In the month of December, 1643, just after the Scotch treaty had been
ratified, and while the Puritans waited for their allies, a great man
passed away from the scene of strife. A journal reported how some at
Oxford drank "a health to his Majesty, by whom we live and move and
have our being; and to the confusion of Pym, his God, and his Gospel."
Whether the report be an exaggeration of fact, or, as we would hope,
a pure fiction, certainly Pym was an object of intense dislike to the
Royalists, and his death removed a formidable antagonist. Crushed by
toil and anxiety, his health had rapidly failed; and, while his body
suffered from disease, and his mind from anxiety, he had to endure
the fury of a populace which now sought to dash in pieces the god of
its former idolatry. As the patriot lay on his death-bed, men, in
women's clothes, instigated by those who wished to thwart the rigorous
prosecution of the war, besieged the House of Commons, madly crying
out, "Give us the traitor, that we may tear him to pieces, give us the
dog Pym!"[374] The brutality of the mob had its match in the malignity
of the Royalists, who, if rumour be true, kept horses idle in the
stables, waiting to carry down to Oxford tidings of the wished-for
stroke.[375] Report further spoke of knighthood as promised to the
first who should bring the news. It was also stated that the night
after Pym's decease, bonfires were blazing in the University streets to
celebrate the event.[376]
[Sidenote: 1643, December.]
[Sidenote: _Burial of Pym._]
Westminster Abbey has witnessed many noble funerals. The pavement has
but just closed over the remains of a renowned parliamentary chief,
and we have a fresh remembrance of the long procession and the solemn
service, the crowds of spectators and the general mourning at the
burial of Lord Palmerston. The obsequies of John Pym were perhaps still
more imposing. Preceded by servants and friends, by numerous persons of
distinction according to their rank, and by the Westminster Assembly
of Divines, attended also by some little pomp of heraldry, the remains
of that illustrious statesman were borne on the shoulders of certain
of his fellow-commoners up the nave of the cathedral, followed by his
family, and by the members of both Houses of Parliament.[377] They
crowded the vast building, whilst Stephen Marshall preached a sermon
describing the virtues of the deceased. "He maintained," said the
minister, "the same evenness of spirit which he had in the time of his
health, professing to myself, that it was to him a most indifferent
thing to live or die; if he lived, he would do what service he could,
if he died, he should go to that God whom he had served, and who would
carry on his work by some others. To others he said that if his life
and death were put into a balance he would not willingly cast in one
drachm to turn the balance either way. This was his temper all the time
of his sickness." "Such of his family or friends who endeavoured to be
near him (lest he should faint away in his weakness) have overheard him
importunately pray for the King's Majesty and his posterity, for the
Parliament and the public cause, for himself begging nothing. And a
little before his end, _having recovered out of a swound_, seeing his
friends weeping around him, he cheerfully told them he had looked death
in the face, and knew, and therefore feared not the worst it could
do, assuring them that his heart was filled with more comfort and joy
which he felt from God, than his tongue was able to utter, and (whilst
a reverend minister was at prayer with him) he quietly slept with his
God."[378]
[Sidenote: 1643, December.]
This incident--in an early stage of our Civil Wars--of Pym carried to
the grave by his fellow patriots, forcibly reminds us of the interment
of Mirabeau with similar honours, at the beginning of the French
Revolution. Unlike as to moral and religious character, these two
eminent men, as to ability for guiding public affairs, and swaying a
nation's destinies, had much in common: and whilst we speculate on
the probable consequences of the lengthened life of the brilliant
Frenchman in curbing party excesses and preventing terrible scenes, we
may also conjecture that happy consequences would have followed, had
the illustrious Englishman been longer spared. The loss of John Hampden
is often deplored, as of one whose wise counsel and force of character
might have saved his country a series of mistakes and much suffering,
had Divine providence lengthened his days. The loss of John Pym, for
reasons of the same kind, is probably still more to be lamented.
[Sidenote: _Court Intrigues._]
At this period, plots were of frequent occurrence.[379] Basil Brooke,
a noted Royalist and Roman Catholic, planned a scheme for detaching
the City of London from the cause of the Covenant, and from the Scotch
alliance. By means of defeating Presbyterian schemes, he aimed at
procuring peace favourable to the King. Propositions from his Majesty,
and signed by his hand, were to be presented to the Lord Mayor, so
that the latter should be obliged to convene a meeting to petition
Parliament to treat with the monarch: upon which, should Parliament
refuse, "a party in both Houses would appear with the City, and so
either carry all to the King, or put all in confusion." The utterly
idle conception of achieving a desired result by means in themselves
impracticable, or, if even carried out, not such as to ensure the
effect contemplated, only led to exposure and defeat. Keen-witted men
in Parliament and in the City discovered the plot, and turned it to an
account the very opposite of that which the plotters intended.
[Sidenote: 1643, December.]
The court party at the same time endeavoured to intrigue with the
Independents, whose want of sympathy in Presbyterian projects had
become obvious to all. Flattering offers were made to them if they
would break with the Scotch, abandon the Covenant, join the Royalists,
and agree to the establishment of a moderate Episcopacy. Toleration
was promised upon these conditions, and it was said: "Mr. Nye should be
one of the King's chaplains, and several other Independents should be
highly preferred and rewarded."[380] With these larger intrigues were
mixed up certain minor ones for the purpose of inducing officers of
the garrison at Windsor Castle and Aylesbury to betray those places
into the King's hands. The person who appears most prominently among
the Royalist agents in these schemes was one Serjeant-major Ogle, who
had been taken prisoner by the Parliament, and who was lodged in
Winchester House. References to him, as a notorious plotter in the
service of his Majesty, occur in the publications of that day, and
he also figures in that capacity upon the pages of the Parliamentary
journals.[381] His own version of the part he played comes to light in
the following letter found in the State Paper Office. Giving an account
of himself at a later period, he says:--
"It pleased his Majesty," that blessed martyr, my ever-blessed master,
to give his express orders unto me (then a prisoner in Winchester
House, only upon his Majesty's interest), to proceed with Mr. Nye,
Goodwin, Homstead, Grafton, Moseley, Devenish, and some other of the
Independent faction, according to a letter of mine unto the Earl of
Bristol, intimating their desires to his Majesty, on their own and all
the rests' behalf, in order to their plenary satisfaction and freedom
from pressure of conscience in point of worship, which they judged
might more easily and safely be obtained, and by them more honestly
and honourably accepted from the King than the Covenant then in its
triumphant career in London, they having failed of their expectation
from the address they made to his Majesty by Sir Basil Brooke. Upon
receipt of which warrant from his Majesty, I did conclude upon certain
articles, or rather propositions, in order to a treaty upon their
coming to Oxford, for which purpose I received a safe conduct from his
Majesty, with a blank for such names as I thought fit to insert, and
a hundred pounds out of his Majesty's county, towards relief of my
necessities.
[Sidenote: _Court Intrigues._]
"The general, upon which all particulars were founded, was, that if
his Majesty pleased to give them assurance of liberty of conscience,
upon their submission to the temporal authority, they would employ
their whole interest in opposition to the Scotch Covenant, to serve his
Majesty against the two Houses, and submit to a moderate Episcopacy,
which they judged to be far more tolerable than the other, and, indeed,
the only way to settle the nation: and from this general one particular
was, that they would deliver to the King Aylesbury and Windsor
garrisons as pledges for performance of their future assistance upon
his Majesty's command, after their coming to Oxford, and satisfaction
received."[382]
It is to be observed that Ogle's letter plainly implicates the King as
a prime mover in these wished-for intrigues with the Independents.
[Sidenote: 1644, January.]
In the midst of these contrivances, and immediately after the detection
of that in which Sir Basil Brooke was the chief actor, the corporation
of London, (according to civic custom on occasions of great public
interest), invited the Houses of Parliament to a grand banquet, as a
proof of union in one common cause, and as a celebration of recent
victory over common enemies. The invitation was formally accepted, and
entered in the journals, and the Commons added to their acceptance
of the invitation a request that, on the morning of the festive day,
there should be in such place as the City might think fit, and by such
a minister as the City might choose, a sermon for the commemoration
of the recent deliverance. The Assembly of Divines also received an
invitation to the festival; and further, the sheriff and aldermen, in
chains and gowns, called on Baillie and his colleagues at Worcester
House to join the other notabilities who were to be present at the
municipal entertainment. On Thursday, the 18th of January, the
Parliament, the Assembly, and the Scotch Commissioners met between nine
and ten o'clock in the morning at Christ Church in the City, to hear
Stephen Marshall, the preacher selected by the corporation to deliver a
sermon at the request of the Commons.
The exordium to his discourse was ingenious.
[Sidenote: _Stephen Marshall's Discourse._]
"Right honourable and well-beloved in our Lord,
"This day is a day purposely set apart for feasting, and it is like one
of the Lord's feasts, where you have a feast and an holy convocation,
and you are first met here to feast your souls with the fat things of
God's house, with a feast of fat things, full of marrow; and wine on
the lees well refined; and afterwards to feast your bodies with the
fat things of the land and sea, both plenty and dainty. But if you
please you may first feast your eyes. Do but behold the face of the
assembly. I dare say it is one of the excellentest feasts that ever
your eyes were feasted with. Here in this assembly you may first see
the two Houses of Parliament--the honourable Lords and Commons, who
after thus many years wrestling with extreme difficulties, in their
endeavouring to preserve an undone kingdom, and to purge and reform a
backsliding and a polluted Church, you may behold them still not only
preserved from so many treacherous designs, and open violences, but
as resolved as ever to go on with this great work which God hath put
into their hands. Here you may also see his excellency my most honoured
lord, and near him that other noble lord the commander of our forces
by sea, as the other is by land; and with them abundance of lords and
resolute commanders; all of them with their faces like lions, who after
so many terrible battles, and abundance of difficulties, and charging
in the faces of so many deaths, are yet all of them preserved, and not
a hair of their head fallen to the ground. Here also you may behold the
representative body of the City of London, the Lord Mayor, the Court
of Aldermen, the Common Council, the militia, and in them the face and
affection of this glorious city; this city which, under God, hath had
the honour of being the greatest means of the salvation of the whole
kingdom, and after the expense of millions of treasure, and thousands
of their lives, still as courageous and resolute to live and die in the
cause of God as ever heretofore. Here you may likewise see a reverend
assembly of grave and learned divines, who daily wait upon the angel in
the mount, to receive from him the lively oracles and the pattern of
God's house to present unto you. All these of our own nation, and with
them you may see the honourable, reverend, and learned commissioners of
the Church of Scotland, and in them behold the wisdom and the affection
of their whole nation, willing to live and die with us; all these may
you behold in one view. And not only so, but you may behold them all of
one mind, after so many plots and conspiracies to divide them one from
another. And, which is yet more, you may see them all met together this
day on purpose both to praise God for this union, and to hold it out
to the whole world, and thereby to testify that as one man they will
live and die together in this cause of God. Oh, beloved, how beautiful
is the face of this assembly! Verily, I may say of it, as it was said
of Solomon's throne, that the like was never to be seen in any other
nation. I question whether the like assembly was ever to be seen this
thousand years upon the face of the earth. Methinks I may call this
assembly the host of God; I may call this place Mahanaim, and I believe
there are many in this assembly that would say as old Jacob did when he
had seen his son Joseph's face, 'Let me now die, seeing my son Joseph
is yet alive.' And for mine own part, I am almost like the Queen of
Sheba, when she had seen the court of Solomon, it is said that she had
no spirit in her; and I could send you away and say that you had no
cause to weep to-day or to-morrow, but to eat the fat and drink the
sweet, and send portions one unto another; and I should send you away
presently, but that I have first some banqueting stuff for your souls,
such as the hand of God hath set before you for your inward refreshing;
the ground whereof you shall find in the twelfth chapter of the first
book of Chronicles, and three last verses:--'All these men of war, that
could keep rank, came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David
king over all Israel: and all the rest also of Israel were of one heart
to make David king. And there they were with David three days, eating
and drinking; for their brethren had prepared for them. Moreover, they
that were nigh them even unto Issachar, and Zebulun and Naphtali,
brought bread on asses, and on camels, and on mules, and on oxen, and
meat, meal, cakes of figs, and bunches of raisins, and wine, and oil,
and oxen, and sheep abundantly: for there was joy in Israel.'"[383]
[Sidenote: 1644, January.]
After the preacher had delivered a pertinent discourse from this text,
which was felicitously chosen, the guests who had attended the church
marched in long and imposing procession to Merchant-Taylors' Hall,
where the banquet was served.
[Sidenote: _Corporation Banquet._]
Train bands lined the streets. Common Councilmen in their gowns
walked first. The Mayor and Aldermen, arrayed in scarlet, followed
on horseback. The General and Admiral of the Parliament, with the
rest of the Lords and the Officers of the Army, trudged on foot. Then
came the Commons, with their Speaker and his mace-bearer; and next to
these the Westminster Divines. It had been appointed that the Scotch
Commissioners, clerical and lay, should have a post of honour between
the Commons and the Assembly, but as Lord Maitland went with the other
lords, the modesty of his clerical companions would not let them take
precedence of the English brethren. So Baillie and his colleagues
"stole away to their coach," and when there was no room for coaches
along the thronged streets, they went on foot, "with great difficulty
through huge crowdings of people." Passing through Cheapside they
saw,--where the Cross used to stand,--a great bonfire kindled, "many
fine pictures of Christ and the saints, of relics, beads, and such
trinkets," being piled up for the special entertainment of the reverend
gentlemen, and kindled into a blaze just as they marched by. The feast
cost £4,000, though, in the spirit of Puritan moderation, it included
neither dessert, nor music, only "drums and trumpets." The Mayor sat
on the dais. Two long tables supplied the Divines; Dr. Twiss the
Prolocutor, sitting at the head. The Speaker of the Commons proposed
the health of the Lords. The Lords stood up, every one with his glass,
and drank to the Commons. The Mayor toasted both in the name of the
citizens. The sword-bearer, wearing his cap of maintenance, carried the
loving cup from the chief magistrate to the Commissioners. The whole
ceremony was to them a "fair demonstration" of union between those
whom the Oxford plotters endeavoured to divide. The feast ended with
the singing of the 67th Psalm, "whereof Dr. Burgess read the line."
"A religious precedent," says Vicars, in his Chronicle, "worthy to
be imitated by all godly Christians in their both public and private
feastings and meetings."[384]
[Sidenote: 1644, January.]
[Sidenote: _Iconoclastic Crusades._]
The Cheapside bonfire of papistical trinkets illuminated the spot where
once stood the famous cross. That cross, also the one at Charing,
and even the venerable building of a like description in St. Paul's
Churchyard--although so rich in memories of the Reformation--had
been destroyed by the axes of puritanical zeal. In his honest hatred
of superstition, the Puritan did not perceive that objects once
devoted to its service, if intrinsically beautiful, might yet deserve
preservation, and that monuments of antiquity, though they may not
advance the cultivation of taste, may render valuable aids to the
study of history. But the use and appreciation of ancient art is of
modern growth, and the Puritan must not be blamed for being, in this
respect, only on a level with the reformers of an earlier age, and
with many of his own contemporaries of a different creed.[385] The
House of Commons had early taken in hand the destruction of what were
deemed relics of idolatry, although, being unsupported by the Lords,
they accomplished little. But in the spring of 1643, by order of the
two Houses, Sir Robert Harlow executed the iconoclastic crusade just
noticed, which proved the beginning of a wholesale destruction which
continued throughout the following winter. Acting under the advice of
the Assembly, as well as in accordance with their own impulses, the
Commons, in the month of August, issued an ordinance for demolishing
altars, for removing tapers, candlesticks, and basins, and for defacing
crosses, images, and pictures of the persons of the Trinity, and of
the Virgin Mary.[386] Monuments of the dead, not commonly reputed
for saints, were to be spared. Accordingly, in December, images in
Canterbury Cathedral were dashed down, and stained windows broken
in pieces. Something of the same wilful destruction followed a few
days afterwards in Westminster Abbey; copes and surplices, it may be
observed, having been taken away in the previous October, up to which
time they had been in use even there.[387] St. Paul's Cathedral[388]
shared a like fate, and sacred articles of silver belonging to it
were sold for the replenishment of the war treasury.[389] As to the
defacement of churches, the Puritans have been blamed for things in
which they had no concern. What was really owing to the violence of
reformers, the depredations of Royalists, and the neglect and folly
of churchwardens has been put to their account. Yet when all this is
allowed for, enough remains to sustain serious indictments against the
accused, and little mercy would they find at the hands of a tribunal of
antiquaries.
[Sidenote: 1644, January.]
[Sidenote: _Iconoclastic Crusades._]
In the city of Norwich, (January, 1644) the Puritan corporation
appointed a committee to repair several churches, and take notices of
scandalous pictures, crucifixes, and images:[390] whereupon they went
to work, breaking windows, filing bells, tearing down carved work,
stripping brasses off monuments, and pulling down the pulpit with
its leaden cross in the green yard. Popish paintings, taken from the
cathedral and other churches, were burnt in the old market-place, "a
lewd wretch" (according to Bishop Hall) walking before the train
with his cope trailing in the dust, and a service book in his hand,
"imitating in an impious scorn the tune, and usurping the words of the
litany."[391] There is further evidence of remorseless destruction
in the journal of William Downings, of Stratford, a parliamentary
visitor, appointed under a warrant from the Earl of Manchester, for
demolishing superstitious pictures and ornaments within the county of
Suffolk, in the years 1643 and 1644. But in some places the populace
opposed the execution of the Parliamentary decree. At Kidderminster the
Puritan churchwarden set up a ladder, which was too short to enable
him to reach the crucifix on the top of the town cross; and, while
he was fetching another, a mob assembled to defend what many admired
only for the reason that their neighbours disliked it.[392] Baxter,
then minister in the town, calls these defenders of crucifixes and
images "a drunken crew," and declares that they beat and bruised two
neighbours who had come to look after him and the churchwardens, and
would have belaboured both in the same way, could they but have caught
them.[393] If sometimes the iconoclasts were defeated, at other times
they overcame their adversaries. A church near Colonel Hutchinson's
house at Owthorpe, in Nottinghamshire, had a painted window with a
crucifixion, the Virgin Mary and the Evangelist John. The clergyman
took down the heads of the figures, and laid them by carefully in his
closet, and tried to persuade his churchwardens to certify that the
Parliamentary order was executed; but they took care to call on the
Colonel and bring him to see the church and the minister, who was at
last compelled to blot out all the paintings and break all the glass
which was tainted with superstition.[394]
[Sidenote: 1644, January.]
[Sidenote: _Iconoclastic Crusades._]
[Sidenote: 1644, January.]
The amount of damage done in different parts of the country would
depend on circumstances, on the disposition of the magistrates, and
especially on the conduct of the military. It is certain that the
havoc of Downings' iconoclasm is not a specimen of what generally took
place. The state of numerous churches throughout the kingdom shews
that Puritanism in many places touched them lightly, if at all. We
know more about the cathedrals. These suffered severely. Peterborough,
perhaps, was treated worse than any, the choir being stripped of its
carved fittings and coloured glass, the cloisters being completely
pulled down.[395] Part of the nave at Carlisle was destroyed, in order
that guard houses and batteries might be constructed. The chapter house
of Hereford was ruined, and 170 crosses torn up.[396] At Chichester,
ornaments, monuments, and windows were destroyed. Sawpits were dug in
the nave of Rochester. The lady chapel of Ely was cruelly shattered.
Norwich Cathedral sustained much injury; and so did Lichfield,
which the cavaliers turned into a citadel. Monuments were smashed
at Gloucester and Lincoln. But, in Winchester, though Waynflete's
chantry was defaced, the cathedral is said to have suffered less than
it otherwise would have done, from the circumstance of the captain of
the troop stationed there being an old Wykehamist. Though stalls were
pulled down at Worcester, numerous monuments and effigies still remain
within that edifice. Only painted windows were taken down at Exeter
and Oxford; some of the latter being preserved after their removal.
Notwithstanding what is reported in the _Mercurius Rusticus_, the
ornaments of Westminster Abbey, which at the beginning of the conflict
fell into Puritan hands, so far escaped violence, that it is said "a
history of ecclesiastical sculpture, from the reign of Henry III. to
the present day, might be fairly illustrated from the stores of that
Church alone."[397] Other noble cathedrals were but slightly damaged.
Salisbury was free from "material profanation."[398] There is no
mention of harm done at Bristol, Durham, Chester, and York. Throughout
England, tradition is constant in her story, that the violation of
churches was the work of soldiers.
The excess to which ceremonial worship had been carried by the
Laudian clergy, and the almost Popish reverence with which images
and pictures had been regarded by some of them, inspired an intense
Protestant indignation in numbers of Englishmen. They prized the
Reformation, and thought they saw in the Anglo-Catholicism of their
day a national defection from the faith of their fathers, like setting
up the calves in Bethel and Dan, or the idolatrous service of Baal
in Samaria. And whilst fearing the return of Romanism, with Romanism
they identified things which have no necessary connection with it.
Their zeal, though religious and disinterested, lacked wisdom, and had
mixed up with it such alloy as commonly adheres to that passion in the
breasts of mortals. It resembled the fierceness and fury of a noted
reformer of Israel, who "brought forth the images out of the house
of Baal and burned them;" nor was it untouched by a spirit of proud
self-complacency like his when he cried: "Come see my zeal for the Lord
of Hosts." Again and again, as we mark Puritan doings in cathedrals and
churches, we are ready to exclaim: "The driving is like the driving of
Jehu the son of Nimshi, for he driveth furiously."[399]
[Sidenote: _Cromwell at Ely._]
A broad construction was given to the meaning of orders for suppressing
superstition and idolatry. In the month of January, 1644, when
Oliver Cromwell was Governor of Ely, a Mr. Hitch officiated in the
cathedral in the usual way. No express law, as yet, had been made
against the Prayer Book or choral worship. But, interpreting the
latter as "superstitious," and apprehending that its continuance would
irritate his soldiers, Cromwell wrote to this clergyman and required
him to forbear a service which he styled "unedifying and offensive."
The clergyman persisted. The Governor,--wearing his hat according
to custom,--with his men, entered the church, and found Mr. Hitch
chaunting in the choir. "I am a man under authority," said Oliver, "and
am commanded to dismiss this assembly"--the only authority, in fact,
being the order about superstition, backed by the probability of a
disturbance in case the service was continued. When Hitch determinately
went on, Cromwell's words, "Leave off your fooling and come down, sir,"
broke up the cathedral worship, and shewed the sort of man the clergy
had to deal with.
[Sidenote: 1644, February.]
While crosses, images, and choral services were put down, the Solemn
League and Covenant was set up. The zeal with which the Parliament
attempted the last, scarcely fell below that with which they
accomplished the first. An exhortation on the subject by the Divines
at Westminster publicly appeared. It contains no threatenings of
penalty in case of refusal, but only an abundance of argument and
rhetorical persuasion. Various objections are answered--one especially,
which, read in connexion with the events of the Restoration, is rather
curious:--
"As for those clergymen who pretend that they, above all others, cannot
covenant to extirpate that Government because they have, as they say,
taken a solemn oath to obey the bishops _in licitis et honestis_, they
can tell, if they please, that they that have sworn obedience to the
laws of the land, are not thereby prohibited from endeavouring by all
lawful means the abolition of those laws when they prove inconvenient
or mischievous; and if yet there should any oath be found into which
any ministers or others have entered, not warranted by the laws of God
and the land, in this case they must teach themselves and others that
such oaths call for repentance, not pertinacity in them."[400]
Though no threats are found in the exhortation, Parliament sent
instructions to commanders-in-chief and governors of towns and
garrisons, that the Covenant should be taken by all soldiers under
their command. The committees of the several counties had to see
that copies were dispersed over the country, its contents read in
the churches, and the oath tendered to ministers, churchwardens, and
constables. Law officers under the Crown were subjected to loss of
office, and lawyers to restraint from practising in the Courts, if
they did not submit to the new test.[401] If a minister refused to
present it to his parishioners, the committee was to appoint another
minister to do so in his place.[402] It was ordered, at an earlier
date, that no one who declined the Solemn League should be elected a
common-councilman of London, or have a vote in such election, or hold
any office of trust in the City.[403] Every congregation was to obtain
a copy of the document fairly printed in large letters, fit to be hung
up in the place of worship.[404]
[Sidenote: _The Solemn League and Covenant._]
[Sidenote: 1644, March.]
Sermons were preached and published, containing numerous scriptural
quotations, pertinent and impertinent, in favour of covenanting. The
Presbyterians regarded it as a symbol of their Church, and made it
a bulwark of their system; and others, who had no sympathy with
them, and who afterwards opposed their proceedings, were, at first,
scarcely less extravagant in extolling its merits.[405] The devices
of the engraver came under contribution, and there may be seen a
curious series of plates executed at that period, one representing
the Divines swearing to the Covenant with uplifted hands; and another
exhibiting Prelatists in gowns and caps coming out of Church, whilst a
Puritan is shutting the door upon them, saying, "Every plant that my
heavenly Father hath not planted shall be plucked up."[406] Copies of
the instrument, with a long array of names appended to it, sometimes
present themselves amongst corporation records and parish archives,
suggestive of scenes once enacted in church-porches and chancels.[407]
Other written vows belong to that covenanting age. At Nottingham, the
governor and garrison took between them a mutual oath to be faithful
to each other, and to hold out until death, without listening to any
parley, or accepting any terms from their enemies. Lucy Hutchinson
describes how women as well as men entered into such pledges;[408] and
an instance of a female adherent to the famous bond is found in a MS.
life of Mrs. Stockton, preserved in Dr. Williams' library.
[Sidenote: _The Solemn League and Covenant._]
Parliament imposed the Covenant upon the Irish. The Royalist
authorities did all in their power to resist the imposition. The
Lords-Justices and the Council laid an embargo on its adoption by the
military, and condemned it as seditious. But old Scotch officers,
commanding troops in the sister island, heeded not the mandate, and the
proscribed symbol received a warm welcome in the camp, and also in the
northern cities, where the Protestants rallied around it. With great
solemnity, the soldiers swore to it in the church of Carrickfergus.
Throughout Down and Antrim it became popular. At Coleraine it contended
with opposition, but at Derry, which place abounded in anti-prelatists,
it won a tumultuous victory over the opposite party.[409]
[Sidenote: 1644, March.]
As it has been from the beginning in the history of tests,[410] so it
was with the Covenant. It bore the character of a compromise; and,
accordingly, that which was meant at the same time to declare truth and
to accomplish union, received different explanations from different
persons. First, the Presbyterians thought themselves bound by it to
oppose schism as well as prelacy; next, the Independents, it was said,
deeming Presbyterianism superstitious, conceived that the Covenant gave
authority to oppose that system; and, thirdly, the cavaliers, swearing
by it to preserve and defend the King's majesty, concluded they might
lawfully oppose both the other parties. In this way the subject is
represented in a publication of later date, written by one who had no
sympathy whatever with the movement; and there is much truth, no
doubt, in the representation, as well as in the following remark by
the same writer, in reference to the ambiguity of the terms employed
in the symbol: "It must needs own almost anything, especially seeing
the sense of it hath never been plainly demonstrated, but left to men's
own interpretation in several particulars."[411] But whilst each could
discover something in the Covenant of a negative kind, which he could
turn to account in opposing his adversaries, nearly all persons in
England, except the most advanced Presbyterians, saw there were things
in it of a positive kind, which they knew not how to adopt.
Hence, in spite of its various interpretations, and also in spite of
Parliamentary orders and Presbyterian activity, great numbers refused
or evaded the test.[412] Where zealots were able, they enforced it
rigorously; but in unsettled times the imposition of anything of the
kind is sure to be encumbered by great difficulties. Some even who
held Presbyterian opinions disliked this form of expressing them; and
we find that Richard Baxter prevented his flock at Kidderminster from
submitting to the Covenant, lest, as he said, it should ensnare their
consciences; and also he prevailed on the ministers of Worcestershire
not to offer it to their people.
[Sidenote: _The Solemn League and Covenant._]
The truth is, that while the Covenant in Scotland was a reality,
inasmuch as it sprung from the hearts of the people, and expressed a
sentiment to which they were devoted, the case was far otherwise in our
own country. Imported here, it never rallied around it the sympathies
of the nation. Exasperating High Churchmen, it did not please the
Puritans. Many could not go so far as it went and many were anxious
to go much further still. Moderate Episcopalians were reluctant to
adopt it, because they were not prepared for the total abolition of
Episcopacy; and, on the other hand, many Independents disliked it,
because its condemnation of schism, they knew, was regarded in some
quarters as a condemnation of themselves. They were advocates for
a liberty and a toleration to which the spirit of the Covenant was
thoroughly opposed. That the Scotch should insist upon its adoption by
the English, and that the rulers of this country should accept the
condition, and endeavour to enforce it upon all their subjects, was
an unfortunate mistake, destined to be attended in some instances by
failure, in others by mischief, in all by disappointment.
[Sidenote: 1643, September.]
The adoption of the Covenant by the Westminster Assembly will be in
the reader's remembrance; and to the subsequent proceedings of that
venerable body his attention is now to be directed.
The Divines first met in Henry the Seventh's Chapel. That stone
building, pleasantly cool in summer, became too cold for them as autumn
drew on. They then, by order of Parliament, adjourned to the Jerusalem
Chamber.[413] "What place more proper for the building of Zion, as
they propounded it," asks Fuller, "than the Chamber of Jerusalem, the
fairest of the Dean's lodgings where King Henry IV. died?" Romance
and poetry, through the pens of Fabian and Shakespeare, have thrown
their hues over this memorable room; other and higher associations now
belong to it as the birth-place of a confession of faith still dear to
the Church of Scotland, and as the spot where the Puritan advocates of
religious liberty fought one of its early and most earnest battles.
[Sidenote: _The Westminster Assembly._]
The Chamber adjoins the Abbey, at the south corner of the west front.
There is a painted window on the north side, and two plain ones give
light on the west. The walls are hung with tapestry, representing
the Circumcision, the Adoration of the Magi, and, apparently, the
Passage through the Wilderness. A portrait of Richard II.--generally
considered the oldest extant picture of an English sovereign--hangs at
the south end of the apartment; and a curiously-carved chimney-piece,
put up by Williams, Dean of Westminster, spans the fire-place. The room
was rather different in appearance at the time of the Assembly. The
situation of the fire-place was the same, and the mantel-piece had but
just been erected. The arras, however, was brought into the Chamber
after the coronation of James II., on which occasion it had been used
in the Abbey; and the portrait of Richard II. did not come there till
1755, when it was removed from the Abbey choir.[414]
[Sidenote: 1643, September.]
Baillie paints the place and the Assembly as he saw it. Near the
door, and on both sides, were stages of seats; the Prolocutor's chair
being at the upper end, "on a frame." In chairs before him were the
assessors. Before them, through the length of the room, ran a long
table, at which sat the secretaries, taking notes. The house, says
Baillie, was well hung with tapestry, and a good fire blazed on
the hearth--"which is some dainty at London." Opposite the table,
to the right of the president, on the lowest of the three or four
rows of forms, appeared the Scotch Commissioners, Baillie himself a
conspicuous individual of the group. Behind were Parliament members
of the Assembly. On the left, running from the upper end to the
fire-place, and at the lower end, till they came round to the seats
of the Scotchmen, were forms for the Divines, which they occupied as
they pleased, each, however, commonly retaining the same spot. From the
chimney-piece to the door was an open passage; the Lords who now and
then dropped in, filling chairs round the fire. There must have been
plenty of room in the Chamber for the accommodation of the Assembly, as
ordinarily there were not present above threescore members. Everything
proceeded in perfect order, and each meeting commenced and closed
with prayer. As we read Baillie's description, we can see the Divines
divided into committees, can watch them preparing matters for the
Assembly, and can hear them speak without interruption, as each one
addresses the reverend Prolocutor. The harangues are long and learned,
and are well prepared beforehand with "replies," "duplies," "triplies."
Then comes the cry, "Question--question;" the scribe, Mr. Byfield,
immediately rises, approaches the chair, and places the proposition
in Dr. Twiss's hand, who asks, "As many as are in opinion that the
question is well in the stated proposition, let them say Aye;" "As many
as think otherwise, say No." Perhaps Ayes and Noes "be near equal;"
then the Prolocutor bids each side stand up, and Mr. Byfield counts.
When any one deviates from the point in hand, there are exclamations of
"Speak to order." Nobody is allowed to mention another by name, but he
must refer to him as "the reverend brother who lately or last spoke, on
this hand, on that side, above, or below." These methods of proceeding
deeply interested Robert Baillie, who, by his minute description of
them, greatly interests us. The Prolocutor, far too quiet a man for the
Scotch delegate, is represented by him as "very learned, but merely
bookish, and among the unfittest of all the company for any action;
so after the prayer he sits mute." This, most persons will think, a
chairman ought to do; but Baillie wished to have a President with more
zeal for Presbyterianism, and therefore he preferred Dr. Burgess--in
his estimation "a very active and sharp man," who supplied, so far as
was "decent, the Prolocutor's place."[415]
[Sidenote: Members of the Assembly.]
Twiss did not long retain the office which his modesty and infirmities
had made him reluctant to accept. He fell down one day in the
pulpit, and "was carried to his lodgings, where he languished about
a twelvemonth," and then expired, July the 20th, 1646.[416] His
preference of a contemplative to an active life appeared in his
exclamation after the attack which proved his death-stroke: "I shall
have at length leisure to follow my studies to all eternity," and
throughout he seems to have been as loyal as he was religious; for he
often wished the fire of contention might be extinguished, even if it
were in his own blood. A funeral in Westminster Abbey marked the public
opinion of his worth; and there Dr. Robert Harris preached a sermon for
him on Joshua i. 2, "Moses my servant is dead." The Assembly and the
House of Commons followed his remains to the grave. Mr. Charles Herle,
educated at Exeter College, Oxford, succeeded him in the office of
Prolocutor.
[Sidenote: 1643, September.]
There was an overwhelming majority of Presbyterians in the Jerusalem
Chamber. Amongst the most eminent were Burgess and Calamy, Marshall and
Ash. In the notes of the Assembly's proceedings taken by Lightfoot,
these names repeatedly occur, together with the less familiar ones of
Herle, Seaman, Cawdry, and others. The Scotch Commissioners, Henderson
and Baillie--with whom were associated George Gillespie, a young man
of rich promise, and Samuel Rutherford, whose "Letters" on religious
subjects are well known--likewise took a prominent part in the debates.
It is proper here also to remember that Presbyterianism, predominant
in the Assembly, was at the time supreme in the Senate. All the
staunch Prelatists, and many moderate Episcopalians, had left the Long
Parliament in St. Stephen's Chapel to join Charles's mock Parliament at
Christ Church, Oxford. Advocates who exposed ecclesiastical abuses with
the view of simply reforming the old establishment had disappeared. Of
those who remained it would be uncandid to deny that some were sincere
converts to the new system; and it would be credulous to believe that
there were not others who, seeing which way the stream flowed, struck
in with the current. At any rate, a Presbyterian policy prevailed in
1644. Holles, Glynne, Maynard, Rudyard, Rouse, and Prynne, together
with Waller, Stapleton, and Massey, were the most distinguished members
of the party; yet, though possessing amongst them considerable ability
and learning, they were none of them men of great intellectual power or
of any political genius.
[Sidenote: _Members of the Assembly._]
The Erastians, as they are called, must not be overlooked. John
Selden, already noticed, led the van, and his learning and reputation
made him a formidable opponent. To gain any advantage when breaking a
lance with such a person was counted a high distinction in theological
chivalry, and this honour has been duly emblazoned by Scotch heralds
more than once in favour of young George Gillespie, whom we have just
mentioned. The solid and industrious Bulstrode Whitelocke, and St. John,
"the dark-lantern man," helped to form a small body of reserve on the
same side, who, on special occasions, behaved themselves valorously
in the Westminster field. The chief Divine who thoroughly advocated
Erastianism was Thomas Coleman, Vicar of Blyton, in Lincolnshire, of
some considerable note in his own day. But a far greater man--acting,
however, only occasionally in connexion with the party--was the
renowned Dr. Lightfoot, who in rabbinical lore may be regarded as
equal, if not superior, to John Selden.[417]
But another class, entertaining different views, claim our
attention: the five dissenting brethren--Nye, Goodwin, Bridge,
Burroughs, and Simpson.[418]
[Sidenote: 1643, September.]
Philip Nye, a man of ability in some respects, and of bustling habits,
stands out as chief of the five. Zealous in his commendations of the
Covenant, he with equal zeal opposed Presbyterianism: the very thing
which, according to the fairest rules of interpretation, it must be
held to symbolize. He has been charged with disingenuousness; but
experience in the matter of subscription makes charitable people slow
to urge the charge. Those who vindicate subscription in "non-natural
senses" ought to be the last to fling a stone at Philip Nye; and those
who take the opposite side can hardly praise him for consistency of
conduct. How the Covenant could be adopted by any one professing
Independency is a puzzle, and the puzzle in Nye's case is the greater,
because, not content with quietly assenting to it as many others did,
he appears to have been a chief instrument in bringing it over the
border, and in enforcing it upon his companions.
Thomas Goodwin surpassed Nye in learning and in other respects.
His writings present him to us as an accomplished theologian, and
a many-sided thinker, and shew that scarcely any forms of thought
in metaphysical divinity escaped his notice.[419] The breadth and
excursiveness of his reflective powers are the more remarkable when
viewed in connexion with his rigid Calvinism. He joined Philip Nye
in a preface to "Cotton's Keys," and in it expounded ecclesiastical
opinions, in accordance with those of the New England churches.
[Sidenote: _Members of the Assembly._]
William Bridge--once a Norwich clergyman, then a refugee in
Holland--won a reputation for learning as well as piety. His library,
well stocked with fathers, schoolmen, and critics, so attracted him,
that he rose at four o'clock both winter and summer, that he might have
time for reading these favourites. Being a man of broad sympathies, he
accustomed himself to enquiries beyond the range of his profession, and
boldly handled constitutional questions. Adopting the opinion, that
"the people formed the first subject and receptacle of civil power;"
an opinion which was the mainstay of the Parliament's policy, Bridge
shrunk not from declaring, "In case a prince shall neglect his trust,
so as not to preserve his subjects, but to expose them to violence, it
is no usurpation in them to look to themselves, but an exercise of that
power which was always their own."[420] He had suffered under Laud,
and knew what it was to walk in paths of confessorship, so that his
exhortations had no little power to comfort, when he said to his people
in trouble: "Certainly, if God's charge be your charge, your charge
shall be His charge, and being so, you have His bond that they shall
never want their daily bread."
[Sidenote: 1643, September.]
Jeremiah Burroughs seems to have possessed singular candour, modesty,
and moderation, and probably was the gentlest of the five; perhaps he
was not always quite consistent,[421] being no lover of controversy,
but a man who felt himself at home in devotional meditations. He died
before the Westminster Assembly broke up,[422] and one of the last
sermons which he preached was entitled "_Irenicum_, or an Attempt to
heal Divisions among Christians."
Sydrach Simpson bore a character for learning, piety, and moderation
though at one time he was silenced by the Assembly, for differing from
them in matters of discipline.
[Sidenote: _Toleration._]
The discussions in which the Independents engaged with their brethren,
turned upon the office of Apostles, the distinction between pastors and
teachers, the character of ruling elders, ordination, the election of
ministers, and the like; but their main controversy hinged on a deeper
question. The Presbyterians were anxious to meet the difficulties
felt by the Independents, so far as the establishment of one uniform
religion would allow; the former were prepared to permit in their large
and carefully ramified scheme of ecclesiastical government some little
liberty of action, provided that on the whole there was obedience to
the established system. Freedom from synodical censure upon certain
points was to be conceded to those who upon others submitted to
Presbyterian authority. The Assembly would build a huge cathedral
for the nation, with small side chapels here and there for the use
of certain crotchety people, who might privately pass in and out if
they would but always enter through the great door, and walk up the
main aisle. This is not what men, calling themselves 'Independent,'
have ever liked. The five dissenting brethren did not object to the
cathedral being built for those who wished it--but for their own parts,
they desired their own places of worship to be quite outside.
[Sidenote: 1643.]
It will be instructive here to pause a moment, and to compare the
ground taken by the Independents in this controversy with that occupied
by other advocates of toleration of a different class at the same time.
Chillingworth, in his famous work on the "Religion of Protestants,"
observes in a passage of singular eloquence, that the imposing of the
senses of men upon the words of God, and the laying of them upon the
conscience under penalty of death and damnation--involving the vain
conceit that we can speak of the things of God better than in the words
of God--is the only fountain of all the schisms of the Church, and
that which makes these schisms immortal. He brands the practice as the
common incendiary of Christendom, and that which tears into pieces, not
merely the coat, but the members of Christ. "Take away," he says, in
burning words, "these walls of separation, and all will quickly be one.
Take away this _persecuting_, _burning_, _cursing_, _damning_ of men,
for not subscribing to the _words of men_ as the words of God; require
of Christians only to believe Christ and to call no man Master but Him
only; let those leave claiming infallibility that have no title to it,
and let them that in their words disclaim it, disclaim it likewise in
their actions; in a word, take away tyranny, which is the devil's
instrument to support errors, and superstitions, and impieties, in the
several parts of the world, which could not otherwise long withstand
the power of truth--I say take away tyranny, and restore Christians
to their just and full liberty of captivating their understanding to
Scripture only; and as rivers, when they have a free passage, run
all to the ocean, so it may well be hoped, by God's blessing, that
universal liberty, thus moderated, may quickly reduce Christendom to
truth and unity."[423]
John Hales, in his little tract on "Schism," complains that it has
been the common disease of Christians from the beginning, not to
content themselves with that measure of faith which God and Scriptures
have expressly afforded us, but to attempt devising things, of which
we have no light, either from reason or revelation; "neither have
they rested here, but upon pretence of Church authority (which is
none) or tradition (which for the most part is but feigned) they have
peremptorily concluded, and confidently imposed upon others a necessity
of entertaining conclusions of that nature; and, to strengthen
themselves, have broken out into divisions and factions, opposing man
to man, synod to synod, till the peace of the Church vanished, without
all possibility of recall."
[Sidenote: _Toleration._]
The object of both these great reasoners was, without violating
conscience, to secure union. They aimed at comprehension, but it was
comprehension such as all Puritans condemned. Chillingworth would have
had "the public service of God conducted so that all who believe the
Scriptures and live accordingly, might without scruple, or honesty,
or protestation against any part, join in it;" and Hales went so
far as to say: He did not see that men of different opinions in
religion might not hold communion in sacred things, and both go to
one church. "Why may I not go," he asks, "if occasion require, to an
Arian Church, so there be no Arianism expressed in their liturgy? And
were liturgies, and public forms of service so framed as that they
admitted not of particular and private fancies, but contained only
such things as in which all Christians do agree, schisms on opinion
were utterly vanished." It is needless to say that this is a species
of latitudinarianism which most religious men would consider to be
inconsistent with a definite doctrinal belief.
[Sidenote: 1643.]
The most remarkable treatise on the subject of toleration belonging
to that age is Jeremy Taylor's "Liberty of Prophesying." In point of
eloquence no other work of the kind can be compared with it; and though
defective it is still worthy, for the sake of its reasoning as well as
its rhetoric, to be a text book for the student of religious liberty.
The author dwells, in his own matchless way, on the difficulties of
Scripture, the uncertainty of tradition, the insufficiency of councils,
the fallibility of popes and fathers, the incompetency of the Church,
in its "diffusive character," to be judge of controversies, and the
impertinence of any pretence to such a possession of the spirit as
preserves from error. Reason is pronounced the best interpreter, and,
though some causes of error in the exercise of reason are culpable,
many are innocent.[424]
[Sidenote: _Toleration._]
To base toleration on the uncertainty of truth is a very insecure
method of proceeding. The alliance of scepticism damages the cause
of freedom. Colour is given to the charge, that religious liberty
springs from religious indifference. It has cost two centuries of
experience and discipline to indoctrinate society with the lesson,
that the decision of religious questions without any imposition of
human authority is a right of conscience; and that the more earnest
we are in the love of truth, the more careful we should be not to
sully its sanctity by the unrighteous enforcement of its principles.
Taylor fought manfully for freedom, but he did not see the highest
vantage ground within his reach. Moreover, in his Essay, comprehension
within the Church often seems confounded with religious liberty in the
State. No clear distinction is maintained between principles which
regulate the one, and principles which vindicate the other. Yet the
reader of the treatise may pick out and sort them, for there they are.
Taylor teaches the doctrine--that the duty of faith is completed in
believing the Articles of the Apostles' Creed; that to multiply tests
of orthodoxy and to require assent to points of doubtful disputation
"is to build a tower on the top of a bulrush;" and "that the further
the effect of such proceedings doth extend, the worse they are." With
an amiable self-delusion, characteristic of his pure and child-like
nature, he dreamed of a church, combining all varieties of belief
consistent with faith in the fundamental verities of the gospel.
Though protesting against persecution, he contended for discipline,
but confined excommunication simply to an act of spiritual severance.
It is difficult to catch exactly what he means by "communicating with
dissenting churches"--yet the tone of his remarks, and his reference
to the Greek Church, prevent us from supposing that he used the
appellation in the way it is commonly employed at present. The division
of kingdoms seems to have been with him the only justification of a
division of churches; and probably his theory of a national church
would not be very different from Dr. Arnold's. He, at the same time,
claims toleration for all _opinions_, not expressed in overt acts
injurious to the State; and though he hampers his principle with
certain qualifications, which threaten the civil rights of some persons
hostile to Christianity, yet his views, if consistently carried out
in his own gentle and charitable spirit, would leave little to be
complained of by any one. On the whole, Jeremy Taylor was fuller and
more satisfactory in his views of comprehension and liberty than was
either Chillingworth or Hales.
[Sidenote: 1643.]
Dr. Ralph Cudworth and Dr. Henry More, though they did not propound
any theory of toleration, advocated principles and breathed a spirit
in their teaching such as could not fail to promote the interests of
religious liberty. There is a beautiful sermon by the former of these
Divines preached before the House of Commons, in 1647, in which the
following characteristic passage occurs:--"The golden beams of truth
and the silken cords of love, twisted together, will draw men on with
a sweet violence, whether they will or no. Let us take heed we do not
sometimes call that zeal for God and His Gospel, which is nothing else
but our own temptations and stormy passions. True zeal is a sweet,
heavenly, and gentle flame, which makes us active for God, but always
within the sphere of love. It never calls for fire from heaven to
consume those that differ a little from us in their apprehensions. It
is like that kind of lightning (which the philosophers speak of) which
melts the sword within, but singeth not the scabbard. It strives to
save the soul, but hurteth not the body."[425]
More, who went beyond Cudworth in decided attachment to Episcopacy;
sharing in the spirit of his great contemporary, strongly condemned
rancour and persecution. "He thought," observes his biographer, "that
all persons making conscience of their ways, and that were themselves
peaceable and for granting a liberty unto others, ought not to be
severely used or persecuted, but borne with as befits weak members till
God shall give them greater light."[426]
[Sidenote: _Toleration._]
The groundwork of toleration selected by the Independents differed
from that of the Episcopalians. The Independents had ideas of
Christian faith, Christian worship, and Christian discipline far more
definite and fixed than those of Chillingworth or Hales, or even
Taylor; and could not join in any acts or associations inconsistent
with their deeply-formed and devout opinions. Arianism, for example,
might be deemed simply an intellectual error by men like Hales; but
no Athanasian could be stronger in his maintenance of the doctrine
of the Trinity, and the importance attached to it, than were these
dissenting brethren. They were as remote as possible from anything like
latitudinarian theology. Christian dogmas, so called, were held by them
with an intense tenacity. Toleration is sometimes reckoned a daughter
of indifference, but most certainly in their case toleration can be
ascribed to no such parentage. Moreover, the very general kind of
devotion in the house of God which would have satisfied Chillingworth,
would have starved the spiritual cravings of Jeremiah Burroughs and his
companions.
[Sidenote: 1643.]
Nor did the brethren wish for only one church, as did those eminent
Episcopalians. They could not, for it was their primary principle
that "churches" or "congregations"--with them identical terms--ought
to be many. In the existence of one holy Catholic Church, embracing
all true Christians, they firmly believed; but they held in perfect
consistency with this, that there must be numerous and distinct
organized communities, not only in the world, but in the same realm,
to be united only by common Christian sympathies. On this point they
would be at issue with Jeremy Taylor, as well as with Chillingworth and
Hales. They would object to his notion of national churches, as well as
to his standard of Christian faith. Their ideas of communion were much
more strict, though the extent of their toleration in some respects was
more comprehensive. With Taylor's Catholic predilections they would
have no sympathy, nor could they agree with him in all he said about
Anabaptists. When they came to the same conclusion with the eloquent
Churchman, it was by a different course of reasoning.
[Sidenote: _Toleration._]
The fundamental principles of Independency, consistently carried out,
could not but lead to the advocacy of a perfect freedom of profession
and worship. If churches be select communities composed of Christian
believers, standing apart from political powers, and independent of
each other in their organization, then it clearly follows that no
ecclesiastical authority can touch those who are outside the pale of
all particular churches that no temporal penalties can be inflicted
on those who are within any such pale and that full liberty of action
must be allowed to religionists of every class, and to those also who
have no religion at all. Accordingly, Mr. Hallam, an unprejudiced
enquirer into this subject, has declared that "the congregationalist
scheme leads to toleration, as the national church scheme is adverse to
it, for manifold reasons which the reader will discover."[427] A few
Independents at an early period discerned the legitimate consequences
of their principles. A Brownist petition prepared in the year 1640
prays, "that every man may have freedom of conscience," not excepting
Papists; and in a pamphlet published in 1644 it is asked, "whether if
security be taken for civil subjection, Papists might not be tolerated?
Otherwise," it is added, "if England's government were the government
of the whole world, not only they, but a world of idolaters of all
sorts, yea the whole world, must be driven out of the world."[428] But
the five brethren did not advocate the cause of liberty to that wide
extent; and afterwards, during the civil wars and the Protectorate,
many Independent Divines, including the leaders of the party, carefully
limited their conception of religious freedom.[429]
[Sidenote: 1643.]
But there was one Independent clergyman--John Goodwin--not a member of
the Westminster Assembly--who with pre-eminent perspicuity and force
expounded the doctrine of toleration. Justice has not been often done
to this very able man, owing, perhaps, to the prejudice against him
on account of his Arminianism, and to his bold defence of Charles's
execution. Calvinists and Royalists were likely to look at him with
jaundiced eyes; and it cannot be denied that when assailed, as he often
was, Goodwin could give a Roland for an Oliver; and that in a way such
as severely galled the victims of his criticism.[430] He remained until
1645 vicar of St. Stephen's, Coleman Street, and at the commencement
of the sittings of the Westminster Assembly, though suspected by
some of holding Calvinism very loosely, he had not yet entirely
abandoned that system. Open and earnest in his advocacy of Independent
principles, defending them both from the pulpit and from the press,
he also, whilst remaining vicar and discharging his parochial duties,
gathered in his parish an Independent church; not, however, preaching
separately to that community, but in his more private relationship as
an Independent pastor, praying and holding religious conversation with
them in his own house--whilst the doors were thrown open for any one to
attend the meetings who pleased.
Goodwin heartily approved of the "Narration," though he had no part in
the composition of that performance, and when it came under the attack
of Presbyterians, he broke a lance on its behalf with the assailants,
in a very chivalrous fashion. We do not remember any other statement of
the doctrine of toleration in the writings of the Independents of that
day so unequivocal as his, expressed in the following words:[431]
[Sidenote: _Toleration._]
"The grand pillar of this coercive power in magistrates is this angry
argument: 'What, would you have all religions, sects, and schisms
tolerated in Christian churches? Should Jews, Turks, and Papists be
suffered in their religions, what confusion must this needs breed both
in church and state!' I answer: If, by a toleration, the argument means
either an approbation or such a connivance which takes no knowledge
of, or no ways opposeth such religions, sects, or schisms as are
unwarrantable, they are not to be tolerated; but orthodox and able
ministers ought in a grave, sober, and inoffensive manner, soundly
from the Scriptures to evince the folly, vanity, and falsehood of all
such ways. Others, also, that have an anointing of light and knowledge
from God, are bound to contribute occasionally the best of their
endeavours towards the same end. In case the minister be negligent,
or forgetful of his duty, the magistrate may and ought to admonish
him that he fulfil his ministry. If a person, one or more, being
members of a particular church, be infected with any heretical or
dangerous opinion, and after two or three admonitions, with means of
conviction used to regain him, shall continue obstinate, he ought to
be cast out from amongst them by that church. If it be a whole church
that is so corrupted, the neighbour churches, in case it hath any,
ought to admonish it, and to endeavour the reclaiming of it. If it be
refractory, after competent admonition and means used for the reducing
of it, they may and ought to renounce communion with it, and so set a
mark or brand of heresy upon the forehead of it.
If, by a toleration, the argument means a non-suppression of such
religions, sects, and schisms by fining, imprisoning, disfranchising,
banishment, death, or the like, my answer is--_That they ought to be
tolerated; only upon this supposition, that the professors of them be
otherwise peaceable in the state, and every way subject to the laws and
lawful power of the magistrate_."[432]
[Sidenote: 1643.]
[Sidenote: _Toleration._]
There is a good deal of controversy as to who was first in the field
of toleration. The honour most likely belongs to Leonard Busher. He
will be noticed hereafter in connection with the early Baptists. But
the controversy is of little importance in relation to the general
interests of mankind, compared with the fact that John Locke, at a
later period, was the apostle to teach the doctrine effectively to the
English nation. He discovers who proves, and the merit of discovery
is due to him who first establishes a principle; but he, who adopting
what was established before, is more successful in his advocacy of
it than his predecessors were, will and ought to be regarded as a
superior benefactor of his race, though he may have attributed to him
more of the merit of originality than he deserves. Locke brought the
doctrine of toleration out of the domain of theology, and placed it on
the basis of political righteousness;[433] he established it by common
sense reasoning adapted to the English understanding; besides, he did
this in the exercise of a peculiar and independent genius; and, what
is a more important consideration, his contemporaries were prepared
for his instructions by preceding struggles and by possessing already
an instalment of legal toleration. Locke is to be distinguished from
Busher, Goodwin, and Owen, and from Chillingworth, Hales, and Taylor.
He comes more in a line with the first than with the second three
names; but he did what they had none of them the power to do--he made
the doctrine popular. A parallel may be drawn in this respect between
the history of the principle of government non-interference with a man
and his conscience, and the principle of government non-interference
with commercial interests and the natural laws of demand and supply.
Long after the discovery and illustration of the latter principle,
a great statesman made plain to the common understanding of his
fellow-countrymen what had been before apprehended by only a few
philosophers. John Locke occupies a position in the history of
toleration like that of Richard Cobden in the history of free trade.
After all, the Independents must be reckoned the chief and most
influential of the early apostles of toleration, and to their rise and
progress we shall direct attention in the following chapter.
[Illustration]