to take possession of Montreal, intrench themselves, and raise crops,
after which they would build houses for the priests and convents for the
nuns. It was necessary, however, that some competent person should be
secured who should take command of the expedition and act as governor of
the newly acquired isle. To fill this important position it was
desirable that to the qualities of the statesman should be added the
courage of the soldier. One in whom these were combined was found in
the person of Paul de Chomedey, Sieur de Maisonneuve, a devout
Christian, an able statesman, and a valiant soldier. Maisonneuve at once
accepted the position, while many wealthy ladies contributed toward
defraying the expense of the undertaking and also became members of the
"Association of Montreal." In February, 1641, the Associates, with Olier
at their head, assembled in the Church of Notre Dame at Paris, and
before the altar of the Virgin "solemnly consecrated Montreal to the
Holy Family" and to be called "Ville-Marie de Montréal."
Maisonneuve with his party, forty-five in number, reached Quebec too
late to ascend the river. On their arrival at that place they were
received with jealousy and distrust. The agents of the Company of One
Hundred Associates looked on them with suspicion, and Montmagny, the
Governor, feared a rival in Maisonneuve. Every opposition was thrown in
their way, and Montmagny tried to persuade Maisonneuve to exchange the
island of Montreal for that of Orleans. But Maisonneuve was not to be
deceived, and he expressed his determination to found a colony at
Montreal, "even if every tree on the island was an Iroquois."
During the winter Maisonneuve employed his men in various labors for the
future benefit of the colony, but principally in building a boat in
which to ascend the river. While staying at Quebec the party gained an
unexpected addition to their numbers in the person of Madame de la
Peltrie, who joined them, and took with her all the furniture she had
lent the Ursulines.
On May 8, 1642, Maisonneuve embarked from St. Michael, and on the 17th
his little flotilla, a pinnace, a flat-bottomed craft moved by sails,
and two row-boats, approached Montreal, and all on board raised in
unison a hymn of praise. Montmagny was there to deliver the island, on
behalf of the Company of One Hundred Associates; while here, too, was
Father Vimont, superior of the missions. On the following day they
glided along the green and solitary shores, now thronged with the life
of a busy city, and landed on the spot which Champlain, thirty-one years
before, had chosen as the fit site of a settlement. It was a tongue or
triangle of land, formed by the junction of a rivulet with the St.
Lawrence. This rivulet was bordered by a meadow, and beyond rose the
forest with its vanguard of scattered trees. Early spring flowers were
blooming in the young grass, and the birds flitted among the boughs.
Maisonneuve sprang ashore and fell on his knees. His followers imitated
his example; and all joined their voices in songs of thanksgiving.
Tents, baggage, arms, and stores were landed. Here were the ladies with
their servants; Montmagny, no willing spectator; and Maisonneuve, a
warlike figure, erect and tall, his men clustering around him--soldiers,
sailors, artisans, and laborers--all alike soldiers at need. They
kneeled in reverent silence as the host was raised aloft; and when the
rite was over the priest turned and addressed them: "You are a grain of
mustard-seed that shall rise and grow until its branches overshadow the
land. You are few, but your work is the work of God. His smile is on
you, and your children shall fill the land." Then they pitched their
tents, lighted their fires, stationed their guards, and lay down to
rest. Such was the birthnight of Montreal. The following morning they
proceeded to form their encampment, the first tree being felled by
Maisonneuve. They worked with such energy that by the evening they
erected a strong palisade, and had covered their altar with a roof
formed of bark. It was some time after their arrival before their
enemies, the Indians, were made aware of it, and they improved the time
by building some substantial houses and in strengthening their
fortifications.
The activity and zeal of Maisonneuve induced him to make a voyage to
France to obtain assistance for his settlement. Though his difficulties
were great, he yet was enabled to induce one hundred men to join his
little establishment on the island. Notwithstanding this addition to his
force, the progress of the colony was greatly retarded by the frequent
attacks of the Indians. These enemies soon became a cause of great
trouble to the colonists, and it was dangerous to pass beyond the
palisades, as the Indians would hide for days, waiting to assail any
unfortunate straggler. Although Maisonneuve was brave as man could be,
he knew that his company was no match for the wily enemy, owing to their
ignorance of the mode of Indian warfare; therefore he kept his men as
near the fort as possible. They, however, failed to appreciate his care
of them, and imputed it to cowardice. This led him to determine that
such a feeling should not exist if he could possibly remove it. He
therefore ordered his men to prepare to attack the Indians, at the same
time signifying his intention to lead them himself. He sallied forth at
the head of thirty men, leaving D'Aillebout with the remainder to hold
the fort. After they had waded through the snow for some distance they
were attacked by the Iroquois, who killed three of his men and wounded
several others. Maisonneuve and his party held their ground until their
ammunition began to fail, and then he gave orders to retreat, he himself
remaining till the last. The men struggled on for some time facing the
enemy, but finally they broke their ranks and retreated in great
disorder toward the fort. Maisonneuve, with a pistol in each hand, held
the Iroquois in check for some time. They might have killed him, but
they wished to take him prisoner. Their chief, desiring this honor,
rushed forward, but just as he was about to grasp him Maisonneuve fired
and he fell dead. The Indians, fearing that the body of their chief
would fall into the hands of the French, rushed forward to secure it,
and Maisonneuve passed safely into the fort. From that day his men never
dared to impute cowardice to him.
In 1644 the island of Montreal was made over to the Sulpicians of Paris,
and was destined for the support of that religious order. In 1658
Viscount d'Argenson was appointed governor of Canada, but the day he
landed the Iroquois murdered some Algonquin Indians under the very guns
of Quebec. The Indians seemed determined to exterminate the French. In
addition to keeping Quebec in a state little short of actual siege, they
massacred a large number of the settlers at Montreal. D'Argenson having
resigned, the Baron d'Avagnon was appointed governor (1661), and on his
arrival visited the several settlements throughout the country. He was
surprised to find them in such a deplorable condition, and made such
representation to the King, as to the neglect of the Company of One
Hundred Associates, that M. de Monts, the King's commissioner, was
ordered to visit Canada and report on its condition. At the same time
four hundred more troops were added to the colonial garrison. The
arrival of these troops gave life and confidence to the colonists and
relieved Montreal from its dangers. The representations made by M. de
Monts, as well as those of the Bishop of Quebec, determined Louis XIV to
demand their charter from the Company of One Hundred Associates and to
place the colony in immediate connection with the crown. As the profits
of the fur trade had been much diminished by the hostility of the
Iroquois, the company readily surrendered its privileges. As soon as the
transfer was completed, D'Avagnon was recalled and M. de Mesy was
appointed governor for three years. Canada was thus changed into a royal
government, and a council of state was nominated to coöperate with the
Governor in the administration of affairs. This council consisted of the
Governor, the Bishop of Quebec, and the intendant, together with four
others to be named by them, one of whom was to act as attorney-general.
PRESBYTERIANISM ESTABLISHED
MEETING OF THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY
A.D. 1643
DAVID MASSON
Official recognition of Presbyterianism in Great Britain marked
a distinct departure in ecclesiastical affairs. The Westminster
Assembly, whose confession and catechisms, while not accepted
in England, became, and still remain, the doctrinal standards
of the Scotch and American Presbyterian churches, was one of
the most important religious convocations ever held. The
Presbyterian form of church government has been adopted by
various sects, whose representatives are found in many parts of
the world.
The great object of the Westminster Assembly was to dictate,
dogmatically, articles of faith and a form of worship that
should be compulsory. It was mainly owing to the influence of
Oliver Cromwell, who stood for toleration and independence,
within limits, that the assembly did not have its way.
Masson, the great authority on this subject, gives in the
following pages a clear and comprehensive account of the
religious situation in Great Britain at the time, of the
composition of the assembly, and of its labors during the five
years and more of its continuance.
At the time of the meeting of the Westminster Assembly there was a
tradition in the Puritan mind of England of two varieties of opinions as
to the form of church government or discipline that should be
substituted for episcopacy.
In the first place there was a tradition of the system of views known as
Presbyterianism. From the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, if not
earlier, there had been Nonconformists who held that some form of the
consistorial model which Calvin had set up in Geneva, and which Knox
enlarged for Scotland, was the best for England, too. Thus Fuller, who
dates the use of the term "Puritans," as a nickname for the English
Nonconformists generally, from the year 1564, and who goes on to say
that within a few years after that date the chief of those to whom that
term was first applied were either dead or very aged, adds: "Behold,
another generation of active and zealous Nonconformists succeeded them:
of these Coleman, Button, Halingham, and Benson (whose Christian names I
cannot recover) were the chief; inveighing against the established
church discipline, accounting everything from Rome that was not from
Geneva, endeavoring in all things to conform the government of the
English Church to the Presbyterian Reformation."
Actually, in 1572, Fuller proceeds to tell us, a presbytery, the first
in England, was set up at Wandsworth in Surrey; _i.e._, in that year a
certain number of ministers of the Church of England organized
themselves privately, without reference to bishops or other authorities,
into a kind of presbyterial consistory, or classical court, for the
management of the church business of their neighborhood. The heads of
this Presbyterian movement, which gradually extended itself to London,
were Mr. Field, lecturer at Wandsworth, Mr. Smith of Mitcham, Mr. Crane
of Roehampton, Messrs. Wilcox, Standen, Jackson, Bonham, Saintloe,
Travers, Charke, Barber, Gardiner, Crook, and Egerton; with whom were
associated a good many laymen. A summary of their views on the subject
of church government was drawn out in Latin, under the title _Disciplina
Ecclesiæ sacra ex Dei Verbo descripta_, and, though it had to be printed
at Geneva, became so well known that, according to Fuller, "_Secundum
usum Wandsworth_ was as much honored by some as _secundum usum Sarum_ by
others."
The English Presbyterianism thus asserting itself and spreading found
its ablest and most energetic leader in the famous Thomas Cartwright
(1535-1603). No less by practical ingenuity than by the pen, he labored
for presbytery; and under his direction Presbyterianism attained such
dimensions that between 1580 and 1590 there were no fewer than five
hundred beneficed clergymen of the Church of England, most of them
Cambridge men, all pledged to general agreement in a revised form of the
Wandsworth Directory of Discipline, all in private intercommunication
among themselves, and all meeting occasionally, or at appointed times,
in local conferences, or even in provincial and general synods. In
addition to London, the parts of the country thus most leavened with
Presbyterianism were the shires of Warwick, Northampton, Rutland,
Leicester, Cambridge, and Essex.
Of course such an anomaly, of a Presbyterian organization of ministers
existing within the body of the prelatic system established by law, and
to the detriment or disintegration of that system, could not be
tolerated; and, when Whitgift had procured sufficient information to
enable him to seize and prosecute the chiefs, it was, in fact, stamped
out. But the recollection of Cartwright and of Presbyterian principles
remained in the English mind through the reigns of James and Charles,
and characterized the main mass of the more effective and respectable
Puritanism of those reigns. In other words, most of those Puritans,
whether ministers or of the laity, who still continued members of the
Church, only protesting against some of its rules and ceremonies,
conjoined with this nonconformity in points of worship a dissatisfaction
with the prelatic constitution of the Church, and a willingness to see
the order of bishops removed, and the government of the Church
remodelled on the Presbyterian system of parochial courts, classical or
district meetings, provincial synods, and national assemblies.
During the supremacy of Laud, indeed, when any such wholesale revolution
seemed hopeless, it is possible that English Puritanism within the
Church had abandoned in some degree its dreamings over the Presbyterian
theory, and had sunk, through exhaustion, into mere sighings after a
relaxation of the established episcopacy. But the success of the
Presbyterian revolt of the Scots in 1638, and their continued triumph in
the two following years, had worked wonders. All the remains of native
Presbyterian tradition in England had been kindled afresh, and new
masses of English Puritan feeling, till then acquiescent in episcopacy,
had been whirled into a passion for presbytery and nothing else. When
the Long Parliament, at its first meeting (November, 1640), addressed
itself to the question of a reform of the English Church, the force that
beat against its doors most strongly from the outside world of English
opinion consisted no longer of mere sighings after a limitation of
episcopacy, but of a formed determination of myriads to have done with
episcopacy root and branch, and to see a church government substituted
somewhat after the Scottish pattern.
Two years more of discussion in and out of Parliament had vastly
enlarged the dimensions of this revived and newly created English
Presbyterianism. The passion for presbytery among the English laity had
pervaded all the counties; and scores and hundreds of parish ministers
who had kept as long as they could within the limits of mere Low-church
Anglicanism, and had stood out, in their private reasonings, for the
lawfulness and expediency of an order of officers in the Church superior
to that of simple presbyters, if less lordly than the bishops, had been
swept out of their scruples, and had joined themselves, even heartily,
to the Presbyterian current. Thus, when the Westminster Assembly met
(July, 1643), to consider, among other things, what form of church
government the Parliament should be advised to establish in England in
lieu of the episcopacy which it had been resolved to abolish, the
injunction almost universally laid upon them by already formed opinion
among the parliamentarians of England, whether laity or clergy out of
the assembly, seemed to be that they should recommend conformity with
Scottish presbytery. All the citizenship, all the respectability of
London, for example, was resolutely Presbyterian, and of the one hundred
twenty parish ministers of the city, surrounding the assembly, only
three, so far as could be ascertained, were not of strict Presbyterian
principles.
Nevertheless, amid all this apparent prevalence of Presbyterianism,
there was a stubborn tradition in England of another set of antiprelatic
views, long stigmatized by the nickname of Brownism, but known latterly
as Independency or Congregationalism.
Independents and Presbyterians are quite agreed in maintaining that the
terms "bishop" or overseer, and "presbyter" or elder, were synonymous in
the pure or primitive Church, and applied indifferently to the same
persons, and that prelacy and all its developments were subsequent
corruptions. The peculiar tenet of independency, distinguishing it from
Presbyterianism, consists in something else. It consists in the belief
that the only organization recognized in the primitive Church was that
of the voluntary association of believers into local congregations, each
choosing its own office-bearers and managing its own affairs,
independently of neighboring congregations, though willing occasionally
to hold friendly conferences with such neighboring congregations, and to
profit by the collective advice. Gradually, it is asserted, this right
or habit of occasional friendly conference between neighboring
congregations had been mismanaged and abused, until the true
independency of each voluntary society of Christians was forgotten, and
authority came to be vested in synods or councils of the office-bearers
of the churches of a district or province.
This usurpation of power by synods or councils, it is said, was as much
a corruption of the primitive-church discipline as was prelacy itself,
or the usurpation of power by eminent individual presbyters, assuming
the name of "bishops" in a new sense. Nay, the one usurpation had
prepared the way for the other; and, especially after the establishment
of Christianity in the Roman Empire by the civil power, the two
usurpations had gone on together, until the church became a vast
political machinery of councils, smaller or larger, regulated by a
hierarchy of bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs, all pointing to the
popedom. The error of the Presbyterians, it is maintained, lies in their
not perceiving this natural and historical connection of the two
usurpations, and so retaining the synodical tyranny while they would
throw off the prelatic.
Not having recovered the true original idea of an _ecclesia_ as
consisting simply of a society of individual Christians meeting together
periodically and united by a voluntary compact, while the great
invisible church of a nation or of the world consists of the whole
multitude of such mutually independent societies harmoniously moved by
the unseen Spirit present in all, Presbyterians, it is said, substitute
the more mechanical image of a visible collective church for each
community or nation, try to perfect that image by devices borrowed from
civil polity, and find the perfection they seek in a system of national
assemblies, provincial synods, and district courts of presbyters,
superintending and controlling individual congregations. Independency,
on the other hand, would purify the aggregate Church to the utmost, by
throwing off the synodical tyranny as well as the prelatic, and
restoring the complete power of discipline to each particular church or
society of Christians formed in any one place.
So, I believe, though with varieties of expression, English
Independents argue now. But, while they thus seek the original warrant
for their views in the New Testament and in the practice of the
primitive Church, and while they maintain also that the essence of these
views was rightly revived in old English Wycliffism, and perhaps in some
of the speculations which accompanied Luther's Reformation on the
Continent, they admit that the theory of Independency had to be worked
out afresh by a new process of the English mind in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, and they are content, I believe, that the crude,
immediate beginning of that process should be sought in the opinions
propagated, between 1580 and 1590, by the erratic Robert Brown, a
Rutlandshire man, bred at Cambridge, who had become a preacher at
Norwich.
Here and there in England by his tongue during those ten years, and
sometimes by pamphlets in exile, Brown, who could boast that he had been
"committed to thirty-two prisons, in some of which he could not see his
hand at noon-day," and who escaped the gallows only through some family
connection he had with the all-powerful Lord Burghley, had preached
doctrines far more violently schismatic than those of Cartwright and the
majority of the Puritans. His attacks on bishops and episcopacy were
boundlessly fierce; and the duty of separation _in toto_ from the Church
of England, the right of any number of persons to form themselves into a
distinct congregation, the mutual independence of congregations so
formed, and the liberty of any member of a congregation to preach or
exhort in it, were among his leading tenets.
At length, tiring of the tempest he had raised around him, he accepted a
living in Northamptonshire; and, though he is not known to have ever
formally recanted any of his opinions, he lived on in his parsonage till
as late as 1630, when Fuller knew him as a passionate and rather
disreputable old man of eighty, employing a curate to do his work,
quarrelling with everybody, and refusing to pay his rates. Meanwhile the
opinions which he had propagated fifty years before had passed through a
singular history in the minds and lives of men of steadier and more
persevering character. For, though Brown himself had vanished from
public view since 1590, the Brownists, or Separatists, as they were
called, had persisted in their course, through execration and
persecution, as a sect of outlaws beyond the pale of ordinary
Puritanism, and with whom moderate Puritans disowned connection or
sympathy. One hears of considerable numbers of them in the shires of
Norfolk and Essex and throughout Wales; and there was a central
association of them in London, holding conventicles in the fields, or
shifting from meeting-house to meeting-house in the suburbs, so as to
elude Whitgift's ecclesiastical police. At length, in 1592, the police
broke in upon one of the meetings of the London Brownists at Islington;
fifty-six of these were thrown into divers jails; and, some of the
Separatist leaders having been otherwise arrested, there ensued a
vengeance far more ruthless than the government dared against Puritans
in general.
Six of the leaders were brought to the scaffold, including Henry
Barrowe, a Gray's Inn lawyer--of such note among those early Brownists
by his writings that they were also called Barrowists--John Greenwood, a
preacher, and the poor young Welshman, John Penry, whose brave and
simple words on his own hard case, addressed before his death to Lord
Burghley, thrill one's nerves yet. All these were of Cambridge training,
though Penry had also been at Oxford. Others died in prison; and of the
remainder many were banished.