Proposals were still going on for a Treaty of Peace between the King
and the Parliament. His Majesty, from what he heard of dissensions in
the popular party, felt encouraged to hope for favourable terms. He
had also an idea that the House of Peers, and some in the Commons,
really wished for a reconciliation.[518] Laud's trial was at the time
in progress, and the sympathies of the Royalists, of course, were
with the prisoner. Accordingly, overtures were forwarded, from Oxford
to Westminster, and, in return, Commissioners were despatched from
Westminster to Oxford.[519] Their treatment, however, on reaching the
latter city, was not such as to inspire much hope of a prosperous
issue. The people reviled them as traitors, rogues, and rebels, and
threw stones into their coaches as they rode to the quarters appointed
for their entertainment at "the sign of the 'Catherine Wheel,' next
St. John's College"--"a mean inn," as Whitelocke describes it, only a
"little above the degree of an alehouse."[520] The conduct of Charles
in sending a sealed reply telling the Commissioners they were to carry
what he pleased to place in their hands, although it should be but the
_Song of Robin Hood and Little John_, certainly did not tend to an
amicable adjustment of affairs; and his duplicity in calling the Lords
and Commons at Westminster a Parliament, whilst he entered upon record
in his council book that the calling them so did not imply that they
were such, proves that his only object was to pacify his opponents for
a time, that he might do what he liked with them whenever they should
be again within his power.[521]
[Sidenote: 1645, January.]
[Sidenote: _Treaty at Uxbridge._]
At length, the preliminaries of a treaty were arranged, and a meeting
was fixed to take place in the town of Uxbridge in the month of
January, 1645. The propositions of Parliament related to religion,
the militia, and Ireland; and the Commissioners were instructed to
stipulate that the subject of religion should be considered first, on
the ground of its supreme importance.[522] When they assembled, the
town, selected as the theatre of their negotiations, was divided into
two parts; the north side of the main street being allotted to the
Parliamentarians, the south side to the Royalists. So crowded was every
corner of the place, that some of the distinguished personages were,
as Whitelocke informs us, "forced to lie, two of them in a chamber
together in field beds, only upon a quilt, in that cold weather, not
coming into a bed during all the treaty."[523] The house chosen as
most convenient for deliberation was Sir John Bennet's residence,--a
picturesque building at the west end, still in existence, containing
a "fair great chamber," with curiously wainscotted walls. Courtesies
were exchanged between the diplomatists, but it soon plainly appeared
that two hostile camps had pitched within the precincts of this little
town. On a market day, just as the business of the treaty was about to
commence, a lecture had to be preached in the parish church, according
to established custom. Christopher Love, a young Presbyterian divine,
full of fervour and zeal, happened then to be officiating as chaplain
to the garrison at Windsor, and he had just travelled to Uxbridge
in order to perform there this popular service. Farmers who came to
sell their corn, and even persons in the train of the noble visitors
from Oxford, contributed to increase the congregation which crowded
the church. The preacher's discourse was reported by certain hearers
to the authorities on the south side of the High Street as being of
a seditious and intolerable character. On the following morning a
paper was handed over to the party on the north side of the street,
complaining of the sermon, and alleging that the preacher had gone so
far as to declare that the King's representatives had "come with hearts
full of blood, and that there was as great a distance between this
treaty and peace as between heaven and hell." They therefore desired
justice might be executed upon this fomenter of strife. The same day
saw an answer returned, to the effect that Love was not included in the
retinue of the Commissioners from London; that they wished all causes
of offence to be avoided; and that they would report the circumstances
which had occurred to the Lords and Commons, who, they were quite sure,
would consider the matter "according to justice."[524] So the matter
dropped.
[Sidenote: 1645, February.]
It is curious to find Clarendon lamenting that Uxbridge Church was now
in the possession of the Presbyterians, and that, according to the
ordinance just issued, the Directory had there taken the place of the
Prayer Book. The King's Commissioners, therefore, who would willingly
have gone to church, were restrained from doing so, and had to observe
days of devotion in "their great room of the inn," where, as the
historian states, many who came from town and from the country daily
resorted.[525] The tables were turned; Episcopalians and Presbyterians
had changed places; and his Majesty's followers found themselves at
Uxbridge in the ranks of dissent.
[Sidenote: _Treaty at Uxbridge._]
Three weary weeks of debate ensued; religion, according to the
stipulated arrangement, coming first under discussion.[526] The four
grand ecclesiastical propositions which were placed in the forefront
by the Parliamentary Commissioners were the following: _first_, that
the Bill for abolishing Episcopacy, which had passed the two Houses,
should now receive the Royal sanction; _secondly_, that the Ordinance
for the Westminster Assembly should be confirmed; _thirdly_, that the
Directory, and the scheme of Church government annexed to it, should
be enacted for the reformation of religion and the accomplishment of
uniformity; and _fourthly_, that his Majesty should take the solemn
League and Covenant, and concur in enjoining it upon all his subjects.
Touching these several particulars, there may be seen in Dugdale and
Rushworth a mass of papers, very dull and dry to all appearance now,
but which had in them abundant light and fire, when they were exchanged
and read in that large "fair room" at Uxbridge.
[Sidenote: 1645, April.]
Before the debates on religion closed, the King made a very plausible
shew of concession, by professing his willingness to allow that
all persons should have freedom in matters of ceremony, and that
bishops should be bound to consult their presbyters, and constantly
to reside within their dioceses. He promised, too, that poor livings
should be improved, pluralities abolished, and ecclesiastical
jurisdiction reformed.[527] Yet, while making these smooth and pleasant
offers--calculated, if not to induce the Parliament to come to terms,
at least to raise the Royal cause to a somewhat higher position in
public esteem--his Majesty wrote to his secretary, Nicholas, in the
following style: "I should think, if in your private discourses, I no
wise mean in your public meetings with the London Commissioners, you
would put them in mind that they were arrant rebels, and that their end
must be damnation, ruin, and infamy, except they repented, and found
some way to free themselves from the damnable way they are in (this
treaty being the aptest), it might do good."[528] This double dealing
shews that Charles, in his negotiations with Parliament, fancied he
had to do with creatures of a kind fit only to be inveigled into traps
and snares; and it also shews that, at least, he had so much of
Romish morality as consists in not keeping faith with heretics. His
antagonists felt persuaded of this fact, though they could not put
their hands so easily on the proofs as subsequent revelations enable us
to do. But what they did actually discover made them very suspicious
of his Majesty's proceedings, and induced them to act towards him
sometimes in a manner which appeared not only ungracious, but
inexpedient; we, however, now seeing the whole series of events from
beginning to end, are enabled to discern in some of the most repulsive
acts of the liberal and popular party the keenest foresight and the
broadest prudence.
[Sidenote: _Debates about Ordination._]
To return from Uxbridge to Westminster.
The Presbyterians, working with the best intentions, striving to reform
the people of England and to drive out error and evil, had much trouble
with other matters besides the enforcement of the Directory. Churches
wanted ministers, for scandalous clergymen had been dismissed and aged
clergymen had become incapable. Some too had died, and some had removed
to take charge of other parishes.[529] The Oxford University, wholly
in the hands of Royalists, yielded no candidates for the ministry, and
Bishops would not ordain persons to serve in the new Establishment. In
consequence of these circumstances vacancies were irregularly filled
up, and uneducated persons were wont to thrust themselves into the
sacred office. Amidst this disorder the Presbyterians, sorrowful on
the one hand because of such destitution, and displeased on the other
with the irregularity in such a mode of supply, and at the same time
mortified by the taunts of Royalists and Episcopalians, vigorously
devoted themselves to the business of supplying churches and ordaining
ministers. In the month of April, 1645, Parliament ordered that no one
should preach who had not received ordination in the English or some
other reformed Church, or who had not been approved by the authorities
appointed for the purpose.[530]
[Sidenote: 1645, April.]
It was specially enjoined that this rule should be put in force
throughout the army, because in some regiments Presbyterian
ministrations and worship were not held in high esteem; and the
Lords, who cherished strong Presbyterian sympathies, also directed
the Assembly to prepare a form according to which clergymen might be
ordained without the offices of a diocesan bishop. Long and tiresome
debates arose amongst the Divines in connexion with this latter
subject;--Presbyterians, Independents, and Erastians differing from
each other in the ideas which they entertained of what ordination
meant. This controversy has been long since buried, and we shall not
disinter it from amidst the dust of "old diaries" and "grand debates;"
but the point raised by the Independents, who contended for the right
of each congregation to choose its own ministers, has some vitality
for people in these days. Of course the Presbyterians carried the
question according to their well-known views, and after they had done
so, Parliament, adopting the decision of the Divines, declared by
an ordinance, that the solemn setting apart of presbyters to their
holy office was an institute of the Lord Jesus Christ; that certain
rules ought to be observed in the examination of candidates; that
publicity should be given to the testimonial of the examiners; and
that ordination should be performed by the laying on of the hands
of the presbytery, accompanied by a public fast. It was expressly
stated at the conclusion of the ordinance that it should stand in
force for twelve months, and no longer--a provision which stamped
the arrangements with something of a tentative character. Until
presbyteries could be duly organized, the duty of ordination was vested
in the Assembly; and no wonder that Baillie, in a letter written from
London in February, 1646, laments the onerous and absorbing engagements
which this new law entailed upon the Divines.[531]
As the question of Presbyterian discipline came under discussion, the
debates in the Assembly increased in energy, learning, and acuteness,
as well as in prolixity. No person who has read Dr. Lightfoot's notes
of the proceedings can deny the erudition and controversial acumen of
the disputants on both sides; and all who have glanced over Baillie's
lively pages will admit that this battle for great principles was
waged with sincerity and earnestness. A very important point of
enquiry arose in the month of April, 1644, Whether "many particular
congregations should be under one presbytery?" The Independents pressed
to be heard on the negative side, and spent twenty long sittings in
advocating their opinion. Goodwin was foremost in the debate, but the
rest of the dissenting brethren took their turns. The champions well
acquitted themselves, their enemies being judges. "Truly, if the cause
were good," wrote Baillie, "the men have plenty of learning, wit,
eloquence, and above all, boldness and stiffness to make it out; but
when they had wearied themselves, and over-wearied us all, we found
the most they had to say against the presbytery, was but curious
idle niceties, yea, that all they could bring was no ways concluding.
Every one of their arguments, when it had been pressed to the full, in
one whole session, and sometimes in two or three, was _voiced_, and
found to be light unanimously by all but themselves."[532] There can
be little doubt of this. The reasoning of the Independents would of
course be found wanting when weighed in the Presbyterian balance, and
the majority of the Assembly would naturally consider their own votes
an ample refutation of their adversaries' arguments. "They profess,"
says the same authority in another place, respecting the Independents,
"to regard nothing at all what all the reformed or all the world say,
if _their sayings be not backed with convincing Scripture or reason_.
All human testimonies they declaim against as a popish argument." The
simplicity of the writer is perfectly amusing as he thus insensibly
glides into the position of papal advocates, and tacitly acknowledges
the authority of general opinion in the Church; on the other hand,
the firmness and consistency of these genuine Protestants is truly
admirable, as they resolutely adhere to the only invincible method of
argument by which the cause of the Reformation can be defended.
[Sidenote: _Presbyterians and Independents._]
[Sidenote: 1645.]
While Independent principles favoured universal toleration, the
Presbyterians, by advocating the establishment of classes, synods,
and a general assembly, and by calling on the magistrate to enforce
the authority of the Church, plainly interfered with the civil rights
of the people. The thoughtful among the Independents therefore became
more and more averse to the Presbyterian scheme; they saw that it
would be fatal to those very liberties for which the nation had so
valiantly contended in the field. Accordingly, we find that Philip
Nye, in the March of 1644, boldly contended before the Assembly that a
presbytery was inconsistent with the civil state. This was a galling
accusation, and the Presbyterian party indignantly cried down the
assertion as impertinent. Great confusion arose in the Assembly; but,
undismayed by the combined opposition of a large majority, the champion
of Independency on the following day renewed the impeachment. It was
an aggravation of his offence in the eyes of his adversaries, that he
took advantage of the presence that day of some distinguished noblemen
and others to make his bold avowal. He would enlighten these personages
on the great question. He repeated that the liberties for which the
people fought would be unsafe if Presbyterianism were established.
Again the Presbyterians endeavoured to silence him. The meeting was in
a tumult. Some would have expelled him; but the Independents rallied
round their intrepid friend, declaring their resolution not to enter
the Assembly again if he should be excluded. Whether, after this scene
of excitement, during which it is not improbable that Nye manifested
some warmth of temper, he really became more calm in the advocacy of
his principles; or whether it was a mere expression of triumph on
the part of one who helped to form the majority of the convocation,
and to overcome by clamour the voice of reason, we do not venture to
determine,--but the Scotch Commissioner concludes his account of that
memorable day's proceedings by observing, "Ever since we find him in
all things the most accommodating man in the company."[533]
[Sidenote: _Committee of Accommodation._]
[Sidenote: 1645, November.]
As Presbyterians and Independents thus frequently came into collision
at Westminster, at last a Committee of Accommodation was appointed,
with the view of healing the differences betwixt these two parties.
This committee arose out of a suggestion by Oliver Cromwell; and
the Parliament who appointed it in 1644 directed the committee, in
case union should be impracticable, to devise a plan for meeting the
scruples of tender consciences. The committee selected six of their
number, including two Independents, to draw up propositions for the
purpose; from which it appears that the Independents claimed for their
male Church members the power of voting upon ecclesiastical questions,
and that they contended for the necessity of signs of grace as a
qualification for membership. These positions were irreconcilable with
the scheme of their opponents, which placed the Church under the power
of presbyters, and admitted to communion all who were not scandalous in
their lives. No method could be devised for combining the Independent
with the Presbyterian scheme, although the Independents professed
themselves ready to make the trial; for the Presbyterians determined
in the first instance that their own form of Church government should
be settled as a standard, and that until that was done the exceptions
of the dissentients should not be taken into consideration. As the
Presbyterians resolutely pushed forward the completion of their own
model, the dissenting brethren at last abandoned all attempts at
comprehension, and drew up a remonstrance complaining that they had
been unfairly dealt with. In the month of November, 1645, the Jerusalem
Chamber witnessed further debates between the two parties; but the
question had now reached this point, how far tender consciences,
which cannot submit to the established ecclesiastical government,
may be indulged consistently with the Word of God and the welfare
of the nation? The Independents pleaded for a full toleration, to
which the Presbyterians would not consent, and the former could not
without difficulty be brought to propose any measure of liberty to
be enjoyed exclusively by themselves; yet urged by their opponents
to state what they required in their own case, they replied that
they did not demur to the Assembly's Confession of Faith, and that
they merely sought liberty to form their own congregations, to have
the power of ordination, and to be free from Presbyterian authority.
"In our answer," observes Baillie, "we did flatly deny such a vast
liberty." All the indulgence conceded was that Independents should not
be compelled to receive the Lord's Supper, nor be liable to synodical
censure; and this amount of freedom was made dependent upon their
joining the parish congregation, and then submitting in all but the
excepted particulars to the new ecclesiastical government. Baillie,
who supplies some knowledge of party secrets, informed a friend that
had not the Presbyterians allowed some indulgence, they would have
brought upon themselves insupportable odium, and that in making their
limited offer they were persuaded that it would not be accepted.
The Independents of course were not content with the result of the
controversy, and still sought the liberty of forming Churches of their
own.
[Sidenote: _Committee of Accommodation._]
The threadbare argument about the abuse of liberty and the opening of
a door to all manner of sectaries was zealously urged against any such
toleration as the Independents claimed. Altar would be set up against
altar, it was said, the seamless robe of Christ would be rent, and
the unity of the Church would be destroyed. At last, Burroughs rose
and declared "that, if their congregations might not be exempted from
that coercive power of the classes, if they might not have liberty to
govern themselves in their own way as long as they behaved peaceably
towards the civil magistrate, they were resolved to suffer, or go to
some other place of the world where they might enjoy their liberty.
But while men think there is no way of peace but by forcing all to be
of the same mind, while they think the civil sword is an ordinance of
God to determine all controversies of Divinity, and that it must needs
be attended with fines and imprisonment to the disobedient; while they
apprehend there is no medium between a strict uniformity and a general
confusion of all things;--while these sentiments prevail there must be
a base subjection of men's consciences to slavery, a suppression of
much truth, and great disturbances in the Christian world."[534] The
expression of such wise and beautiful sentiments closed the debates of
this fruitless Committee.
[Illustration]