was actually done in reference to the support
of the clergy has been already described, and it can by no means
be made to sustain the sweeping assertions of those authors; yet,
notwithstanding, the interests of the great seats of education were
placed in fearful jeopardy, as will appear when we have to notice the
history of the University of Oxford at that time; nor can it be denied
that the demolition of some noble ecclesiastical edifices had been
contemplated even before the breaking up of the Long Parliament. The
Norwich Corporation, so early as 1650, debated what should be done with
the cathedral of that city; and in the same year, Yarmouth was seeking
to share in the spoil.[58] Further still, on the 9th of July, 1652, it
was referred to a committee by the House of Commons, to consider this
question: "What cathedrals are fit to stand, and what to be pulled
down." Such intended destruction betokened other spoliations, and the
Long Parliament having set such an example, the Little Parliament had
encouragement to proceed in a similar path.
The proceedings of Harrison and his party could not fail to alarm the
Presbyterians; even the Independents, with Cromwell at their head,
in spite of their broad views of ecclesiastical questions, were also
convinced that nothing but confusion could result from the wild schemes
of republican visionaries and Fifth Monarchists. The country could not
feel confidence in those who formed the slight majority of the House,
and sober-minded men apprehended nothing but ruin from the continuance
of their power. The Parliament itself, with such an even balance of
parties, and amidst so much distraction, had a consciousness of its own
incapacity, which led the members speedily to resign their powers into
the Lord General's hands.[59]
[Sidenote: _Feake at Blackfriars._]
This resignation, Cromwell's acceptance of it, and his consequent
assumption of supreme authority, drove the millenarian democrats into a
still more violent expression of extravagant views, and into still more
decidedly energetic opposition to the Lord General. Preachers of that
day, in close alliance with Harrison, advocated in the pulpit the cause
which he and his party upheld in the senate. A House at Blackfriars
is repeatedly mentioned in contemporary letters as the head quarters
of this menacing agitation. Feake--a well-known Anabaptist and Fifth
Monarchy man--there held forth in a strain of rude eloquence, and
greatly distinguished himself as leader of a large band of sympathizing
disciples. To letters written by contemporaries we are chiefly indebted
for what we know of the proceedings of these enthusiasts.
[Sidenote: 1653.]
"I know not," says the writer of an intercepted epistle, "whether you
have formerly heard of the Monday's lecture at Blackfriars, where
three or four of the Anabaptistical ministers preach constantly, with
very great bitterness, against the present Government, but especially
against his Excellency, calling him 'the man of sin,' 'the old dragon,'
and many other scripture ill names; the chief of them is one Feake,
a bold and crafty orator, and of high reputation amongst them. It
has been wondered the General has so patiently permitted them; but
yesterday I heard the true reason of it, which is, that he cannot help
it, for they preach by an Act of the late Parliament, which the council
of state cannot over-rule, and this Parliament will not abolish it;
but on Tuesday last, as I take it, they were called before a private
committee, where your General was present, who told them that the ill
odour they had cast upon the Government has given confidence to our
enemies abroad and at home, (meaning the Scots,) and would bring the
Parliament into contempt; and that whatsoever ill effect followed, they
must be accountable for it. Feake replied that he desired that what
the General said and what he answered might be recorded in heaven;
and that it was his tampering with the king, and his assuming an
exorbitant power, which made these disorders; and so held forth the
Fifth Monarchy. The General answered, that when he heard him begin with
a record in heaven, he did not expect that he would have told such a
lie upon earth; but assured him that whensoever they should be harder
pressed by the enemy than they yet had been, it would be necessary to
begin first with them; and so dismissed them. I forgot to tell you
that the General had brought Sterry,[60] and two or three more of his
ministers, to oppose spirit to spirit, and to advise Feake and the
rest to obedience, as the most necessary way to bring in the kingdom
of Christ. But it is believed we shall have very much trouble from the
Anabaptists, yet it is thought their power is nothing so great in the
army as in the House; they have none above a captain of their party
besides Harrison, who, it is thought, will betray all the rest: but
whether the General will ease himself of those in the House by the old
way of purging, or the new one of dissolving, rests in his own and his
officers' breasts."[61]
[Sidenote: 1653, December.]
The district of Blackfriars claimed to be independent of the municipal
authorities of London. The inhabitants asserted an inheritance of the
privileges of sanctuary, formerly pertaining to that famous monastery
which had given its name to the neighbourhood. Hence, to find shelter
and protection within the precincts of the ancient foundation, players,
who had been driven out of the city, here erected a theatre; and
Papists, who were proscribed by law, here assembled for worship. And
it is not a little curious that Puritans also were somewhat numerous
in the same locality; a fact which is indicated by their presenting
what seems to have been an influential petition to the Lords of the
Privy Council against the continuance of stage-plays by their dramatic
neighbours.[62] Blackfriars, as we have seen, is also mentioned among
the places in which certain Nonconformists were wont to meet in the
first quarter of the seventeenth century; and in this same place we now
meet with an Anabaptist assembly listening to the popular preachers of
millenarianism.
[Sidenote: _Feake and Powell._]
A letter from an eye-witness communicates additional information
respecting these meetings. The writer states that he had been to one of
them, and had heard Feake preach upon the subject of the little horn
described in the book of Daniel; and he states that in the course of
the sermon the preacher exclaimed, "I know some would have the late
King Charles to be meant by this little horn; but as I said at first,
I'll name nobody. God will make it clear shortly to His people who is
meant here." When Feake had concluded his portion of the service,
Vavasour Powell continued to discourse on the same subject, in a
similar strain of interpretation--still more explicitly reflecting on
public men and measures than his predecessor had done--interpreting the
king of the north to signify the late monarch, and inveighing bitterly
against the military commanders of the day, as the sole cause of the
pressure of taxation. The leading points of the sermon were, that
Christ was setting up a fifth monarchy in the world; that a spirit of
prophecy had been communicated to the saints, whereby they were enabled
to describe future events; and that the design of Christ was to destroy
all antichristian forms, including established churches together with
their clergy. Upon this third particular, the reporter states that
Powell was somewhat copious, and said "they must down, though they
were never so strongly protected, for Christ is none of their Lord
Protectors, though the army-men protect them." "Yes," said he, "and
rather than those shall down, they will pull Parliaments in pieces, and
this made them break the last Parliament; for on Saturday, the 10th
of December, the House refused to settle a commission of ministers
to ride in circuits, as the judges did, and judge who were fit to be
continued or put out of their livings, and so to maintain them upon
the old corrupt foundation still. And when the House would not yield
that these antichristian clergymen and tithes should be upheld, then,
on Monday following, in the morning, they were thrust out (I mean the
few honest men of them that were present) by violence; and the rest (as
they had agreed beforehand) went and subscribed their names to a paper
giving up their authority in the name of the whole; whereas none of
the honest men would subscribe or surrender, save only some three or
four, who have since professed their hearty sorrow to me for it. This
is true, and we must speak it out, for our mouths shall not be stopped
with paper-proclamations." ... Further, in relation to the Parliament,
he remarked, "they were broken by force, and it was a business plotted
by the great army-men, clergymen, and their party together." ... Powell
afterwards "flew into many strange ejaculations, 'Lord! what have our
army-men all apostatized from their principles? What is become of all
their declarations, protestations, and professions? Are they choked
with lands, and parks, and manors? Let us go home, and pray, and say,
'Lord, wilt Thou have Oliver Cromwell to reign over us, or Jesus Christ
to reign over us.'" "I know," he proceeded, "there are many gracious
souls in the army, and of good principles, but the greater they grow,
the more they are corrupted with lands and honours. I'll tell you, it
was a common proverb that we had among us of the General, that in the
field he was the graciousest and most gallant man in the world; but out
of the field, and when he came home to government, the worst." This
strange preacher told his congregation that "snares were laid for them,
and spies set over them, and that they might be deprived of the benefit
of meeting in that place. But then (said he) we will meet at another,
and if we be driven thence, we will meet at private houses, and if we
cannot have liberty there, we will into the fields, and if we be driven
thence, we will into corners, for we will never give over, and God
will not permit this spirit to go down. He will be the support of the
spirits of His people. He complained also of the faltering of divers
who had formerly been very forward at this meeting, but now drew back,
and therefore he prayed that the Lord would hold up the meeting."[63]
[Sidenote: 1653, December.]
Powell having concluded, somebody seated in one corner of the gallery
began to speak, and would have replied to the preacher; but, though he
strained his voice with the utmost violence to overcome the outcries
of the congregation, he was compelled, after half-an-hour's tumult,
to hold his peace. A Mr. Colaine, amidst the confusion, ascended
the pulpit, and afterwards expounded the fifth chapter of Hosea,
representing the state of things in England as parallel to that which
the prophet portrayed, and inveighing strongly against the national
clergy of Antichrist, and the parochial priests of Baal.
According to another letter, personal allusions to Cromwell even yet
more violent occurred in the discourses of these misguided men. Powell
and Feake called him "the dissemblingist perjured villain in the
world," and desired any friends of his, who might be present, to go
and report this to him, adding, that the Protector's reign would be
short, and "that he should be served worse than that great tyrant the
last Lord Protector was, he being altogether as bad, if not worse than
he."[64]
[Sidenote: _Feake and Powell._]
These fanatics threw themselves with earnestness into the Dutch war.
That conflict, looking at the political and religious character of the
combatants, strikes us as very strange, both parties being republicans,
and both being defenders of religious liberty: but it had arisen from
commercial and maritime rivalries, into which additional bitterness
had been shed by the natural sympathies of the Prince of Orange
with the Stuart family. A confederation of the two commonwealths, for
the promotion of civil freedom and the interests of Protestantism
throughout Europe, formed an English dream at the end of the civil
wars; and what had at first been contemplated as a subject for peaceful
negotiation was afterwards absurdly sought to be accomplished by naval
battles. The republican zeal and Protestant fervour of Feake and his
friends enlisted them on the side of a thorough union between the two
states, and they stipulated for it as an indispensable condition of
peace. That England should persevere till Holland could be yoked to her
in humble submission for the attainment of these civil and religious
ends, constituted a staple theme in the harangues at Blackfriars.
Conciliation and compromise were condemned. The preachers denounced in
the wildest way the statesman-like views of Cromwell, who felt anxious
to put an end to the deadly struggle of two countries, between which
policy as well as justice dictated alliance with mutual independence.
His opponents did all they could to stir up the people of England
against the Netherlanders, and one of the Dutch deputies, who went to
hear them, wrote home, declaring that their sermons were "most horrid
trumpets of fire, murder, and flame."[65] Millenarianism thus became
mixed up with political schemes; and these Commonwealth visionaries
believed that God had given Holland to the English as a "landing
place of the saints, whence they should proceed to pluck the whore of
Babylon from her chair, and to establish the kingdom of Christ on the
Continent."[66]
Between the resignation of the Little Parliament on the 12th of
October, and the date of the last of these letters, a great change
had come over the government of England. Cromwell and his council of
officers, "after several days seeking of God," had determined formally
to avow the perpetuation of what was already a fact--that supreme
authority should rest in a single person, even in Oliver himself. His
title was to be "Lord Protector," and with him was to be associated "a
council of godly, able, and discreet persons," consisting of not more
than twenty-one.
[Sidenote: _Cromwell made Protector._]
On Friday, the 16th of December, about three o'clock in the afternoon,
his Highness went in procession from Whitehall to the Court of Chancery
in Westminster. Commissioners of the Great Seal, scarlet-robed
Judges and Barons, and the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London,
with the usual accompaniments of civic splendour, were in attendance
on the occasion. There on a dais stood a chair of state, near to a
table on which lay a roll of parchment, containing, in a summary of
forty-two articles, the fundamental principles of the Protectorate
government.[67] His Highness having subscribed the document, and having
sworn to maintain the constitution which it prescribed, sat down on
his throne, and then received into his hands the great seal of the
realm, the Lord Mayor's sword, and the cap of maintenance. His portrait
at that moment has been sketched in the following graphic words:
"Fifty-four years old gone April last; brown hair and moustache are
getting gray;" "massive stature; big massive head, of somewhat leonine
aspect--wart above the right eye-brow; nose of considerable blunt
aquiline proportions; strict yet copious lips, full of all tremulous
sensibilities, and also, if need were, of all fierceness and rigours;
deep, loving eyes, call them grave, call them stern, looking from under
those craggy brows as if in life-long sorrow."[68]
As the Protector returned to Whitehall, the Lord Mayor, uncovered,
carried the sword before him; and in the banqueting house, Mr. Lockier,
the Protector's chaplain, delivered an exhortation; after which the
Lord Mayor, the Aldermen, and the Judges all departed home.[69]
[Sidenote: _State of Affairs at the Time._]
A very wonderful day's work was that of the 16th of December.[70] It
was an act of usurpation beyond all doubt, yet one which it would be
pedantic to criticise according to constitutional rules. For when a
house is catching fire, or a vessel is on the edge of a rock, people in
their senses do not expect that a strong man, who can extinguish the
flame, or steer the ship into open waters, should stand on ceremony and
wait for red-tape formalities. A crisis had come, such as must come in
the wake of great revolutions, when, however firmly we may maintain
Locke's principles of the origin of government, we find people in such
a state of perfect helplessness, and former rulers so utterly destitute
of power to rule, so incapable, so inevitably rushing to destruction,
dragging the whole country along with them--that in mercy to mankind we
feel all theories woven of the wisest webs must be laid aside, and a
competently skilful hand be allowed to gather up the scattered threads
in such fashion as it may be able. Public affairs had now reached such
a crisis that the alternative was a Protector or destruction, Cromwell
or chaos. The fire long kindling now at length burst into a blaze, and
there was only one man who could put an end to the conflagration. The
ship was within an inch of foundering, and there remained but one pilot
who had the power of steering her off the rocks.
[Sidenote: 1653.]
The Church, it should be recollected, had not ceased to be a State
Church. The constant discussion of its affairs by Parliament and the
Council of State implied its continued subjection to secular control.
No scheme of severance had been propounded, though certain proposals
had been made which might seem to involve such a result. However
desirable it may appear to some of our readers that the civil and
ecclesiastical powers in a country should stand each on its own basis,
and not interfere with one another's action; whatever anticipations
may be formed of a new and better era of Christian civilization, to be
inaugurated when a separation of the Church from the State shall take
place, subject to the authority of New Testament teaching, aided by the
lights of experience through the exercise of political sagacity, and
under the inspiration of Christian disinterestedness; yet every one
must see that the time had not then come for such a revolution. Such
a revolution involved not only the settlement of questions touching
ecclesiastical property and revenue, but also the determination of
two other points, namely, that religion should be left to its own
unfettered exercise, and that no man should be disqualified by his
theological opinions for the discharge of the offices and the enjoyment
of the honours of the State. Now, without doing injustice to the
character of the Little Parliament, we certainly may go so far as to
say that it never indicated the possession of that clearsightedness,
that deep wisdom, and that broad sympathy which are essential to the
satisfactory solution of the practical problems included in the change
just indicated. The members had neither the intellectual nor the moral
qualifications requisite for the task. It was in those days more
difficult than it is at present to draw the line where free religious
action comes to an end, and something else quite different from it
begins; for millenarian opinions ran over into Fifth Monarchy schemes,
and the Dutch wars had become mixed up in men's brains with the
dominion of the saints. The Little Parliament lacked the mental power
necessary in those days for carrying out the doctrines of voluntaryism,
even had they understood them. But they did not understand them. Had
they done so, they would not have clung to the idea in any form,
of the State supporting the Christian ministry, nor would they have
cherished the conviction that certain theological qualifications are
indispensable for the discharge of political trusts.
[Sidenote: _State of Affairs at the Time._]
And further, if the Little Parliament had been composed of the wisest
of mortals, and had plainly and skilfully propounded a system of pure
voluntaryism, such as is ably and successfully advocated in our own
time, still, with the Presbyterians all against them; with many of the
Independents against them; and with the Episcopalians also against
them; in short, with the bulk of the wealth, of the intelligence,
and of the power of the country against them--how useless would have
been their attempts to work out the measure. Common sense teaches,
and voluntaryism in its very nature implies, that before it can
be established as the exclusive method of dealing with spiritual
interests, a very large number of those who have to adopt it must be
convinced of its wisdom. And as to the alternative of revising the
Establishment, and placing it upon grounds adapted to the needs of
existing society, that also was an undertaking which, it is needless to
repeat, the Little Parliament did not accomplish, and one, too, with
which the whole history of that Assembly proved that it was utterly
incompetent to deal. The whole web of ecclesiastical affairs had
raveled out, and it devolved on a more than ordinarily skilful hand to
gather up the threads and arrange them in some sort of order.
[Sidenote: 1653.]
Cromwell ever shewed himself to be a practical man, by no means wedded
to any fine-spun theory. No ideal republic, such as was conceived by
Plato or by Harrington, floated before his imagination. In this respect
a marked distinction existed between him and his contemporaries of the
philosophical schools which were led by Sir Harry Vane and Algernon
Sidney; and, as in pure politics, so in ecclesiastical politics, he
aimed simply at accomplishing what he saw to be practicable. His strong
religious feelings, the mystic cast of his piety, his enthusiastic
faith in prayer and providence, never turned him aside from plain
paths of human action, where he could get common people to walk and
work beside him. Whatever idea he might have had as to what was best
in itself, and under other circumstances than those of England in his
own day, then rocking with the throes of revolution, certainly the plan
which he adopted was not that of attempting the exclusive establishment
of a voluntary system of supporting religion. He saw that to alienate
church property from sacred uses--had he wished to do so--would
arouse against him at once all the Presbyterians of the country, and
would give them a rallying point and a battle cry quite sufficient
to render them irresistible. He knew, that supported in this respect
by Episcopalians, and not without sympathy amongst Independents, the
Presbyterians would have protested against spoliation, and would have
contended for the inviolateness of tithe property with a temper too
fierce and with an amount of influence too strong for any government
to resist with success. He perceived the wisdom of conciliating the
Presbyterian party, and even on that ground he would shrink from
provoking them by the confiscation of all church revenues. His keen
eye also discerned such a spirit in some of the sects, such violent
anti-social principles abroad, such elements seething in the cauldron
of religious excitement, that he felt it would not be safe to leave all
theological teachers at that time to do and say just what they liked
without any sort of legal restraint. The liberty which he believed
it just and right to concede in reference to the discussion of simple
questions of divinity, he did not consider it just and right to afford
to all sorts of semi-political agitations; which, under the cover of
prophetical study and of transcendental schemes of society, directly
tended to overthrow all law and order, and with law and order, the very
liberty which such enthusiasts themselves really desired to enthrone.
[Sidenote: _Cromwell's Policy._]
What, then, was the kind of National Church which Cromwell's practical
sagacity led him to establish? Though he might not work according to
any definite theory, and was mainly prompted by the quick insight of
his own genius, yet there could not but be some principles lying at
the basis of his operations. Three politico-ecclesiastical theories of
union may be entertained: that of the Church's _mistress-ship over_
the State, that of the Church's _servitude to_ the State, and that
of the Church's _marriage with_ the State. What the Lord Protector
aimed at accomplishing appears far removed from the first of these.
He would not allow Presbyters, or Pastors, or Preachers of any kind,
any more than Anglican Priests, to lord it over the people. He would
carry the staff in his own hands. At the same time, he did not put the
Church in perfect servitude. Though Erastian in one way, his method of
ecclesiastical government does not appear to have been so in another.
Whilst the appointment and recognition of ministers receiving State
pay were placed under the authority of persons who owed their official
position to State appointment, yet the inner working, the worship, and
the discipline of Churches continued to be left free to a very large
extent. Perhaps, on the whole, Cromwell's Broad Church embodied more of
the idea of the marriage of the Church with the State than any other
Establishment which ever existed.[71]
[Sidenote: 1653.]
His ecclesiastical policy rested on five principles:--State
recognition, State control, State support, State protection, and
State penalties. How those principles were developed in Cromwell's
administration will be seen in the next chapter.
[Illustration]