To prevent confusion, let it be distinctly stated at once, that in
tracing the form which the new ecclesiastical establishment assumed
under the impress of Cromwell's genius, we confine ourselves in
this chapter to the legislation of nine months; consisting of those
ordinances which were issued between the end of the Little Parliament,
in December, 1653, and the opening of the first Protectorate
Parliament, in September, 1654. During this period, the foundations of
the Protector's ecclesiastical policy were laid.
I. _State Recognition._--The articles of government--the conception
and inspiration of which must be regarded as proceeding from
Cromwell--distinctly declared "that the Christian religion, as
contained in the Scriptures, be held forth and recommended as the
public profession of these nations."[72] Christianity being thus
recognized as part and parcel of the law of the land, the sanctions
of religion were introduced at the inauguration of the Protector; the
solemnities of worship and of preaching were connected with all special
public acts; and the exercises of devotion constantly accompanied the
ordinary business of Parliament. The State continued to recognize
religion by the appointment of fast days, which were of frequent
occurrence; whilst the Scotch brethren objected to this exercise of
civil authority as an Erastian intrusion into the spiritual realm.[73]
Preachers, both Presbyterian and Independent, were appointed on these
occasions; and a fast day sometimes was solemnized by a service which
lasted from nine o'clock in the morning until four in the afternoon.
[Sidenote: 1654.]
By an express article, all who professed the Roman Catholic religion
were disabled from voting, as well as from being elected; and as the
Act which had been passed against execrable opinions, treated as
culprits and subjected to penalties those who opposed Christianity,
it virtually deprived all such persons of the electoral franchise.
Infidels and heretics, also, who attacked or undermined the foundations
of the Christian faith, forfeited the rights of denizenship. But
these laws did not affect the social position of any individuals who
professed Protestantism in any of its usually-recognized forms of
orthodoxy. All the "sects" were accepted as citizens. So were the
Presbyterians. And, although Prelacy was forbidden, there was nothing
which could legally prevent an Episcopalian from going to the poll to
give or receive the vote of a freeman. Still, we must not forget that,
since the Common Prayer Book had been prohibited, any one who persisted
in using its formularies might have both his franchise and his freedom
brought into peril.[74] From these facts, it is evident that England
under the Protectorate was, in theory, a religious Commonwealth;
that the State possessed a spiritual as well as a secular character;
that Christianity was considered essential to the welfare of society;
and that an irreligious man was not regarded as a faithful subject.
But this theory of the Commonwealth as a Christian State must not be
confounded with the theory of the National Church as connected with the
Commonwealth. The lines of limitation in the two cases were not the
same. Considerable differences existed between the Christianity which
entitled all its disciples to the franchise of the citizen and the
Christianity which entitled its ministerial advocates to the support of
the State. What those differences were will be indicated as we proceed.
[Sidenote: _State Control._]
II. _State Control._--The laws made certain distinctions between what
was civil and what was sacred. They followed the early legislation
of the Long Parliament by withdrawing all secular matters from
ecclesiastical authority. Wills received careful attention from the
Little Parliament in 1653, when commissioners were appointed to
superintend that business, and to grant administrations "in the late
provinces of Canterbury and York." Their powers were defined, and the
probate fees to be taken by registrars were, after the payment of
expenses, to be appropriated to the support of the navy. The Act of
1653 was revived in 1654, and more commissioners were added to the
existing number.[75]
The main control over the Church consisted, not in any Act of
Uniformity--nor in the establishment of a particular creed--nor in
the maintenance of a simple mode of worship, but in the appointment
of a spiritual tribunal, invested with the power of determining who
were fitting persons to fulfil the Christian ministry. In the month of
March, 1653-4, an ordinance appeared,[76] reciting that there had been
no certain method adopted for supplying vacancies with able ministers,
in consequence of which the rights of patrons had been prejudiced,
and "weak, scandalous, popish, and ill-affected persons had intruded
themselves, or been brought in, to the great grief and trouble of the
good people of this nation." As a remedy, it was ordained that every
person presented to a benefice, or appointed to a lecture, should be
approved by certain Commissioners who were named for that purpose. No
mention is made of any standard of faith, of any mode of worship, or
of any scheme of polity. Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, Independency,
anti-Pædobaptism--in short, particular forms of Christianity are
entirely unnamed and unnoticed. In general terms, power was vested
in the Commissioners:--they were to grant admission to the ministry;
their certificate being a sufficient induction; but a vote of exclusion
did not acquire validity unless nine members were present at the time
when the vote was passed. Appointments made by these Commissioners
did not interfere with the rights of patronage. They had no authority
to dispose of Church benefices, or to elect lecturers; but only to
determine upon the qualifications of those whom the patrons presented
or the people chose. Nor did the law construe the decision of these
judges "to be any solemn or sacred setting apart of a person to any
particular office in the ministry." In short, the Commissioners formed
a board, and nothing more, for the examination of persons who presented
themselves for the ministerial office. So far, it bore a likeness to
the Assembly of Divines, for they had exercised similar functions in
the examination of clergymen; but then they had been more numerous,
and had been wont to consult Church standards and formularies for the
guidance of their judgment. Nothing of the sort limited the power
of the new Commissioners, and, moreover, their unfettered power was
lodged in comparatively few hands. Some creed, statute, canon, or
established usage, had in all similar cases been recognized as a rule
of action; but in this instance everything was left for determination
by the wisdom or the will of irresponsible functionaries.[77] No
distinct articles of faith were prescribed. No subscription whatever
was enforced.[78] The only way to form an idea of the character of a
Church so circumstanced is to infer what it must have been from the
known opinions and characters of such powerful officers. The Commission
was composed of men of very different characters. Some had much
prejudice and party spirit, with little judgment, and less charity. No
confidence could be placed in Hugh Peters, and in others of a similar
stamp; but there were amongst the members individuals of great wisdom
and large benevolence--such as Manton, Goodwin, Owen, and many more.
Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists were of the number; and, so
far, the constitution of the tribunal permitted access to benefices
by ministers belonging to all three denominations. The proportion
of different religious parties in the commission suggests what was
likely to be the proportion of those admitted to preferment. Nothing
hindered the admission of the members of any sect whatever, not even
Episcopalians, provided they did not use the Book of Common Prayer;
and such persons actually were admitted; but it is not probable that
many would be included in the establishment who occupied a position far
beyond the circle of the Commissioners' opinions.
[Sidenote: _State Control._]
Another tribunal appeared in August, 1654, for ejecting "scandalous,
ignorant, and insufficient ministers and schoolmasters."[79] Unlike the
former, this Commission branched out into manifold divisions, which,
in fact, formed ecclesiastical courts of assize, spreading over the
whole country. Long lists of distinguished laymen are contained in the
ordinance--including the names of the Lords Wharton, Fairfax, Lisle,
Say and Sele, Sir A. Haselrig, Sir Anthony A. Cooper, and Nathaniel
Fiennes. They were to bring before them all clergymen and teachers who
were punishable by the Act against blasphemous opinions, or who were
guilty of profanity, perjury, popish opinions, adultery, fornication,
drunkenness, haunting taverns, quarrelling, fighting, playing at
cards or dice, or profaning the Sabbath day. So ran the enumeration
of the first class of scandals, cognizable by these judges. Then
came words pointing to such as had publicly and frequently used the
Common Prayer Book since the first of January last, or should at any
time afterwards do so; such as publicly and profanely scoffed at or
reviled the strict profession or professors of religion or godliness,
or encouraged, or countenanced, "by word or practice, any Whitsun
ales, wakes, Morris-dances, May-poles, stage-plays," or similar
licentious practices; and such as declared their disaffection to the
present government. As to "negligent" ministers, they are defined to be
"non-residents," and such as omitted the public exercise of preaching
and praying on the lord's Day: but "the ignorant and insufficient" are
not defined at all, they are left to be declared and judged by the
Commissioners in every county, or by any five of them, together with
five of the ministers mentioned in the ordinance. To them, therefore,
in this respect, remained a wide margin of discretion, and individuals
guiltless of the scandals and offences before enumerated--yet being
charged in general terms by their parishioners with ministerial
incompetency--were left to the mercy and the conscience of these lay
and clerical assessors. Their character was the only guarantee that
justice would be administered; and sometimes proofs appeared shewing
how perilous a thing it was to the interests of the parties arraigned
that even to men of established integrity there should be entrusted
such large powers, especially at a time when party spirit on all sides
ran so high.
[Sidenote: 1654.]
III. _State Support._--The articles of government declared, that as
soon as might be, a provision less subject to contention and more
certain than the one existing should be made for the maintenance of
"able and painful" teachers, for instructing the people, and for the
discovery and confutation of error, heresy, and whatever is contrary to
sound doctrine. But until such provision could be devised, the existing
maintenance was not to be taken away or impeached. Also the ordinances
of 1647, as to tithes, were in 1654 declared to remain in full force;
and further still, for the more efficient support of the ministry, an
ordinance of the 2nd of September, 1654, directed that there should be
a union of small parishes and a division of large ones--authority for
that purpose being vested in a Commission, according to a common plan
then adopted in all business of that description.[80]
[Sidenote: _State Protection._]
The Long Parliament, in the month of February, 1648, had commanded
churchwardens and overseers of the poor to assess every inhabitant of a
parish, in such sums as those officers should think proper; no mention
being made of holding any vestry meetings whatever for that purpose.
The law declared that such rates should be appropriated for repairing
the fabric of the church, and keeping in order the churchyard and
walls; for providing books to be used in Divine worship; and for the
bread and wine required in the administration of the Lord's supper.
When the rate had been confirmed by two justices of the peace, the
churchwardens were authorized and required to levy payment and to
recover by "distress" where payment was refused. The justices, "in
default of such distress," might commit the defaulter to the common
gaol.[81] This church-rate law remained unrepealed, and therefore
was available for the support of worship by all those who were now
incorporated in the Establishment. In the ordinance of 1654, for
uniting and for severing parishes, reference is made to rates, taxes,
parochial rights, charges and duties, as acknowledged sources of
revenue.[82]
[Sidenote: 1654.]
IV. _State Protection._--The Articles of Government extended
protection, within certain limits, to professing Christians who did not
share in the resources and immunities of the State Church. Religious
compulsion was forbidden, religious persuasion was recommended; and it
was expressly declared, "That such as profess faith in God by Jesus
Christ (though differing in judgment from the doctrine, worship, or
discipline publicly held forth), shall not be restrained from, but
shall be protected in, the profession of the faith and exercise of
their religion, so as they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury
of others, and to the actual disturbance of the public peace on their
parts, provided this liberty be not extended to Popery nor Prelacy,
nor to such as under the profession of Christ hold forth and practise
licentiousness."[83] The shield of the law was thus placed over all
Protestant sects whose liberty in no way threatened the security of the
Government.
[Sidenote: _State Penalties._]
V. _State Penalties._--First, the Papists were deprived of all
religious freedom and of all political rights, and this act of
injustice was perpetrated as a retaliation which their own habitual
intolerance had provoked; and as a precaution which the tendency
of their system and their Jesuitical and treasonable practices had
rendered expedient. The circumstances in which Prelatists were placed
by the legislation of the Long Parliament have been explained. These
circumstances remained unaltered; and Prelacy was now conjoined with
Popery in the prohibition expressed by the articles. The supporters of
Prelacy were known to be disaffected to the Government, and whenever
that disaffection manifested itself in overt acts, the magistrates
were justified in punishing the offenders; but to inflict penalties
for using the Prayer Book was an unrighteous proceeding, no more
to be excused than was the persecution of Nonconformists for their
worship, after the Restoration. Sometimes that persecution has been
defended or its guilt has been extenuated on the ground that the very
religion of the Separatists made them disloyal; persons who condemn
that plea as being insult added to injury must not set up a similar
one on behalf of the rulers of the Commonwealth. After the mention of
Prelacy in the articles comes a denial of freedom to such as maintained
tenets inimical to the principles of public morality and order;[84]
Fifth Monarchists, therefore, preaching after the fashion of Feake and
Vavasour Powell, brought themselves within the scope of penal laws.
So did some well-known disorderly fanatics, who hung on the skirts
of Quakerism. Socinians likewise came under the legislative ban.
As the statute against blasphemous opinions remained in force, all
persons suspected of holding them were liable to be brought before the
magistrate. Yet it should be stated that Cromwell checked as much as he
could the severe application of this penal code: and when a Parliament,
under his control, undertook to specify what particulars were embraced
by the general title of heresy, there was so much caution exercised
lest words expressing vague ideas should subject "the godly party to
some danger of suffering," that not until after much debate could
even the word _atheism_ be allowed "to be part of the question."[85]
[Sidenote: 1654.]
Such were the principles of Cromwell's ecclesiastical policy, and in
it may be seen a singular combination of boldness and caution. Of
boldness--for he fearlessly innovated upon the ancient principles
and precedents of the kingdom, and also defied the prejudices
of contemporary bigots by throwing open the Establishment to
different sects, and by conceding toleration to all whose opinions
and proceedings did not imperil the stability of his republic. Of
caution--for he shrank from committing himself to theories of voluntary
church support, and of thorough church independence, however those
theories might be advocated by some with whom he would be regarded as
having considerable sympathy. And the more his policy is examined,
the plainer will it appear to be distinguished by originality no less
than by the qualities we have just indicated. Whatever its merits
or demerits, it was his own. He neither copied the forms of past
times nor followed the counsels of contemporary advisers. It is very
remarkable that no ecclesiastical personage appears controlling the
affairs of the Commonwealth. Indeed his Highness occupied the throne
without having at his right hand any prominent individual to influence
him in either spiritual or in temporal business. No member of his
Council of State was of such importance as to justify our applying to
him the appellation of prime minister. We strive in vain to detect
any clerical guidance. The principal Divines of the Presbyterian
party were but little, if at all, attached to his government; they
preferred the royalty which his rule suspended, and they disliked the
Broad Church which he so zealously upheld. Independents were about
his person, but no evidence exists of his constituting any of them
ecclesiastical advisers. The only chaplain he had of high intellectual
mark was John Howe, a man indisposed to take part in public affairs,
and whose correspondence shews that whatever his power might be in the
pulpit, he had little or no influence at court. Owen and Goodwin were
too much engaged at Oxford to have many opportunities for conference
at Whitehall. Philip Nye might be disposed to give the benefit of his
counsel, but Philip was not the person to carry weight with Oliver.
No doubt the Protector took care to ascertain the opinions of all
parties, and, as a prudent, practical man, he shaped his course so as
not to give unnecessary offence; but his own genius was the counsellor
on which he chiefly, if not entirely, relied. The outward fortunes
of the Church were completely in lay hands--the hands of the Lord
Protector of England. In the days of Charles, the country, through
Laud, had been priest-ridden, but not even in religious matters was it
presbyter-ridden in the days of Cromwell.
[Sidenote: _Cromwell's Establishment not a Church._]
One more remark may be made. Conforming to general usage, we have
called Cromwell's religious establishment a Church; but, accurately
speaking, it was not a Church at all. We do not mean by this what an
ecclesiastical polemic means, when he refuses to apply the name to any
organization at variance with what he considers to be New Testament
principles. By withholding the title from a particular community, he
intends to say that it is not a Church according to his idea of what
a Church should be. We abstain from all such controversies in these
pages. Our meaning is that Cromwell's establishment did not include
or recognize any internal organization whatever of an ecclesiastical
kind; it had no Church courts, no Church assemblies, no Church
laws, no Church ordinances. It repudiated Prelacy without enforcing
Presbyterianism or recognizing Congregationalism. While denying the
aid of the civil power for carrying out one method of discipline, it
gave no direct sanction to any other. It said nothing about rites and
ceremonies. Not even the two great sacraments of Christianity were
mentioned. What should be the mode of administering the Lord's Supper,
and Baptism, and whether the latter should be confined to adults, or
should be extended to infants, were open questions. What should be done
in these respects was left to the ministers and their congregations
to determine. One parish might be constituted a Presbyterian Church;
another might contain an Independent Church; a third, a Baptist
Church. But each Church, as shewn already, was independent of the
parish incumbency; and often, in the case of Congregational Churches,
the members met together in private houses. The particular society so
organized really stood outside the Establishment. Hence it follows that
the Protectorate Establishment was nothing more than an institution
for _preaching and teaching_. The ministers were acknowledged by the
State only in the capacity of instructors. The title given to State
ordinances about religion seems in accordance with this; so were
the functions of the Committee of Triers. The former were for the
maintenance, the latter for the approbation, of "_public preachers_."
[Sidenote: _Cromwell's Establishment not a Church._]
So far as moral discipline akin to that of the old Church Courts
was instituted and enforced by Protectorate enactments, it was by
civil statute, not by any kind of canon law. Ordinances for the
improvement of public morals appear on the statute book of that period.
Cock-matches and horse-races were prohibited, professedly on account
of the danger attendant upon large gatherings of people.[86] Fighting
a duel upon which death should ensue was adjudged to be murder.
Challenges, and the conveyance of them, were made punishable.[87] The
Commissioners of Customs, and other officers, received authority to
suppress drunkenness and profane swearing amongst all people employed
in their departments.
These laws rested on the authority of the Protector and his Council;
and the resolutions enacting them can be traced in the order-books
of that small but potent assembly. When we turn to these records,
we discover numerous proofs and illustrations of the supreme power
which was exercised in this way over ecclesiastical causes. Decisions
respecting titles to Church livings, and the augmentation of poor
benefices, and for the payment of sums to poor clergymen, frequently
appear in those interesting minutes.[88]
[Illustration]