All the ecclesiastical legislation of the first nine months of the
Protectorate had been in the form of ordinances, framed mainly by the
genius, and resting principally on the authority, of the Protector. In
the autumn of 1654, he summoned his first Protectorate Parliament; and
in our notices of its proceedings will be discovered the introduction
of measures by certain ecclesiastical parties for modifying the
platform of the Broad Establishment which he had laid down in the
articles of government.
The elections met with little interference from the Protector and his
Council. Glyn, and a large number of Presbyterians, took their seats.
Neither Vane nor Marten were returned. Dr. Owen, Vice-Chancellor of
Oxford, was elected for the University.
The members assembled on the 3rd of September. It was, we are told, the
Lord's Day, and they met "in the temple of the Lord," at Westminster;
"and the first work they began was to seek the face of the most
high God and Eternal Protector of Heaven, by prostrating themselves
before Him in His Divine ordinances." On Monday, his Highness went to
Westminster--regally attended by life guards, pages, and lackeys, and,
upon alighting at the door of the abbey, he proceeded to take his seat
over against the pulpit, "Members of Parliament sitting on both sides."
Goodwin preached a sermon on "the deliverance out of Egypt and the
pilgrimage towards Canaan through the wilderness"--which so gratified
Cromwell, that he repeatedly referred to it in the speech with which he
opened the Parliament, and indeed the spirit of it pervaded the whole
of that address.[89]
[Sidenote: _First Protectorate Parliament._]
This speech indicates that the Protector was environed by difficulties
arising from Presbyterians, Ultra-voluntaries, and Fifth Monarchy men.
In the estimation of the first of these classes he advanced beyond;
in the judgment of the last two he lagged behind, the leadings of
Divine truth. Not a theorist, but a practical man--in steering a
middle course, he did, as all such statesmen must do, provoke violent
opposition in partisans on the right hand and the left. His method
of ecclesiastical government, as it appears in his own speeches
and proceedings--not as we find them sometimes represented in the
generalizations of historical writers--will no more satisfy some of the
ecclesiastical reformers, or some of the ecclesiastical conservatives
of our own day, than it satisfied similar classes under his own
Commonwealth.
[Sidenote: 1654, November.]
Haselrig, the impetuous republican, and Harrison, the religious
visionary, both disliked the Protector's authority. The former
reluctantly submitted to it, but the latter, being more obstinate,
could be subdued only by military apprehension and a brief
imprisonment.[90] Afterwards, when his Highness required Members
of Parliament to declare their acceptance of certain fundamental
principles of government, many of the Republicans withdrew, leaving the
Presbyterians in a decided majority.
Debates arose on the new constitution and in the course taken by the
House respecting the ecclesiastical bearings, of that constitution the
strength of the Presbyterian party appeared manifest. The Instrument of
December, 1653, in prescribing the religious qualifications of Members
of Parliament, only stated that they must be of "known integrity,"
having "the fear of God and a good conscience."[91] But in the month
of November, 1654, when the articles of that Instrument came under
review, it was resolved that no one should be eligible to a seat who
entertained any of the opinions specified in the Act of the 9th of
August, 1650; or who should so far sympathize with Popery as to marry
a Papist, or consent to his child being educated in that religion; or
who should deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God, or sacraments,
prayer, the magistracy, or the ministry, to be Divine ordinances; or
who should be guilty of profaning the Lord's Day, or of committing
certain immoralities. It seems incredible, yet it is a fact, that the
resolution which enumerates such as were excluded, specifies those who
should thereafter drink healths.[92]
[Sidenote: _Limits of Toleration._]
Following the example of the Long Parliament, the House now resolved
to exclude spiritual persons from secular authority. To all public
ministers of religion was applied the principle which had swept the
bishops out of the House of Lords. It was determined that the Act
of 1642, for disabling persons in holy orders to exercise temporal
jurisdiction, should be in force, so as to prevent all public ministers
and preachers of the Gospel from serving in Parliament.[93]
The Presbyterians wished to limit the toleration prescribed in the
Articles of 1653. The matter was found more difficult than any which
had been previously propounded for consideration. Accordingly, a
sub-committee was appointed to wait upon the Lord Protector, and
to advise with him about some probable means of reconcilement. The
Committee found no favour in the eyes of his Highness. He evidently
had no wish to see the liberty of his subjects circumscribed by
minute specifications of doctrines. He told the members he was wholly
dissatisfied with what they were about--that he had no "propensity" to
it--that the Parliament had already taken the instrument of Government
to pieces, and had made alterations without his advice--and it did not
become him to counsel them in this particular, apart from the other
articles contained in the instrument.[94] Yet certain Divines were
appointed to explain what was meant by the words "such as profess
faith in God by Jesus Christ."
[Sidenote: 1654, November.]
Baxter, who was one of this Committee,[95] lets us into the secret of
its proceedings, by saying that he wished the Apostles' Creed, the
Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments to be the only "fundamentals"
specified; and that the objection made to his proposal was, that
Socinians and Papists would be thereby brought within the boundaries
of toleration. To which he acutely replied, that it was impossible
to devise any form of words which heretics would not subscribe, when
they explained those words in their own sense.[96] The majority of
the Committee took a different view; and--as Baxter informs us--Owen,
Goodwin, Nye, Simpson, Cheynell, and Marshall, were the most active in
framing the principles which at length were submitted to the House, to
help them in laying down lines of liberty.
[Sidenote: _Limits of Toleration._]
They were expressed in the following terms:
"_First._ That the Holy Scripture is that rule of knowing God, and
living unto Him, which whoso does not believe cannot be saved.
"_Secondly._ That there is a God, who is the Creator, Governor, and
Judge of the world, which is to be received by faith, and every other
way of the knowledge of Him is insufficient.
"_Thirdly._ That this God, who is the Creator, is eternally distinct
from all creatures in His being and blessedness.
"_Fourthly._ That this God is one in three persons or subsistences.
"_Fifthly._ That Jesus Christ is the only Mediator between God and man,
without the knowledge of whom there is no salvation.
"_Sixthly._ That this Jesus Christ is the true God.
"_Seventhly._ That this Jesus Christ is also true man.
"_Eighthly._ That this Jesus Christ is God and man in one person.
"_Ninthly._ That this Jesus Christ is our Redeemer, who, by paying a
ransom, and bearing our sins, has made satisfaction for them.
"_Tenthly._ That this same Lord Jesus Christ is He that was crucified
at Jerusalem, and rose again, and ascended into heaven.
"_Eleventhly._ That this same Jesus Christ, being the only God and man
in one person, remains for ever a distinct person from all saints and
angels, notwithstanding their union and communion with Him.
"_Twelfthly._ That all men by nature are dead in sins and trespasses,
and no man can be saved unless he be born again, repent, and believe.
"_Thirteenth._ That we are justified and saved by grace, and faith in
Jesus Christ, and not by works.
"_Fourteenth._ That to continue in any known sin, upon what pretence or
principle soever, is damnable.
"_Fifteenth._ That God is to be worshipped according to His own will,
and whosoever shall forsake and despise all the duties of His worship
cannot be saved.
"_Sixteenth._ That the dead shall rise; and that there is a day of
judgment, wherein all shall appear, some to go into everlasting life,
and some into everlasting condemnation."[97]
[Sidenote: 1654.]
Whatever might be the exact intention of the Divines who drew up these
propositions, we cannot but conclude--looking at the circumstances
of their appointment, and at the use made by a party in the House of
what they did, which they could scarcely fail to foresee--that they
really meant to confine toleration within the limits indicated by
these theological propositions. But the scheme fell to the ground. It
was moved that the Articles brought in as "fundamental and necessary
to salvation might pass the approbation of the House, and the Lord
Protector's consent. But upon perusal of the Articles they were laid
aside, and not thought fit to be further proceeded with at that
time."[98]
The temper of the Parliament appeared in its proceedings against John
Biddle. This man had published a book entitled "The Twofold Catechism,"
in which he maintained wild and monstrous opinions respecting the
Almighty; and denied the doctrines of the Trinity, of the Atonement,
and of Eternal punishment. The House condemned the book as blasphemous;
sentenced it to be burnt by the hangman; and referred to a committee
the preparation of a Bill for the punishment of the author.[99]
[Sidenote: _Limits of Toleration._]
Cromwell met his Parliament on the 22nd of January, 1655, and told
them that dissettlement and division, discontent and dissatisfaction
had been more multiplied during the five months of their deliberations
than for years before. Seeds were being sown by them for the renewal
of old troubles. Briers and thorns were nourished under their shadow.
In connection with the fostered confusions--on which he emphatically
dwelt--his Highness touched upon the spirit which the House had
manifested in endeavouring to abridge the amount of religious liberty;
although he did not seem at all to disapprove of the treatment which
John Biddle had received.
He ended his speech by formally dissolving the Assembly.
[Illustration]