CHAPTER XXIII.

[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_,