[Sidenote: _Presbyterians and Independents._]
Oliver Cromwell, in a letter from Bristol, after its surrender in 1645,
makes this remark:--"Presbyterians and Independents all have here the
same spirit of faith and prayer. They agree here, and have no names of
difference. Pity it is it should be otherwise anywhere." A pamphlet
entitled "The Reconciler," published in 1646, affords another example
of the spirit which was thus manifested by the illustrious general,
and abounds in sensible remarks and salutary reproof applicable to
both parties. In other places, also, besides Bristol, persons bearing
these different religious names lived in unity and co-operated in the
promotion of the spiritual welfare of their fellow-citizens, and in
other publications besides the "Reconciler," sentiments of candour and
charity were expressed.[627] But, for the most part, the contention
between Presbyterians and Independents was absurdly fierce, and
numerous tracts appeared on both sides filled with unchristian and
disgraceful invectives.
[Sidenote: 1646.]
[Sidenote: _Presbyterians and Independents._]
The city of Norwich supplies a remarkable instance of this kind of
strife. Puritanism had strongly established itself there before the
civil wars, and had borne earnest witness against the innovations of
the Anglo-Catholics. When Episcopacy had been dethroned, numbers of
the clergy and citizens shewed themselves zealous in supporting the
Covenant and the Directory,--backed, as they were, by an order of
Parliament bearing the name of the Speaker.[628] They endeavoured to
set up in all the churches which crowded the narrow streets of that
hive of manufacturing industry on the banks of the Wensum, the new
model of worship, and to fashion the religion of all the inhabitants
after the newly authorized type. But Independency had also grown up,
and was beginning to flourish within the walls; the Church planted in
1642 presented signs of vigorous vitality, and probably other persons,
not in religious communion with it, favoured its interests from
political motives. The Episcopal party remained strong, and succeeded
in resisting, to some extent, the reforming policy of their energetic
Puritan neighbours;[629] but the latter, instead of uniting all their
strength to maintain a common cause against those who were opponents to
them in common, engaged in a vehement paper war one against another,
which threw the whole city into a state of feverish excitement. There
are extant two curious publications, the one entitled "_Vox Populi_,"
an organ of the Independents, and the other, bearing the name of "_Vox
Norwici_," issued by the Presbyterians. In the Independent "_Vox
Populi_," we find the authors maintaining that every man ought to be
left to the liberty of his own conscience; that the Solemn League and
Covenant was the same engine of tyranny in the hands of the presbyter
that the massbook had been in the hands of the priest, or the Book of
Common Prayer in the hands of the prelate; that immoral ministers were
allowed to remain in their incumbencies without any attempt to remove
them; that nothing was heard in parish pulpits but the subject of
church discipline and ecclesiastical uniformity; that the Presbyterian
clergy domineered over the Corporation; and that they were actuated
mainly by self-interest, inasmuch as they had been at one time as
ready to submit to surplices, tippets, liturgies, and canons, as they
were now zealous in casting such things away. The object and animus of
this publication cannot be mistaken; and the character of the "_Vox
Norwici_" is equally intelligible.[630] It leaves what the Independents
had said in reference to the Covenant to be censured by authority, and
to be confuted by the pens and tongues of learned men. It vindicates
the character of the Presbyterian ministers, and declares that if in
their preaching they ever meddled with the topic of discipline and
uniformity, it was "but a touch and away." It asserts that when they
attended the court of the City Corporation, it was as petitioners,
"with their hats in their hands," and that they were, notwithstanding
the imputations cast upon them, disinterested men, as proved by
their conduct, and the amount of their preferments. It affirms that
the covenants of congregational churches--which had incurred the
disapproval of Presbyterians--were vague and useless, and allowed
people to draw their necks out of Christ's yoke. The tract proceeds to
maintain that it was owing to the influence of the Presbyterian clergy
that the magistrates of the city had doubled the poor-rates, so that
the condition of the lower class had become considerably improved;
but at the same time it admits that in congregational churches the
poor were still better off, owing to their small number--poor members
not being so easily admitted to such communion as were sisters in
"silk-gowns." And then, as a last sting for their adversaries, the
Presbyterians add this curious observation: "Besides, you can get so
many good women to you, that their husbands cannot bear the charge of
our poor, because their wives prove so chargeable to them."
[Sidenote: 1646.]
[Sidenote: _Presbyterians and Independents._]
It has been pointed out in these pages already how the military
success of Cromwell, and the unpopularity of the Scotch, together with
changes in the House of Commons, helped the political Independents to
curb Presbyterian churchmanship and intolerance. But in those outside
circumstances, if we may so express it, which materially affected the
interests lying within the proper sphere of religion, a considerable
change occurred during the latter part of the year 1646. A lull of
peace in the midst of the civil wars, through the complete defeat of
the King's army, and the capture of his strongholds, had deprived
Cromwell and his soldiers of any further opportunity to increase
their laurels. The Scotch, having the King in their camp, and being
engaged in negotiations with Parliament for the payment of arrears,
occupied an improved position, and further changes in the Lower
House, altered again somewhat the relative strength of the two great
parties. The policy of the Presbyterians on political questions, was
moderation. They were averse to republicanism, and wished to retain
the old constitution of King, Lords, and Commons. Some of the new
members with strong revolutionary sympathies, who had entered the
House in 1645, came by a natural influence to be more moderate when
called themselves to bear the responsibilities of legislation, and
when brought into close contact with persons against whom they were
previously prejudiced. These now felt disposed to side somewhat with
the Presbyterians.[631] Moreover, new members had been returned by
constituencies loyal to the King, and they thought they should best
aid the royal cause by voting with the Presbyterians. Consequently,
the Independent party lost ground a little in the arena of their
recent victories,[632] and the alteration speedily manifested itself
in the turn given to ecclesiastical proceedings. The Presbyterians
availed themselves of their partially recovered supremacy to attack
once more the hateful sects, and, by the iron foot of penal law, to
crush out the life of error and evil. On the 26th of May, 1646, the
Corporation of London, whose courage revived after the debates upon
"the keys," presented a remonstrance to the Lords and Commons, in
which they expressed their devotion to the Covenant, gave Parliament
credit for not desiring to let loose "the golden reins of discipline
and government," and complained of private and separate congregations
daily erected in divers parts of the City, and commonly frequented;
and of Anabaptism, and Brownism, and all manner of schisms, heresies,
and blasphemies vented by such as, touching the point of Church
government, professed themselves to be Independents. So that they go
on to say: "We cannot but be astonished at the swarms of sectaries,
which discover themselves everywhere, who, if by their endeavours
they should get into places of profit and trust in martial and civil
affairs, it might tend much to the disturbance of the public peace
both of the Church and Commonwealth."[633] The Presbyterians made a
motion that the House would take the matter into consideration, which
upon a division they were able to carry.[634] In the winter of 1646,
the Clergy of London, whose influence was paramount with the citizens,
made the pulpits ring with invectives against parliamentary delay in
the work of lifting the Church above the State; and when December came,
the Lord Mayor and Corporation clamorously beset the House with their
grievances. Contempt, they said, was put on the Covenant. Heresy and
schism were still growing. Soldiers usurped the ministry and appeared
in the pulpit. The petitioners entreated that the Covenant might
be imposed on the whole nation, under penalties such as Parliament
might think fit, that nobody should be allowed to preach who was not
an ordained covenanter, and that separate congregations, which were
all "nurseries of damnable heretics," might be suppressed.[635] Upon
this appeal a parliamentary declaration appeared in condemnation of
a lay ministry, of everything derogatory to presbyterian government,
and of those who should disturb any preachers in holy orders. Shortly
afterwards, the London clergy, assembling at Sion College, published a
treatise, entitled, "A Testimony to the Truth of Jesus Christ, and to
our Solemn League and Covenant, as also against the errors, heresies,
and blasphemies of these times, and the toleration of them, to which
is added a Catalogue of the said Errors." The ministers of the
counties of Gloucester, Lancaster, Devon, and Somerset declared their
concurrence with the London brethren.[636]
[Sidenote: 1646.]
Other circumstances contributed to augment the confusion of the times.
In the newspapers and pamphlets of the latter part of the year 1646
there are several traces of terrific apprehensions entertained by
religious people, such as greatly increased the excitement of the
period. The harvest was late. In October, lamentations appear of
corn in the north not gathered in, and of vetches still standing in
the fields. A famine threatened the population; and such a calamity
appeared the more probable from the continuance in England of the
Scotch army, which, of course, consumed a large quantity of provision.
Wailings over heavy rains and floods in the months of November and
December were of frequent occurrence. "Where are our dry days," it was
asked, "the divers-coloured bow of heaven? If the weather continue, the
nation must abandon their walls of stone, and have recourse to walls of
wood. Heaven weeps for us, yet we cannot weep for ourselves, because we
have hearts of stone; like the offspring of Deucalion's people, we must
partake of Deucalion's punishment."
[Sidenote: _Supernatural Omens._]
[Sidenote: 1646.]
It will help to illustrate the superstitious feelings which mingled
with such fears if we notice the frequent references to supernatural
portents about this time. In a curious quarto tract, entitled "Strange
Signs from Heaven," published in the spring of the same year, we
read the following passage:--"At Brandon, in the county of Norfolk,
the inhabitants were forced to come out of their houses to behold so
strange a spectacle of a spire-steeple ascending up from the earth,
and a pike or lance descending downward from heaven. The Lord in mercy
bless and preserve His Church, and settle peace and truth among all
degrees, and more especially among our churchmen! Also at Brandon, in
the county aforesaid, was seen at the same time, a navy or fleet of
ships in the air, swiftly passing under sail, with flags and streamers
hanged out, as if they were ready to give an encounter. In Marshland,
in the county of Norfolk aforesaid, within three miles of King's Lynn,
a captain and a lieutenant, with divers other persons of credit, did
hear in the time of thunder a sound, as of a whole regiment of drums
beating a call with perfect notes and stops, much admired at of all
that heard it. And the like military sound was heard in Suffolk upon
the same day, and in other parts of the Eastern Association. In all
these places there was very great thunder, with rain and hailstones of
extraordinary bigness, and round, and some hollow within like rings.
The Lord grant that all the people of this kingdom may take heed to
every warning trumpet of His, that we may speedily awaken out of
our sins, and truly turn to the Lord, fight His battles against our
spiritual enemies, and get those inward riches of which we cannot be
plundered, and so seek an inward kingdom of righteousness and peace,
that we may be more capable in His good time of a settled peace and
state in the outward kingdom, and all through our Lord Jesus Christ!"
While Heaven was interpreted as frowning upon the earth, people were
accused of indifference to religious duties. A religious newspaper,
called the "Scottish Dove," described as "sent out and returning the
28th of October and the 4th of November"--after quaintly remarking that
the Dove had rested on the public fast--goes on to inform the reader
how the country neglected, slighted, and contemned the ordinance of
God, and of the Parliament for days of humiliation--not only in the
country towns, where ignorant people ordinarily ploughed, threshed,
hedged, and ditched, but also in the great city of London. Though the
country was suffering, how thin were the congregations on a fast day!
How full the cookshops, ordinaries, and taverns! "Do men indeed believe
there is a God?" asks the indignant editor. Such lamentations remind
us of similar ones expressed by St. Chrysostom, when comparing the
scanty attendance at church with the multitudes assembled in places of
amusement.
[Sidenote: _The King at Holdenby._]
[Sidenote: 1647.]
Amidst all these fears and complaints, negotiations were continued
between the Presbyterians in Parliament, and the Scotch authorities
relative to the payment and the disbanding of their troops and the
surrender of the King into English hands. When arrangements for the
purpose had been effected between the two parties, his Majesty, at
the end of January, 1647, delivered himself up to the Parliamentary
Commissioners at Newcastle, whence he was conducted to Holdenby House,
in the county of Northampton--a stately Elizabethan mansion, which had
been built by Sir Christopher Hatton--a retreat, however, certainly not
selected in consideration of the fallen monarch's feelings, since it
was within a short ride from Naseby, the scene of his final and most
inglorious defeat. Notwithstanding this circumstance, he graciously
expressed himself as glad to come a little nearer to his Parliament;
and no doubt, with all sincerity, he also declared his perfect
willingness to bid farewell to his northern hosts. His journey was
retarded by unfavourable weather, yet thousands of spectators greeted
his approach to the old mansion; whilst bells rang and cannons fired
"with a gallant echo."[637] The English Presbyterians were greatly
elated on obtaining the charge of the royal person, a prize which, they
hoped, would bring to them other advantages in its train.[638] Charles,
after reaching Holdenby House, requested to be allowed the attendance
of his episcopal chaplains. The request was refused. He was informed
that no one who did not take the Covenant could be permitted to remain
in his household. It is very well known how his Majesty amused himself
whilst at Holdenby--sometimes walking in the pleasant neighbourhood;
sometimes riding over to a bowling-green a few miles distant. Other
matters, too, not often noticed by historians, but characteristic of
the royal prisoner, occupied his attention. As the opening spring
covered with bright green the Northamptonshire fields, and as the pear
trees in the orchards of Holdenby exhibited their snowy types of the
resurrection, the royal and episcopalian churchman naturally desired
to commemorate the holy festival of Easter, so endeared of old to the
hearts of Christians.
[Sidenote: _The King at Holdenby._]
"I desire," said Charles, in a paper he wrote at this time, "to
be resolved of this question: Why the new reformers discharge the
keeping of Easter? The reason for this query is, I conceive, that
the celebration of this feast was instituted by the same authority
which changed the Jewish Sabbath into the Lord's Day, or Sunday; for
it will not be found in Scripture when Saturday is discharged to be
kept, or turned into Sunday, whereas it must be the Church's authority
that changed the one and instituted the other. Therefore, my opinion
is, that those who will not keep this feast may as well return to the
observation of Saturday, and refuse the weekly Sunday. When anybody can
shew me that herein I am in error, I shall not be ashamed to confess
and amend it. Till then, you know my mind.--C. Rex."
To this, Sir James Harrington--who had been appointed by Parliament
to attend upon him at Holdenby--replied, that the changing of the
Sabbath and the instituting of Easter were "not by one and the same
equal authority and ecclesiastical decree, upon which the reason of his
Majesty's query seems to be built." "The Easter festival is a church
appointment; but the observance of the Sabbath is according to the
fourth commandment, and in the New Testament there is evidence of the
change of the day."[639]
[Sidenote: 1647.]
With the King in their keeping, and with a majority still on their side
in the House of Commons, the Presbyterians were full of confidence,
and their religious affairs seemed to promise a favourable issue.
But the army became to them an increasing difficulty. To disband it
appeared most desirable; but how to accomplish that object was the
question. The soldiers did not choose to be disbanded. They said
they were not Turkish janissaries, nor Swiss mercenaries--not mere
adventurers of fortune, paid to throw their lances in a cause they
did not care for--but Englishmen, who had been struggling for their
rights, fighting in defence of hearth, home, and a free church; and,
before they laid down their arms, they would know that their country
had obtained what they and their brave comrades had shed their blood
to win. They were entitled to be paid before they were dismissed, and
paid they would be; but, what was more precious to them far than pay,
they would secure for themselves and their fellow-countrymen liberty
of conscience. To use Clarendon's words: "Hitherto there was so little
security provided in that point, that there was a greater persecution
now against religious and godly men than ever had been in the King's
government, when the bishops were their judges."[640] This is
exaggeration; yet it was thus that men talked around their camp-fires
on frosty nights during that memorable winter. The army petitioned
Parliament in the spring of 1647. Parliament objected to army
petitions. The petitioners vindicated their rights in this respect; and
some troopers boldly sent a letter to the honourable House, declaring
that they would not disband until their requests were granted, and the
liberties of the subject were placed beyond peril. A debate followed
this appeal, and speeches were prolonged to a late hour. Denzil Holles,
the Presbyterian leader, full of that passion and prejudice which often
blinded his strong intellect and pushed on his resolute will, then
hastily took a scrap of paper, and wrote across it, as it lay upon his
knee, a resolution declaring the petition to be seditious, and that to
support it was treason. Holles' resolution fell like a spark upon an
open barrel of gunpowder.
This was in the month of April. In March, the House had resolved that
every officer in garrison, and under the command of Fairfax, should
take the Covenant, and conform to the Church by ordinance established.
The vote aimed a blow at the Independents, and those who sympathized
with them--Cromwell, Blake, Ludlow, Algernon Sidney, Ireton, Skippon,
and Hutchinson.
[Sidenote: _Earl of Essex._]
[Sidenote: 1647.]
The Presbyterians were now walking in the dark on the edge of a
pitfall. Their great general, the Earl of Essex, was dead.[641] The
only son of Robert, Queen Elizabeth's favourite, he had enjoyed much
of his father's popularity. Trained to arms in the Netherlands, he
became an accomplished soldier of the old school; and, having served
with distinction in the wars of the Palatinate, he had acquired the
reputation of a Protestant champion before he was called upon to draw
his sword within the shores of his native land. His military fame and
his religious character pointed him out as a Parliamentary commander
at the outbreak of the civil wars. A moderate Episcopalian in the
first instance, yet wishing to see bishops excluded from the peerage,
he glided into Presbyterianism, and at last would have been glad to
bring about such a settlement of affairs as would give ascendancy to
that system without the destruction of monarchical rule. In all
respects moderate--fearing a decisive victory, such as would crush the
King, scarcely less than he feared such a defeat of the Parliamentary
army as would restore him to his former power--the history of the
military career of the Earl of Essex in England was more cautious than
brilliant, and from first to last abounded in Fabian delays. Nominally
retaining supreme command of the forces till the year 1645, the
influence of this nobleman had declined with the siege of Gloucester,
in 1643.
The surrender of his army in the west, in the autumn of 1644, brought
a cloud over his military career, though it left untarnished his
personal honour. The old officers being displaced by the self-denying
ordinance, Essex had to resign his baton. Without military command,
he notwithstanding continued to be a man of great influence; which
personal vanity, as well as higher considerations, prompted him to
employ. Sympathizing with Presbyterians, and jealous of Independents,
he incurred Cromwell's displeasure; and Cromwell, after the passing of
the self-denying ordinance, became disliked by him. Had Essex lived,
it was thought--though without sufficient reason--that he might have
allayed party feeling and have prevented the terrible catastrophe
which was not far distant. His death, however, struck at the hopes
of compromise cherished by his Presbyterian friends, whilst, by that
event, Cromwell and his party, as Clarendon reports, were wonderfully
exalted, Essex being the only one "whose credit and interest they
feared without any esteem of his person."[642]
[Sidenote: _The King and the Independents._]
It should also be considered how unwise the Presbyterians had been
in paying off and dismissing the Scotch army, which, so long as it
continued on English ground, might be reckoned as an ally and a
defender of the new Church. At least, that army remaining here would
have served to hold the English one in check, and to render its
commanders more prudent, if it did not make its men less bold. But
the march of the Presbyterian regiments over the border left Cromwell
and his brother officers free from all apprehensions of military
resistance. The Independents thus became masters of the situation.
[Sidenote: 1647.]
A very bold stroke they in their turn struck at Presbyterian plans,
when, in the month of June, they sent Cornet Joyce to fetch his Majesty
from Holdenby House that they might take care of him themselves;[643]
and they almost reconciled him to his new captivity by relaxing the
restraints which he had endured, and by allowing him to have his own
chaplains. Sheldon, Morley, Sanderson, and Hammond, now "performed
their function at the ordinary hours in their accustomed formalities;
all persons, who had a mind to it, being suffered to be present, to
his Majesty's infinite satisfaction."[644] The restored surplice and
prayer book were a great comfort to the unhappy prince. The concession
appears to have resulted from policy; for as the Presbyterians had
been in treaty with him for the furtherance of their ends, some of the
Independent officers now thought of effecting their own reconciliation
on terms of their own. Into the story of the conferences between
Sir John Berkely and the King on the one hand, and between Sir John
Berkely and certain chieftains of the army on the other, it is not
our business to enter. We would only say that the sincere purpose
of Cromwell, in reference to ecclesiastical matters, seems to have
been to secure toleration, within certain limits, for the religious
opinions and observances both of the people and of the Monarch, and to
prevent the exercise of either Episcopalian or Presbyterian tyranny.
We are inclined to believe that, on such a basis--with due securities
for political liberty, and in connection with official arrangements,
in which, of course, so distinguished a man could not but expect to
have some conspicuous place--Cromwell felt not unwilling to aid in
the restoration of Charles. But the insincerity of the latter and the
opposition of the republicans prevented the scheme from proceeding far.
Cromwell also aimed at reconciling the factious members of the two
parties. He invited certain Presbyterians and Independents to dine with
him at Westminster, and he held conferences with the grandees of the
House and with the grandees of the army. All this, however, proved to
be of no effect. Ludlow tells a story of the hero of Naseby, at the end
of a conference, flinging a cushion at his head and then running down
stairs, and of his overtaking the general with another cushion, which
"made him hasten down faster than he desired."[645] Ludlow, with all
his prejudice against Cromwell, was not the man to invent an untruth,
even in so small a matter; and one may note this flash of fun after
severe debate, as indicating a genuine Teutonic temperament in the two
rough soldiers, akin to what we read of in old Norse mythologies, of
grotesque tricks played by Woden-like chiefs, and quite in keeping
with what we know of that Teutonic hero, Martin Luther, who could laugh
and joke, as well as preach and pray.
[Sidenote: _Royalist Demonstrations._]
Although Cromwell could not reconcile ecclesiastical adversaries,
or come to terms with the captive King, there remained no hope for
Presbyterian uniformity. Active men in the undisbanded army, true to
their purpose, still insisted upon securing the right of toleration,
together with certain other points of a political nature; and, seeing
that there were Presbyterians at work in the House of Commons with a
view of thwarting their designs, they boldly impeached eleven of them.
Immense excitement ensued. Trained-bands, apprentices, mariners, and
soldiers, petitioned that the King might be brought to London, with the
hope of securing a reconciliation. Riots followed. The House of Commons
was besieged; and Sir Arthur Haselrig, the political Independent,
persuaded the Speaker, at the head of a large number of members, to
leave Westminster, and to fly for protection to the camp. The Speaker,
having "caused a thousand pounds to be thrown into his coach, went down
to the army, which lay then at Windsor, Maidenhead, Colnbrook, and the
adjacent places."[646]
[Sidenote: 1648.]
Notwithstanding these extraordinary attempts on the part of the
opposition, the Presbyterians did not lose their ascendancy in the
House of Commons.[647] Their cause received vigorous and influential
support from the London ministers. The Corporation also manifested
similar zeal by taking care to place in all municipal offices
Presbyterians of a true blue tint. The party further strengthened
itself in some quarters through its Royalism, and in consequence of
the repugnance which was felt by numbers of people at the growing
Republicanism of the Independents. Republicanism, besides its inherent
defects, had the disadvantage of appearing to the practical minds of
Englishmen as at the best an untried theory, which, whatever advantages
it might seem to promise, would be found miserably wanting when tested
by being put into practice.
Outbursts of Royalist violence occurred in the spring of 1648. The
city of Norwich had a Royalist and Episcopalian mayor, whom the
Parliament deposed from office, appointing another alderman in his
place. The citizens who took part with the disgraced chief magistrate
abused his successor, and threatened to hang the pursuivant and
sheriff upon the Castle Hill. It being reported that the gentleman
who had been thus set aside would be carried off by his enemies in
the night, his friends seized the keys of the many-gated city, and
assembled in the market-place, giving out as their watchword, "For God
and King Charles." Large crowds afterwards openly avowed that they
were for his Majesty, and that they would pluck the Roundheads out of
the Corporation, and put in honest men who would serve God and go to
church. The city found itself filled with rioters who were breaking
windows, entering houses, plundering them of food, wine, and beer, and
seizing the fire-arms kept in the magazine. All was confusion, and the
tradesmen shut up their shops. But Colonel Fleetwood's troopers, then
in the county, were quickly despatched to quell the riot. The rebels
ran away after being attacked by the soldiers, and retired to the
Committee House, where the county ammunition was kept. By accident or
from design ninety-eight barrels of gunpowder there exploded, which not
only blew up several persons "into the air, but by the violence of the
shock, which was perceived in the greatest part of the county, many
windows were shattered in pieces, and much mischief done by the stones
and timber at a great distance."[648] A riot of a similar kind happened
at Bury St. Edmunds.[649]
[Sidenote: _Laws against Heresy._]
Out of these Royalist demonstrations Parliament made capital at the
moment of putting them down. On the 28th of April, 1648--two days
after the Norwich Corporation had determined on a thanksgiving for
the suppression of the tumult[650]--the House of Commons carried a
resolution that the future government of England should be by King,
Lords, and Commons, and that a treaty should be opened with Charles
for peace and settlement. What kind of settlement it was to be,
ecclesiastically considered, the Presbyterian Commons foreshadowed by a
law made a few days afterwards.
[Sidenote: 1648.]
[Sidenote: _Newport Treaty._]
As early as April, 1646, a bill had been in preparation for preventing
heresies and blasphemies. In the September of that year it had been
read a first and second time. In the following November the House had
voted that the penalty for such offences, in certain cases, should be
death. Subsequent political confusions had arrested for a while the
progress of this measure, but now, on the 2nd of May, 1648, under the
renewed ascendancy of Presbyterianism, an ordinance came forth of the
following character:[651]--The denial of God by preaching, teaching,
printing or writing, of His perfections, or of the Trinity, or of
the two natures of Christ, or of His atonement, or of the canonical
books of Scripture, or of the resurrection of the dead and a final
judgment, was to be deemed a capital offence; and the offender was to
"suffer the pains of death, as in case of felony, without benefit of
clergy." In case of recantation, he was to remain in prison till he
found two sureties who would answer for his never again broaching the
said errors. The ordinance specified a second class of heresies:--That
all men shall be saved--that man by nature hath free will to turn to
God--that God may be worshipped by pictures and images--that there
is a purgatory--that the soul can die or sleep--that the workings
of the Spirit are a rule of life, although they be contrary to the
written Word--that man is bound to believe no more than his reason
can comprehend--that the moral law is no rule of Christian life--that
a believer need not repent or pray--that the two sacraments are not
of Divine authority--that infant baptism is unlawful or void--that
the observance of the Lord's day, as enjoined in this realm, is not
according to the Word of God--that it is not lawful to join in public
or family prayer, or to teach children to pray--that the churches
of England are not true churches--that Presbyterian government is
anti-Christian--that the magistracy established in England is unlawful,
or that the use of arms is not allowable. To publish or maintain
any of these doctrines, entailed imprisonment until the offender
found sureties for his not offending any more. In conclusion, it was
provided that no attainder by virtue of the ordinance should extend
to a forfeiture of estates or a corruption of blood. We have given
this piece of legislation almost entire. It throws light on the nature
of the errors which at that time were prevalent. The ordinance is
pointed at Atheism, Infidelity, and Socinianism, also at Pelagianism,
Universalism, and Popery. It levels its bolts at Quakerism,
Antinomianism, and Anabaptism. It fixes its eyes on fifth monarchy
men, and will allow no anti-Presbyterian to escape its vengeance. But,
in seeking to crush what were mischievous errors, these legislators
really brought within danger of prison and death a number of persons
who, though belonging to none of the proscribed sects, yet might refuse
the exact formulary of belief which the words of the act enjoined.
A person might devoutly believe in the divinity of Christ, and yet
he might object to a definition of the Trinity; he might accept the
Scriptures as Divine, and yet he might doubt the canonicity of certain
books. Notwithstanding such a man's substantial faith, the ordinance
threatened him with a felon's doom. Some of the opinions specified were
merely intellectual, and, socially considered, perfectly innocuous.
But, supposing a man entertained the very worst sentiments coming
within the view of this minutely specific law, such an enactment only
served in the instance of a courageous heresiarch to make him all the
more obstinate in his misbelief. And then the folly of requiring in
such cases sureties for good behaviour! No doubt the statesmen who
thus meddled in the region of religious opinion, proceeded upon other
principles than those of mere political expediency, and would have
met all objections based on the inefficacy of their policy for good,
its social injustice, and its violation of the rights of conscience,
with this argument--that the highest duty of the magistrate is simply
to maintain God's truth irrespective of all consequences; that as a
defender of the Church he is not to bear the sword in vain; and that
he is to tread in the steps of Israel's heroes, walking through the
camp of God, Phineas-like, javelin in hand. But however disposed one
may be to do justice to the motives of these men, as honestly desiring
to advance the glory of God, it is impossible not to regard proceedings
like theirs in the instance before us as inspired with a monstrous
fanaticism.[652]
[Sidenote: 1648.]
[Sidenote: _Newport Treaty._]
In the month of September, 1648, not long after the ordinance had
been passed for more effectually settling Presbyterian government,
boats crossed the water between the Hampshire coast and the Isle of
Wight, conveying Noblemen, Gentlemen, Divines and Lawyers to take
part in a new conference with the fallen sovereign.[653] He was
allowed to have, as assistants in the discussion, certain learned
Episcopalians, including Juxon, Hammond, and Ussher, who were to stand
behind his chair; but they were not to speak except when the King might
wish for their advice, which could be given by them only in another
room. The Parliament sent down on its own behalf five noblemen, with
four Presbyterian Divines--Dr. Seaman, Mr. Caryl, Mr. Marshall, and
Mr. Vines. The principal topics debated were of an ecclesiastical
nature--as on other points the King, being now reduced to the last
extremity, yielded his consent to the demands of Parliament. He
took his stand on the merits of Episcopacy, and the demerits of the
Covenant. His arguments were in the main the same as those which he
had adduced at Newcastle, and some Episcopalians have thought that the
royal theologian, in this renewed controversy, derived little benefit
from his Episcopal advisers.[654]
Circumstances compelled him now to make large practical concessions.
He would abolish the hierarchy, except the simple order of bishops.
He would for the space of three years allow no other ecclesiastical
government than the Presbyterian, and afterwards would not permit
any Episcopal rule to be exercised except such as Parliament might
allow; indeed, he went so far as to say if he could be convinced that
Episcopacy was not agreeable to the Word of God he would take it
entirely away. Afterwards he promised that for the next three years he
would appoint no new Bishops, that Bishops should receive no persons
into holy orders without the consent of the Presbyters, that another
form than the Common Prayer should be used in the royal chapel, and
that mass should never be said at Court.[655]
[Sidenote: 1648.]
Charles at last resolved to make no further concessions. To the three
demands made by Parliament through the Commissioners, first, for the
abolition of Bishops, secondly, for the sale of their lands, and
thirdly, for the use of the Directory by himself, he gave a decided
denial. If, said he, the Houses thought it not fit to recede from the
strictness of their demands in these respects, then he would with all
the more comfort cast himself upon his Saviour's goodness to support
him and defend him from all afflictions.[656]
[Sidenote: _Newport Treaty._]
A Royalist reaction now sprung up amongst the Presbyterians, and the
former alienation between the army and the Parliament burst into open
warfare. The army, tired of treaties which made not the slightest
provision for religious liberty, tired also of one-sided Presbyterian
zeal, which sacrificed the liberties of the country to the adored ideal
of a covenanted uniformity, and further tired of long and fruitless
negotiations, addressed a stern remonstrance to Parliament--as long too
as it was stern--demanding justice upon the misguided monarch.[657]
Then came a declaration of the advance of the army towards the
City of London. Thus threatened, the Presbyterians were put on their
defence. To submit to the army would be to give up their idol. More
hope remained for Presbyterianism now in pushing a treaty with the
King than in yielding to the pressure of the Independents. The courage
and calmness of the advocates of this policy at such a moment command
our admiration. Amidst all their fondness for the Covenant, and all
their aversion to Episcopacy, there appeared a disinterested spirit of
loyalty to the King's person, and of great anxiety for the preservation
of the King's life.
[Sidenote: 1648.]
On Monday, December the 4th, after tidings had been received of the
removal of Charles across the water from Carisbrook to Hurst Castle, by
officers of the army--the Commons were in deep debate. They declared
that the removal had been accomplished without their consent or
knowledge, and then they grappled with the all-absorbing question,
whether the royal answers to the propositions of both Houses could
be considered satisfactory. Whilst Sir Harry Vane, Mr. Corbet, and
others of the Independent party contended that those answers were not
satisfactory, the Presbyterians put forth all their remaining strength
to save his Majesty. Sir Benjamin Rudyard, Sir Harbottle Grimstone, and
Sir Symonds D'Ewes came to the rescue; but Mr. Prynne stood forward
as the chief advocate of the false and fallen prince. In a speech,
continued long after candles had been lighted, he went over the whole
ground of the long dispute. He could not, as he said, be suspected of
any undue partiality for his Majesty, seeing that all the royal favour
he had ever received was shewn in cutting off his ears; but still he
argued with immense elaboration and great ability that there was enough
in the results of the recent negotiations to warrant the conclusion of
a treaty. The political concessions which had been made he maintained
were amply sufficient. Such as were ecclesiastical, he proceeded
to observe, though they did not meet the Parliament's demands, yet
went so far as to warrant a hope of a satisfactory issue. For hours
he continued his speech, and at the end of it the majority--so the
orator himself reports--declared both by their cheerful countenances
and by their express words that they were abundantly satisfied.
After the Speaker had taken some refreshments there came a division
on the question, that the answers of the King "are a ground for
the House to proceed upon, for the settlement of the peace of the
kingdom." Ayes, 140, Noes, 104. It was Tuesday morning; the clock had
now struck nine, and the debate had lasted from the morning of the
previous day. Although the doors had never been locked, there were
present in the House at one time as many as 340 members: many of them,
however, because of age and infirmity, could not remain throughout the
night.[658]
Whatever opinion may be formed of the Presbyterian policy, everybody
must acknowledge that such a debate with the army at the door brought
out some noble characteristics, and that Prynne shewed himself a brave
man, with such armed odds against him, thus to stand up for peace with
Charles, at the moment when his death-knell had begun to be rung in the
camp. Zeal for Presbyterianism, hatred of Independency, and jealousy
of the army were powerful motives with this singular person; yet with
these feelings were blended sentiments of the purest loyalty.
But eloquence proved no match for steel. The Scotch army had set up the
Covenant; the English army now pulled it down. As at the beginning
of that great mistake, so at the end, force had more influence than
reason, violence than argument. Pride's purge carried all before it.
Prynne had not recovered from his exhaustion before the army had
cleared the House of all opponents. Above one hundred members were
excluded before the end of December; others withdrew. Thus by one and
the same blow the fate of monarchy and of Presbyterianism was decided.
It is vain to talk about constitutionalism at such a crisis. Revolution
had marched through England gaunt and grim. Its black shadow had
darkened the land, and now it fell over Parliament itself. The army
had fought for liberty of conscience, certainly not the least of the
prizes in dispute, and that being now in jeopardy, a strong hand was
put forth very unceremoniously to beat down the obstacle which hindered
its attainment.
[Sidenote: _Execution of the King._]
[Sidenote: 1649, January.]
As it was with Lord Strafford and with Archbishop Laud, so it was
with King Charles I. The noblest scene in his whole life was the
last. He appeared to infinitely greater advantage at the bar, and on
the scaffold, than he had ever done before. His religious demeanour,
when he came to die, was all which his admirers could wish. Without
refusing the prayers of Presbyterians and Independents, he availed
himself of the counsels and devotions of Bishop Juxon; and he said to
that prelate on his offering some expressions of condolence--"Leave
off this, my Lord, we have no time for it. Let us think of our great
work, and prepare to meet the great God to whom ere long I am to give
an account of myself, and I hope I shall do it with peace, and that
you will assist me therein. We will not talk of these rogues in whose
hands I am. They thirst after my blood, and they will have it, and
God's will be done. I thank God I heartily forgive them, and will
talk of them no more." In a message to his son, he declared his faith
in the apostolical institution of Episcopacy, and, as a last request,
earnestly urged him to read the Bible, which in his own affliction, he
remarked, "had been his best instructor and delight." He said to his
attendant, on the morning of his execution, "Herbert, this is my second
marriage day, I would be as trim to-day as may be, for before night I
hope to be espoused to my blessed Jesus." "I fear not death, death is
not terrible to me. I bless my God I am prepared."[659] On his way to
the block he hastened his attendants, remarking that he now went before
them to strive for a heavenly crown with less solicitude than he had
often encouraged his soldiers to fight for an earthly diadem.
His words, as he stood with Juxon at his side,[660] before the axe
of the masked executioner, were broken and confused; but he declared
himself a Christian, and a member of the Church; that he had a good
cause and a gracious God, and was going from a corruptible to an
incorruptible crown.
[Sidenote: _Execution of the King._]
The impression which the tragedy produced on two eminent persons has
been fully recorded. Parr, in his _Life of Ussher_,[661] relates how
the Irish primate came upon the leads of Lady Peterborough's house,
"just over against Charing Cross," as the King made his final speech,
and how, when his Majesty "had pulled off his cloak and doublet,
and stood stripped in his waistcoat," and the men in vizards put up
his hair, the good Bishop, unable to bear the dismal sight, grew pale
and faint, and would have swooned away had not his servants removed
him. He could vent his excitement only in prayers and tears; and ever
afterwards he observed the 30th of January as a private fast. Matthew
Henry states that his eminently-godly father witnessed the execution,
and used to tell his children, at Broad Oak, of the dismal groan
amongst the thousands of the people when the axe fell--a groan the
like of which he had never heard before, and hoped he should never
hear again; and he would also mention the circumstance of one troop of
horse marching from Charing Cross to King Street, and another from King
Street to Charing Cross, to disperse the crowd as soon as the awful
deed was done.[662]
The execution of Charles, however it may be deplored as mischievous,
criticised as impolitic, or condemned as unjust, was perhaps--looking at
the natural resentments and fears of men under the circumstances--only
such a sequel to the civil wars as became probable after long experience
of the King's invincible duplicity. Like Strafford, he had become too
dangerous to live; and now it was thought that, like Strafford, he must
die. Moreover, visions of republican bliss dazzled the imagination of a
few who believed that they would be nearer the attainment of their hopes
when the head of Charles should have rolled in dust.[663] One result, it
appears, they did not contemplate. They made a martyr of their victim,
and thus so deeply stained their cause in the estimation of the largest
portion of posterity, that all their patriotism and religious
consistency in other respects have not sufficed to wipe out the blot.
[Sidenote: 1649, January.]
The Presbyterians ought not to be reproached for the fate of Charles.
Their statesmen did what they could to prevent it; and their Divines
courageously protested against his being put to death, as a national
crime. Nor should the Independents, as a religious sect, be made
to bear the responsibility. It is true that some of them were
members of the High Court of Justice--Bradshaw, the president, and
Corbet, to mention no others, were in communion with Congregational
Churches[664]--but there were also Independent ministers who openly
declared against the sentence; and the silence of others upon the
subject is no more to be construed into approval than is the silence of
Episcopalians.[665] What extravagant things might be said by such a man
as the notorious Hugh Peters, or even by John Goodwin--a different sort
of person it is true--ought not to be charged upon the Independents in
general. Yet some amongst the best of them, it must be acknowledged,
approved of the deed. Lucy Hutchinson relates the conflicts of her
husband, shewing how a sense of duty decided him in the part he took
in the proceeding. Dr. Owen preached before Parliament the day after
the King was beheaded; and though he does not allude to the event of
the preceding morning, he preached in a strain not at all consistent
with any reprobation of it, as an act of injustice. Although, in our
opinion, it was a blunder, it has been vindicated even in the present
day by writers of undoubted piety and honour: no wonder that good men,
amidst a struggle which we can imperfectly imagine, were impelled to
do what good men in the serener atmosphere of two centuries later
deliberately justify.
[Sidenote: _The Funeral._]
[Sidenote: 1649, February.]
The King was buried at Windsor on the 9th of February. Thither his
remains were conveyed by Mr. Herbert and others; some of his faithful
nobility, accompanied by Bishop Juxon, arriving at the Castle next day.
They shewed the Governor-General, Whitchcot,[666] an authority from
Parliament for their attendance at the funeral, and requested that the
body might be interred according to the rites of the Church of England.
The Governor refused, on the ground that the Common Prayer had been put
down. To their solicitations and arguments he replied it was improbable
that the Parliament would permit the use of what it had so solemnly
abolished, and thus virtually contradict and destroy its own act. To
which they rejoined: "There was a difference betwixt destroying their
own act and dispensing with it, or suspending the exercise thereof;
that no power so bindeth up its own hands as to disable itself in some
cases to recede from the rigour of their own acts, if they should see
just occasion." The plea proved unavailing. Whitchcot would not yield.
As the funeral procession moved from the great hall in the Castle, and
entered the open air, "the sky was serene and clear; but presently it
began to snow, and the snow fell so fast that by that time the corpse
came to the west end of the Royal Chapel, the black velvet pall was
all white." The soldiers of the garrison carried the body to its
resting-place under the choir. Over the coffin hung a black velvet
hearse-cloth, "the four labels whereof the four Lords did support. The
Bishop of London stood weeping by, to tender his service, which might
not be accepted. Then was it deposited in silence and sorrow in the
vacant place in the vault (the hearse-cloth being cast in after it)
about three of the clock in the afternoon."[667]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] There is a document amongst the State Papers, headed "Proceeding
to the Parliament of the Most High and Mighty Prince, King Charles,
on Tuesday, the 3rd of November, 1640, from Whitehall by water
to Westminster Stairs, and from thence on foot." The document is
interesting in connection with Clarendon's statement: "The King himself
did not ride with his accustomed equipage, nor in his usual majesty, to
Westminster, but went privately in his barge to the parliament stairs,
and so to the Church, as if it had been to a return of a prorogued or
adjourned Parliament."--_Hist. of Rebellion and Life_ (in one vol.),
68. The paper exhibits the following programme: "Messengers; trumpets;
the Sergeant-trumpeter alone; Master of the Chancery; the King's Puisne
Sergeants-at-law; the King's Solicitor and the King's Attorney-General;
the King's two ancient Sergeants-at-law; Masters of the Requests,
two and two; Barons of the Exchequer; Justices of the Common Pleas;
Justices of the King's Bench; Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer: Master
of the Rolls; the two Lords Chief Justices; Pursuivants-of-Arms; Privy
Councillors; Heralds; Lord Finch, keeper of the Great Seal of England,
and many other lords and gentlemen."
[2] See _Journals of the Lords_, to the words of which I have closely
adhered, and _Parliamentary History_. (Cobbett), ii. 637.
[3] No one can see more clearly than myself the defectiveness of these
views of the state of parties. We must begin somewhere. To go very far
back is unsatisfactory, because the glimpses given of remote periods
must be indistinct and confused, and are apt to convey inaccurate
impressions. To commence with notices of what took place just before
our history opens, is also exposed to objection, because it leaves out
of sight so much which served to prepare for what followed. The history
of the Commonwealth requires a previous study of the history of the
Reformation, and that again the history of the Middle Ages. Notices of
the early Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists will be found in
subsequent chapters.
[4] This oft-told story rests on the authority of his friend, Lord
Clarendon.--_Hist. and Life_, 928.
[5] _Stat._ 1 _Eliz. C.Q._, lv. 3, 15.
When the Bills of Supremacy and Uniformity were read a third time
in the House of Lords (April 26 and 28, 1558), the Bishops of York,
London, Ely, Wigorn, Llandaff, Coventry and Litchfield, Exon, Chester,
Carlisle, are mentioned in the Journals as dissentients from both the
Bills.--_Strype's Annals of the Reformation_, i. 87, (Oxford edition.)
In connection with the history of the Bill of Supremacy in _Strype's
Annals_ the student should read the history of convocation in _Strype's
Memorials_, Vol. i. Chap. xvii. An extraordinary paper in favour of the
King's supremacy, attributed to Gardiner, is given, p. 209.
[6] 8 Eliz. c. 1, "declaring the manner of making and consecrating
of Archbishops and Bishops of the realm to be good, lawful, and
perfect."--_Strype's Life of Parker_, (Oxford edition) i. 109-121.
See also "paper of arguments for the Queen's supreme power in causes
ecclesiastical."--_Strype's Life of Whitgift_, iii. 213.
[7] Selden says so in his _Table Talk_, 38. Mr. Bruce informs me, "I
have no doubt that Selden was right. Many great persons holding offices
in the State and Household were appointed Commissioners by reason of
their offices, but never attended. The business fell into the hands of
the Bishops (or rather some three or four of them) and a few civilians
from Doctors' Commons--the Judge of the Arches, the Judge of the
Prerogative Court, and a few other such persons. The sentences that I
have seen have been signed by from 15 to 20 persons, generally such as
I have indicated."
[8] "Turning her speech to the Bishops, she gave them this admonition,
'That if they, the Lords of the clergy (as she called them), did not
amend, she was minded to depose them, and bade them therefore to look
well to their charges.'"--_Strype's Whitgift_, i. 393.
[9] _Strype's Whitgift_, i. 391. Whitgift has been called an Erastian,
and Warburton (_Works_, xii. 386), on Selden's authority, attributes
to him the publication of the _De excommunicatione_, under fictitious
names of the place and printer. I do not know the ground of Selden's
statement. The proceedings of Whitgift were inconsistent with
Erastianism. The famous work of Erastus will be noticed hereafter.
[10] _Strype's Whitgift_, i. 559. See Sir Francis Knolly's objection
to Bancroft's doctrine, reduced to a syllogistic form (560). Knollys
had encouraged Parker to oppose the use of burning tapers, and of the
cross, in the Queen's chapel.--_Strype's Parker_, i. 92.
[11] Parker was kept up to the mark in enforcing uniformity by
the Queen, who in this and some other points was more decidedly
Anglo-Catholic than her Protestant prelates. See her letter to him
"roundly penned." _Strype's Parker_, ii. 76.
[12] Strype, (in his _Annals_, i. 106,) says 177. He adds "In one of
the volumes of the Cotton Library--which volume seemeth once to have
belonged to Camden--the whole number of the deprived ecclesiastics
is digested in this catalogue: Bishops, 14; Deans, 13; Archdeacons,
14; Heads of Colleges, 15; Prebendaries, 50; Rectors of Churches, 80;
Abbots, Priors, and Abbesses, 6; in all, 192. Camden, in his _Annals_,
little varies, only reckoning 12 Deans and as many Archdeacons."
[13] Paper endorsed--Dr. Bardesy; "Of my Daughter's Death, 1 April,
1641;" ¼ ho. _ante_ ho. 9, post Mer.--_State Papers. Charles I.
Domestic._
[14] _Mr. Bruce's Calendar of State Papers, Domestic_, 1633-4, p. 275;
_and Preface_, xviii.
[15] _Lathbury's History of Convocation_, 253.
[16] This is illustrated in the Tractarian movement, as appears in _Dr.
Newman's Apologia_.
[17] Roger Ascham's application to Cranmer in the reign of Edward
VI., for a dispensation during Lent is very curious. So is the grant
of it in the King's name under the Privy Seal, at the Archbishop's
suggestion.--See _Strype's Cranmer_, i. 238, 240.
[18] "Many choose to be wanton," it is said, "with flesh at that time,
rather than at others." February 13.--_State Papers, Domestic._
[19] See "_The Arminian Nunnery_, or a brief description and relation
of the late erected monastical place called the Arminian Nunnery at
Little Gidding, in Huntingdonshire." 1641. Compare _Walton's Lives_,
335.
[20] _Rushworth's Historical Collection_, ii. 324. No doubt, sometimes
the charge of Popery was unjustly made, and there is force in what
Sanderson says in the Preface to his Sermons, p. 74. The passage is too
long for quotation.
[21] See _Hale's Precedents and Proceedings in Ecclesiastical Courts_.
Introductory Essay, xxxiv. Compare _Hallam's Const. Hist._, i. 99.
[22] See _New Canons_, iii. to xii., made in 1604.
[23] Whitelocke, when Recorder of Abingdon, was accused and cited
before the Council Table because "he did comply with and countenance
the Nonconformists there, and refused to punish those who did not bow
at the name of Jesus, and to the altar, and refused to receive the
sacrament kneeling at the high altar, &c."--_Whitelocke's Memorials_,
23.
[24] _Hale's Precedents in Criminal Causes_, xxxix., xliii.; compare
_Hallam's Const. Hist._, i. 180. The extracts from Court Books
in Hale are my authority for what follows. I may add here that,
soon after the accession of Elizabeth, the bishops complained of
interference with their office in discipline, and correction of evil
manners, by inhibitions obtained from the courts of the Archbishop of
Canterbury.--_Strype's Parker_, i. 161.
[25] A clear account of compurgation, transferred from old
ecclesiastical courts to the Court of High Commission, is given by
Mr. Bruce in his _Preface to the Cal. Dom._ 1635-6, xxxi. A man was
restored "to his good name" by swearing to his own innocence when
objectors did not appear, and his neighbours, the compurgators, swore
that he was to be believed.
[26] It is very remarkable that this Act, the only one which fixes the
authority for deciding what heresy is, vests that spiritual power in
the secular government, only with clerical "assent."--_Stat. 1 Eliz._,
c. 1, s. 36.
[27] 1562, July 20. A commission was issued for ecclesiastical causes
in the diocese of Chester.
1576, April 23. A commission was given to Grindal, Archbishop
of Canterbury, and other bishops, for exercising ecclesiastical
jurisdiction throughout the nation.--_State Papers_, cviii., No. 7.
The "proceedings of the Archbishop of York" in 1580 are preserved in
the State Paper Office, cxli., No. 28. At a private meeting on the
2nd of August, 1580, held in Richmond, "the Court is informed that
Robert Wythes, of Copgrave, gentleman, made fast his doors against the
messenger; that a little damsel was set to attend at the door, who made
answer he was not at home, and refused to receive the process, so the
messenger waxed it to the door." Vol. cxli., No. 3.
[28] _Neal_, i. 410, gives a copy of the commission from a MS. I
have sought in vain for the original. Mr. Bruce informs me it is not
preserved among the _State Papers_.
_Neal_, i. 414, explains "all other means and ways they could devise"
as including the rack. Brodie (_British Empire_, i. 197) disputes
this, saying, "Besides that, the rack never was attempted; the other
clauses distinctly show that it never was contemplated." On carefully
examining the commission printed in Neal, it will be found that the
qualifying expressions "lawful," &c., are connected with the infliction
of _penalty_, not the business of _enquiry_. The penalties were to be
according to law, but that restriction would not necessarily apply
to the mode of examination. I do not see that Brodie's argument is
conclusive; still I do not think that the rack was used. The absence,
however, of the word "lawful" in connection with "ways and means" in
the first clause is remarkable.
[29] _Brodie_, i. 198. He adds: "Though fines were _imposed_, not one
was _levied_ in Elizabeth's time by any judicial process out of the
Exchequer, 'nor any subject, in his body, lands, or goods, charged
therewith.'"--_Coke's 4th Inst._, 326, 332; _4th Inst._, 331.
In various printed books the legality of the Court was questioned. The
_ex officio_ oath was objected to as a sinister practice of the Romish
clergy, and contrary to fundamental laws of liberty.--_Burn's High
Commission_ (a pamphlet published by J. Russel Smith, 1865), 14.
[30] "To you, or three of you, whereof the Archbishop of Canterbury,
or one of the bishops mentioned in the commission, or Sir Francis
Walsingham, Sir Gilbert Gerard, or some of the civilians, to be
one."--_Neal_, i. 410.
There are subsequent commissions for the diocese of Norwich, 1589; for
Manchester, 1596, 1597; for England and Ireland, 1600.--See _Rymer_,
Vol. vii. 173, 194; xvi. 291, 400.
A commission was issued, 1629, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, &c., to
exercise all manner of jurisdictions, privileges, and pre-eminences,
concerning any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the
realm; also to enquire, hear, determine, and punish all incests,
adulteries, &c., and disorders in marriage, and all other grievous and
great crimes.
[31] Four folio books of proceedings, from 1634 to 1640, are in the
State Paper Office. At Norwich there is a book of proceedings from
1595 to 1598, and at Durham two volumes of Acts and Depositions from
1626 to 1639. These are the only records known to exist.--_Burn's High
Commission_, 44 & 52.
[32] See _Cal. Dom._, 1633-4, 1634-5. Lady Eleanor Davies alias
Douglas, (evidently insane) is mulcted to the extent of £3,000 for
certain fanatical pamphlets. Richard Parry has a fine of £2,000 for
disturbance of divine service and profane speeches, mitigated to
1,000 marks.--_Cal._ 1634-5, 176. A fine of £1,000, from Theophilus
Brabourne, for maintaining and publishing heretical and Judaical
opinions touching the Sabbath, is repeatedly mentioned, with notices
of respites, suspension of sentence, and mitigation. A silk weaver
was committed to the Gate House for fetching a parcel of schismatical
books. The most preposterous suspicions were entertained, leading
to outrageous injustice, as in the case of "two poor foolish boys,
taken amongst others, at Francis Donwell's house, the aleholder, at
Stepney," for "sitting at the table with Bibles before them." "They
were, by order of the court, discharged," but not till after many days'
imprisonment. "They were taken on Sunday last past was fortnight, the
1st of October, 1635."
The following entry occurs relating to Richard Walker Clerk, prisoner
in the Gate House: "Defendant having lain a twelvemonth in prison for
preaching a scandalous and offensive sermon here in London, and having
promised by his subscription to carry himself peaceably and conformably
to the orders of the Church of England, he was ordered to be enlarged."
_Cal._ 1634-5, p. 544.
[33] _Cal._ 1634-5, p. 177, 118, & 110.
[34] Some strange specimens of puritan "faithfulness" are given;
(_Cal._ 1634-5, p. 319,) but the question arises, were the passages we
find correctly reported?
[35] Some things appear in the Commission Records strangely
illustrating the state of society. Sir Richard Strode and Sir John
Strode, near kinsmen, quarrelled about the possession of an aisle in
the parish church of Cattistock. Sir Richard came with his lady on
Easter-day to receive the sacrament armed with a pistol charged with
powder and small shot, and directed his servant to carry a sword. He
was also accused of entertaining a degraded minister, who "pronounced
prayers extempore, and expounded a passage of scripture. On behalf of
Sir Richard, it was proved that he carried the pistol secretly, and
that no disturbance ensued."--_Cal._, 1634-5, p. 121.
Since writing this Introduction I have been permitted to peruse the
_Rawlinson MS._, A., 128, which affords many new illustrations of the
proceedings of the High Commission and of the Star Chamber also. I
shall have occasion hereafter to notice some parts of this _MS._ The
whole will be published by the Camden Society.
[36] The Court was threatened before the opening of the Long Parliament.
"We are growing here at London into some Edinburgh tumults, for upon
Thursday last, the High Commission being kept at St. Paul's, there came
in very near 2,000 Brownists, and, at the end of the court made a foul
clamour: and tore down all the benches that were in the consistory,
crying out they would have no Bishops nor High Commission. I like not
this preface to the Parliament, and this day I shall see what the Lords
will do concerning this tumult."--_Laud's Letter_, 186. _Works_, vi.
585. Oxford edition. _Diary, Oct. 22, 1640_, iii, 237.
[37] _Rushworth_, i. 423. After Worrall, Laud's chaplain, had signed
the Imprimatur to Dr. Sibthorpe's famous sermon, 1627, Selden told
him, "When the times shall change, and the late transactions shall
be scrutinized, you will gain a halter instead of promotion for
this book." Worrall withdrew his signature, but Laud appended his
own.--_Life of Selden_, p. 129.
[38] _Rushworth_, i. 594.
[39] See _Hallam's Constitutional History_, i. 456; and _Eliot's Life_,
by Forster, i. 246; ii. 398; 409; 450.
[40] In _Rushworth_, ii. 77, is a full account of these ceremonies,
with notices of Laud's defence. The latter is found more fully in the
history of his _Troubles and Trial_. _Works_, iv. 247. He denied he
threw up dust, but leaves it to be inferred that he threw up ashes.
He also contradicted other statements made respecting this famous
consecration. Whatever exaggeration there might be, enough is proved to
show the extraordinary superstitiousness of the proceeding.
[41] Bunsen's _Hippolytus_, iv. 197.
[42] Wearing a cope in cathedrals at the Communion by the principal
minister, is, however, prescribed by Canon xxiv.
[43] Southey says of Laud, "Offence was taken because the University
of Oxford, to which he was a most munificent and judicious benefactor,
addressed him by the titles of His Holiness, and Most Holy Father; and
because he publicly declared, that in the disposal of ecclesiastical
preferments, he would, when their merits were equal, prefer the single
to the married men."--_Book of the Church_, 448. Laud furnishes an
elaborate defence of some of the titles applied to him.--_Works_, iv.
157.
See curious entry in _Laud's Diary_ of a dream he had that he was
reconciled to the Church of Rome.--_Works_, iii. 201. He afterwards
says (264), "I hope the reader will note my trouble at the dream, as
well as the dream."
Zeal in crushing dissent, appears in a letter addressed to
justices of the peace, which probably Laud procured from the High
Commissioners:--"There remain in divers parts of the kingdom
sundry sorts of separatists, novalists [_sic_], and sectaries, as,
namely,--Brownists, Anabaptists, Arians, Traskites, Familists, and some
other sorts, who, upon Sundays and other festival days, under pretence
of repetition of sermons, ordinarily use to meet together in great
numbers, in private houses, and other obscure places, and there keep
private conventicles and exercises of religion, by law prohibited, to
the corrupting of sundry his Majesty's good subjects, manifest contempt
of his Highness's laws and disturbance of the Church. For reformation
whereof the persons addressed are to enter any house where they shall
have intelligence that such conventicles are held, and in every room
thereof search for persons assembled, and for all unlicensed books,
and bring all such persons and books found before the Ecclesiastical
Commission as shall be thought meet."--_Cal._ 1633-4, p. 538.
At an earlier period, Laud says:--"We took another conventicle of
separatists in Newington Woods upon Sunday last, in the very brake
where the King's stag should have been lodged for his hunting next
morning." P.S. to letter of Laud, June 13, 1632.--_State Papers._
Printed in _Laud's Works_, vii. 44.
[44] Articles for Diocese of Winchester. _Laud's Works_, v. 419-435.
Numerous visitation articles, injunctions, and orders appear in this
volume, highly interesting as illustrations both of the Archbishop's
minute superintendence, and of the religious life of the period.
[45] Reprinted in _Laud's Works_, v. 315, 370.
[46] _Laud's Works_, v. 331.
[47] See _Cal. Dom._, 1633-4, and Laud's Annual Accounts of his
province just referred to.
[48] There is an extract of a letter in the State Paper Office (dated
1633, March 18, from the ambassador at the Hague) in the handwriting
of Laud's secretary, upon the uncanonical proceedings of the English
Congregation there.
[49] These points receive abundant illustration in _Mr. Bruce's
Calendar_, 1633-4, and in his very interesting preface.
[50] Laud's power extended even to America. In a special commission
for the colonies, "the Archbishop of Canterbury and those who were
associated with him, received full power over the American plantations,
to establish the government and dictate the laws, to regulate the
Church, to inflict even the heaviest punishments, and to revoke any
charter, which had been surreptitiously obtained, or which conceded
liberties prejudicial to the Royal prerogative."--_Bancroft's United
States_, i. 407.
[51] _Letter in State Paper Office_, Dec. 19, 1633. Most of Laud's
letters found amongst the State records are printed in the last volume
of the Oxford edition of his works.
[52] Indications of his wonderful activity are to be seen in his
numerous letters, collected in the Oxford edition of his works, to
which my references apply. (Vols. vi. and vii.) Laud's enemies have not
done justice to his abilities. His diary reveals his mental weaknesses,
but his correspondence and theological writings exhibit his mind under
a different aspect. Many persons are too prejudiced against Laud to
think of looking into his _Conference with Fisher the Jesuit_; but
whoever will take the trouble of doing so, whatever he may think of
Laud's line of argument at times, must admit the learning and ability
displayed in the discussion. No book more clearly shows both the
resemblance and the difference between Anglo-Catholicism and Popery.
[53] We are here reminded of what Dunstan's biographer said of
him--"Nec quisquam in toto regno Anglorum esset qui absque ejus imperio
manum vel pedem moveret."--_Angl. Sac._, ii. 108. Dunstan, too, like
Laud, descended to the notice and regulation of trivial matters. There
can be little doubt that Laud, as an ecclesiastical and political
statesman, was inferior to Dunstan. A man who grasps at such extensive
influence is sure to be unpopular in England. Sir John Eliot accused
Buckingham of this ambition, and in the memorable peroration to his
speech in that nobleman's impeachment, when he instituted a parallel
between him and the Bishop of Ely, in Richard II.'s reign, Eliot
included this point--"No man's business could be done without his
help."--See _Speech in Rushworth_, and _Parliamentary History_, and
from his own MS. in _Forster's Life of Eliot_, i. 551.
[54] Diary, Tuesday, April 5, 1625.--_Laud's Works_, iii. 159.
[55] _Strafford's Papers_, i. 365.
[56] _Halliwell's Letters of the Kings of England_, ii. 180.
[57] Coleridge ranks Jackson with Cudworth, More, and Smith as
_Plotinist_ rather than _Platonist_ divines.--See Note, _Literary
Remains_, iii. 415.
[58] _Life of Southey_, v. 283.
[59] See remarks on this in _Bancroft's United States_, i. 284.
[60] Aylmer is supposed to be represented anagrammatically in the
Morell, and Grindal in the Algrind of _Spenser's Shepherd's Calendar_.
[61] _Strype's Parker_, i. 300-345. For measures adopted to enforce
conformity, see _Strype's Parker_, i. 420-447. Parker had a hard time
of it when engaged in this unpopular business. He did not receive the
support he wished. The Puritans condemned him for doing too much, the
Queen for doing too little. "An ox," he exclaimed, "can draw no more
than he can."--_Ibid._, 451.
[62] It appears from Foxe that some of the early Protestants were very
strong believers in predestination.--See the godly letters of John
Careless. _Foxe's Book of Martyrs_, viii. 187-192. Catley's edition.
[63] _Neal_, i. 451. For his statement respecting bills for reformation
he gives MS. authority. _Strype's Whitgift_, i. 391, contains the
letter to the Queen, dated 24th of March, 1584-5. Parry says in
_Parliaments and Councils_, 1584, December 14, "three petitions are
read touching 'the liberty of godly preachers to exercise and continue
their ministry, and for the speedy supply of able and sufficient men
into divers places now destitute of the ordinary means of salvation.'"
Cobbett supplies a brief account of the debate.--_Parl. Hist._, i. 824.
[64] Dr. Donne preached a sermon at Paul's Cross on the 14th September,
1622, in which he took occasion "for the publication of some reasons
which His Sacred Majesty had been pleased to give, of those directions
for preachers which he had formerly set forth."--_Works_, vi. 191. The
preacher declared the King was "grieved with much bitterness, that
any should so pervert his meaning as to think that these directions
either restrained the exercise of preaching or abated the number of
sermons."--_Ib._ 220. One is sorry to find such a man as Donne excusing
James's despotic interference with preaching, and to read the absurd
eulogium on his royal master's "books." "Our posterity shall have him
for a father--a classic father--such a father as Ambrose, as Austin
was."--_Ib._ 221. Such sycophancy on the part of Donne and others
greatly tended to prejudice the people against them and their teaching.
[65] _Fuller's Church History_, iii. 362.
[66] See _Cal. Dom._, 1633-4, p. 298.
[67] _Cal._ 1633-4, p. 345.--The cases of Samuel Ward, Anthony
Lapthorne, and George Burdett, noted Puritan ministers, are largely
illustrated in the _Cal. Dom._ 1634-5, 361, 263, 537. Mr. Bruce notices
that Ward, who suffered so much from the High Commission Court, appears
himself as a complainant against certain persons at Ipswich holding
Antinomian opinions, 1635-6, _Pref._ xxxvii.
Illustrations appear amongst the State Papers of the popularity of
Puritanism. Dr. John Andrewes writes to the Chancellor of Lincoln,
(dated June 5, 1634, Beaconsfield) acknowledging a request to preach
a visitation sermon:--"He is contented to show his obedience, howbeit
he knows that any other priest in those parts would be better accepted
both of laity and the generality of the clergy; and the main reason is,
because he is not of the new cut, nor anywise inclining to Puritanism,
wherewith the greatest number (both of priests and people) in those
parts are foully tainted, insomuch that he is called the most godly
who can and will be most disobedient to the orders of the Church. He
enumerates things out of order in his own parish. 1. No terrier of
Church lands. 2. Elections held in the church. 3. Gadding on Sundays
to hear Puritanical sermons in other parishes. 4. Few come to church
on holidays. 5. Many sit at service with their hats on, and some lie
along in their pews. 6. Many kneel not at prayers, nor bow at the name
of Jesus, &c. 7. The churchwardens do not levy the 12d. from those who
absent themselves from divine service."--_Cal. Dom._, 1634-5, _June 5_,
p. 64.
Complaints were made of people forsaking the parish churches.--_Ibid._,
p. 149.
[68] _Cal. Dom._, 1633-4, p. 450.
[69] _Heylyn's Life of Laud_, p. 367.
[70] While quite indisposed to attempt defending in the Puritans what
is indefensible, I would add, they inherited many of their faults from
the early Protestants. On the whole, I should say, the Puritans of the
seventeenth century will bear favourable comparison with their fathers
of the sixteenth, some of whose worst failings arose from the bad
education received in the Church of Rome before they abjured her errors.
[71] Irreverence in worship is often regarded as an offence
characteristic of Puritanism. But popish priests, at the time of
the Reformation, then loudly complained of irreverence in their
congregations--irreverence such as their successors were not guilty
of.--_Strype's Memorials_, i. 213
[72] Neal follows Clarendon in this respect.--_History of Puritans_,
ii. 362.
[73] This is Rapin's view.--_History of England_, ii. 652, adopted by
Godwin, in his _Commonwealth_, i. 64.
[74] _Tanner MS._, quoted by Sanford.--_Studies and Illustrations of
the Great Rebellion_, p. 159.
[75] _Strafford's Letters_, Vol. i. 463, quoted in _Forster's Life
of Vane_, p. 7, as written to the Lord Deputy. The letter is in the
State Paper Office, calendared as if written to Lord Conway.--See
_Calendar of Colonial Papers_, 1574-1660, p. 214. In the same Calendar,
p. 211, there is notice of a letter by Vane to his father, in which
he "requests his father to believe, though as the case stands he is
judged a most unworthy son, that however jealous his father may be of
circumventions and plots entertained and practised by him, yet he will
never do anything that he may not justify or be content to suffer for.
Is sure, as there is trust in God, that his innocence and integrity
will be cleared to his father before he dies. Protests his father's
jealousy of him would break his heart, but as he submits all other
things to his good God, so does he his honesty. The intention of his
heart is sincere, and hence flows the sweet peace he enjoys amidst his
many heavy trials."
[76] _Forster's Statesmen of the Commonwealth_, Vol. iii. 49.
[77] Clarendon (_Hist._ 75) says of Vane's father and mother, "they
were neither of them beautiful,"--a statement fully borne out by their
portraits.
[78] _Clarendon_ (_Hist._ 454).
[79] _Rushworth_, i. 647.
[80] _Hist._ 74.
[81] Compare _Nugent_ and _Forster_.
[82] Hampden was reported at a Visitation for holding a muster in
Beaconsfield Churchyard, and for leaving his parish church. To avoid a
suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, he applied privately to Sir Nathaniel
Brent, and satisfied him by explanation and concession.--_State Papers
Cal._, 1634-5, p. 250.
[83] "The Puritan would be judged by the Word of God; if he would speak
clearly he means himself; but he is ashamed to say so, and he would
have me believe him before a whole church, that has read the Word of
God as well as he." _Table Talk_, 160.
Selden, in the same book (p. 13), while denying the divine right of
bishops, maintains they "have the same right to sit in Parliament as
the best Earls and Barons." Yet he signed the Covenant.
[84] _Life_, 923.
[85] _Life_, 936.
[86] In the State Paper Office is a letter by Laud, July 20, 1634,
addressed to the King, in which the writer speaks of two daughters of
the late Lord Falkland being reconciled to the Church of Rome, "not
without the practice of their mother." He alludes to Lord Newburgh's
request that she would forbear working on her daughters' consciences,
and suffer them to go to their brother, or any other safe place. The
archbishop appears anxious to save them from Popery. The letter is
printed in _Laud's Works_, vii. 82, with illustrative notes.
[87] He tells us he was stopped in Westminster Hall, and asked by a
root-and-branch man, "Art thou for us or for our adversaries?" but he
does not report his answer.
[88] Mr. Bruce's interesting introduction to the volume of
_Proceedings, &c._, in connection with the Committee of Religion
appointed in 1640, (printed by the Camden Society,) gives a minute
history of the baronet's love adventures.
[89] It is stated on the authority of a letter in the possession of the
Trevor family, that, "to escape detection the oppositionists resorted
to the place of rendezvous with disguised faces." _Johnson's Life of
Selden_, 30.
[90] _Clarendon's Hist._, p. 69.
[91] The appointment of a Committee of Religion was debated and delayed
in the first Parliament of this reign; One was appointed immediately
after the assembling of the second--and also on the meeting of the
third.--See _Journals_, June 25, 1625; Feb. 7, 10, 12, 1625-6; March
20, 1627-8.
[92] The sentence on Leighton is given by _Rushworth_, ii. 56.
_Neal_, ii., 218, follows Rushworth and states the particulars of
Leighton's punishment as being recorded in Laud's Diary. But in the
Diary, 4th November, _Works_ iii. 212, there is nothing beyond a
reference to Leighton's degradation in the High Commission Court. Neal
adds that Laud pulled off his cap, and thanked God for the sentence.
For this anecdote, authority may be found in a curious book, by
Leighton, entitled _An Epitome of the great troubles he has suffered_.
In the course of his narration, after defending himself against the
charge of being a Conventicle keeper, a libeller, a schismatic,
a traitor, and a factious person, he says, in relation to his
trial.--"The censure was to cut my ears, slit my nose, to brand me in
the face, to whip me at a post, to stand on the pillory, ten thousand
pounds fine, and perpetual imprisonment; and all these upon a dying
man, by appearance
--instant morientibus ursæ.
The censure thus past, the prelate off with his cap, and holding up
his hands, gave thanks to God, who had given him the victory over his
enemies."--pp. 69, 70.
"I being put thereafter on the pillory an hour and a half, in frost and
snow, they inflicted the rest, and would not let me have a coach of my
own to carry me to the Fleet; but I was forced to be carried by water,
for I was not able to go. I lay ten weeks under the canopy of heaven,
in the dirt and mire of the rubbish, having nothing to shelter me from
the rain and snow, in a very cold season."--p. 85.
In connection with Leighton's statement, the following passage from the
Rawlinson MS. is worthy of notice:--"In the Court of High Commission,
19 April, 1632, the King's Advocate against Joseph Harrison, Clerk,
Vicar of Sustorke, 'the sentence was presently read by the Archbishop
of Canterbury, In Dei nomine, Amen, &c., &c., Deum præ oculis
preponentes, &c.,' at which words I marked some of the Bishops to look
upward, and put off their hats devoutly." From this passage it would
appear to have been a practice in the Court, when sentence was passed,
to pronounce it in the name of God, and for the Commissioners to take
off their hats in token of reverence when these sacred words were
uttered. The question arises, did Leighton mistake what was a customary
act for a special expression of Laud's feeling in this particular case?
or, did Laud really go out of his way to indicate his gratification
at the sufferings of Leighton? I must leave the reader to judge for
himself, who, however, ought to bear in mind Laud's character. Leighton
gives the following account of his sufferings:--
"The aforesaid censure was executed in every particular in a most cruel
manner and measure: the executioner was made drunk in the Fleet the
night before, and also was hardened the very same day with very strong
water, being threatened to do it with all rigour: and so he did, by
knife, whip, brand, and fire, insomuch that never a lash he gave with
a treble cord, but he brought away the flesh, which I shall feel to my
dying day."
[93] Yet, looking at the persecution which the Puritans suffered, the
same plea will avail for them that has been urged on behalf of the
early Protestants. "It was, as they thought, like exhorting a Caligula
and a Nero to clemency, and advising the poor subjects to compliment
such tyrants, to remind them gently of their defects, and humbly to
entreat that they would be so good and gracious as to condescend to
alter their conduct."--_Jortin's Life of Erasmus_, i. 212.
From a _Biographical Narration_, by Burton, it appears he had been
Clerk of the Closet to Prince Henry and to Prince Charles. The
narration contains many curious particulars. There is an important
letter about Burton, by Bishop Hall, in _Forster's Life of Eliot_, ii.
428.
[94] _Hanbury's Historical Memorials_, ii., 52.
[95] _Rushworth_, iv. 207.
[96] _Forster's Life of Eliot_, ii. 84, 562.
[97] _Forster's Life of Pym_, 96.
[98] It was a charge against Burton that he carried the sacred elements
to the communicants on their seats.--_Dow's Innovations_, 186.
_Lathbury's History of Convocation_, 261.
[99] _Forster's Life of Pym_, 99.
[100] _Rushworth_, iv. 24.
[101] _Quoted in Sanford's Illustrations_, 310.
[102] _Clarendon_, 69. _Sanford's Illustrations_, 310.
[103] Clarendon says Strafford did not come to the House at all
that day till after his impeachment. I attach little importance to
Clarendon's statements, when inconsistent with what is said by so
accurate a man as D'Ewes. From his journal it appears that Strafford
_did_ go to the House in the morning. _Sanford's Illustrations_, 310.
[104] _D'Ewes Journal_, _Sanford's Studies and Illustrations_, 312.
[105] _Baillie's Letters and Journals_, published by the Bannatyne
Club, 4to, i. 272. Other minute particulars are taken from the same
source.
[106] See his _Journal_, 1640, Dec. 18. _Works_, iii. 238.
[107] Burgess and Marshall preached on the occasion from Jeremiah l. 5,
and 2. Chron. xv. 2. The sermons were published, and may be found in
the library of the British Museum. They relate to covenanting with God,
but I do not see that the preachers make any reference to the Scotch
covenant, though Nalson charges them with having had their eye on that
symbol all the way through.--_Collection_, i. 530.
[108] November 20. See _Commons' Journal_.
[109] See Journals, February 9, 1625-6, and March 10, 1627-8.
[110] It is so regarded by Neal and those who follow him.--_History of
Puritans_, ii. 362.
[111] _History of England_, ii. 653.
[112] _Journals_, November 20. A collection was made after the
communion, amounting to £78. 16. 2.--_Nalson's Collections_, 1. 700.
[113] _Memorials of English Affairs, Whitelocke_, 38. _Journal of
Commons_, Nov. 25, 1640, and pamphlets of the period.
[114] The minister complained of was John Squire, of whom Walker gives
an account in his _Sufferings of the Clergy_, Part i. 68.--These
illustrations are gathered from _Diurnals and other Tracts_ in the
Library of the Brit. Museum.
[115] _Speech of Mr. Rouse in Rushworth_, iv. 211. See also _Speeches
of Sir Ed. Dering and Sir John Wray_.
[116] These particulars, and many more, are found in _A Certificate
from Northamptonshire_, 1641. Brit. Mus. The "great scarcity of
preaching ministers" was early noticed, and a sub-committee appointed
to consider it.--See _Journals_, 19th December, 1640. Extracts from
the _Register of the Archbishop of Canterbury_, shew that the number
of benefices in England was 8,803, whereof 3,277 were impropriations,
and that the number of livings under £10 was 4,543; under £40, 8,659;
and that only the remainder, being 144, were of the value of £40 and
upwards.--_Cal. Dom._ 1634-5, p. 381.
[117] _Lathbury's Hist. of Con._, 246.
[118] _Nalson_, i. 545.
[119] This oath "approved the doctrine and discipline of government
established in the Church of England, as containing all things
necessary to salvation;" and denied all "consent to alter the
government of this Church by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons,
&c., as it stands now established."
[120] _Journals of the Commons_, Dec. 16, 1640.--The matter came before
the House again on the 7th June, 1641.
[121] The letter is in _Laud's Works_, Vol. vi. 584.
[122] _Laud's Works_, vi. 589.
[123] _Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation_, 267.
[124] See _Letter to Bullinger by Sandys_, 1573.--_Zurich Letters_, 294.
[125] _Fuller_, ii. 504-5.
[126] It frequently appears in the records of that period. There is a
curious example in the introduction to the will of Humphrey Fen.--_Cal.
Dom._, 1633-4, p. 468.
[127] They claimed as precedents the Protestants in Queen Mary's
time, and the exiles at Geneva, that used a book framed by them
there.--_Strype's Parker_, i. 480.
There is at Horningsham, in Wiltshire, an old meeting-house, with a
large stone in the end wall, bearing date 1566. When the stone was put
there is not known, and whence it came I cannot learn, but the Rev.
H. M. Gunn, of Warminster, informs me that, according to tradition,
some Scotch Presbyterians, disciples of Knox, came over from Scotland
to build Longleat House for Sir John Thynne, in 1566. The building
went on for thirteen years, when Sir John died. They refused to attend
the parish church, and obtained a cottage in which to meet for Divine
service, with a piece of land attached for a grave-yard. This house,
Mr. Gunn says, turned into a chapel, has been preserved till now.
Though originally a Presbyterian, it long since became an Independent
place of worship.
[128] Afterwards Mrs. Hazzard.
[129] _Records of the Baptist Church_, Broadmead, Bristol, 10-18. See
also _Cal. Dom._, 1634-5, p. 416, for arguments by Dr. Stoughton, on
the duty of separation.
As women were active in promoting Puritanism, so they had been a
century before in promoting Protestantism.--See numerous examples in
_Foxe's Book of Martyrs_.
[130] _Dugdale's Troubles in England_, 36, 62, 65.
_Wood's Athenæ Oxonienses_, ii. 347.
[131] _Parl. Hist._, ii. 674.
[132] Bagshawe's own account, in _Hanbury's Memorials_, ii. 141.
[133] See _Cal. Dom._, 1633-4, p. 33 _et seq._; also _Preface_, viii.
[134] _Baillie's Letters and Journals_, vol. i. 211-214.
[135] _Baillie's Letters and Journals_, i. 271.
_The Lords' Journals_, Dec. 10, 14, 1640, shew the sensitiveness of
the House upon what concerned the honour of the Scots and the English
lords, who favoured them, and in reference to all which indicated
popish sympathies.
[136] The first night they tarried at lodgings, "in the Common Garden."
Baillie adds: "The city is desirous we should lodge with them, so
to-morrow I think we must flit."
[137] Hallam says: (_Const. Hist._, i. 527) The petition was prepared
"at the _instigation_ of the Scotch Commissioners." Baillie's letters
do not support this statement. The Scots, however, were very early in
the field against Laud. _Lords' Journals_, January 2, 1641.
[138] "At London we met with many ministers from most parts of the
kingdom; and upon some meetings and debates, it was resolved that a
committee should be chosen to draw up a remonstrance of our grievances,
and to petition the Parliament for reformation, which was accordingly
done."--_Clark's Lives_, page 8.
[139] Cross-grained, twisted. _Baillie's Letters_, &c., i. 286.
[140] _Rushworth_, iv. 135.
[141] The Somersetshire churchmen expressed themselves in moderate
terms.--_Hallam's Const. Hist._, i. 527.
From Cheshire came two petitions, one signed by Episcopalians, the
other by Puritans, calling prelates "mighty enemies and secret
underminers" of the church and commonwealth.--_Nonconformity in
Cheshire. Introduction_, xiv.
[142] Amongst the petitions of that period was one by Master William
Castell, parson of Courtenhall, in the county of Northampton: "for
the propagating of the gospel in America and the West Indies." While
condemning the proceedings of Spaniards, and lamenting the indifference
of English, Scotch, French, and Dutch, the petition expresses the
desire of the petitioners, "to enlarge greatly the pale of the
Church;" to make the synagogues of Satan temples of the Holy Ghost;
"and millions of those silly, seduced Americans, to hear, understand,
and practise the mystery of godliness." A large number of names are
appended, approving the petition. The learned Edmund Castell, Robert
Sanderson (afterwards Bishop of Lincoln), Joseph Caryl, and Edmund
Calamy, appear in the list, and it is added that the petition had the
approbation of Master Alexander Henderson, and some worthy ministers of
Scotland. The union of such different men in this missionary endeavour
is worthy of notice.--_Anderson's History of the Colonial Church_, ii.
11.
[143] Abridged from _Rushworth_, iv. 155.--Baillie says that, as to the
part about the bishops, there "was no hum; and no applause as to the
rest."--_Letters_, i. 292.
[144] No traces of Pym's speech are found in _Rushworth_, _Nalson_, or
_Parliamentary Debates_. It is not mentioned in _Forster's Life of the
Great Statesmen_, or in _Sanford's Illustrations_. The extract I have
given is from _A Just Vindication of the questioned part of the reading
of Edward Bagshawe, Esq._, 1660, p. 2-4. The tract states that Pym's
speech was delivered when the petition was read and debated in the
House. _Hanbury's Memorials_, ii. 141.
[145] _Rushworth_, iv. 170-187.
[146] 9th Feb., 1641.
[147] Quoted in _Studies and Illustrations, by Sanford_, 319.
[148] Mr. Godwin, in his _History of the Commonwealth_, i. 58,
interprets the resolution as meaning "we are not yet decided to
maintain Episcopacy." The debate, and even the words themselves, seem
to me inconsistent with that view.
[149] These particulars are taken from the _Journal of Sir Ralph
Verney_, a member of the Committee. Lord Nugent, in his _Life of
Hampden_, gives some account of this MS.; but Mr. Bruce has published
the entire notes in a volume of the Camden Society, with many valuable
remarks.
[150] The following extract from the _Lords' Journals_ is an
illustration:
"Mr. Etheridge, minister, and Mr. Carter, the curate, and William Till,
clerk of the parish, Ben Parsons, Tho. Chadwick, were examined at the
bar, concerning the riot lately committed in the church of Halstead, in
the county of Essex; as striking the Book of Common Prayer out of the
curate's hand as he was baptizing a child at the fount, and kicking it
up and down the church, and for taking the clerk by the throat, forcing
him to deliver unto them the hood and surplice, which they immediately
rent and tore in pieces; and other misdemeanours and outrages were
committed in the said church, on Simon and Jude's day last, in divine
service, by Jonathan Poole and Grace his wife." 10th December, 1640.
Certain Nonconformists of St. Saviour's parish were complained of to
the House for illegally assembling for worship. The House directed they
should be left to the ordinary proceedings of justice, according to the
course of law. _Journals of the Lords_, January 16th. See also 19th and
21st.
[151] As the accounts of this committee given by Fuller, Neal, and
Cardwell, are incomplete in consequence of the writers having neglected
to consult the Journals of the House of Lords, I subjoin the following
entries relating to this business:--
_10 die Martii, 1640-1._
After an order that the Communion-table in every church remain where
it is accustomed to be, it is ordered, "That these lords following are
appointed to take into consideration all innovations in the Church
concerning religion:--The Lord Treasurer, the Lord Chamberlain,
Earls of Bath, South'ton, Bedford, Hartford, Essex, Dorset, Sarum,
Warwick, March, Bristol, Clare, Berks, Dover, and Lord Viscount Say
and Sele; Bishops of Winton, Chester, Lincoln, Sarum, Exon, Carlile,
Ely, Bristol, Rochester, Chichester; and Ds. (Dominus), Strange,
Willoughby de Earseby, North, Kymbolton, Howard de Charlton, Grey de
Werk, Robarts, Craven, Pawlett, Howard de Escrick, Goringe, Savill,
Dunsemore, and Seymor.
"_6 die Martii._
"That the Committee for Innovations in Religion do meet on Wednesday
next, and the committee to have power to send for such learned men as
their lordships shall please, to assist them.
"_10 die Martii._
"That the Committee for Religion do meet on Friday next, in the
afternoon, and no other committee to sit that afternoon, and their
lordships to have power to send for what learned divines their
lordships shall please, for their better information: as the Lord
Archbishop of Armagh, Dr. Prideaux, Dr. Warde, Dr. Twiste (Twiss) Dr.
Hacket, who are to have intimation given them by the Lord Bishop of
Lincoln to attend the Lords' Committees."
The following names, given by Fuller, Collier, and Neal must be taken
as a list of the sub-committee. Williams, Bishop of Lincoln; Ussher,
Archbishop of Armagh; Morton, Bishop of Durham; and Hall, Bishop of
Exeter; Drs. Ward, Prideaux, Twiss, Sanderson, Featley, Brownrigg,
Holdsworth, Hacket, Burgess, White, Marshall, Calamy, and Hill. Morton
of Durham does not appear on the list of the Lords' Committee. Cardwell
places in the list the name of Montague, but I find it mentioned by no
one else. He is not a likely person to have had anything to do with
the Committee, and he is probably confounded by Cardwell with Hall,
who succeeded him in the bishopric of Norwich, being translated, on
Montague's death, to that see from Exeter.
[152] Quoted in _Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors_, iii. 187.
[153] _Hacket's Memorial of Williams_, Part ii. 147.
Sir N. Brent, in a paper dated September 9, 1634, gives an account of
his "metropolitical visitation" of Williams's diocese. He describes the
Communion-table at Lincoln as not decent, and the rail worse; organs
old and nought; copes and vestments embezzled; ale-houses, hounds,
and swine kept in the churchyard; Hitchin church and churchyard out
of order; curate of Stowe accustomed "to marry people with gloves and
masks on."--_Cal. Dom._ In another paper, probably pertaining to 1634,
Boston seeks to free itself from the suspicions of Puritanism by saying
that there were 2,000 communicants at church, who, for want of room to
kneel, were compelled to receive the Lord's Supper standing.--_Ibid._
p. 422.
[154] _Fuller's Church History_, iii. 415.
[155] _Laud's Works_, iii. 241.
[156] The following letter (without signature) illustrates this point:
"A new Committee for Religion was appointed to have sat on Monday in
the afternoon last, but there being neither meeting nor adjournment,
it was left _sine die_: yet, on Thursday in the afternoon, the Bishops
of Lincoln, Durham, Winchester, and Bristol met, where the assistants,
attended by some threescore other divines of inferior rank, were
present, and many temporal Lords; and many points of doctrine and
Church service being questioned, among the rest one Lord said, that it
ought to be put out of the creed '_that Christ descended into Hell_,'
which he did not believe. Yesterday in the forenoon, without any
intimation or notice given to the other committees, the same spiritual
Lords and divines met at the Bishop of Lincoln's lodging, where, in
less than two hours, they condemned, (as I am informed by the Bishop
of Bristol, present), about fifty points in doctrine, what they had
met with in several treatises and sermons of late printed amongst us.
They had culled out a passage of my Lord of Canterbury in his Star
Chamber speech, which they say is, that _Hoc est corpus meum_, is more
than _Hoc est verbum meum_: which the Bishop of Lincoln censured, for
that _verbum_ did make _corpus_; but would not further hear, because
his grace was likely to answer it shortly elsewhere."--April 10, 1641.
_State Papers, Chas. I. Dom._
[157] I say _almost_, because the practice of sitting, while singing
hymns, which was common in Nonconforming places of worship when I was
young, may still linger in some quarters.
[158] The following query appears respecting marriage:--
"Whether none hereafter shall have licences to marry, nor be asked
their banns of matrimony, that shall not bring with them a certificate
from their Minister that they are instructed in their Catechism."
[159] The specified alterations are: "I give thee power over my body;"
"knowing assuredly that the dead shall rise again;" and "I pronounce
thee absolved;" instead of the well-known forms so often objected to.
I have gone fully into an account of what was proposed to this
Committee, not only because it may have a particular interest for those
who are active in promoting a revision of the Prayer Book, but because
there are such diversified statements in relation to the subject in
our historians. Compare Fuller, Collier, and Neal. Neal presents his
condensation of the papers with inverted commas, as if placing before
the reader the original documents. (In other cases, too, he gives
his own abridgment in this fashion, so as to mislead the student.)
An entire copy of the proceedings of the Committee may be found in
_Cardwell's Conferences_, p. 270, taken from _Baxter's Life and Times_,
Part i. 369.
[160] _Neal_, ii. 465.
[161] See _Journals_ for March 9th, 10th, 11th, and 22nd. _May_
says, "Doctors and parsons of parishes were made everywhere Justices
of Peace, to the great grievance of the country, in civil affairs,
and depriving them of their spiritual edification."--_Hist. of Long
Parliament_, 24.
[162] _Rushworth_, iv. 206. This Bill was under discussion in the
Lords, in October, 1641.--_Nalson_, ii. 496.
[163] _Journals._
[164] _Clarendon's Hist._, 94.
[165] July 1.--"The Lords, upon the reasons offered by the Commons,
were satisfied to consent to pass the Bill to take away the High
Commission Court both here and at York, but argued to have the Star
Chamber Court not quite taken away, but bounded, limited, and reduced
to what power it had in Henry VII's time."--_Rushworth_, iv. 304. Both
Bills received the royal assent, July 5.
[166] The writers were: Stephen Marshall, Edmund Calamy, Thos. Young,
Matt. Newcomen, and Wm. Spurstow.
[167] _The Reduction of Episcopacy_, which bears Ussher's name, was not
published till after his death, in 1656. Baxter says in reference to
it, "I asked him (Dr. Ussher) whether the paper be his that is called,
_A reduction of Episcopacy to the form of Synodical Government_; which
he owned, and Dr. Bernard after witnessed to be his."--_Life and
Times_, part ii. 206.
I may here observe that the Archbishop, according to his biographer,
Elrington, appears always to have spelt his name with a double s.
[168] _Baillie_, i. 351.
[169] May 3, 1641. _Parl. Hist._, ii. 776.
I have here and elsewhere, in giving the substance of speeches, adhered
to the quaint phraseology employed by the speakers.
[170] For the protestation, see _Parl. Hist._, ii. 777. Alterations
were made which throw light on the fears of returning popery.--_Verney's
Notes_, published by the Camden Society, 67-70.
[171] Instances of the taking of it are numerous. In the _Register
Book of Wansted_ it is found with the names of the principal
inhabitants.--_Lyson's Environs of London_, iv. 243.
Whitaker, in his _History of Richmondshire_, mentions an endorsement on
the Return Roll for the parishes and townships of Bentham, Ingleton,
Thornton, Sedberg, Dent, and Garsdale:--"The names of those persons who
refused to make protestation within Garsdale parcell of the township of
Dent, viz: George Heber Gent, Abraham Nelson, chapman, who publiquely
refused before the whole Dale in the Church."--vol. ii. 363.
[172] See _Journals of the Commons_, May 12th.
[173] August 2nd. _Parl. Hist._ ii, 895. Compare _Nalson_, ii. 414-417.
[174] _Baillie_, i. 351. He refers here to the Commons.
[175] _Hallam's Const. Hist._, i. 524. The sagacious author justly
remarks--"And thus we trace again the calamities of Charles to their
two great sources; his want of judgment in affairs, and of good faith
towards his people." The Lords passed the Bill on the 8th; the royal
assent was given on the 10th.
[176] _Parl. Hist._, ii. 778.
[177] _Parl. Hist._, ii. 783. May 5. D'Ewes gives another amusing
version of the story, (under date May 19).--_Sanford's Illustrations_,
373. Baillie's account is somewhat different.
[178] _Maitland's London_, i. 338.
[179] The bitter Presbyterian feeling against Strafford is plain enough
in Baillie's letters.
It belongs not to the scope of this ecclesiastical History to enter on
the details of the trial, but I cannot resist the temptation to insert
in the Appendix two letters found in the State Paper Office, giving an
account of the way in which the bill of attainder was introduced.
[180] See Speeches by Lane and St. John (_Rushworth's Trial of
Strafford_, 671, _et seq._); then read what follows:
"It certainly does astonish us that men, however they may have
condemned the conduct of Strafford, could bring themselves to believe
that he was guilty of the crime of high treason; for they could hardly
have been deceived by the wicked sophistry of St. John that an attempt
to subvert the fundamental laws of the kingdom was high treason at
common law, and still remains so, or by the base opinion delivered by
the judges--that this amounts to high treason under the Statute of
Edward III."--_Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors_, iv. 15.
[181] Ussher of Armagh, Juxon of London, Morton of Durham, Potter of
Carlisle, and Williams of Lincoln.
[182] Slightly abridged from _Elrington's Life of Ussher_, 213.
[183] That such a distinction was suggested seems generally admitted.
Clarendon attributes it to Williams, (_Rebellion_, 140.) This,
considering the historian's prejudice respecting the Archbishop, is not
perfectly conclusive against Williams, any more than the silence of
Hacket (_Life of Williams_, pt. II., i. 161,)--who only speaks of the
advice given in common, founded on the distinction between facts and
law--is conclusively in his favour.
Clarendon is corroborated by the circumstance, that Ussher and Juxon
were freed from the charge by the King himself (according to the report
of Sir Edward Walker), and of the remaining prelates Williams was the
most likely to give such advice as Clarendon mentions.
[184] _Fuller's Church History_, iii. 421.
The author says he copied what he gives of Hacket's speech out of his
own papers. _Nalson's Report_ (ii. 240) seems to be an amplification
of what is contained in _Rushworth_, iv. 269. Verney entirely agrees
with Fuller (_Verney Papers--Camden Society_, 75), but only in a few
particulars with Nalson. Nalson is also wrong in saying Hacket answered
Burgess. Hacket spoke first. Burgess answered him.
[185] _Fuller_, iii. 422. According to _Verney's Notes_, Burgess speaks
of "Choristers and officers as fellows that are condemned for felons,
and keep ale-houses, and so they may still," 77.
[186] _Rushworth_, iv. 276.
[187] _Parl. Hist._, ii. 773.
[188] _Sanford's Illustrations_, 363.
[189] _Nalson_, ii. 248.
[190] _Parry's Parliaments and Councils of England_, 353.
[191] _Sanford's Studies and Illustrations_, 364.
[192] Dering published an apology in 1642.
[193] The following letter by Sydney Bere, secretary to Sir Balthazar
Gerbier, afterwards to Sir H. Vane, is preserved in the State Paper
Office.
"Whitehall, 17th June, 1641.
"You will surely have heard that the utter abolishing of the bishops
and all titular ecclesiastics, with the dependents, hath been agreed
upon in the House of Commons, and met with less noes in the debate
than the business of the Earl of Strafford had. This day they voted it
again, and now it is to be engrossed, a draft of the Act goes herewith.
"The business of the bishops will be of dangerous consequence, they
being violent and passionate in their own defence, and having engaged,
as it were, the Lords, by their late votes in their favour, to the
maintenance of their cause; whereas the Commons seem as resolute to
pass the Bill for their utter extirpation, and so transmitting it to
the Lords, according to the custom; and then it may be justly inferred
the city will prove as turbulent as they were on Strafford's cause."
Sidney Bere became under-secretary upon the appointment of Nicholas, in
November, to the chief secretaryship of state.
[194] _Rushworth_, iv. 279.
[195] _Nalson_, ii. 529.
[196] _Journal_, June 7, 1641.
_Verney's Notes_ bear evidence that the same day the feeling of the
House was unfavourable to Episcopacy. Monday, 7th June:--"Sir John
Griffin, the elder, said, I see it is distasteful to this House to
speak for the government of the Church."--_Verney Papers_, 83.
On the same day, in the course of a debate, the subject of
ecclesiastical canons came again under consideration. Mr. Maynard
"transmitted the votes about the canons." According to _Verney's
Notes_, (84) in which this appears, the debate touched generally on the
power of the clergy to make canons. No formal resolution or vote is
recorded.
[197] _Sanford's Illustrations_, 365.
[198] _Clarendon's Hist._, 110.
[199] _Parl. Hist._, ii. 822-826.
Sir Ralph Verney notices the debate on the 12th, but his notes are
unfortunately very brief, and run thus:--
"Actions constant at all times to men of one order, 'tis a great sign
of their malignity.
Oil and water may be severed, but oil and wine never.
Pledwell's arguments might have been used for the pope as well as for
other bishops.
Vaughan.--Three things considerable in bishops: election, confirmation,
consecration.
_Os Episcopi_ is a chancellor.
_Oculus Episcopi_ is the commissary.
_Consilium Episcopi_ is the dean."--_Verney Papers_, 94.
Letters in the State Paper Office show the excitement produced by the
Commons' proceedings. Slingsby says, 10th June, "The discourse of all
men is they must now strike at root and branch, and not slip this
occasion."
[200] _Parl. Hist._, ii. 828. _et seq._
[201] _Rushworth_, iv. 295.
[202] _Nalson_, ii. 245.
[203] White was grandfather of Susannah Annesly, the mother of the
Wesleys.
[204] For cases which came before Dering, see "_Proceedings principally
in the County of Kent, &c._" Edited by the Rev. L. B. Barking, with
preface by John Bruce, Esq. _Camden Soc._
[205] _Rushworth_, iv. 113-123.
[206] _Rushworth_, 194, 195.
See _Laud's Journal_, March 1, p. 240.
March 1, Monday.--"I went in Mr. Maxwell's coach to the Tower. No noise
till I came into Cheapside. But from thence to the Tower I was followed
and railed at by the 'prentices and the rabble, in great numbers, to
the very Tower gates, where I left them, and I thank God he made me
patient!"--_Laud's Diary._
[207] _Rushworth_, iv. 122-351.
Widdrington's speech on presenting the impeachment is a curiosity in
its way. Amongst other odd things he says of Wren: "Without doubt he
would never have been so strait-laced and severe in this particular
(_i. e._, his hatred of extempore prayer), if he had but dreamed of
that strait which a minister, a friend of his, was put into by this
means. The story is short. A butcher was gored in the belly by an ox;
the wound was cured; the party desired public thanksgiving in the
congregation; the minister, finding no form for that purpose, _read the
collect for churching of women_."--_Parl. Hist._, ii. 888.
[208] _Fuller's Church History_, iii. 418. See also _Worthies_, ii. 359.
[209] _Hanbury's Historical Memorials_, ii. 97-100.
Thomas Wiseman, in a letter (July 1, 1641) _State Papers_, says of the
Scotch, "God send us well rid of them, and then we may hope to enjoy
our ancient peace both of Church and Commonwealth, for till they are
gone, whatever they pretend, we find they are the only disturbers of
both."
[210] _Rushworth_, iv. 368.
[211] _State Papers, Dom., 1641._ Letter of Sidney Bere, August 18.
[212] _Idem._ Letter of Sidney Bere, August 22.
[213] _Letter of Bere._ August 30th.
In a manuscript diurnal, also preserved among the _State Papers_, it is
remarked: "Mr. Henderson is in great favour with the king, and stands
next to his chair in sermon time. His Majesty daily hears two sermons
every Sunday, besides week-day lectures."
[214] Baillie's notices are to the same effect as Bere's: "Mr.
Alexander Henderson, in the morning and evening before supper, does
daily say prayers, read a chapter, sing a psalm, and say prayer again.
The King hears all duly, and we hear none of his complaints for want of
a liturgy or any ceremonies." _Letters_, i. 385.
[215] _Nalson_, ii. 683.
[216] _Parry's Parliaments and Councils_, 365.
[217] On the 8th September, "upon Mr. Cromwell's motion, it was
ordered, that sermons should be in the afternoon in all parishes of
England, at the charge of the inhabitants of those parishes where
there are no sermons in the afternoon."--_D'Ewes' Journals. Sanford's
Illustrations_, 371.
[218] _Commons' Journals. Parl. Hist._, ii. 907.
[219] _Nalson_, ii. 483. _Parl. Hist._, ii. 910.
[220] An attempt was made in the Lower House to revise the Prayer Book,
but it failed.--_Rushworth_, iv. 385.
[221] London was in a very troubled state that autumn, as appears from
a letter by Thomas Wiseman, dated October 7th.--_State Papers Dom._
"The city is full of the disbanded soldiers, and such robbing in and
about it that we are not safe in our own houses, yet this day there is
an order come from the Committee of Parliament to send every soldier
away upon pain of imprisonment, and leave granted to any of them that
will to transport themselves for the low countries into the service
of the States. On Tuesday last the post was robbed between this and
Theobalds, and the letters to the King and other Lords in Scotland,
from the Queen and the Lords of the Council, were taken away by fellows
with vizors on their faces; such an insolence hath not been, however,
before, and who they were, or who set them to work is suspected, but
not yet discovered. We have the most pestilent libels spread abroad
against the precise Lords and Commons of the Parliament, that they
are fearful to be named. And the Brownists and other sectaries make
such havoc in our churches by pulling down of ancient monuments, glass
windows, and rails, that their madness is intolerable; and I think
it will be thought blasphemy shortly to name Jesus Christ, for it is
already forbidden to bow to his name, though Scripture and the practice
of the Church of England doth both warrant and command it."
[222] _May's History of the Long Parliament_, 113-115.
[223] See his speeches in _Rushworth_, iv. 392-394.
[224] _Parl. Hist._, ii. 924.
[225] _Parl. Hist._, ii. 919, 920.
[226] _Rushworth_, iv. 438-451.
[227] Sidney Bere says in a letter dated 25th Nov., 1641 (_State Papers
Dom._): "For the business of the Houses of Parliament, they have been
in great debates about a Remonstrance, which the House of Commons
frames, shewing the grievances and abuses of many years past. The
contestation now is, how to publish it, whether in print to the public
view, or by petition to his Majesty--it was so equally carried in a
division of opinion, that there were but eleven voices different. This
day is a great day about it, but what the event will be I shall not be
able to write you by this ordinary. It seems there are great divisions
between the two Houses, and even in the Commons House, which, if not
suddenly reconciled, may cause very great distractions amongst us. It
is the fear of many wise and well-meaning men, who apprehend great
distempers, which I pray God to direct."
[228] _Memoirs by Sir Philip Warwick_, 201.
[229] _Forster's Grand Remonstrance_, 324. I refer the reader to this
valuable work for minute particulars respecting this debate.
[230] _Clarendon. Hist._, 125. Compare _Carlyle's Cromwell_, i. 161.
[231] So Queen Henrietta Maria was then commonly called.
[232] _Nalson_, ii. 679-681.
[233] _Nicholas' Correspondence. Evelyn's Diary_, iv. 82.
[234] "I observe since my coming to town, a very great alteration of
the affections of the City, to what they were when I went away. They
say a great present is to be presented to the King after dinner, and
a petition such as he will be glad to receive, the contents I hear
not yet, only one clause for the maintenance of Episcopacy and the
suppression of schism."--_Robert Slingsby, State Papers Dom., Nov. 25._
Respecting the King's reception, Wiseman says, "I confess it was a
great one every way, and so acknowledged beyond the precedent of any
made to former Kings, that history makes mention of, which well suits
with the goodness, sweetness, and meritorious virtues of so gracious
a King as ours is. The present mean estate of the Chamber denied the
form of a gift, but this of the hearts of the citizens and those of
the better sort, and at this tune so seasonably expressed, was of
greater import to His Majesty than, for my part, I dare take upon me to
value."--_2nd Dec., 1641. State Papers, Dom._
[235] _Nalson_, ii. 681. _Rushworth_, iv. 432.
[236] Letter of Thomas Wiseman, addressed to "Sir John Pennington,
Admiral of his Majesty's fleet for the guard of the Narrow
Seas."--_State Papers Dom._, 9th Dec., 1641.
[237] In the same letter to Sir John Pennington, Wiseman says,
"His Majesty was pleased, with a return of many thanks for his
entertainment, to set a mark of his favour by knighting the seven
aldermen, whereof your cousin the alderman was none, whose ways, as
you partly know, are rather to please himself than to strive to do any
acceptable service for the king, if it stand not with the sense of the
preciser sort of the House of Commons."
[238] Sir Ralph Hopton gave a report to the House of the
interview.--_Parl. Hist._, ii. 942.
[239] _Rushworth_, iv. 452.
[240] _State Papers Dom._ Letters of Robert Slingsby, dated (by
mistake) 6th Dec., 1641, and properly placed under Jan. 6th, 1641-2.
Slingsby is not perfectly accurate in his account of what took place in
the House.
[241] The High Church Lord Mayor Gourney would not accompany them.
[242] _Nalson_, ii. 764.
[243] There were other disturbances in London.
"For the proceedings of the Parliament, you have them here enclosed
until Monday, which day there happened some disorder concerning
the prisoners in Newgate, who being to suffer, and understanding
the priests condemned with them were not, but in hope of reprieve,
they found means to seize the jailor's keys, and so made themselves
master of the prison, but the train bands coming up that same day
forced them to surrender, and the next they were hanged, not without
great murmuring of the common people. The saving of the priests is
yet a point debated in Parliament, and, as I am told, will hardly be
obtained. In the meantime, these intervenient things add much to the
distractions and distempers of the time, which I pray God to give a
better end unto than at present there is any great appearance for to
hope it." * * *
"I am told the House did yesternight vote the printing of the
Remonstrance."--_State Papers._ Letter of Sidney Bere, 16th Dec., 1641.
[244] _Bramston's Autobiography_, published by the Camden Society, 82.
[245] _Rushworth_, iv. 463.
Cutting the hair short was a Puritan reaction, occasioned by the
opposite Cavalier fashion of wearing locks profusely long. It is worth
notice, that the nickname given to Elisha by the boys at the town gate,
as they watched the prophet passing by, was just the same as that
given to the Parliamentarians. "Baldhead," is really "_roundhead_," in
allusion to shortness of hair at the back of the head.--_Ewald_, iii.
512.--_Smith's Dict. of the Bible_, i. 537.
[246] The following letter by Captain Slingsby relates to this
disturbance. It will be noticed that the writer says, "none were
killed;" but Fuller states one man died of the injuries he received.
"I cannot say we have had a merry Christmas, but the maddest one that
I ever saw. The prentices and baser sort of citizens, sailors, and
watermen, in great numbers every day at Westminster, armed with swords,
halberds, clubs, which hath made the King keep a strong guard about
Whitehall of the trained-bands without, and of gentlemen and officers
of the army within. The King had upon Christmas-eve put Colonel
Lunsford in to be Lieutenant of the Tower, which was so much resented
by the Commons and by the City, that the Sunday after he displaced him
again and put in Sir John Biron, who is little better accepted than the
other. Lunsford being on Monday last in the Hall with about a dozen
other gentlemen, he was affronted by some of the citizens, whereof the
Hall was full, and so they drew their swords, chasing the citizens
about the Hall, and so made their way through them which were in the
Palace Yard and in King's Street, till they came to Whitehall. The
Archbishop of York was beaten by the prentices the same day, as he was
going into the Parliament. The next day they assaulted the Abbey, to
pull down the organs and altar; but it was defended by the Archbishop
of York and his servants, with some other gentlemen that came to
them; divers of the citizens hurt, but none killed. Amongst them that
were hurt one knight, Sir Richard Wiseman, who is their chief leader.
Yesterday, about fifteen or sixteen officers of the army, standing
at the Court gate, took a slight occasion to fall upon them and hurt
about forty or so of them. They, in all their skirmishes have avoided
thrusting, because they would not kill them. I never saw the Court so
full of gentlemen. Every one comes thither with their swords. This day
500 gentlemen of the Inns of Court came to offer their services to the
King. The officers of the army, since these tumults, have watcht and
kept a Court of guard in the presence chamber, and are entertained upon
the King's charge. A company of soldiers put into the Abbey for defence
of it."--_State Papers_, December 30th, 1641.
[247] "There has been great store of the scum of the people who have
gone this holidays to Westminster, to have down Bishops, and against
Lunsford, who is now dismissed from being Lieutenant of the Tower, the
King having given him £500 pension per annum, and hath invested one
Sir John Biron in that place. All things are in much distemper, and I
fear that they yet will grow worse."--_State Papers._ Letter of Capt.
Carterett to Sir J. Pennington, dated London, 29th Dec.
[248] I drew up this account from documents in the Record Office, dated
the last few days of December, 1641, when I had no opportunity of
consulting what Mr. Forster says of the disturbances, in his careful
history of the _Arrest of the Five Members_.
[249] See _Rushworth_, iv. 695, for examples of exaggeration in the
royalist statements. This disturbance became a subject of controversy
between the King and Parliament.--_Rushworth_, iv. 710.
[250] "Here," says Mr. Forster, "and not in any dispute as to whom the
powers of the militia should reside with, really began the Civil War."
_Arrest of the Five Members_, 66.
[251] _Hall's Works for Hard Measure_, xiii.
[252] _Fuller's Church History_, iii. 431. He gives a copy of the
protest.
[253] See his speech on the 4th of March--_Parl. Hist._, ii. 1111.